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
requiring and so not be so eminently worthy of the double honour as he that actually doth both so certainly he that rules well in any Church and beside the care belonging to rule undergoes that other double hard travell so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies of preaching the faith to Infidels and confirming and instructing believers doth very highly deserve the double honour and alimonie And this as it is the exact meaning of that Text so it utterly supersedes all force of this objection or exception against our understanding it of the Presidents or Bishops in the Praelaticall sense Fourthly For the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. by which they say I understand Episcopacy I answer that I interpret it of some combination either of Apostles or Apostolical persons and Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret's phrase such as were vouchsafed the Apostolicall grace i. e. of Paul assuredly 1 Tim. 2. 6. and perhaps of Barnabas perhaps of some other Apostolical person with him in like manner as both Peter and John style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Ignatius styles the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church and as of Ignatius himselfe S. Chrysostome affirmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the hands of more Apostles than one were laid on him in his ordination to the Bishoprick of Antioch To which matter the Scholion of Chrysostome is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speakes not here of Presbyters but Bishops adding the reason because Presbyters did not ordaine Bishops and so Theophylact and Oecumenius Lastly for the other two places of not-rebuking and receiving an accusation against an Elder though in those places it were clearely for my interest to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbyter in our moderne sense for then as Epiphanius saith there is an evidence of proofe that the Bishop hath power over the Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy over the Elder saith he but never the Elder over Timothy Yet I confesse my selfe inclined by other considerations to foregoe that advantageous sense of the place Because Timothy being placed in the prime Metropolis had power over the Bishops of lesser Cities and that as hath oft been shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of â—udging as well as of ordeining Bishops which is elsewhere evidenced to be the opinion of S. Chrysostome in order to the understanding of this place And so still the crime is not very great or reproachfull which I am said to have confest it amounts no higher than the former confession had done that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus and yet this you see without any necessity to extort it from thee save that of speaking freely what I conceived most probable For otherwise nothing could be more for the advantage of the maine cause I defenâ— than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders should signifie Presbyters in these two places Sect. IX A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet THeir fourth charge is that I am forced to confesse that Titus was Archbishop of Creet and that he received no commission from S. Paul to ordaine single Elders but onely for ordeining Bishops in every City It seems say they this Author slights the Postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those antient Fathers that are cited by his owne party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-Bishop and so must Timothy also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Arch-Bishops hath beene sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse That Titus was Arch-Bishop of Creet I confesse again that I cannot but believe till I am shewed how the contrary were possible i. e. how he that was fastned in and as Eusebius saith had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopacy of a whole Island which had an hundred Cities in it and was there placed that he might ordeine Bishops under him in each of those Cities Tit. 1. 5. 7. and as the antients adde exercise jurisdiction over them should be other than an Arch-Bishop That this was his condition hath been shewed already And for the inconveniences that it is prest with they will prove very supportable For I shall not at all be obliged thereby to slight either Postscript or Fathers but give the disputers example to pay them all reverence being very well able to discerne the Bishop through the Archbishop having never imagined that the styling Michael an Archangel was denying him to be an Angel He certainly was an Angel and that of an higher degree or else could never have been justly called an Archangell and 't is just so with Titus if I had not thought him a Bishop I could never have affirmed him an Archbishop and they that in common speech give him the title of Bishop doe no way intimate their thoughts to be contrary to mine for every Archbishop is certainly a Bishop though every Bishop be not an Archbishop And therefore if all the danger of my assertions falling to the ground be consequent to this of Titus or Timothies proving to be no Archbishop I shall deeme them competently safe for each of them were unavoidably such Timothy Archbishop of Ephesus the prime Metropolis of all Asia and Titus of the whole Island of Creet and accordingly to those two peculiarly as such directions are given for the ordeining Bishops and Deacons in every City And the proofes which were offered to the contrary have I suppose already been answered and being not here thought fit to be recited the replyes shall not be so impertinent as to appeare without their antagonists Onely because it is here inserted as part of my inconvenient confession that Titus received no Commission from Saint Paul to ordaine single Elders which I believe I no where say any otherwise than that the Commission cap. 1. 5. was to create Bishops in every City I shal freely tell them my opinion of that viz. that a greater power may very fitly be said to comprehend under it the lesser of the same kinde and consequently that both Timothy and he which had Commissions to ordaine Bishops in every City had also by the same commission power to ordaine single Presbyters where those were usefull to be ordained as is evident by the qualification of Deacons and Widows after-mentioned in one certainly and as I conceive in both Epistles for that supposeth their Commission to extend to the ordeining of those who yet had not been named in them if we may guesse by that of Titus cap. 1. 5. And so much also of that part of my confession which is as free and unforced as the former had been and I believe as fafe to the affirmer Sect. X. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. BUt the fift and
