a temporary President or Prolecutor and brought no manner of reason to confirme it will have very little validity in it 5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peeres which inferres not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is alwayes the same person or the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least conclude that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels yet they might be neither Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators 6. But the authority of those Divines which had this answer from Beza addes nothing of weight because nothing of proofe to it As for their similitude it concludes nothing but this that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament to shew the thing possible to have been not to prove that so it was And the matter of our present inquiry is not what a kinde of president Christ and his Apostles might if they would have left in each Church but what really they did And that must be contested by the best Records of those times not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments And that is all I neede to say to that Section Section XV. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimonies of Cyprian and Fermilian AFter the authority of Mr. Beza backt with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight is added in the second place the authority of Dr. Reynolds who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith 2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Originall of Bishops and Metropolitanes and I shall not neede here to recite it being of some length and indeed nothing in it defined or exprest of his opinion that the President when he was made such either continued to be equall with the rest of the Presbyters or lasted but for a time so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship not among but over Elders which I suppose must imply some power and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop and applies to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian and Cornelius of whose notion of Bishops that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly nay that in nothing it differeth from ours I am sufficiently assured and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert 3. c. 3. § 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is neede of it I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many mention this one evidence more 3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop who had beene wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the annuall Councell of Bishops with him Cyprian returnes this Answer that it was his humility to make this complaint to the councell Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem quâ possis de illo statim vindicari when by force of his Episcopall power and by authority of his chaire hee had power himselfe to inflict punishment on him immediatly and that punishment afterward specified ut eum deponas vel abstineas either to depose him or suspend him 4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopall power without any joyning with him to judge and censure the inferiour Officers of the Church and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere Episcopo praeposito suo as it followes in that Epistle to acknowledge the honour of their Priest and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them All power in the hands of one set over all call'd promiscuousâ—ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style 5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian and his Collegues Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p 58. that by his collegues he meanes his Presbyters where yet there is no other proofe of it but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle Cyprianus cum Collegis and Ego collegae Cyprian with his collegues and I and my collegues This is a great but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader as will soone appeare 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle where he tells of Aurelius was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth what he and his Collegues had done and so sure were not those Collegues that did it with him Or secondly if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Collegues Ep. 58. we shall but looke forward to the next Epistle 59. for that will fully discover it being this Cyprianus caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI where Cyprians Collegues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him 6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian which they there subjoyne of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordeining by whom say they the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood But againe 't is cleare by the expresse words of the Epistle that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Councel Necessariâ— apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unuâ— conveniamus 'T is necessary that every yeare we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care adding concerning the Church in opposition to Hereticks that all power and grace is placed in it ubi praesident majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem wherein the Elders praeside and have power of Baptizing absolving and ordeining an evident description of the Bishops But this by the way as an essay what their testimonies out of the Fathers scattered sometimes in this Book would be found to be if this were a place to examine them 7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another Praesident even among Bishops the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province and so a Metropolitan All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not 8. Yet after all this there lyes no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor
