that one of that name Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in the tenth yeare of Trajan wherein Ignatius wrote that Epistle 7. Secondly that by one indication there is some small reason to guess that this Onesimus was then lately come to that dignity I meane Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church that God had given them the favour to obtaine or have such a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8. Thirdly that according to Epiphanius his setting down the time of John's banishment and visions in the dayes of Claudius there must be above 50 yeares distance between the date of this Epistle of Christ and that of Ignatius and consequently that it is not so likely that Onesimus that was their Bishop in the later should be that very Angel in the former 9. Fourthly that as I can have no cause to consent with Ado in lib. de Fest Apost ad 14. Cal. Mart. that this Onesimus in Ignatius was hee that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon so nor to adhere to the Roman Martyrologie that he whom Paul mentions was constituted Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy 10. And therefore fiftly it must be remembred that both the Greeke Menologies and Simeon Metaphrastes who celebrate his memory on March 13. acknowledge not that Onesimus to have been at all Bishop of Ephesus and that others also of the antients make him to have been Bishop of Beraea and martyr'd in Domitian's Reigne and Dorotheas in Synopsi expresly affirmeth that Gaius succeeded Timothy in Ephesus 11. From all which it followes that Onesimus mentioned by Ignatius was some later Bishop of that City who bare that very Ordinary Greeke name and so that his being Bishop of Ephesus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation not interferes with their opinion who thinke Timothy to have beene that Angel The appearing incompetibility whereof was it I spppose that brought in here the mention of Onesimus 12. This was here seasonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place and will be of use to be remembred in the processe of their Discourse 13. Thirdly for Polycarp's being Bishop of Smyrna as there is left no place for the doubting of that if either Irenaeus that lived in his time and saw him or if Tertullian who lived not long after and was a curious Antiquary may be believed in their joynt affirmations of a knowne matter of Fact so it is againe no where affirmed by me that hee was the very man to whom that Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna was sent and if that were their meaning they have againe misreported my words 14. All that I had said I thinke was proved irrefragably that in two of those Churches mentioned in the Apocalyps Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick testimonies affirmed to be constituted Bishops the one by St. Paul the other by St. John and that is a competent argument added to others to inferre that the Angel of each of those Churches was a single person and so a Bishop in the Prelatists not in the Presbyterians notion of the word an assertion which I need not feare will yeild any advantage to the adversaries and so I as briefly commit it to them Section 3. Of the negative Argument from St. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation IN the next place by way of answer to this plea of the Prelatists we are referred to three writings of their party Smectymnuus the Vindication of Smectymnuus the Humble Addresses of the Divines at the Isle of Wight wherein say they these things are fully clearely and satisfactorily handled 2. But it being certaine that every one of these three was publisht some yeares before the Dissertations I should thinke it strange that the particulars there insisted on by me should by divination be thus answered before their conception being able truly to professe that though I am not unwilling to make use of any mans aid for defending truth yet none of those writings to which any of those three were given in answer were by me made use of in those compositions 3. But we are superseded the trouble of examining any of these three by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be usefull for the turne and then in like manner I shall more willingly receive from these what shall appeare to answer or prejudge our plea than undertake new troubles in farther unnecessary search of it 4. First then they desire it may be considered that S. John the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the by I suppose for the Printer failes me name Bishop Hee names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation yea when he would set out the office of those who are neerest the throne of Christ in his Church Rev. 4. he calls himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Christian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day and Christ himselfe the Word now both these are found in the writings of St John And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if wee consider that Polycarpe as it related was made Bishop by him And no doubt if hee had been made Bishop in a prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe 5. We are now to consider what degree of conviction or Argument to the prejudice of our pretensions can be fetcht from this large consideration And first it is most evident and notorious among all Artists that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Bishops in St John's time because St. John doth not mention Bishops It is the same way of arguing as if they should conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonicall Chapters of Hester because God is not found once mentioned in those Chapters And yet of this inartificiall kinde is the whole discourse of this Paragraph the premisses barely negative throughout all the consideration And so nothing is conclusible from it to the prejudice of us or benefit of our adversaries 6. Secondly all that this consideration pretends to is terminated in the bare name of Bishop that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John and by us contested by the singularity of the person one Angel in each Church and other Characters to conclude the Office of Bishop as irrefragably as if the word Bishop were there specified Nay of this wee have a competent experience that if the word Bishop had been found there
Scripture except Saint Iohn's But then 2. that doth not infer them to be new expressions in Saint Iohn's dayes as these dayes are distinguisht from the dayes of the other Apostles whom Iohn survived but only that they were idiomes or characters of speech that Saint Iohn delighted to make use of 13. Thus indeed 't is ordinarily observed of his expressing of Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word which yet is taken from the Ancients of the Jewish Church the Chaldes paraphrase being knowne frequently to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord and Plato seems to have been acquainted with the expression which caused Amelius to sweare at the reading the beginning of S. John's Gospell that that Barbarian was of their Plato's mind that the word of God was in order of a Principle and perhaps not peculiarly to him appropriate for Budaeus a very learned Critick in Greek affirmes Saint Luke to have used it in this notion cap. 1. 