have already been utterly demolished so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their third Proposition concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsick power to ordaine Ministers will immediately vanish in like manner For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the same thing twice repeated to increase the number so 't is as evident that what is by them said is taken from St. Hierome and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops onely in respect of authority or for the preserving it intire and the unity of each Church which depended on that in St. Hierom's opinion the Ordination and consecration of Clerks i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons was reserved to the chiefe Priest i. e. the Bishop which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove the intrinsick power of Presbyters to ordaine Ministers I leave to any Reader to passe judgement And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Testimonie that of Leo set out in their front out of his 88. Epistle concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else it is commanded by the authority of the â—anons Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these which affirme this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops and that the authority of the Canons so requires to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsick power As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters were infallibly their due to enjoy and the Argument demonstrative that it was their Originall and intrinsick due because the Canons deny it What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe and not a Bishop this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture but onely because it was against the Canons of some councels is somewhat of the same nature with the former and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths for being never admitted to the Priesthood and assuming to himselfe the name of an Elder he dared to doe the things belonging to a Priest A censure which certeinly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Councels Two Testimonies more I shall touch on before I returne to the pursuit of my proposed Method and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum sâ—orum non ordinet That a Bishop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is Ordrined as the Bishop blesseth him and layes his hand on his head let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop And the conclusion deduced from these Testimones and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian is this that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed How truly this is inferred from the Praemâ—sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testimonies For the first this is the truth of the Story Theophilus a guilty person and as such cited to answer what was objected against him making use of the envy under which Chrysostome then laboured shifted the Scene and becamse his judge nay as Photius tells us he and the rest of that Conventicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were Chrysostome ' s greatest enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at once Judges and Accusers and Witnesses of all that was charged against him And therefore we already see what heed is to be given to the accusatiâ—n of those Fathers ad quercum and how valid an argument can be deduced from it And we shall the better guesse at it if we consider also what other particulars were in the same manner that this was charged against him set downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca The 23. charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bath was heated for him alone and that after he had bathed Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath that no body else might bath The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ate alone living like one of the Cyclopes and betwixt these two new found crimes comes in this in the midst being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained many that had no Testimonialls which being set down by Photius as the summe of that charge referres us indeed to the ground on which their charge was built of his ordaining without a Councell and against the minde of his Clergy those testimonialls and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordaine without assistance of his Presbyters or that it was alwayes forbidden any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden also As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have set downe but halfe the Canon the whole runnes thus Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinetâ— ita ut civium conniventiam Testimonium quaerat That the Bishop ordain not without his councell of Clergy so that he seeke the liking and testimoniall of the Inhabitants Which againe onely serves to shew the use of the assistent Presbyters to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of but is no argument of the unlawfulnesse of sole ordination or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders So
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
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
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.
said to beare or carry in his Right-hand Apoc. 1. 16. 20. 1 2. an argument of competent validity may be drawne from thence that this dignity and power of them in the Church is if not immediately instituted yet approved and confirmed by Christ especially when in these so many parts of this Epistle Christ himselfe hath written to every of them under this title of honour and dignity In the presence of so much light that some Men should still continue blind is to be numbred among the prodigies of this worst and most unhappy age For as to that which from the one word yo◠in the plural c. 4. 24. I finde objected by some against so many single mentions of the Angels one in every Church that will immediately vanish c. 5. These words thus intirely set downe have a face very distant from that so much confidence and censoriousnesse that I am here charged with by the Provinciall Synod For 1. For the conclusion deduced from the mention of these Angels 't is not the Divine Right of Prelacy which phrase might yet have beene reconciled with rules of Sobriety and Modesty as well as the Jus Divinum of Presbytery but Christs approbation and confirmation of this dignity and power of Bishops which conclusion hath evident grounds in those Texts which mention Christ's holding them in his Hand and his addressing an Epistle to them supposing onely what is undertaken to be evidenced by other mediums that these Angels were single persons in each Church 6. Secondly that which is by me so confidently affirmed is not as this learned Assembly is pleased to suggest that these Angels were Metropolitans or Archbisops That they were such is afterwards as a distinct matter in the next Chapter proposed in a much more moderate style statim credibile fiet it will straitwayes become credible and with no more shew of confidence then the premises which are there at large set down will Authorize 7. These be two competent essayes to begin with by which we may proportion our expectations But there is yet a third which hath somewhat more of injustice in it to mention my so much confidence in asserting but never to take notice of the grounds produced whereon this confidence as farre as it extends is built the want of which is so constantly the one thing which renders confidence unseasonable or blameable that it is not in the power of any man to have apprehended grounds as proper to induce a conclusion and to suspend the beliefe and confidence of the truth of that conclusion which is so inferred The injustice I say is there not taking notice of the mediums whereon the confidence is founded very competent to inferre a conclusion in that stile wherein it was there inferred if they had been pleased to advertise their Readers of it 8. The inference lies thus The Angel of each Church of Asia was a single person therefore not a Colledge or Consistory of Presbyters and the singularity of the person is there supposed to be evidenced sufficiently by that which is so many times repeated in the Text the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and the like by the testimony of Andreas Caesariensis the Principall Annotator or Interpreter of the Revelation transcribed by Aretas in expresse words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the number of the Bishops equall to the number of the Churches and by the answer rendred to that one Objection which is brought by the Presbyterians against the singularity of the person of each Angel 9. Secondly this singular person was a Bishop in that notion of the word which signifies a precedence of power and dignity over all others in that Church This againe was made evident both by the forementioned singularity of his power and person in each Church and farther by the propriety of the title bestowed on him an Angel such as among the Jewes the chiefe Priest was styled Malac. 