last charge is more severe than any of the former that these paradoxes as they stile them are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and would farther manifest it if we thought it necessary This I confesse of contrariety to the very letter of the Scripture rightly understood I lookt upon as so high a charge that I verily expected somewhat extraordinary to binde it on me and I suddenly resolved as I read the first words of that Section to examine those Scriptures that should now be produced ponderingly and exactly and either confesse my owne conviction or give competent reasons why I was not convinced by them But I soon found my expectations frustrated for as here is no one such Scripture mentioned so for their arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy I know not where to seek them and never heard and verily believe there is no such thing that they had formerly written any such Book against Bishops wherein the Dissertations or any assertions of mine therein were so much as arraign'd by them much lesse evidenced to be contrary to the very letter of Scripture If I had I assure them I should then have been as ready to have made my reply as now I have been to attend them thus farre And for their evidencing this in any tract publisht by them before the Dissertations were written by which notwithstanding the Dissertations were to be concluded I have no reason to thinke that to be their meaning because these assertions of mine are by them affirmed to be Paradoxes contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy and therefore could not unlesse it were by divination be taken notice of and prevented by them After they had exprest their opinion that it was not necessary for them farther to manifest the contrariety of my Paradoxes to the very letter of the Scripture they yet farther proceed in these words For when the Apostle saith James 5. 14. Is any man sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church who is there that can be perswaded to believe that all these Elders were Bâ—shops in the sense that Bishops are taken in in our dayes Is this the pâ—oper Worke of Bishops to visit the sick And besides if the Apostle by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call for the Elders of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons What the For in the front here signifies I shall not goe about to conjecture The antecedents would incline me to believe that it pretends to introduce a reason which might make it evident that my assertions are contrary to the very letter of Scripture But that sure it doth not any way attempt or appeare to doe unlesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church be supposed here to signifie Presbyters in our moderne notion of the word But then that is so farre from being granted that it is knowne to be the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matter of question betwixt us all this while and so was to be proved not supposed or presumed in this matter But bating them this begging of the Question I shall proceed to satisfie their wonderment that I should goe about to perswade any that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in this place of Saint James were Bishops in that sense that we now understand and use the word And 1. I shall not doubt to avow that for all that space that in any Church there were no other officers ordained but onely the Bishop and Deacon it must of necessity be resolved the proper worke of Bishops to visit the sicke That there was at the first when the Faith was but thin planted such a time hath already been evidenced out of Clemens Romanus and the profoundest antequities that Epiphanius could meet with And that then this office must either be neglected or performed by either Bishop or Deacon will not need any farther proofe As for the the Deacons in their institution we finde not that to be any part of their office and indeed the suitablenesse of absolution to that state of dangerous sicknesse and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his having committed sins and the command of giving it in case he be qualified for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolvetur ei absolution shall be given him doth render the Deacon incompetent for that worke and so where there are no Presbyters must needs divolve it on the Bishop And this account hath more than probability no lesse than perfect evidence in it if we onely suppose what hath been so oft cleared from the Antients to be matter of fact that where the number of believers was small and none qualified for the office of Presbyters there the Apostles constituted no more but a Bishop and a Deacon in each City For whilst this was the state of that City I shall suppose a man sick and by the force of S. James's exhortation desirous of absolution c. Who is there supposeable in that City to give it him but the Bishop And whom else can he call to him for this purpose And then who can doubt but this is the worke in it selfe very agreeable and in this supposed case peculiar and proper to the Bishop so that unlesse this supposition be false nay impossible to be true I may safely say this was or might be the Bishops worke to visit the sick c. And indeed if it were not how could it be by the Bishop when other parts of his office became his fuller employment committed to the Presbyter For 1. he could not commit this to others if he first had it not in himselfe and Secondly this was the onely reason of ordaining inferiour officers in the Church that part of the Bishop's taske might be performed by them as when the whole burthen which was too heavy for Moses was distributed among other men which in this particular could not be if before this assignation of assistents it were not originally the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worke or proper taske of the Bishop To this may be farther added the reall dignity because necessary charity of this performance of visiting the sick c. and this arising both from the intimation of Gods owne finger pointing out this a most agreeable season for all spirituall admonition and comfort a molle tempus fandi wherein a word seasonably spoken may most probably find the due reception and wherein the prayers and blessing of the most Apostolical person or the most highly and justly dignified in the Church in the favour of God may come in most opportunely in this respect we see in that place that the prayers of the great Prophet Elias are made use of by S. James to exemplifie