2. and if he doth not yet still 't will be but a peculiar part of John's style which if he had written his Gospell in the same yeare that Saint Matthew did his he would doubtlesse have made use of the phrase being certainly in the world before that time and so not new as they would have it and the usage of it in the Church being in all reason to be derived from John's use of it who was from thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine not John's use of it from the new admission of it into the Christian Church 14. And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day as it is not certaine that it is the Christian Sabbath I meane the weekly Lord's day which is meant by that title once used in the Revelation but as probably the feast of Easter the annual commemoration of Christ's rising from the dead and accordingly Andreas Caesariensis sets it indifferently yet so as it seems rather to incline to the later 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day bearing the memorial of the resurrection of Christ so in what notion soever it be taken it was against Saint Iohn's use of the word that gave it authority in the following dialect of the Church not the Churches usage that we any where can discerne from whence Saint Iohn derived it And so this will be an instance as ineffectual as the former to inferre the conclusion to which it is designed For indeed bating the unskilfulnesse of the argument ab authoritate negative already mentioned what a strange way of concluding would this be S. Iohn useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day supposing also that 't is true which is added and no other writer of the Scripture useth them but in stead of them the Sonne of God Messias Christ and the first day of the week therefore if there had been any office of Bishops erected in the Church in Saint Iohn's time it is strange that Saint Iohn should not mention the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 'T is at the first hearing cleare enough that there is no strangenesse in this both because Saint Iohn undertooke not to set downe a Dictionary of all words or customes which were in his time in the Church and because there is no proportion held betwixt the members of the comparison as hath been shewed And it will yet be lesse strange because 1. it is easily supposeable and not strange that he should have no occasion at all to mention that office or that mentioning it he should doe it in his owne chosen expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder as in other greater matters he is acknowledged and allowed to doe by either of those signifying the same thing as expressely as the using of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop would have done And 2. it is otherwise as manifest by Saint Paul and Saint Luke that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and the office belonging to it were before the time of Saint John's writings used in the Church as it could be if Saint Iohn had made expresse mention of it 15. And lastly for the highest round in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the special part of the consideration our affirmation that Polycarp was made Bishop by Saint Iohn that doth not any more than all the rest inferre it necessary that Saint Iohn should mention the name Bishop Saint Iude I hope is supposed by the Assemblers to have constituted some Presbyters in the Church and yet he in his Epistle hath made no mention of any such name or office And so much for that first consideration Section IV. Of Saint John's writings Againe of Diotrephes A Second consideration now followes to be added to this That there is not any the least intimation in all S. John's writings of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy 2. A consideration of the same unhappy constitution with the former 1. a testimonio negativè againe Saint Iohn had no occasion to mention it therefore there was in his time no such thing and 2. in respect of the matter just the same againe put only in other words there 't was No mention of Bishop in all Saint John's writings here No superiority of one Presbyter over another in all Saint John's writings And so it can adde no accumulation of weight to the former 3. But then 2. bating againe those two infirmities in discourse what if it were granted that at the time of Saint John's writing there were not in the whole Church of Christ any one Presbyter superior to another Presbyter what hath the Author of the Dissert lost or they gained by this He makes no doubt willingly to yeild to any inforcing reason that is or shall be produced to conclude that at that time there was above Deâ—cons but one degree in the Church and yet to be never the lesse qualified to maintaine his praetensions Nay he is knowne to have expressed it as his opinion probably inferred and not easily confuted and that by which if it be true or because there is no evidence to the contrary all the Presbyterian praetensions founded in the doubtfulnesse of words in Scripture are utterly excluded that there were not in the space within compasse of which all the Bookes of the New Testament were written any Presbyters in our Moderne notion of them created in the Church though soon after certainely in Ignatius's time there were and then if the consideration now before us were of any force at all this would be the one direct and proper use of it to adde more confidence to this opinion and so to confirme not to invalidate our praetensions 4. Thirdly for Diotrephes and Saint Iohn's chiding of him for ambitiously affecting a Primacy over other Presbyters there will appeare to be more than one misadventure in it For
it would by Presbyterians be as readily expounded to signifie a Presbyter or colledge of such for so certainly they have done in other places and truly with as much reason and satisfaction to any impartiall judge as they have affirmed the word Angel in each Church to denote such And therefore 7. Thirdly I shall demand would the Apostle St. John's using the name Bishop be at all usefull to the Prelatists interests to conclude that there was such an Office in the Church in his time or would it not If not then sure it is not to our prejudice that hee hath not mentioned that name and then this whole consideration is perfectly to no purpose If it would then sure St. Pauls and St. Lukes frequent mentions of them I may adde St. Peter also will supply St. John's omissions and conclude there were Bishops in their time and that was long before St. Johns death if it had been considered 8. Fourthly when it is said that St. John frequently names the name Presbyter in the Apocalyps 't is not imaginable that they should thinke the Author of the Dissertations could receive any prejudice from thence when hee hath avowed to believe that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders mentioned in those so many places of the Revelation were the 24. Bishops of Judaea sitting in Councell at Jerusalem their Metropolis encompassing James the Bishop there together with the foure living creatures denoting the foure Apostles that were joyned with them in the councell and the 7. Lamps the emblemes of the 7. Deacons attending Of which matter till they have disproved what is commodiously deduced Dissert 4. c. 20. Sect. 10. I shall have no need farther to inlarge it being perfectly uselesse to our present inquiry that either the word Bishop or Elder should be used by S. John for a single Prefect in the Christian Church supposing as now we do in the Objection and t is but a begging of the question in the respondent to suppose the contrary that the word Angel is a notation of it 9. By