2. to which matter I shall now superadde one Testimony which Photius hath out of Diodorus Siculus concerning the Jewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him they call the High Priest and deeme him to be to them an Angel or Messenger of the commands of God a Commissioner of Heaven impowered from thence for the execution of his Office among them 10. This by the way gives us the reason of the denomination because as Angels doe not onely carry up our Prayers to God but also bring downe Gods Commands to us so did the High priest under the Law This dialect is also said to be derived from the Hebrewes to the Aegyptians who call their chiefe Priest Angel also And then how fitly the parallel runs betwixt the High Priest among the Jewes and the Bishop in the Christian Church taken in the Prelatists notion of him was a theme which seemed not to need any length of harangue to performe or illustrate it And yet after a Section spent to cleare that one difficulty of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you in the plurall c. 2. 24. there are two Sections added more for the farther fortifying of this evidence 1. From the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 2. which from Timothy till the time of their Session numbers 27. Bishops in one of these Sees that of Ephesus all ordeined there and Timothy we know being ordeined by the laying on of St. Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. will divolve it to that Orginall Apostoliacll institution and 2. from Polycrates who was borne soone after St. Iohns dayes and is a witnesse of a competent antiquity and affirmes himselfe to be the eight Bishop of that See From both which testimonies of the Catologue and number of Bishops ascending to St. Timothy as the first of that ranke who certainly was constituted there before the Epistle of Christ to the Angel of that Church the conclusion is obvious and irrefragable that either Timothy or some successor of his was personally the Angel to which the Epistle was addrest and I professe not to wish for a greater evidence to justifie a Prelatist in his desire to live in obedience to that order so signally confirmed by Christ 11. The like is in the next Section produced out of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. concerning the Angel of the Church of Smyrna Irenaeus lived in the time of Polycarp that antient Primitive Martyr and being a youth had the honour to see that venerable old Man and of him he affirmes that he was not onely a Disciple of the Apostles and converst with many that saw Christ but that also hee was sent to Asia and constituted Bishop in the Church of Smyrna And if there needed any more light after so cleare and authentick a testimony which againe concludes either Polycarpe or some successor of his to be the Angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom Christ addresseth his Epistle there is another added out of Tertullian a Writer of great Antiquity and reputation for knowledge in the
of St. John who we know was after his returne from banishment affixt to Asia and seated at Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis there to superintend in the Jewish part of the Asian Church over all the Bishops and Metropolitans there 10. To this I might adde fiftly that the Bishops in every City were successors of the Apostles as is largely deduced Diss 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. c. which they could not truly be if the Apostles whom they succeeded were not in vested with that power wherein they succeeded them i. e. were not first Bishops before them But I shall not inlarge of this having no need of more evidences in this matter 11. Fourthly therefore when it is added that if the Apostles be affirmed to be properly Bishops this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their office ordinary and perpetuall This is but a shortnesse of discourse of which a very few words will suffice to admonish any for there is no more strength in that consequence than there would be in affirming that such an one is a Man therefore he is not a living Creature or that he that saith he is a living Creature degrades him from being a man For as to that of ordinary and perpetuall 't is no way inconvenient that the Apostles who had somewhat temporary and extraordinary for the first planting of Churches in respect of which especially they were called Apostles might also have somewhat which was of ordinary perpetuall use in the Church wherein others might and should succeed them and that is it unquestionably which wee meane by the word Bishops when we ascribe it to them or any of them or to Christ himselfe the source and originall Copy of that power in the Church 12. Fiftly when another inconvenience is accumulated on this much to the former purpose but in more words this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle end to make the Apostle a Bishop 1. It is evident that if the forementioned exception were true viz. That it were the degrading the Apostle it could not farther be truly said that it were the exalting the Bishop above his degree for supposing one to be above the other the degrading one would make the other eâ—uall to him without any new act of exalting him if the Apostle have already descended to the Bishop sure the Bishop need not cannot ascend to the Apostle I cannot goe up staires to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune and is already come or fallen downeâ— to me Secondly therefore this makes not the Bishop an Apostle which is a degree higher than he though in respect of the Episcopall power common to them with the Aposles it is nothing strange in the Antient Writers for the first Bishops of the Churches James the Bishop of Jerusalem Thaddaeus Luke Barnabas Marke Timothy Titus Clemens Ignatius to be called Apostles as is evidenced at large in the Dissertations but onely supposes the Apostle to be a Bishop which he may well be as the greater conteineth the lesse though the Bishop be no Apostle as it is confest that the lesse containes not the greater 13. And lastly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker I have no directions to the place which may inable me to examine it And I know circumstances of the context or the designe of the speech may much alter it from what it signifies to me at my reading it thus cited But if it be distinctly thus and incapable of a more commodious interpretation I cannot consent to the truth of it or comprehend upon what grounds of reason he should so severely censure those Scriptures and Fathers which have been produced to affirme that the Apostles were Bishops and particularly St. John and St. Peter And indeed when it falls out that each of those two Apostles peculiarly calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder or as they render it Presbyter I shall demand Did either of those speake properly or no If they did were either of those little distant from mad-men If so I shall be content to be under any censure in their company And therefore if they spake not so properly I shall be content with them to have spoken improperly also But if Apostles may be called Presbyters without any of these inconveniences of degradation in them any insâ—lence in the Presbyter or madnesse in the Speaker my onely remaining Quaere is why they might not without all this adoe be called Bishops also meaning by Bishops as