the same as hath beene cited from Ignatius that all the world over the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles according to the minde of Christ In his Dial. adv Luciferian Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendit cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot sacerdotes and Si quaeris quare in Ecclesiâ baptizatus nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum disce hanc observationem ex â—a authoritate descendere quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schisms as Priests in the Churches If you demand why he that hath been baptized in the Church may not receive the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this observance dâ—scends from that Authority in that the holy spâ—it descended on thâ— Apostles 〈◊〉 Testimoâ—y as it shewes the necessity of a singular Bishop to avoid Schisms in the Church and so must affixe the institution of them on the Apostles who made provision against that danger and that I suppose is his meaning in that place which the Presbyterians make most use of so it directly derives the authority by which Bishops stand in the Church distinct from Presbyters and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles Lastly adv Jovinian 〈◊〉 Episcopâ— Presbyter Diaconus non sunt meritorum nomina sed offiâ—iorâ—m Nec dicitur si quis Episcopatum desilerat The Bishop and Presbytâ—r and Deacon are names of offices neither is it said If any man dâ—siâ—e a Bishoprick applying those Texts of Saint Paul concerning the qualifications of Bishops to the Bishop as in his time he stood distinct from Presbyters All this I supose may suffice to give authority to my collection and conclusion from plaine words of Saint Hierome that his meaning was as plaine and undubitable that Episcopacy was delivered downe and instituted in the Church by the Apostles themselves And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of these testimonies yet because I promised it I shall now adde that one argument ex abundanti and much more than is necessary to the same purpose viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning which I pretend it to be And that such as by these objectors cannot with justice be denyed to have a full irrefragable force in it having themselves made use of it against us which they ought not to have done if by themselves it shall now be denyed when it is produced by us In the close of their Appendix they have set downe several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Ministers and their first proposition being this that in the first and purest times there was ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters their proofe is this For these Bishops came in postea and pâ—ulâ—tim afterward and by little and little as Jerome saith And Panormitan lib. 1. Decretal de Consuetud cap. 4. saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesian◠〈◊〉 sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common and ordained Priests and joyntly conferred all the Sacraments These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan being brought to prove the same proposition concerning ordination by Presbyters and the time of Bishops coming in to the Church It must sure be reasonable to resolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter that was Saint Hieromes sense also Now what that is will be discerned by setting downe Panormitane's words at large as they lye in the place cited by them The businesse he hath there in hand is to prove that custome is not of force so farre as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter shâ—uld performe an Episcopal act Ea quae sum ordinis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex consuitudine quantamcunque veâ—ustissimâ Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custome how antient soever be acquired by any Inferiour order The reason is quia consuetudo non facit quem capacem because custome doth make no man capable Then he makes this observation that Ritus Apostol orum circa sacramenta habent impedire characterus impressionem The rites or practice or Institutions of the Apostles about the Sacraments have power to hâ—nd â—the impression of the Character nam immediate post mortem Christiâ—omâ—es Presbyteri in communi regebant ecclesiam non fuerant inter ipsos Epiâ—scopi sed idem Presbyter quod Epiâ—copus pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta sed postinodum ad Schismata sedâ—nda fecerunt seu ordinaverunt Apostoli ut crearentur Episcopâ— certa sacramenta iis reservarunt illa interdicendo simplicibus Presbyteris For immediately after the death of Christ all thâ— Elders in common ruled the Church and so there were no Bishops among them but a Presbyter was the same that a Bishop and they joyntly conferred all the Sacraments But after a while for the appeasing of Schismes the Apostles caused or ordained that Bishops should be created and reserved to them some Sacraments or holy Rites forbidding single Presbyters to meddle with them and he concludes Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impressionem Characteris quia si Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt nihil conferunt and here you see that such an Ordination is able to hinder the impression of the Character because if Presbyters doe de facto confer them they confer nothing Where as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Bishops and specious words pickt out of him to that purpose doth yet distinctly affirme that Presbyters which confer Orders without a Bishop conferre nothing all their Ordinations are meere nullities and what could have been said more severely against their practice and their designe in citing him than this so he plainly interprets St. Jeromes assertion of the occasion and time of Bishops being set over the Presbyters that it was done by the appointment of the Apostles themselves and so that consuetudo custome in Jerome opposed to Christ's disposall is no more than postmodum ordinaverunt Apostoli after a while the Apostles ordeined opposed to immediatè post mortem Christi immediately after the death of Christ And then by the way as the Reader may hence discerne what force there is in this Testimony of Panormitan to support their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters for which besides St. Jeromes postea and paulatim and part of this testimony of Panormitan they produce no other and as by what was formerly said of the Testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian their chiefe supports for their second proposition
