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
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
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
1. it is apparent in the Text that this Diâ—trephes whom Walo Messalinus a good friend to the praetensions of the Assemblers describes so as will conclude him a meâ—re Presbyterian Noluit saith he agnoscore superiorem aliquâ—m in Presbyteros habentem potestatem he would not acknowledge any superior having power over Presbyters contended for superiority not onely over his equals but over Saint Iohn himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith that Apostle he 〈◊〉 not us yeilds no obedience gives no heed to our letter of directions This certainly belongs not to the superiority or dignity of Bishops which reserves the Primacy to the Apostles intire and no way clasheth with it and onely pretends to that power and office of duty which for the preserving of unity and the good of the flock the Apostles thought fit to intrust and commit to them 5. Secondly Diotrophes was not as farre as appeares or we have reason to conjecture ordeined to any office of power in the Asian Church committed to that Apostles care but of himselfe without any mission nay expressely against the Apostles consent was willing to assume and exercise this power and is but an example of Corah's sedition and presumptuous humour and that is inevitably the case of the Presbyterian unlesse he can shew his commission for the power he pretends to all one with that of the Gnosticks censured by Saint Iude under the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gainesaying of Coraâ—â— and this no way belongs or is appliable to the practice of the Bishop who by Commission from the Apostle not by any ambition or presumption of his owne regularly ascends to this degree of office and dignity in the Church and useth it as regularly also in subordination to all his superiors 6. On this Occasion the Dissertations have offered a Dilemma to these Disputants which I should be willing to heare answered by them in this forme Either Diotrephes exercised in the Church the power of the Bishop in the notion of a singular Praefect assuming power over the Presbyters or he did not If he did not then is this consideration presently at an end Diotrephes is falsly accused and the innocent Bishop unjustly wounded through his sides who it seems was no Bishop But if it be said he did then I demand Why is not Diotrophes checkt by S. John for that presumption of affecting a power over his equals And why doth the whole charge lye another way that he received not S. Iohn's Letters nor paid due obedience to them Or why is that very thing charged so heavily on the Bishops in our age and punisht so severely in them which the Apostle living and seeing and upon occasion taking notice of Diotrephes his insolence doth not so much as reprehend or accuse in him 7. For as to the Epithet which he bestowes upon him that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that loved the praeeminence supposing that were the title of his fault yet that extends not the Apostles speech to censuring or blaming the use of that power but onely the ambition and affectation of it which were otherwise lawfull to be enjoy'd as when t is noted in the Pharisees that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love or affect the uppermost seats in the Synagogues which otherwise simply to have sat in had implyed no crime of theirs for to this very end that some body should sit in them they were certainly erected and 't is known that there was among them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 head of the Consistory and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governor of the Synagogue to whom that seat belonged by God's appointment 8. Nay for the very desire as farre as is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 1. desiring and coveting it is allowed by the Apostle to be terminated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a good and consequently a desireable worke and if Diotrephes be supposed guilty of any other it may safely be yeilded to have been a fault in him without praejudice to the good office which he so vitiously and criminously affected according to that of Theodoret that the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuses not the desire simply but the desire of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and teacheth to desire not the honour but the vertue not to covet the dignity but to seeke the worke of the dignity the taske to which it belongs By all which and much more added in the Dissertations it is evident how little advantage hath accrued to the Assemblers from their mention of Diotrephes out of Saint John and by consequence from their second consideration Section V. Of St. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops NOw succeeds a third consideration viz. That the same Authors that say that S. John made Polycarpe Bish of Smyrna that S. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. John himselfe sat many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which say they is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops For though they doe eminently containe the Episcopall Office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostle and to make their Office Ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostles and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madnesse to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom wee shall have occasion to cite to this purpose hereafter 2. Whether this consideration be likely to contribute any thing to their advantage save onely by amusing the Reader and keeping him longer in expectation that somewhat may possibly be produced to the disparagement of our plea I desire may distinctly be considered by these degrees 3. First I acknowledge that stile the same Authors to belong truly to antient Writers produced by mee in the Dissertations who as they doe affirme St. John to have constituted Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna Diss 4. c. 5. Sect. 5. and St. Peter to have placed Ignatius Bishop of Antioch Diss 5. c. 1. Sect. 18. so they consent also that St. John sat Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitane of all Asia so Eusebius frequently that after his returne from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred or governed the Churches there i.e. in Asia and as he cites it lib. 3. cap. 31. out of Policrates his Epistle died there So the antient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being recalled by Nerva's decree he sat downe at Ephesus and himselfe personally with seven Bishops his adsessors those in all probability the Bishops of the seven Churches in the Revelation