I now meane For I am sure that is the same thing that I understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in those three places and they who differ from me herein do yet understand it of Presbyters and so had said in the second consideration expresly that St. John calls himselfe a Presbyter and then all the spice of madnesse consists in this thinking a Bishop capable of that exaltation that a Presbyter in perfect sobriety is capable of And so much for the third consideration Section VI. Of the word Angel and Starre pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel THe fourth consideration is That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or praeeminence but is a common name to all Ministers and so is used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the elect and therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Starres in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine and holinesse of conversation There is nothing in these titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our brethrens sense Insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some authors that succeeded them who spake of former times in the language of their owne times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 2. â—o this consideration I might if it were needfull reply 1. That the word Angel is no where used for any other Officer or Minister in the Church save onely the Prophets such as Haggai c. 1. 13. and John Baptist Mat. 11. 10. and the chiefe Priest Mal. 2. 7. 3. Secondly that as to the words Messenger and Embassador there is in ordinary speech some considerable difference betweene them the latter having in it a connotation of dignity sustaining the person of the King from whom he is sent immediately which is not applicable to the former And agreeably when it is used of St. Paul and Timothy in whose name that Epistle is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are Embassadors 2 Cor. 5. 20. there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
may be in them 4. Master Brightman I know and some others 't is possible may have interpreted the Angel to signifie the whole College of Pastors and truly I should much sooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of these Assemblers than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman He was one learned man long knowne to be unkinde to our Pralates and here are many for ought I know as learned though under the same praejudices 5. Some others here cited I cannot believe are brought to testifie this but onely that what is said to the Angel in each part of the Epistle was said to the whole Church and not onely to the Bishop and if that be all they say it is that which we cannot doubt to affirme with them and have oft confest to understand Christ's Epistle so without any incommodity to our praetensions 6. If I mistake in these conjectures I desire pardon and shall hope to give a better account when I reade the testimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited For in these derivations of testimonies the Assemblers citing them from Smectymnuus Smectymnuus from Master Foxe Master Foxe from Primasius c. there is great possibility of mistake and therefore I shall follow the example before me forbeare adding any more of this matter 7. In the next place they are pleased to take notice as of an objection against their interpretation that some Authors say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle others that Onesimus was Bishop others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that time and therefore these Angels must needs be taken individually for so many single persons 8. Of this Objection which they have thus formed for us there is onely thus much of truth that out of authentique Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothies being constituted by St. Paul Bishop of Ephesus for Onesimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius's writing to the Ephesians that Polycarpe was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by S. John of all which we have spoken enough already 9. But of all or any of these being Bishops in those Cities at the very time of Christ's addressing this Epistle to the Angels of each this had no where been our affirmation nor would it have beene usefull to us in any considerable degree if we had grounds positively to affirme it All that is needfull to us is this that by the Antient Records which evidence them to have been so early Bishops in two of those Churches to which Christ's Epistle was sent and Bishops in the notion wherein we now use the word we are secured of the truth of ouâ— collections when from the mention of the seven Angels of the 7. Churches we assert the Ecclesiasticall power in the hands of a single Bishop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Christ And supposing some other persons and none of these three to have beene those very numericall Angels to whom those Epistles were written this conclusion of ours stands yet as firme as if we could demonstrate it of those very numericall persons there being no reason to doubt but the same manner of Government continued all the Scripture times and to Timothies successour and Onesimus's predecessor being as certainly Bishops as either Onesimus or Timothy himselfe when withall we have already produced mentions from the Antients of the Catalogues of those Bishops which succe dede Timothy in that See 10. Having thus set right the Objection for them so as it is owned by us to be an Objection against them it will now soone appeare what force there is in their answers to it and those are three 11. First that they that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeale to Episcopacy they make that glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injury is offered by Objections to Onesimâ—s 12. But first you see whatever our opinion is exprest to be we have not affirmed either of these as to the person either of Timothy or Onesimus but left it uncertaine who the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was whether either or neither of these but some successor of the one and predecessor of the other and so what charge soever falls on that Angel it falls not necessarily on either of these 13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties affirmed by them and acknowledged by me that the Epistle being addrest to the Angel of Ephesus the Church or diffusive body the Christians in it were concerned in the contents of it And then whatsoever charge be found in the Epistle of how heavy a nature soever even of Apostacy it selfe yet there is no necessity the Angel or Bishop should be personally guilty of it and so whosoever the Bishop was though Timothy himselfe our zeale to Episcopacy hath not beene so blind or transporting as to put us on any uncharitable censure to affix any unhandsome character upon so glorious a Saint 14. Lastly to remove this answer yet one degree farther from being satisfactory it no where appeares that apostacy is in that Epistle laid to the charge whether of the Church or Angel The first part is all in commendatiâ—n of their former zeal and the later wherein their charge consists v. 4. is only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not as is suggested losing their first love but remitting it Their love to Christ had formerly been strong as death pure and vehement such as had cast out all feare of dangers and evidenced it selfe in couragious confession but now though it were not quite lost yet it was remitted lessened in the degree not so intense as formerly and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen that fall doth not necessarily signifie Apostacy or renouncing of Christianity for then it had been an impertinent threatning to remove their Chandlestick v. 5. but a falling from the former degree a cooling of the intense heat which had been so laudable in them And so still there is more invalidity in this first answer Section XII Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop THe second is that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called Bishop of Ephesus in their sense 2. To this I reply 1. That Timothies being an Evangelist no way prejudgeth his being a Bishop in our â—ense An Evangelist is one commissionated by any of the Apostles ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell to any City or People And a Bishop is one commissionated by the like Apostle to praeside in and governe a Church already planted And what hinders but that he that hath beene employed in the former capacity to plant may elsewhere or in the same place be appointed to Governe and