likewise that from Can. 2. is onely a Testimony for the fitnesse and usefulnesse of that custome still retein'd and used in our Church in all Ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons that the Presbyters there present should lay on their hands by the hand of the Bishop and so joyne in the Prayer or benediction but no proofe that a Presbyter might not be ordeined by a Bishop without the presence of such Presbyters I have for a while gone aside from the consideration of S. Hierome's testimony the designed matter of this Section and allowed my selfe scope to take in all the testimonies of Antiquity which are made use of by these Assemblers for the justifying their Ordination of Ministers And I have done it on purpose though a little contrary to my designed Method and brevity because after the publishing of the Dissertations against Blondel I remember I was once told that though it was not necessary yet I might do well to add some Appendix by way of Answer to that one head of discourse concerning Presbyteriall Ordination and the Instances which were objected by him For which reason I have now as neer as I can taken in all in this place which are in their Appendix produced on that head and doe not elsewhere in this briefe reply fall in my way to be answered by me For some others mentioned by D. Blondel I refer the Reader to the learned paines of the Bishop of Dâ—rry in his vindication of the Church of England from the aspersion of Schisme p. 270. c. And so being at last returned into my rode againe This may I hope suffice to have said in the justification of what was done in the Dissertations concerning St. Hierome both to cleare his sense and for the setting the ballance aright betwixt his authority on the one side and the authority of Ignatius on the other betwixt some doubtfull sayings of the former which seemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apostles instituting imparity which yet elsewhere he affirmes to be Apostolicall tradition and the many cleare and uncontradicted constant sayings of the latter which are acknowleged to assert it Which one thing if it be not in the Dissertations so done as may satisfie any impartiall Judge that Ignatius in full concord with all is to be heeded on our side more than St. Hierome in some few of his many Testimones can be justly produced against us I shall then confesse my selfe guilty of over-much confidence but if therein I have not erred it is most evident that I need not undertake any farther travaile in this whole matter Sect. VII The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present THere now followes in the next place the passage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambrose on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Episcopacy 't was not held unlawfull for a Presbyter to ordeine without a Bishop they urge out of St. Ambrose these words Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Aegypt the Presbyters consigne if the Bishop be not present And the like out of Austine or whosoever was the Author in Quaest ex utroque Testam Qu. 101. In Alexandria per totam Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter In Alexandria and through all Aegypt if the Bishop be wanting the Presbyter consecrates And having done so they adde which words cannot be understood as a defender of Prelacy would have them of the Consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present but it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination To this I shall briefly reply 1. That it is sure enough granted by the most eminent Presbyterians that these two Books whence these Testimonies are cited were not written either by Ambrose or Austine but by some other Hilarius Sardus saith Blondel and unjustly inserted among their works and then the authority of such supposititious pieces will not be great to over-rule any practice otherwise acknowledged in the Church of God Secondly that the mistakes of Blondel and Salmasius concerning the meaning of the former of these places were so evidently discovered by the second of them the consignant in the one interpreted by consecrat in the other that I conceived it sufficient but to name them For can there be any thing more unquestionable than this that consecrare in antient writers signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist And then if consignare be a more obscure phrase is there any doubt but it must be interpreted by that which is so much more vulgar and plaine and all the circumstances besides being exactly the same in both places what doubt can there be but in both the words are to be understood of the Eucharist Yet because some advantage was by this their misunderstanding sought to the Presbyterians cause they now resolve and insist that it must not be rectified though they know not which to apply it to Confirmation or Ordination and pretend not to produce any Testimony where consecrare is ever used for the latter or consignare for either of them And indeed Blondel and Salmasius were yet more uncertaine for they thought it might also belong to the benediction of Penitents and that as probable as either of the two former And when the truth is rejected thus it is wont to be As for the onely reason which inclines them to confine it to Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination if the place be review'd it will not be found to have truth in it He speakes immediately before of the severall Ministeriall Acts Preaching and Baptizing adding indeed that Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est The writings of the Apostle doe not in all things agree to the Order which is now in the Church There is mention of Ordinatio indeed but that signifies not Ordination as we now use it for ordaining of Ministers but manifestly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule or order used in the Church in severall respects saith he different from what it was in the writings of the Apostle And for their objection against my interpretation that it cannot be understood of consecrating the Eucharist because this the Presbyter might doe when the Bishop was present If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Antients the Canons of the Apostles Ignatius ad Magnes the 56 Canon of the councell of Laodicaea and Tertullian that the Presbyter might not administer either Sacrament without the Bishop's appointment and distinctly of this Sacrament Non de aliorum quam de Praesidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus we receive it not from the hands of any but the Praesidents i.