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
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
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
and nothing yet replied to my answers and therefore must not for ever turne the same stone begin the same task againe But for the conceit which is here cited from Salmasius which I confesse I considered not so much before as to make any reply to it viz. That these Epistles were written when Episcopacy properly so called came into the â—hurch and that proved from hence because in all his Epistles he speakes highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy that so the people that had been accustomed to the Presbyterian Government might the more willingly and easily receive this now Government by Episcopacy and not be offended at the novelty of it It is evident how easily this may be retorted and the argument as firmely formed to conclude that Presbyters were then newly come into the Church and therefore to make the people inclinable to give them a willing Reception without being offended at the novelty of them he still speakes highly in honour of Episcopacy Such Arguments as these you will guesse from hence how incompetent they are to conclude matters of fact done so many hundred yeares agoe such is the question whether Ignatius wrote these Epistles or no It is much more probable that they wanted Arguments of any reall validity who are faine to fly to such Succors as these Yet one farther misadventure there is in forming or making use of this conceit For what is said in those Epistles concerning the honour due to Presbyters or the Presbytery is farre from looking favourably on the Presbyterian Government for certainly as long as there is a Bishop properly so called set over the Presbyters as they know there is in all those Epistles and as long as the Presbyters are to do nothing without commission from him as they knew also and even now quarrell'd at it that by him they are required to doe there is little show of the Presbyterian modell discernible no whit more than there was in England long before they covenanted to cast the Bishops out of the Church It being certaine that no community or equality of Presbyters taken into councell with the Bishop doth constitute the Government Presbyterian as long as there be any Bishops to have power over Presbyters Else had the Convocation of Deanes Archdoacons and Clerks fourteen yeares agoe been the platform of Presbyterian Government in England This is I conceive a full answer to every the most minute part or appearance of Argument here produced against these Epistles and is all that was proper here to be said concerning Ignatius whose Epistles as long as they have any authority with us let it be in the most Reformed purified Edition that ever was or can be hoped for there is evidence enough for the Apostolicall Institution of Bishops in the moderne notion of the word And if after all this they must have no authority for no other crime but because they are such punctuall Asserters of this Doctrine 'T is to little purpose farther to examine or inquire what Antiquity hath affirmed or practised in this matter Sect. V. Testimonies of Irenaeus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops YEt because their Method leads us forward to consider some other of the Antient Writers and I have promised so farre to comply with them I shall now in the next place attend them to the view of two of those Irenaeus and Tertullian p. 114. 115. where having acknowledged of them that they say that Apostles made Bishops in Churches Polycarpe in Smyrna Clemens at Rome c. all that they require of us to prove is that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters and the reason why they thinke this needs proving is because both those Authors use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyteri Seniores for the same thing the one calling Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Xystus Presbyters of the Church of Rome in his Epistle to Victor the other calling the Presidents of the Churches Seniores in his Apologie and some other places are produced to the same purpose To this therefore I shall now briefly give answer i. e by concession that the same persons who by these two Authors are called Bishops are promiscuously called Presbyteri and Seniores also And therefore secondly that this question being thus farre as to the Names equally balanced betweene us they saying that Bishops signifies Presbyters in the moderne notion we that Presbyters signifies Bishops in the moderne notion some other Indications beside this of the Names must be made use of on either side toward the decision of it Of this sort there is no one offered to us by them and so as they have nothing to incline the balance their way so we have nothing to make answer to in that particular I shall therefore as the onely thing left for me to doe render some few Reasons why the words Bishop and Elders in these Authors must needs signifie Bishops in our Moderne sense And the first proofe as farre as concernes Ironaeus is because Irenaeus who useth these words promiscuously was himselfe a Bishop in our moderne notion and yet is by others in his own dayes call'd Elder of the Church of Lyons at that very time when he is acknowledged to be Bishop of it in our moderne sense of the word This I thus manifest in each part And first That Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in such a sense as we now use Bishop appeares by what Eusebius saith of him importing that he was Primate of all France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he he was Bishop of the Provinces through France Now this we know cannot be affirm'd of a moderne Presbyter who pretends not to any such wide and singular jurisdiction And this needs no farther proofe it being by D. Blondell in his Apologie for St. Hierome confest that 140. yeares after Christ i.e. nigh 40. yeares before this time the Government of the Church was in the hands of Bishops over all the World one in every Church set over all the rest of the Church For the second part then that at that time when he is thus an acknowleged Bishop and Archbishop he is yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of the Church I appeale to the Testimony of the Gallicane Church at that time as it lies recorded in Eusebius where in an Embassy performed by him in the name of the Martyrs of Lyons to Elentherius the Bishop of Rome we have these words concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have intreated our Brother and partaker Irenaeus to beare these Letters to you O Father Eleutherius and we beseech you to prize him at one very zealous of Christ's Covenant If we thought that
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
e. in his style the Bishops Tertull de Cor. Mil. they could never have thought this a reasonable Objection It being evidently the sense of the Antient Canons to which the description of the practice in Justin Martyr doth perfectly agree Apol. 2. that onely the Bishop had power to consecrate the Eucharist and in his absence onely the Presbyter to whom he gave that power Had they been pleased to have taken notice of these Canons and antient Records punctually set downe by mee in that place it must certainly have prevented this their exception and utterly robbed them of those two Testimonies to that Proposition And as to that of the Alexandrian Bishops out of Hierome that is also largely answered by me Dissert 3 c. 10. but that againe they were resolved not to take notice of Sect. VIII Of the Chorepiscopi THere still remaines one mention of me upon occasion of the Chorepiscopi or Regionary Bishops Append. p. 138. Of that subject they are somewhat large and so D. Blondel had been before them and in answering him all their pretensions from thence and that whole argument by them pursued P. 135. 136 137. 138. is punctually answered before it was produced Dissert 3. c. 8. And yet they go on roundly as if there were no such thing onely in the close they adde There is another whom we forbeare to name that saith that the Chorepiscopi were Bishops But hee addes though they were Bishops yet they were made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly titular and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say they were not properly Bishops That which is said of the Chorepiscopi in the Dissertations is too long to be here so impertinently repeted If the Reader please to consult the place I have no feare that he will returne unsatisfied in any thing that is by these men objected against Praelacy from that head A Dilemma is there used which whether they were Bishops or no will certainly secure us As to their present argument against me I answer that what I say of those Chorepiscopi is not that they were Bishops meerly titular but that they were Proxies or vicarii of the Bishop of the City acting by Commission from him in the Region or Countrey and were under the Bishop of the City and Ordained by him and so were true Bishops but not of the Cities had Ordination as other Bishops had though three Bishops were not by the Canon required to the ordaining of such but onely that one Bishop of the City whose Proxy or Vicarius the Chorepiscopus was Bishops in cases of necessity ordeined sine titulo without a title or City to which they were affixt and for some time allowed to ordeine Presbyters and Deacons in the Countrey and to doe some other things in the Bishop's stead All which is so largely set downe in the Dissertations and vindicated so absolutely from serving the Presbyterians interest that I must not for ever doe the same thing againe transcribe what is there said abundantly and nothing here objected against it but that what I affirme of them makes them to be not poperly Bishops Where if by properly Bishiops they meane Bishops of Cities they say very true for I affirme them to be as their title assures me they were Regionary Bishops Vicarii and Proxies to the City Bishop But that they were mere Presbyters and no more and by their being Presbyters had the Power to Ordeine other Presbyters which alone is the Presbyterians taske to make good if they will have it usefull to the proofe of their conclusion their 4. Proposition That Presbyters during the Prevalency of Episcopacy had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases did actually ordeine this they doe not undertake to make good against the discourse in the Dissertations And therefore I have no excuse to make any larger reply to them The Conclusion I Have now gone through every part of my designed Method and not omitted one intimation of theirs wherein I could thinke my selfe concerned And that it may appeare that I should not have chosen this as a season to begin any debate concerning a subject so forgotten in men's minds as Episcopacy is I shall thus conclude the Readers trouble without examining what else they say on this subject having I hope competently secured my selfe from the Opinion of having formerly attempted to seduce any so little either to his or my owne advantage THE END The Printer to the Reader THe absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the impression of this Vindication â— The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Eâ—capes be 〈◊〉 laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an oâ—dinary understanding may amend thus PAge 5. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 5. r. which when we l. 6. r. place l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 9. r. affaires we have then so l. 19. r. holy man p. 7. l. 20. r. of David l. 24. r. their answer p. 8. marg l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 10. l. 21. r. exarchs p. 12. l. 1. r. their not p. 13. l. 4 r to confirme l. penult r. some praedecessor p. 16. l. 14. r. of Timothy l. 18. r. a continuall p. 18. l. 4. r. Dâ—rotheus p. 21. l. 24. r. we are p. 22. l. 22. r. mixing l. 33. r. praetensions p. 23. l. 35. r. Chaldee p. 24. l. 24. r. was again p. 25. l. 27. r. And in them of Diotrephes p. 31. l 31. r. Assemblers p. 36. l. 18. r. for so p. 43. l. 11. r. so this p. 49. l. 19. r. understand p 53. l. 25. r. and so p. 63. l. 21. r. most of them lying neer p. 66. l. 2. del all p. 67. l. r. r. Sect XVII p. 69. l. 33. r. the sixt Canon which p. 72. l. 7. r. fixt in p. 73. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 74. l. 14. r. head-Lords p. 76. l. 3. r. formally p. 78. l. 1. r. formally p. 79. marg l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 83 l. 33. r. Metropoles p. 85. l. 5. r. Antoninus Pius l. 24. r. sent for to p. 89. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. r. so read p. 94. mar l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. r. affirme p. 97. marg l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 99. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 107. l. 25. r. A third p. 111. l. 6 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 127. l. 16. r. any sort p. 128. l. penul r. and so p. 132.