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
Orbe or with the divisions or distributions of this Nation within it selfe into Cities and Provinces c. or goe about to innovate any thing in that matter Is it not certaine that it was no part of the Christian faith to be such a judge or divider but on the other side that all should remaine as it did in that respect before the coming of Christianity And therefore supposing 1. That this Nation were governed by a King of its own is it not certain that this nationall Church should follow the boundaries of the Nation and so be modeld according to the government of the formerly Heathen Britannick state And supposing againe what hath already been proved by the testimony of Clemens and by comparing Act. 14. 23. with Tit. 1. 5. that a Bishop were constituted in every Church in each City will there be any reason of doubting but that those Cities being subordinate one to another according to the customes of the Nation the Churches in those Cities and the Bishops in those Churches shall be so also This I hope will not be deemed an impious compliance with heathenisme or conformity with the World nay though the Emperour of Rome by his conquests here were the author of these distributions 4. But then secondly it is already cleared in the Dissertations that this Ecclesiastick division of Cities into Mothers and Daughters Metropoles and inferiour Cities was by the Apostle copied out from the Jewes as when God commands by Moses that Judges and Officers should be ordained in every City Deut. 16. 18. and that in matters of weight and doubt they should resort to Jerusalem to the Judge and Sanhedrim there according to which it appeares that Jerusalem was the Metropolis of those other Cities and so is evident Act. 9. by the story of Saul carrying Letters of Commission from the Sanhedrim there to the consistories in Damascus and by many other evidences So likewise Numb 3. when three Families of the Levits the sonnes of Aaron were separated for the service of the Tabernacle and an head or Prince or President of every of these called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 30. 35. Eleazar Aaron's Sonne is constituted over all these and styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head of the heads of the Levites This is clearly a patterne of the Metropolitanes in the Christian Church which may therefore owne it's derivation from thence and not from the Heathen models of Government which yet it was not reasonably to disturbe being found so concordant to and commodious for it 5. And that what was done in this kind was done by the Apostles themselves and Apostolicall persons the first founders of Churches and not onely by the after policy as is suggested of Christian Emperours and Bishops might have appeared abundantly by these few testimonies of they had been worthy to be taken notice of First of the councell of Nice An. Domini 325. not many yeares after the conversion of Constantine the first Christian Emperour Can. 6. which takes care for the preserving the priviledges of the Metropolitanes by name that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over the Churches in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that in Antioch and the rest of the Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priveleges should be preserved to the Churches begins with this rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the antient customes continue in force which certainly referres to that which was long before the Christian Emperours and without any reason of doubting to the first constitutions of those Churches by St. Marke and St. Peter and then the Canon goes on to exact this by way of conformity with other places with Rome it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this is the custome of force with the Bishop of Rome and upon these grounds the Canon requires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universally that if any man be made a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgement of the Metropolitan he ought not to be Bishop 6. So in the 9. Canon of the Councell of Antioch in the yeare 341. which begins thus that the Bishop which presides in the Metropolis ought to know the Bishops in every Province and to take care of the whole Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all that have businesse resort from all sides to the Metropolis which is the very thing we now contend to be the reason of conforming the Ecclesiastick to the civill models and then proceeds to forbid other Bishops acting any thing of such a nature without him this is backt with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the antient Canon of our Fathers which hath been in force referring againe to the immemoriall custome of all Churches since the first plantation and not the after-policie of Christian Emperours and Bishops as is here suggested 7. Lastly in the last canon of the Great councell of Ephesus in the yeare 431. which is the defining a speciall matter of Metropoliticall right where the occasion of the controversie is rehearsed how the Bishop of Antioch invaded the priviledges of the Cypriots contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antient custome and the decree is made that the Bishops of Cyprus shall retaine them inviolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the antient custome The Canon extends it selfe to all other Dioceses and Provinces that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not upward and from the beginning under his i. e. his praedecessors power where it is most evident that the Metropolitical power and primacy Ecclesiasticall is derived from the beginning of the plantation of each Church and consequently that this was a part of Apostolicall policy and not onely an after policy of Christian Emperours c. 8. And upon these grounds of probation I shall be competently secured that this is proved which they doe not believe ever can be and have no other argument to prove their negative but their not believing the affirmative Section XVII Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches OF the same temper is their third answer that they are fully assured that it can never be made out that any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven Starres are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candle-stickes or Churches not one Starre over divers Candle-stickes or Churches 2. What they are already fully assured of that it can never be made out I shall have little confidence to perswade them was formerly done to their hands Otherwise I should hope that by what had long since been said and hath now been more largely deduced in Reply to their last answer they might find cause to alter their judgements and retract their so definitive sentence of full assurance 3. As for the onely appearance of reason which is here superadded viz.