of St. John who we know was after his returne from banishment affixt to Asia and seated at Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis there to superintend in the Jewish part of the Asian Church over all the Bishops and Metropolitans there 10. To this I might adde fiftly that the Bishops in every City were successors of the Apostles as is largely deduced Diss 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. c. which they could not truly be if the Apostles whom they succeeded were not in vested with that power wherein they succeeded them i. e. were not first Bishops before them But I shall not inlarge of this having no need of more evidences in this matter 11. Fourthly therefore when it is added that if the Apostles be affirmed to be properly Bishops this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their office ordinary and perpetuall This is but a shortnesse of discourse of which a very few words will suffice to admonish any for there is no more strength in that consequence than there would be in affirming that such an one is a Man therefore he is not a living Creature or that he that saith he is a living Creature degrades him from being a man For as to that of ordinary and perpetuall 't is no way inconvenient that the Apostles who had somewhat temporary and extraordinary for the first planting of Churches in respect of which especially they were called Apostles might also have somewhat which was of ordinary perpetuall use in the Church wherein others might and should succeed them and that is it unquestionably which wee meane by the word Bishops when we ascribe it to them or any of them or to Christ himselfe the source and originall Copy of that power in the Church 12. Fiftly when another inconvenience is accumulated on this much to the former purpose but in more words this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle end to make the Apostle a Bishop 1. It is evident that if the forementioned exception were true viz. That it were the degrading the Apostle it could not farther be truly said that it were the exalting the Bishop above his degree for supposing one to be above the other the degrading one would make the other eâ—uall to him without any new act of exalting him if the Apostle have already descended to the Bishop sure the Bishop need not cannot ascend to the Apostle I cannot goe up staires to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune and is already come or fallen downeâ— to me Secondly therefore this makes not the Bishop an Apostle which is a degree higher than he though in respect of the Episcopall power common to them with the Aposles it is nothing strange in the Antient Writers for the first Bishops of the Churches James the Bishop of Jerusalem Thaddaeus Luke Barnabas Marke Timothy Titus Clemens Ignatius to be called Apostles as is evidenced at large in the Dissertations but onely supposes the Apostle to be a Bishop which he may well be as the greater conteineth the lesse though the Bishop be no Apostle as it is confest that the lesse containes not the greater 13. And lastly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker I have no directions to the place which may inable me to examine it And I know circumstances of the context or the designe of the speech may much alter it from what it signifies to me at my reading it thus cited But if it be distinctly thus and incapable of a more commodious interpretation I cannot consent to the truth of it or comprehend upon what grounds of reason he should so severely censure those Scriptures and Fathers which have been produced to affirme that the Apostles were Bishops and particularly St. John and St. Peter And indeed when it falls out that each of those two Apostles peculiarly calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder or as they render it Presbyter I shall demand Did either of those speake properly or no If they did were either of those little distant from mad-men If so I shall be content to be under any censure in their company And therefore if they spake not so properly I shall be content with them to have spoken improperly also But if Apostles may be called Presbyters without any of these inconveniences of degradation in them any insâ—lence in the Presbyter or madnesse in the Speaker my onely remaining Quaere is why they might not without all this adoe be called Bishops also meaning by Bishops as I now meane For I am sure that is the same thing that I understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in those three places and they who differ from me herein do yet understand it of Presbyters and so had said in the second consideration expresly that St. John calls himselfe a Presbyter and then all the spice of madnesse consists in this thinking a Bishop capable of that exaltation that a Presbyter in perfect sobriety is capable of And so much for the third consideration Section VI. Of the word Angel and Starre pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel THe fourth consideration is That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or praeeminence but is a common name to all Ministers and so is used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the elect and therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Starres in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine and holinesse of conversation There is nothing in these titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our brethrens sense Insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some authors that succeeded them who spake of former times in the language of their owne times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 2. â—o this consideration I might if it were needfull reply 1. That the word Angel is no where used for any other Officer or Minister in the Church save onely the Prophets such as Haggai c. 1. 13. and John Baptist Mat. 11. 10. and the chiefe Priest Mal. 2. 7. 3. Secondly that as to the words Messenger and Embassador there is in ordinary speech some considerable difference betweene them the latter having in it a connotation of dignity sustaining the person of the King from whom he is sent immediately which is not applicable to the former And agreeably when it is used of St. Paul and Timothy in whose name that Epistle is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are Embassadors 2 Cor. 5. 20. there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