this it appeares fiftly how little wee incommodated by the position of these Elders in the Revelation placed neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church for supposing as I doe that Christ is by way of vision represented there under the person of the Bishop of Jerusalem sitting in councell and encompassed on each side with a Semicircle of Thrones on which sat the 24 Bishops of Judea I can well allow these 24. call them Elders or what you please to be neerest to that middle throne whereon Christ is seated And truely if it should be otherwise interpreted of Presbyters in the moderne notion of the word it would be hard to make the other parts of the vision to beare proportion with that phansy For I must suppose according to St. John's words that in the vision these thrones were set up in Heaven And then I shall demand was that a representation of any councell or Judicature on Earth or not If it were not then nothing can be inferred thence in favour of Presbyters more than of Bishops for of both these we speake as of Officers on Earth But if it were then applying it to Presbyters it must follow that in the midst of them there is some other invironed on each side by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitting upon that throne of principall dignity before whom also they on the other thrones must fall downe v. 10 or else the parallel will not hold throughout and the least that can be signified hereby will be superiority of dignity in him that sits on that middle throne above all the 24. Elders which will be deemed to exceede the case of a Prolocutor or Moderator of an Assembly which is the ut most that the Presbyterian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality can admit of but much more commodiously agrees to the Metropolitan of all Iudea sitting in a Nationall Councell with the Bishops about him for of these we doubt not to affirme that they were as much inferior to him as this representation doth pretend them to be 10. As for the sence affixt to it by the Assemblers that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Presbyters in the moderne notion and that he that sits in the midst of them is Christ this is against all analogy and rules of interpreting a mining and confounding the Originall with the Copy the type with the Antitype interpreting one part of the visiâ—n as if it were in Heaven for it was there where Christ did sit as Judge and the other as if it were on Earth for sure the Presbyters in this notion are to be considered as there And this is a very sufficient prejudice against their interpretation if there were not enough besides and such as no way presseth our way of setting it as hath been already manifested 11. Sixtly for his calling himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. I answer that as farre as this allegation hath truth it hath no force in it at all against our pretentions He doth indeed call himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder we fitly render it noting thereby according to analogy with the solemne notion of the word both among sacred and prophane Writers set downe at large Dissert 4. c. 19. a person of authority in the Church of Christ an Apostle first and then the supreme Governour of the whole Iewish Church in Asia which is but proportionable to Saint Pauls beginning his Epistles with Paul an Apostle or Commissioner of Iesus Christ placed in that power in the Church by Christ himselfe and with the same style in the front of Saint Peters Epistles onely with this Characteristick note peculiar to Saint Iohn in his Gospell and Epistles of omitting the expression of his owne name And then all that this text is of force to doe is to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not import a Presbyter in our moderne use of the word governing in common with other Presbyters but rather a singular Governor of the Church such as Bishops are by us contested to be And so the Greek Scholiasts have expressed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And this 't is certaine is for the interest of the Author of the Dissertations and no way to his prejudice if it had been adverted by them that produce it 12. Seventhly when 't is said that in Saint Iohn's dayes some New expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Lords day and the Word I professe not to comprehend what advantage to their praetensions could be designed or aimed at in this part of the consideration For 1. how can it truly be said that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day which is in the Revelation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which is in Saint Iohn's Gospell were not in Scripture I must suppose the meaning is that they were not in any other writings of
the Region adjacent and pertaining to that City and so as Church and Congregation are all one as in ordinary use in all languages they are they were Congregationall and Diocesan also 12. What followes of the paucity of believers in the greatest Cities and their meeting in one place as also of a Church and City being all one is willingly granted by us and hath not the least appearance of being usefull to their pretentions or hurtfull to ours and therefore I have no temptation to make any the lest Reply to it 13. That which next followes though it concerne us not to examine it our interest being equally secured be it true or false yet I cannot but take some notice of it in passing because it is a little extraordinary 14. Afterwards say they we conceive that believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Jerusalem Act. 2. 41. and 4. 4. and 5. 14. and thus possibly it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time 15. Here certainly the word Afterwards is relative and referrs to the Antecedent in the former Paragraph and that is In the beginning of Christianity Hereupon I demand what time is that which they call the beginning of Christianity Is it that wherein Christ continued on the Earth If so they will easily believe us that we doe not think that Diocesan Bishops were placed in the Church within that period If it be the time immediately following the Resurrection of Christ when the Apostles began to preach and propagate the Faith then how come they to divide that time which is spoken of Act. 2. 41. from that time of the beginning of Christianity by this word Afterward for t is certain what is there storied of the 3000. Converts is the effect of the first Sermon preached by any of the Apostles immediately upon the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them and the gift of Tongues the wonderment whereof brought those so many Auditors together 16. So secondly when they say of this point of time Act. 2. 