that the seven Stars are found fixed in seven not one over divers Churches this I conceive not to be of any force For it being by us granted and presumed that each of the seven Asian Angels was Bishop of his particular Church one of Ephesus another of Smyrna c. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith that in case these seven were not the onely Cities and Churches in Asia as it is certaine they were not all Asia consisting of many more Cities being before this converted to the Faith all the other might have dependance on these seven 4. For this we know that two Bishops in England that were each of them first in one City for example in Canterbury or Yorke had yet each of them a superiority or Metropoliticall power over divers other Cities and when any Record styles one of them Bishop of Canterbury as the Scripture doth Angel of Ephesus we should sure acknowledge it a very infirme inference from the words of that Record to conclude that being Bishop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London Rochester c. 5. And this is the very parallel to the present instance and if it were not invalid enough by being a bare negative argument they are not said in Scripture to be one Starre over divers Churches all things that are are not said in Scripture those Angels have not therefore no names because they are not there recorded this parallel instance which supposes the contrary to their pretensions would be sufficient to invalidate it Section XVIII Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle A Fourth answer or rather confutation is added That if this opinion were true then Tertullian did not doe well in saying that St. John made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said that he made him Archbishop And our Saviour Christ had not given to these seven Angels their due Titles for he must have written to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other six 2. To this I reply that the affirming the seven Angels to have been Metropolitanes no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullians or our Saviour's style Not with Tertullian's for 1. an Arch-Bishop is a Bishop though dignified above some others of that order Secondly supposing Smyrna to be a Metropolis as no doubt if it were Tertullian knew and supposed it to be then his styling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna is aequivalent to his calling him a Metropolitaâ— or Archbishop As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England the affirming William Laud to be constituted Bishop of Canterbury is all one as to affirme him Archbishop 3. Thus when Chrysostome saith of Titus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intire Island and the judgement of so many Bishops was committed to him what is this but to affirme Titus Arch-bishop of Crete And yet Eusebius who believed this and adverted to it as much as Chrysostome uses this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Churches of Creet calling him Bishop distinctly though by the mention of the Churches in the plural 't is evident he meant the same that we doe by Arch-Bishop 4. So againe Eusebius of Irenaeus that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop of the Provinces of France which must needs signifie Archbishop of Lyons for so he was And 't is certaine that other of the Antients use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of those which were no otherwise qualified for that title as when Saint Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage under which the whole Province of Africk is comprehended is by the Councel of Constantinople called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of the region of Africk 5. The same answer will competently suffice for the reconciling Christ's style and ours for supposing Ephesus to have been a Metropolis the writing to the Angel of that Church implyes writing to those other Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus and need not be more fully exprest as when the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth and not onely so but to all the Saints and so all the Churches in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. 't is certaine that the former Epistle was written to those very same Churches viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth and yet it is inscribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia save onely in a general indefinite phrase with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus 6. Secondly the word in Christ's Epistle being not Bishop but Angel is not at all lyable to this exception For why may not an Arch-Bishop be as fitly called an Angel as a Bishop would be nay if it be remembred what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 6. that there are seven Angels which have the greatest power by him styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-borne rulers of the Angels parallel to the phrase in Dan. 7. 10. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head Lords or chiefe Princes or as we ordinarily stile them the Archangels of which number Michael is there named to be one There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of speech in Christ's style a most exact critical notation of their being Arch-Bishops and withall a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Bishop of Smyrna though he were Arch-Bishop just as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation 7. For a close of this mater they are pleased to adde their Character not over-benigne of those by whom this device as they style it was found out for the honour of Archpiscopacy that they did aspire unto that dignity 8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his discourse of the Original of Bishops this character can have no propriety in it he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many yeares before the writing hereof If it be designed for a reproach to me I shall elude the blow by not thinking it such For as at a time when Episcopacy it selfe was by the Parliament abolisht and that Act of severity actually put in execution it had been a great folly in any to hope that he should ever attaine to that Office of Dignity in the Church and what ever other follies I have been guilty of truly that was none of them so I thinke there could not a point of time more commodiously have been chosen in the space of above 1600 yearâ—s wherein a man might have better secured a Discourse for Bishops and Metropolitanes from the Censure of aspiring to either of those Dignities that was that wherein that Book was published 9. To this if I adde by way of retortion that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangeliei doe aspire every one of them to their
be communicated to the Colossians and the Epistle of the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch did belong and was communicated to all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Act. 16. 4. And then all that the immediate subjoyning of the Deacons in that place will conclude is onely this which is farre from yeilding the Presbyterians any profit that as Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Churches being but newly planted there were not Presbyters as yet constituted among them onely a Bishop with one Deacon or more in each City in like manner as it was at Jerusalem Act. 6. where after James's assumption to the Bishoprick which the Ecclesiasticall writers tell us of the seven Deacons are soone instituted no Presbyters being created in the middle betwixt the Bishop and them that either Scripture or antient Record informe us of And Clemens St. Pauls fellow Labourer mentions it as the generall practice that the Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the faith Thus farre is this from being a forced interpretation being perfectly regular and conformable to what we read of those times out of the best and antientest Records of them And if in any circumstance we should be lyable to mistake yet for the maine the Reader will hardly thinke it possible when he remembers this very Church of the Philippians to be one of those expressely named by Tertullian among whom in his time Apostolorum Cathedrae suis adhuc locis praesidebantur The Chaires of the Apostles were yet extant praesiding in their due places which concludes some Bishop or singular praefect to have succeeded the Apostles in this Church as in those other Thessalonica c. and by Theodoret whose authority is most used against us in this matter to prove that the Bishops were Presbyters here Epaphroditus is expresly affirmed to be that Bishop The next place is that of 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he coveteth a good worke A Bishop therefore must be blamelesse where there is no reason of doubting but the Bishop