requiring and so not be so eminently worthy of the double honour as he that actually doth both so certainly he that rules well in any Church and beside the care belonging to rule undergoes that other double hard travell so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies of preaching the faith to Infidels and confirming and instructing believers doth very highly deserve the double honour and alimonie And this as it is the exact meaning of that Text so it utterly supersedes all force of this objection or exception against our understanding it of the Presidents or Bishops in the Praelaticall sense Fourthly For the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. by which they say I understand Episcopacy I answer that I interpret it of some combination either of Apostles or Apostolical persons and Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret's phrase such as were vouchsafed the Apostolicall grace i. e. of Paul assuredly 1 Tim. 2. 6. and perhaps of Barnabas perhaps of some other Apostolical person with him in like manner as both Peter and John style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Ignatius styles the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church and as of Ignatius himselfe S. Chrysostome affirmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the hands of more Apostles than one were laid on him in his ordination to the Bishoprick of Antioch To which matter the Scholion of Chrysostome is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speakes not here of Presbyters but Bishops adding the reason because Presbyters did not ordaine Bishops and so Theophylact and Oecumenius Lastly for the other two places of not-rebuking and receiving an accusation against an Elder though in those places it were clearely for my interest to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbyter in our moderne sense for then as Epiphanius saith there is an evidence of proofe that the Bishop hath power over the Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy over the Elder saith he but never the Elder over Timothy Yet I confesse my selfe inclined by other considerations to foregoe that advantageous sense of the place Because Timothy being placed in the prime Metropolis had power over the Bishops of lesser Cities and that as hath oft been shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of â—udging as well as of ordeining Bishops which is elsewhere evidenced to be the opinion of S. Chrysostome in order to the understanding of this place And so still the crime is not very great or reproachfull which I am said to have confest it amounts no higher than the former confession had done that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus and yet this you see without any necessity to extort it from thee save that of speaking freely what I conceived most probable For otherwise nothing could be more for the advantage of the maine cause I defenâ— than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders should signifie Presbyters in these two places Sect. IX A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet THeir fourth charge is that I am forced to confesse that Titus was Archbishop of Creet and that he received no commission from S. Paul to ordaine single Elders but onely for ordeining Bishops in every City It seems say they this Author slights the Postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those antient Fathers that are cited by his owne party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-Bishop and so must Timothy also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Arch-Bishops hath beene sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse That Titus was Arch-Bishop of Creet I confesse again that I cannot but believe till I am shewed how the contrary were possible i. e. how he that was fastned in and as Eusebius saith had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopacy of a whole Island which had an hundred Cities in it and was there placed that he might ordeine Bishops under him in each of those Cities Tit. 1. 5. 7. and as the antients adde exercise jurisdiction over them should be other than an Arch-Bishop That this was his condition hath been shewed already And for the inconveniences that it is prest with they will prove very supportable For I shall not at all be obliged thereby to slight either Postscript or Fathers but give the disputers example to pay them all reverence being very well able to discerne the Bishop through the Archbishop having never imagined that the styling Michael an Archangel was denying him to be an Angel He certainly was an Angel and that of an higher degree or else could never have been justly called an Archangell and 't is just so with Titus if I had not thought him a Bishop I could never have affirmed him an Archbishop and they that in common speech give him the title of Bishop doe no way intimate their thoughts to be contrary to mine for every Archbishop is certainly a Bishop though every Bishop be not an Archbishop And therefore if all the danger of my assertions falling to the ground be consequent to this of Titus or Timothies proving to be no Archbishop I shall deeme them competently safe for each of them were unavoidably such Timothy Archbishop of Ephesus the prime Metropolis of all Asia and Titus of the whole Island of Creet and accordingly to those two peculiarly as such directions are given for the ordeining Bishops and Deacons in every City And the proofes which were offered to the contrary have I suppose already been answered and being not here thought fit to be recited the replyes shall not be so impertinent as to appeare without their antagonists Onely because it is here inserted as part of my inconvenient confession that Titus received no Commission from Saint Paul to ordaine single Elders which I believe I no where say any otherwise than that the Commission cap. 1. 