41. The believers were so numerous that they could not conveniently meâ—t in one place This is contrary to the evidence of the Text which saith expresly v 44. That all the believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the last paragraph they interpreted meeting in â—ne and the same place The like might be said of the other places Act 4. â—4 and 5 14. for certainly as yet though the number of Believers increased yet they were not distributed into severall Congregations But this by the way being assured that this disquisition is perfectly extrinsecall to the matter in debate betweene us because as at Jerusalem the antients are cleare in affirming that soone after Christ's Ascension Peter and James and John chose James the just the Brother of the Lord and constituted him Bishop or Jerusalem which is all that we need pretend to from the story of that Church so it matters not much at what point of time that was done whether at the very beginning or afterwards much lesse how soone it was that that Church was distributed into severall divided Assemblies the Creation of the Bishop not at all depending on that as hath formerly been shewed 17. Hence will it appeare to how very little purpose are those cautions added and observations made in the remaining part of this sixt Chapter 18. Thus say they possibly it might be i.e. the believers be so numerous in great Cities that they could not conveniently meet in one place in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed First that these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or Congregations in the Apostles dayes 19. But first I demand Is there any truth in this observation was not the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles dayes a set and fixed Church so as to be perfectly severed from the Church of Alexandria and Ephesus Was not James the Brother of the Lord Bishop of the one and not of the other 20. Secondly why was this for the Presbyterians interest to be so diligently observed If one of these Churches were not thus divided and severed from others how could it be governed by a Presbytery as they pretend it was Must it not be a determinate fixed body that is governed by any whether Bishop or Presbyters I professe not to be able to discerne by my most diligent observation why this was so necessary to be so diligently observed 21. Secondly say they it must be as diligently observed that notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Jerusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8. 1. 15. 6. 22. 16. And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 22. This Observation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it and not to be confutable in any part save onely that the two latter Texts are certainly misquoted and not rectified in the Errata and therefore instead of rejecting I shall imbrace it and from thence conclude that there is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is a Church not Churches being forced to acknowledge that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops and so likewise one Angel of Ephesus and of Thyatira c. This I suppose was not the thing they meant to inferre from hence nor indeed doe I conceive it necessarily inferred from onely very agreeable to the onenesse of each Church without other arguments to joyne with it But I am still to seek and emand what advantage accrues to their cause or disadvantage to ours by this observation 23. But then thirdly they adde that this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common councell of Presbyters or Bishops 24. This indeed were worth their diligent observing if it could be descried and would abundantly recompence them for the no-profit their two former observations brought them in if it could be obtained by all their diligence But this being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the onely thing in question betwixt us whether the Church in each City was in the Apostles dayes governed by the common councell of Presbyters or Bishops or by one single Bishop called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder as that signifies simply a Governour not with restriction a member of a College of Governours this I say being the onely question in debate betweene us it must not be any farther yeilded to them than their proofes and evidences will enforce it And these of what virtue they are must now appeare
with Answers and refutations of the principall Objections of Doctor Blondel and Walo Messalinus doe really stand in force and appeare not to be refuted now in whole or in part by these men who have often attempted to refute them I shall then leave them seriously and Christianly to consider but this one thing and to returne their anger not to me but to themselves what security of grounds they can build upon in their present practices particularly in their assuming to themselves that power or authority which doth not belong to them For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were as by Christ to the Apostles so by the Apostles given to the singular Governour or Bishop by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted over all and from that time to this regularly continued in a succession of Bishops in every Church and secondly if those which are now called Presbyters were by those who first instituted them placed in a second rank as of dignity so of power and never had all that power committed to them which to the Bishop was committed particularly not that of Ordeining the meanest Deacon much lesse Presbyters with power of Ordeining other Presbyters and thirdly if they on whose authority they most depend S. Hierome the Presbyter c. doe expresly assure them that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination but acknowledge the Bishop superior to the Presbyter in that and it is not imaginable how that power should be conveyed to any Presbyter now which was not vested in any at that time nor pretended to be so in above a thousand yeares after them And lastly if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven or give that which he hath not which the Scripture yeilds to as a rule by which both John Baptist John 3. 27. and Christ himselfe Luk 12. 14. was to be judged and the Apostle Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that generall rule to this particularity of Priesthood in the Church viz. that no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assume an honour to himselfe but who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 advanced by God saith Theophylact either immediately or mediately either by the Apostles or by those which received it successively from them all others being truly affirmed by the Antients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leap into the honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to corrupt the rule or law by which they should be guided then I say upon what solid grounds can they satisfie Conscience who without all pretence of necessity which by some is here made use of as an excuse the regular way being open and plaine before them have run before they were sent assumed that power to themselves which belongs not to them nor was ever by any which had it bestowed upon them I doe not foresee any more here necessary to be premised to our future debates and shall therefore hasten to them as to an unpleasant progresse that I would willingly be at the end of and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him whom we all professe to serve and obey in this as in all other things CHAP. I. Concerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Section I. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops FOr the vindicating of the Dissertations from all the exceptions which are offered against them in the Booke which I have now before me It is no whit necessary that I give the Reader any the most cursory view of the whole Booke I shall therefore fall in though abruptly on the sixt Chapter of the second part of it For although in some of the former Chapters of that part some indeavours are used to assert Presbytery against Episcopacy by Arguments so frequently produced by that party that they were every one foreseen and in the Dissertations largely evidenced to have no validity in them yet it falls out somewhat to mine owne and the Readers ease that I am not personally called into the lists till the beginning of the sixt Chapter which by the signall of some Latine words in the Margine out of Dissert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4. have markt me out as the person against whom that Chapter was intirely designed and I shall readily answer the call and not refuse the paines to examine every Section of that Chapter 2. The subject of this Chapter is the pretended as they please to stile it Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels And thus they begin their assault The second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine Right of Praelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they the Assertors of Prelacy were seven single persons and as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Archbishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blind or wilfull that endeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy Age that Men should still continue blind and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon 3. This is it seemes the first crime chargeable on mee as Author of the Dissertations that I am confident of my Assertion and condemne all others as blind or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And although this be no competent way of disproving what is asserted for it is no universall maxime or Datum among the Objecters that confident asserting should be lookt on as a character of falsity yet I that would much more be ashamed to have beene presumptuous than mistaken and deeme it not a sinne to have erred modestly am concerned to avert the envy of this their Prooeme and to give this essay how farre any the most moderate speeches may be disguised and deformed by a disadvantageous interpretation 4. These words in tantâ luce lie thus in the Dissertations Ad tertium accedo I proceede to the third thing that which concernes the Angels in the Apocalypse that by them are noted so many prefects of the chiefe Cities or Churches in Asia whom you may call not onely Bishops but Primates Enarchs or Metropolitans Each of these things must be briefly taken notice of First that each of these were single and properly called Bishops So Andreas Caesariensis pronounceth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seven Ephori inspectors or Bishops so called from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inspectors directly equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parallel to the number of the seven Churches are in that place of the Apâ—calypse called Angels This title of Angel is sufficiently knowne from Malach. 2. 7. to belong to the chiefe Priest of the Jewes for hee is called the Angel of the Lord of Hosts as the person from whom the Law was to be derived to the people Further more these Angels in that vision of Johns are likened to so many Starres which seeing Christ is
hee governed the Metropolitan City of Ephesus that prime Metropolis of all Asia to the Bishop whereof saith Chrysostome was intrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Nation of Asia These testimonies may suffice for the substance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Ephesus and under it all Asia which is the notion wee now have of a Bishop Metropolitane and Primate 4. As for the word Bishop how can it be inconvenient to bestow that upon him when hee discharged the Office nay when Christ himselfe that great exemplar and originall of this power is expresly called the Bishop of our Soules as well as the Apostle when the Office from which Judas fell and to which Matthias is assumed is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishoprick Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture usage the Fathers of the Church have continued the style Apostolos i. e. Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles i. e. Bishops and Governours of the Church saith Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were the first or chiefe in Rome the same persons Apostles and Bishops saith Epiphanius and Apostoli Episcopi sunt firmante illud Petro Apostolâ— the Apostles were Bishops as is confirmed by Peter in these words His Bishoprick let another take saith Hilarius Sardus and againe Areall Apostles â—Tis true saith hee quia in Ecelesiâ unus Episcopus because in each Church there is one Bishop And Nemo ignorat Episcopos servatorem Ecclesiâ—s instituisse Ipse enim priusquam ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is ignorant that our Saviour instituted Bishops in the Church for before he ascended to Heaven hee laid his hands on the Disciples and ordained them Bishops saith the Writer of the questions on the Old and New Testament and Sanctus Matthâ—us Episcopatum sortitus est St. Matthew was Bishop saith Gildas And to shut up all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that the Apostles were Bishops St John in Asia St. Andrew in Achaia St. Thomas in India saith Gabriel Philadelph And agreeably when St. John of whom we now speake calls himselfe in the front of two Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder the Greek scholiast resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And so there is no newes in thus affirming 5. But then secondly when they take this for an evident demonstration that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense this is very farre distant from a demonstration having not arrived to the lowest degree of probability or credibility For what is a Bishop in the Prelaticall sense but a single person governing in chiefe in a City or wider circuit And such certainly was St. Peter at Rome S. John at Ephesus c. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keyes the donation of which instituted them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward 's in Gods House Governours of the Church in this or that City or Region and ordained other Bishops there Thirdly therefore when 't is added that it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops I reply that it is most certaine they may not onely because these so many antient Writers through severall ages have called them so and may not with any justice from us be accused of impropriety but because the donation of the Keyes did as properly make them Bishops as the Commission to goe preach to all Nations being added to it made them Apostles To which purpose let these few things be considered 1. That it is here by the Assemblies acknowledged that the Apostles did eminently conteine the Episcopall Office which though it be a little hastily expressed and should be I suppose that the Apostolicall Office did eminently containe the Episcopall yet there is no doubt but this is the meaning of it that the Apostles had all the Episcopall power in their hands and over and above something more and if they had Episcopall power then sure in respect of that they may as properly be called Bishops as in respect of their Apostolicall Commission which they had also they may be properly called Apostles Thus we know that they that have first the power of Deacons bestowed on them and after of Presbyters are questionlesse Deacons still though they be also Presbyters and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Bishops are certainly Presbyters still though they be also Bishops and doe not lose the former power by being advanced to the latter are not lessened by this increase of their dignity 7. Secondly that when an Apostle is differenced from a Bishop it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church or by the Vniversality of his Diocese the all the World to which his Commission extended whereas the ordinary Bishop's power and Diocese are more limited But then these differences are of no force in this matter they onely conclude that the Apostle is more than a Bishop in those two respects not that in other sufficient respects he is not a Bishop 8. Thirdly when the Apostles had each of them not onely all together in a consistory that unlimited power in respect of the extent to all the World given to them by Christ wee know that after his ascent they parted and distributed this Province among them assigned every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper place or lot to which he should betake himselfe for the planting of the faith of Christ And then there will be no doubt but that hee who according to his line in St. Paul's phrase had planted the faith in such a City or Province and sat downe and confirmed and farther instituted which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine as well as in the word and govern'd them and exercised all Episcopall acts among them might in so doing be stiled a Bishop in that City or province and that as truely and as properlâ— as he that could doe all the latter and not the former building on another mans foundation goâ—erning and instructing where another had planted the faith might be said to be 9. Nay fourthly we know that although by Canons of the Church there is provision made upon prudentiall considerations that no man shall be made a Bishop sine titulo without a title or particular See to which hee is assigned yet before those Canons forbad it such Bishops there were and those never doubted to be properly Bishops though they were not affixt to any Diocese And then nothing can hinder but that the Apostle who had each the whole World for his Title though hee were never affixed to any particular Diocese or Province might be most properly styled a Bishop for all that But this is ex abundanti more than is needfull to our present praetentions
Titus was Apostle of the Cretanes and Timothy of the Asiaticks So when Chrysostome and Theophylact and Oecumenius approve of the third species and affirmes Bishops to be called Presbyters and Deacons also and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Bishops yet of each of them it is notorious that they asserted the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters not onely in their owne but in the Apostles time And to that purpose the concession and testimony of Peter Moulin was produced that the most famous Bishops of the antient Church Chrysostome c. did not thinke it any diminution to their dignity that the words Bishop and Elder were at first conceived to be used in the same sense which observation being premised and thereby the Prelatists pretensions competently secured which soever of those senses should be accepted so long as they that were authors of the assertions be permitted to give their owne interpretation of them It was then I thought perfectly seasonable and safe to discusse the question freely and to set downe what to me appeared most probable without prejudice to any other dissenter and upon those termes and not otherwise these two propositions were offered to farther consideration of learned men 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture constantly signifie a singular Bishop 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop and sometime but rarely a Presbyter These are somewhat different from the two paradoxes affixt to me And in these termes I shall now resume them againe and cleare them to be no paradoxes And begin first with the former of them concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop And this is already done 1. By considering the originall notation and use in the Old Testament of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then by going over every place in the New Testament where the word Bishop is used Section II. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naturally signifying an overseer and used by Aristides for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour the same that Justinian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles and by Cicero ad Articum rendred speculator custos one that lookes to and guards a Province and so fitly styled Angel who 's generally deemed to have those two Offices and is in the Scripture called an eye and vulgarly a guardian doth in the Greeke of the Old Testament sometime render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is common to God Lord Angel and generally denotes Dominion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Praefect or Commissary intrusted with the administration of some affaire whether in army as a Commander Numb 31. 14. in Mechanicall working as a Master-workeman 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City a Ruler or Prince Nehem. 11. 9. peculiarly the chiefe of the Priests v. 10 in the Ministery of the Temple as Eleazar the Ruler of the Levites Num. 4. 16. and lastly in the House of the Lord the Ruler set over that 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the result of all this is that it generally signifies an office of charge and dignity and power and superiority over others all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and so is most fitly qualified to signifie the like viz. a praefecture in the Christian Church under the New Testament Accordingly there we finde it applied 1. to Christ himselfe the Bishop of our soules who though he ministred to his Disciples yet owned the title of Lord and Master as that which from them belonged to him Joh. 13. 13. Secondly to the Apostles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is used it is evidently capable of a sense very agreeable to these premisses being never once used in the New Testament but where it will be very commodious to render it Bishop in our moderne notion of the word for a singular prefect in each Church not a collegue in a Presbytery This is at large shew'd by a survey of every of those places First that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle takes leave and exhorts the Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost They are there bid to feed the Church of God i.e. the Christians of the severall Cities of Asia or neer about Ephesus as was in the last Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus auditor to Polycarpe made Bishop of Smyrna by St. John and therefore may well be resolved to be the singular Bishops of those Cities and not onely of the one City of Ephesus as was largely shewed in the last Chapter The second place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi is added with the Bishops and Deacons where although some of the Greeke Commentators which at the same time assert Episcopacy do for that very reason because there could not be many Bishops in one City understand that place of Presbyters in our moderne notion and adde that the words Bishop and Presbyter yea and Deacon too were not as yet distinct but promiscuously used the one for the other here the word Bishops for Presbyters as elsewhere the Presbytery is used for Bishops 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reason because Presbyters ordeined not a Bishop And although many expedients were ready at hand to keepe the Text from being usefull to the Presbyterians in case it were granted that by Bishops the Presbyters were meant as that Epaphroditus their present Bishop as is acknowledged by Theodoret Chrysostome and Theophylact who are most favourable to that interpretation was with St. Paul at the writing that Epistle c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies peculiarly Bishops and I doubt not but it may doe so referring it to all the Bishops of the severall Cities belonging to that Metropolis For such was Philippi both as the first-fruits of all Macedonia first converted to the Faith 2 Act. 16. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prime City of that Province of Macedon v. 12. of it selfe before it's conversion and so saith Photius distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly Polycarps Epistle to them is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole province that belongs to Philippi In which there being diverse Cities and Bishops in them the Epistle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all as the Epistle to the Corinthians appeares to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia and being inscribed to Philippi was to be communicated to those others as the Epistle to the Colossians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received whether as Tertullian seemes to believe that to the Ephesians or any other in like manner to
proselites to the Faith and there being many such Cities in Judaea besides Jerusalem and consequently many Bishops in those Cities one in each it can be no new thing to conclude that when we read of Bishops in the plural within that pale of Iudaea these are the Bishops of Iudaea and so in like manner when we finde the Bishop of Ierusalem mentioned separately and then those others with him exprest by any title which signifies Bishops be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it matters not and with all these never exprest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church of Ierusalem but either Elders simply or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or at Ierusalem denoting onely the place where at that time they were present it will be as little harsh to inferre that at such time there were assembled or met together at Ierusalem Iames the Bishop of that Metropolis and the other Bishops of the whole region the Bishops of Iudaea with him From hence there will now be no difficulty to make a briefe answer to each of their demands 1. that Act. 21. 18. the Elders which were present with Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem were the Bishops of Iudaea which were then upon the emergent affaires of the Church present at Ierusalem whether all of them assembled in Councel to receive an account of Saint Pauls transactions and successes among the Gentiles v. 19. or many of them on any other Ecclisiasticall concernment But that which puts it out of question that it was all of them in Councell is what followes v. 25. where they referre to the decrees which had been conciliarly delivered v. 15. by them who are now there present we have written and concluded And what Paradox can there be in this that all the Bishops of Judaea should be in Councell at Hierusalem and St Peter and St. Iohn with them and that St. Paul should come and give an account of his travailes and actions in their presence The same answer certainly belongs to the place next mentioned c. 15. 4. where after mention of their Reception by the Church followes and of the Apostles and Elders by the Church is meant the Believers that were at Jerusalem whether inhabiting there continually or now occasionally present there By the Apostles James the Brother of the Lord the then Bishâ—p of the Metroâ—olis together with Peter and John the known Apostles of Christ this James by them set over that Church saith Clemens and Hegesippus and by S. Paul himself reckoned among the Apostles Gal. 1. 19. and so in the title of his Epistle and named before Peter and John the two prime Apostles as being in this his See Gal. 2. 9. and exprest to pronounce the decree in the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge Act. 15. 19. and this confirm'd by the testimonies of those Antients that the Presbyterians make the most frequent use of Theodoret and St. Hierome the former expresly affirming of those times that they which were after styled Bishops were then called Apostles and the latter styling this James particularly Apostolum decimum tertium the thirteenth Apostle And then what can be more agreeable to the Context to make the Councell complete a Councell for the Churches of Syria c to appeale to then to render the Elders the Bishops of all Judaea which were certainly fitter for the turne to joyne in the Councell and give Law to other Cities then the bare Presbyters of the one City of Jerusalem could have been esteemed if any such there had been in the Church so early For though of the Apostles who had an universall jurisdiction and of the Bishop of Jerusalem as that was the prime Metropolis not only of Judaea but Syria also with the Bishops of the whole Province in Councell with him some reasonable account may be given why they should be consulted by the Church of Antioch and give binding decrees in that matter to all that were subject to that Metropolis yet supposing the Church of Jerusalem to be governed by Presbyters and that as these say the Elders mentioned in the Councell were none but the Presbyters of that particular Church there could no reasonable account be given why they should joyn with the Apostles in this worke wherein not Jerusalem of which alone they were Presbyters but Antioch and other Cities of Syria and Cilicia were immediately concerned and concluded by the sentence of James that must be according to their opinion of one of the Presbyters of Jerusalem In the next place what is said of Act. 14. 23. and Act. 11. 30. is somewhat unhappily put together and yet not rectified in the Errata For 1. the ordeining Elders in every Church to which Act. 11. 30. is affixt is not mentioned there but Act. 14. 23. and the sending reliefe which in the Syntaxes must be affixt to Act. 14. 23. is not to be met with there but â—â—ct 11. 30. But this were imputable to some haste either of Scribe or Compositor were there not a second incongruity interweaved in it viz. that when Paul and Barnabas had ordeined them Elders c. which was not done till Act. 14. 23. They sent reliefe to the Elders which was done Act. 11. 30. which is an evident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I cannot discerne how it was usefull for them to be guilty of As for their Quaeres raised on these two Texts the Answers are obvious and here to be translated out of the Dissertations as formerly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders Act 11. 30. are the Bishops of the severall Cities of Judaea not the Preâ—byters of that one City Jerusalem For 1 the famine that occasioned this charity of the Antiochians was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not upon Jerusalem alone but all the World i.e. in the Scripture-stile Lu. 21. 26. Rom. 10. 18. over the whole Land of Judea according to the manner of the septuagint who oft render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the earth or the Land when it signifies the Land of Judaea by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World As Isa 10. 23. and 13. 5. 9. and 24. 1. and accordingly Josephus saith of this time of Claudius's Reigne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was a great famine over Judaea Secondly the charity is distinctly said to be designed by the Donors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren that dwelt in Judaea in no wise confined to Jerusalem nor consequently can the Elders to whom it was sent and in whose hands it was put be any others than the Elders i.e. say we Bishops of all Judaea Thirdly it is very agreeable to the office of Bishops as we find the practice in the Primitive Church to be the receivers and stewards and dispensers of the wealth of any sect which was brought in to the Church whether by the offertory of the faithfull in the Sacrament or by the liberality of other Churches
following pages the Reader must againe be told that what they had done most unreasonably before is here practised againe at large severall places brought out of the former corrupt editions of Ignatius of which no one word is to be found in the new editions out of the most antient Copies Greek and Latine from which alone it is evident that we produce all our testimonies for Episcopacy and so have produced very few of those which they are thus pleased to finde fault with The places which they urge are eight I shall not need to set them down but give the leader a much shorter and yet as satisfactory an account of them Two are cited from the Epistle to the Trallians and neither of them are in any part to be found in our Editions Two are cited from the Epistle to the Magnesians and the first is not at all in our Editions nor the second any farther than thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Christ being one with his Father did nothing without him either by himselfe or by his Apostles so neither do ye act any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters nor endeavour that any thing should appeare reasonable to you which is private or of your owne devising A speech in every sillable of it very well becomming that Holy Martyr written by him at a time when the truth being by the Apostles deposited with the Bishops all private devises of their owne were most justly to be suspected The fift is in the Epistle to Polycarpe and is in our Copies thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes the men that marry and the women that are married to consummate their union with the consent of the Bishop And I wonder what age of the Church there hath been from that time to this which hath not been of the same opinion For what is by Bishops committed to Presbyters that is not done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the mind of the Bishop as elsewhere in those Epistles appeares of Baptisme and the Lords Supper neither of which saith he are to be meddled with without the consent of the Bishop and many testimonies out of Antiquity are elsewhere produced in perfect conformity therewith And consequently if in the Christian Church marriage hath alwayes been consummated by the Priest or Presbyter then cannot this speech of Ignatius have any blame in it And that thus it hath been through all ages there is little matter of question and no word here produced by the Objectors to the contrary * Tertullian will be a good competent tostimonie for the next Centurie speaking of the felicity of the Christian Marriage quod Ecclesia conciliat confirmat oblatio obsignat benedictio Angeli renuntiant c. Which the Church makes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper confirmes the benediction of the Priest Seales and the Angels pronounce valid And in * another place Penes nos occultae coâ—junctiones i. e. non prius apud Ecclesiam professa juxta moechiam fornicationem judicari periclitantur Marriages that are not done publickly before the Church are in danger with us to goe for adultery and fornication The same is every where to be found in the Decretal Epistles of Euaristus about Ignatius's time which makes it a tradition from the Apostles and their successors of Soter not above 50. yeares after of Callistus neer fifty yeares after him of Silvester an 100 yeares after him of Siricius 70. yeares after Silvester of Hormisdas 130. yeares after Siricius And though some of these be by D. Blondel thought to be of later dates than the titles of them would pretend yet the authority of most of them is unquestioned as to this matter And the antient piece lately publisht by Sirmund concerning the Heresie of the Predestinati written saith he 1200. yeares since speakes of it as a knowne custome and Canon of the Church over all the world For saith that antient author If marriage be unlawfull Emendate ergo Ecclesia regulâ—m damnate qui in toto orbe sunt sacerdotes Nuptiarum initia benedicentes consecrantes in Dei mysteriis sociantes Amend then the rule the of Church and condemne the Priests which are in all the world who blesse the beginnings of Marriage consecrate and joyne the parties together with the Holy Sacrament And the fourth Councel of Carthage before the yeare 400. hath these words Sponsus sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à sacerdote When the Bridegroom and the Bride are to be blest by the Priest Can. 13. And for latter ages the matter is out of Question And so it will be much more reasonable from this passage in Ignatius being found so perfectly concordant with other passages of the times so neer him to resolve the rule of the Church concerning sacerdotal benediction in marriage to be received from the Apostles and their successors than from finding this speech in one of Ignatius's Epistles to cast away the whole volume As for that which is added at the end of this testimony from the Epistle to Polycarpe My soule for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons there can be no fault in that supposing as hath been said that the Bishops at that time the Presbyters Deacons living regularly and in union with them had the true safe way among them wherein any man might walke confidently all danger being from the Heresies that crept in and brake men off from that unity of the faith The sixth place from the Epistle to the Philadelphians of the Princes and Emperors obeying the Bishop is certainly inserted by forgery in the former for not one word of it or like it is to be found in our editions So likewise for both parts of the seventh place out of the Epistâ—e to the Smyrnaeans they are not to be found in our Editions The last onely is to be met with there but that in a much more moderate straine than the former in words and sense very agreeable to wholsome doctrine and the exigencies of those times wherein there was no visible way to keep out the tares of false teachers but by requiring all to be kept to the managery of the true husbandman And accordingly I have cited this very speech out of Ignatius for the asserting of Prelacie and if there were no such the Epistles might passe well enough with these as with all other men they would have needed no vindication having no adversary The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of you follow the Bishop as Christ Jesus did his Father i. e. as elsewhere appears by the like expression with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to it be at perfect unity of doctrine c. with the Bishop as Christ was with God the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as those that are appointed by God viz. mediately by the Apostles Where it may be observable that the obiectors which find such fault with this speech of Ignatius in