is the singular praefect or Governour of the Church For the onely appearance of the contrary being againe as in that to the Philippians the immediate subjoyning of Deacons and their qualifications v. 8. that presently vanisheth if againe we remember the observation of Epiphanius which he had out of the most antient Records and was found exactly conformable to the expresse words of Clemens Romanus the contemporary of the Apostles that at the beginning of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the government was compleate in all the Offices the Apostles and Apostolicall persons placed in the Church by them such as Timothy to whom here he gives the directions created no more but a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each Church the present state of things neither requiring nor being well capable of any more in respect of the paucity of the Christians to be governed or instructed and of those which were fit to be made Presbyters And although Theodoret againe with some few others interpret the place of Presbyters yet 't is as evident he doth it not to the disadvantage of Bishops adding in the same place that the Bishops especially should observe these Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as those which had atteined to a greater honour Meanewhile S. Chrysostome interprets it distinctly of Bishops as I have done and in that notion of Bishops which severs them from Presbyters such as governe in each City and addeth the qualifications to be such as being spoken of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe agree to Presbyters also And accordingly Theophylact interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President and Ruler without any mention of Presbyters There remaines but one place and that of the very same nature with this last and must certainly be regulated by it Tit. 1. 7. For a Bishop must be blamelesse as the steward of God answerable to that notion of the word Bishop in the Old Testament for the Ruler set over the House of the Lord 2 Kin. 11. 18. i. e. the Steward to whom the Keyes of the House were committed Isa 22. 22. That this is the singular Bishop in every City signified before v. 5. by the Elders which Titus was left in Crete to constitute is the joynt affirmation of St. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius on those words of v. 5. Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By Elders he there meanes Bishops as in the Epistle to Timothy appointing them to be constituted in every â—ity for he would not have the whole Island administred by one but that every â—ity should have it's proper Pastor or Bishop that so the labour might be the lighter and the care more exact In Crete there were certainly many Cities Eusebius mentions an hundred of all which saith he Titus was made Bishop by St. Paul that under him saith Theodoret he might ordeine Bishops to which Chrysostome and Theophylact adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might have power to judge or censure those Bishops as a Metropolitan and Primaâ—e over them There is now no other place wherein the word Bishop is used and by this briefe view of these I hope the first proposition is competently rescued from meriting the censure of Paradox whether that signifie novell or strange this being so conformable both to the nature and use of the word to the tradition of the antient Church and the importance of each Scripture where it is used that Bishop should signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the singular Pastor or Governour in each City or Church Section III. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder NOw to the second proposition which pretended not to so much positivenesse but is set down in a greater latitude of defining that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop though sometimes but most rarely a Presbyter Of this I shall now need to praemise but these few things First that the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in the Old Testament doth denote most properly and signifie most constantly as in all Languages the word is found vulgarly to doe a Ruler or Governour This is so largely deduced and demonstrated in the Annotation on Act. 11. 30. that I shall not indeavour farther to manifest it Secondly that as in some places of the New Testament the word is necessarily to be understood of Bishops so in every other place it is very fitly capable of that interpretation This is againe so particularly evidenced to the Latine Reader Diss 4. c. 19 20 21 22. and to the English Reader Annot. on Act. 11. b. and 14. a. that I cannot deeme it reasonable to tire my selfe farther with
notion And yet even by him these of this uppermost degree are called Seniores and Majores natu Elders Praesident probati quique Seniores the Elders praeside Apol. c. 39. and of the Bishops of Rome the series of whom he had brought downe to Anicetus lib. 3. contr Marcion cap. 9. he expresses them by Majores natu successors of the Apostles in his Book written in verse against Marcion And there will be lesse wonder in this when it is remembred that after this in Saint Cyprian's times who hath been sufficiently evidenced to speake of Bishops in our moderne notion of them Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in vulgar style calls them Seniores and Praepositi Elders and Provosts in his Epistle to Cyprian and againe Praesident Majores natu c. the Elders praeside evidently meaning the Bishops by those titles And so much be spoken in returne to what they have objected from these two Antients Irenaeus and Tertullian supposing that I have competently performed the taske by them imposed on the Praelatists shewed that the Bishops spoken of by them were Bishops over Presbyters and by them understood to be so Sect. VI. Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormitan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councel of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councel of Carthage IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epistle ad Euagrium the unanswerablenesse of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Massalinus seeming to say that it never can be answered whereas say they if I had been pleased to cast an eye upon the vindication written by Smectymnuus I should have found this answer What this answer is we shall see anon In the meane it will be necessary to give a briefe account what it was which is called a triumphing over these two learned men And first it is sufficiently knowne what advantages the defenders of Presbyter◠conceive themselves to have from that one Antient writer the Presbyter Saint Hierome From him they have the interpretation of those Scriptures which they thinke to be for their use as that the word Bishop and Presbyter are all one in several texts of Scripture and both signifie Presbyters and that the Apostles at first designed ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Ecclesiae gubernarentur that the Churches should be governed by the common Councel of Presbyters and that it so continued till upon the dissentions which by this meanes arose in the Church it was judged more prudent and usefull to the preserving of unity ut unus superponeretur reliquis that one should be set over the rest and all the care of the Church belong to him And this saith Hierome in toto Orbe decretum decreed and executed over the whole world By whom this was conceived by him to be thus decreed he gives us not to understand in that place nor in what point of time he thought it was done but leaves us to collect both from some few circumstances as 1. that it was after Schismes entred into the Church and one said I am Paul I of Apollos c. And if it were immediately after that then the Presbyterians will gaine but little by this Patron For his whole meaning will be that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many but soon saw the inconvenience of doing so and the Schisme and ruptures consequent to it and changed it themselves and setled one singular Bishop in the whole power of Government in every Church to which very fitly coheres what Clement had said that lest new contentions should arise about this singular dignity and authority who should succeed to it they made a roll or Catalogue of those which in vacancies should succeed in each Church That this was not in Hierome's opinion done thus early in the Apostles time the Presbyterians think they may conclude from what he saith on Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse Majores Let Bishops know that their greatnesse and superiority over Presbyters is held rather by custome than by Christs having disposed it so But it is very possible that this may not prove the conclusion which is thought to be inferred by it For here Consuetudo Custome as opposed