5. was to create Bishops in every City I shal freely tell them my opinion of that viz. that a greater power may very fitly be said to comprehend under it the lesser of the same kinde and consequently that both Timothy and he which had Commissions to ordaine Bishops in every City had also by the same commission power to ordaine single Presbyters where those were usefull to be ordained as is evident by the qualification of Deacons and Widows after-mentioned in one certainly and as I conceive in both Epistles for that supposeth their Commission to extend to the ordeining of those who yet had not been named in them if we may guesse by that of Titus cap. 1. 5. And so much also of that part of my confession which is as free and unforced as the former had been and I believe as fafe to the affirmer Sect. X. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. BUt the fift and
have already been utterly demolished so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their third Proposition concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsick power to ordaine Ministers will immediately vanish in like manner For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the same thing twice repeated to increase the number so 't is as evident that what is by them said is taken from St. Hierome and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops onely in respect of authority or for the preserving it intire and the unity of each Church which depended on that in St. Hierom's opinion the Ordination and consecration of Clerks i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons was reserved to the chiefe Priest i. e. the Bishop which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove the intrinsick power of Presbyters to ordaine Ministers I leave to any Reader to passe judgement And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Testimonie that of Leo set out in their front out of his 88. Epistle concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else it is commanded by the authority of the â—anons Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these which affirme this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops and that the authority of the Canons so requires to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsick power As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters were infallibly their due to enjoy and the Argument demonstrative that it was their Originall and intrinsick due because the Canons deny it What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe and not a Bishop this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture but onely because it was against the Canons of some councels is somewhat of the same nature with the former and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths for being never admitted to the Priesthood and assuming to himselfe the name of an Elder he dared to doe the things belonging to a Priest A censure which certeinly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Councels Two Testimonies more I shall touch on before I returne to the pursuit of my proposed Method and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum sâ—orum non ordinet That a Bishop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is Ordrined as the Bishop blesseth him and layes his hand on his head let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop And the conclusion deduced from these Testimones and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian is this that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed How truly this is inferred from the Praemâ—sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testimonies For the first this is the truth of the Story Theophilus a guilty person and as such cited to answer what was objected against him making use of the envy under which Chrysostome then laboured shifted the Scene and becamse his judge nay as Photius tells us he and the rest of that Conventicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were Chrysostome ' s greatest enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at once Judges and Accusers and Witnesses of all that was charged against him And therefore we already see what heed is to be given to the accusatiâ—n of those Fathers ad quercum and how valid an argument can be deduced from it And we shall the better guesse at it if we consider also what other particulars were in the same manner that this was charged against him set downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca The 23. charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bath was heated for him alone and that after he had bathed Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath that no body else might bath The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ate alone living like one of the Cyclopes and betwixt these two new found crimes comes in this in the midst being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained many that had no Testimonialls which being set down by Photius as the summe of that charge referres us indeed to the ground on which their charge was built of his ordaining without a Councell and against the minde of his Clergy those testimonialls and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordaine without assistance of his Presbyters or that it was alwayes forbidden any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden also As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have set downe but halfe the Canon the whole runnes thus Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinetâ— ita ut civium conniventiam Testimonium quaerat That the Bishop ordain not without his councell of Clergy so that he seeke the liking and testimoniall of the Inhabitants Which againe onely serves to shew the use of the assistent Presbyters to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of but is no argument of the unlawfulnesse of sole ordination or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders So