with Answers and refutations of the principall Objections of Doctor Blondel and Walo Messalinus doe really stand in force and appeare not to be refuted now in whole or in part by these men who have often attempted to refute them I shall then leave them seriously and Christianly to consider but this one thing and to returne their anger not to me but to themselves what security of grounds they can build upon in their present practices particularly in their assuming to themselves that power or authority which doth not belong to them For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were as by Christ to the Apostles so by the Apostles given to the singular Governour or Bishop by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted over all and from that time to this regularly continued in a succession of Bishops in every Church and secondly if those which are now called Presbyters were by those who first instituted them placed in a second rank as of dignity so of power and never had all that power committed to them which to the Bishop was committed particularly not that of Ordeining the meanest Deacon much lesse Presbyters with power of Ordeining other Presbyters and thirdly if they on whose authority they most depend S. Hierome the Presbyter c. doe expresly assure them that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination but acknowledge the Bishop superior to the Presbyter in that and it is not imaginable how that power should be conveyed to any Presbyter now which was not vested in any at that time nor pretended to be so in above a thousand yeares after them And lastly if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven or give that which he hath not which the Scripture yeilds to as a rule by which both John Baptist John 3. 27. and Christ himselfe Luk 12. 14. was to be judged and the Apostle Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that generall rule to this particularity of Priesthood in the Church viz. that no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assume an honour to himselfe but who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 advanced by God saith Theophylact either immediately or mediately either by the Apostles or by those which received it successively from them all others being truly affirmed by the Antients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leap into the honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to corrupt the rule or law by which they should be guided then I say upon what solid grounds can they satisfie Conscience who without all pretence of necessity which by some is here made use of as an excuse the regular way being open and plaine before them have run before they were sent assumed that power to themselves which belongs not to them nor was ever by any which had it bestowed upon them I doe not foresee any more here necessary to be premised to our future debates and shall therefore hasten to them as to an unpleasant progresse that I would willingly be at the end of and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him whom we all professe to serve and obey in this as in all other things CHAP. I. Concerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Section I. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops FOr the vindicating of the Dissertations from all the exceptions which are offered against them in the Booke which I have now before me It is no whit necessary that I give the Reader any the most cursory view of the whole Booke I shall therefore fall in though abruptly on the sixt Chapter of the second part of it For although in some of the former Chapters of that part some indeavours are used to assert Presbytery against Episcopacy by Arguments so frequently produced by that party that they were every one foreseen and in the Dissertations largely evidenced to have no validity in them yet it falls out somewhat to mine owne and the Readers ease that I am not personally called into the lists till the beginning of the sixt Chapter which by the signall of some Latine words in the Margine out of Dissert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4. have markt me out as the person against whom that Chapter was intirely designed and I shall readily answer the call and not refuse the paines to examine every Section of that Chapter 2. The subject of this Chapter is the pretended as they please to stile it Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels And thus they begin their assault The second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine Right of Praelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they the Assertors of Prelacy were seven single persons and as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Archbishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blind or wilfull that endeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy Age that Men should still continue blind and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon 3. This is it seemes the first crime chargeable on mee as Author of the Dissertations that I am confident of my Assertion and condemne all others as blind or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And although this be no competent way of disproving what is asserted for it is no universall maxime or Datum among the Objecters that confident asserting should be lookt on as a character of falsity yet I that would much more be ashamed to have beene presumptuous than mistaken and deeme it not a sinne to have erred modestly am concerned to avert the envy of this their Prooeme and to give this essay how farre any the most moderate speeches may be disguised and deformed by a disadvantageous interpretation 4. These words in tantâ luce lie thus in the Dissertations Ad tertium accedo I proceede to the third thing that which concernes the Angels in the Apocalypse that by them are noted so many prefects of the chiefe Cities or Churches in Asia whom you may call not onely Bishops but Primates Enarchs or Metropolitans Each of these things must be briefly taken notice of First that each of these were single and properly called Bishops So Andreas Caesariensis pronounceth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seven Ephori inspectors or Bishops so called from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inspectors directly equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parallel to the number of the seven Churches are in that place of the Apâ—calypse called Angels This title of Angel is sufficiently knowne from Malach. 2. 7. to belong to the chiefe Priest of the Jewes for hee is called the Angel of the Lord of Hosts as the person from whom the Law was to be derived to the people Further more these Angels in that vision of Johns are likened to so many Starres which seeing Christ is