to Christs disposition may well signifie the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apostles times and ever since to S. Hierome's days and that may well be severed from all command or institution of Christs so Jerom's opinion may well be this that Christ did not ordain this superiority of one above another but left all in common in the Apostles hands who within awhile to avoid Schism put the power in each Church in the hands of some one singular person And that this was Hierome's meaning I thought my selfe in charity to him obliged to thinke both because in this sense his words would better agree with the universal affirmation of all Orthodoxe Christians that before him and after him too unlesse those few that took it on his credit speake of this matter and also because if this be not his sense he must needs be found to contradict himselfe having elsewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apostolicall tradition i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church And now before I proceed I desire the ingenuous Reader who is contrary minded to consider what he can object to this conclusion of mine thus inferr'd concerning S. Hierome's opinion and consequently what probability there is that the Presbyterians cause should be superstructed on any Testimony of S. Hierome supposing what I am next to demonstrate that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apostles And this is evident in his Epistle to Euagrius where having againe delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes Et ut sciamus-traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteritestamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templ◠fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesiâ vendicent That we may know that the Apostles traditions are taken out of the Old Testament we have this instance that what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Levites were in the Temple the same the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the Church Where these three degrees and so the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apostles On occasion therefore of inquiring into Hierome's meaning and because this place so readily offered it selfe to
likewise that from Can. 2. is onely a Testimony for the fitnesse and usefulnesse of that custome still retein'd and used in our Church in all Ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons that the Presbyters there present should lay on their hands by the hand of the Bishop and so joyne in the Prayer or benediction but no proofe that a Presbyter might not be ordeined by a Bishop without the presence of such Presbyters I have for a while gone aside from the consideration of S. Hierome's testimony the designed matter of this Section and allowed my selfe scope to take in all the testimonies of Antiquity which are made use of by these Assemblers for the justifying their Ordination of Ministers And I have done it on purpose though a little contrary to my designed Method and brevity because after the publishing of the Dissertations against Blondel I remember I was once told that though it was not necessary yet I might do well to add some Appendix by way of Answer to that one head of discourse concerning Presbyteriall Ordination and the Instances which were objected by him For which reason I have now as neer as I can taken in all in this place which are in their Appendix produced on that head and doe not elsewhere in this briefe reply fall in my way to be answered by me For some others mentioned by D. Blondel I refer the Reader to the learned paines of the Bishop of Dâ—rry in his vindication of the Church of England from the aspersion of Schisme p. 270. c. And so being at last returned into my rode againe This may I hope suffice to have said in the justification of what was done in the Dissertations concerning St. Hierome both to cleare his sense and for the setting the ballance aright betwixt his authority on the one side and the authority of Ignatius on the other betwixt some doubtfull sayings of the former which seemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apostles instituting imparity which yet elsewhere he affirmes to be Apostolicall tradition and the many cleare and uncontradicted constant sayings of the latter which are acknowleged to assert it Which one thing if it be not in the Dissertations so done as may satisfie any impartiall Judge that Ignatius in full concord with all is to be heeded on our side more than St. Hierome in some few of his many Testimones can be justly produced against us I shall then confesse my selfe guilty of over-much confidence but if therein I have not erred it is most evident that I need not undertake any farther travaile in this whole matter Sect. VII The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present THere now followes in the next place the passage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambrose on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Episcopacy 't was not held unlawfull for a Presbyter to ordeine without a Bishop they urge out of St. Ambrose these words Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Aegypt the Presbyters consigne if the Bishop be not present And the like out of Austine or whosoever was the Author in Quaest ex utroque Testam Qu. 101. In Alexandria per totam Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter In Alexandria and through all Aegypt if the Bishop be wanting the Presbyter consecrates And having done so they adde which words cannot be understood as a defender of Prelacy would have them of the Consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present but it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination To this I shall briefly reply 1. That it is sure enough granted by the most eminent Presbyterians that these two Books whence these Testimonies are cited were not written either by Ambrose or Austine but by some other Hilarius Sardus saith Blondel and unjustly inserted among their works and then the authority of such supposititious pieces will not be great to over-rule any practice otherwise acknowledged in the Church of God Secondly that the mistakes of Blondel and Salmasius concerning the meaning of the former of these places were so evidently discovered by the second of them the consignant in the one interpreted by consecrat in the other that I conceived it sufficient but to name them For can there be any thing more unquestionable than this that consecrare in antient writers signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist And then if consignare be a more obscure phrase is there any doubt but it must be interpreted by that which is so much more vulgar and plaine and all the circumstances besides being exactly the same in both places what doubt can there be but in both the words are to be understood of the Eucharist Yet because some advantage was by this their misunderstanding sought to the Presbyterians cause they now resolve and insist that it must not be rectified though they know not which to apply it to Confirmation or Ordination and pretend not to produce any Testimony where consecrare is ever used for the latter or consignare for either of them And indeed Blondel and Salmasius were yet more uncertaine for they thought it might also belong to the benediction of Penitents and that as probable as either of the two former And when the truth is rejected thus it is wont to be As for the onely reason which inclines them to confine it to Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination if the place be review'd it will not be found to have truth in it He speakes immediately before of the severall Ministeriall Acts Preaching and Baptizing adding indeed that Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est The writings of the Apostle doe not in all things agree to the Order which is now in the Church There is mention of Ordinatio indeed but that signifies not Ordination as we now use it for ordaining of Ministers but manifestly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule or order used in the Church in severall respects saith he different from what it was in the writings of the Apostle And for their objection against my interpretation that it cannot be understood of consecrating the Eucharist because this the Presbyter might doe when the Bishop was present If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Antients the Canons of the Apostles Ignatius ad Magnes the 56 Canon of the councell of Laodicaea and Tertullian that the Presbyter might not administer either Sacrament without the Bishop's appointment and distinctly of this Sacrament Non de aliorum quam de Praesidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus we receive it not from the hands of any but the Praesidents i.