a temporary President or Prolecutor and brought no manner of reason to confirme it will have very little validity in it 5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peeres which inferres not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is alwayes the same person or the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least conclude that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels yet they might be neither Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators 6. But the authority of those Divines which had this answer from Beza addes nothing of weight because nothing of proofe to it As for their similitude it concludes nothing but this that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament to shew the thing possible to have been not to prove that so it was And the matter of our present inquiry is not what a kinde of president Christ and his Apostles might if they would have left in each Church but what really they did And that must be contested by the best Records of those times not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments And that is all I neede to say to that Section Section XV. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimonies of Cyprian and Fermilian AFter the authority of Mr. Beza backt with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight is added in the second place the authority of Dr. Reynolds who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith 2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Originall of Bishops and Metropolitanes and I shall not neede here to recite it being of some length and indeed nothing in it defined or exprest of his opinion that the President when he was made such either continued to be equall with the rest of the Presbyters or lasted but for a time so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship not among but over Elders which I suppose must imply some power and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop and applies to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian and Cornelius of whose notion of Bishops that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly nay that in nothing it differeth from ours I am sufficiently assured and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert 3. c. 3. § 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is neede of it I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many mention this one evidence more 3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop who had beene wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the annuall Councell of Bishops with him Cyprian returnes this Answer that it was his humility to make this complaint to the councell Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem quâ possis de illo statim vindicari when by force of his Episcopall power and by authority of his chaire hee had power himselfe to inflict punishment on him immediatly and that punishment afterward specified ut eum deponas vel abstineas either to depose him or suspend him 4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopall power without any joyning with him to judge and censure the inferiour Officers of the Church and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere Episcopo praeposito suo as it followes in that Epistle to acknowledge the honour of their Priest and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them All power in the hands of one set over all call'd promiscuousâ—ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style 5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian and his Collegues Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p 58. that by his collegues he meanes his Presbyters where yet there is no other proofe of it but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle Cyprianus cum Collegis and Ego collegae Cyprian with his collegues and I and my collegues This is a great but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader as will soone appeare 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle where he tells of Aurelius was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth what he and his Collegues had done and so sure were not those Collegues that did it with him Or secondly if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Collegues Ep. 58. we shall but looke forward to the next Epistle 59. for that will fully discover it being this Cyprianus caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI where Cyprians Collegues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him 6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian which they there subjoyne of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordeining by whom say they the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood But againe 't is cleare by the expresse words of the Epistle that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Councel Necessariâ— apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unuâ— conveniamus 'T is necessary that every yeare we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care adding concerning the Church in opposition to Hereticks that all power and grace is placed in it ubi praesident majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem wherein the Elders praeside and have power of Baptizing absolving and ordeining an evident description of the Bishops But this by the way as an essay what their testimonies out of the Fathers scattered sometimes in this Book would be found to be if this were a place to examine them 7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another Praesident even among Bishops the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province and so a Metropolitan All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not 8. Yet after all this there lyes no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor
have already been utterly demolished so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their third Proposition concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsick power to ordaine Ministers will immediately vanish in like manner For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the same thing twice repeated to increase the number so 't is as evident that what is by them said is taken from St. Hierome and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops onely in respect of authority or for the preserving it intire and the unity of each Church which depended on that in St. Hierom's opinion the Ordination and consecration of Clerks i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons was reserved to the chiefe Priest i. e. the Bishop which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove the intrinsick power of Presbyters to ordaine Ministers I leave to any Reader to passe judgement And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Testimonie that of Leo set out in their front out of his 88. Epistle concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else it is commanded by the authority of the â—anons Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these which affirme this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops and that the authority of the Canons so requires to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsick power As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters were infallibly their due to enjoy and the Argument demonstrative that it was their Originall and intrinsick due because the Canons deny it What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe and not a Bishop this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture but onely because it was against the Canons of some councels is somewhat of the same nature with the former and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths for being never admitted to the Priesthood and assuming to himselfe the name of an Elder he dared to doe the things belonging to a Priest A censure which certeinly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Councels Two Testimonies more I shall touch on before I returne to the pursuit of my proposed Method and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum sâ—orum non ordinet That a Bishop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is Ordrined as the Bishop blesseth him and layes his hand on his head let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop And the conclusion deduced from these Testimones and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian is this that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed How truly this is inferred from the Praemâ—sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testimonies For the first this is the truth of the Story Theophilus a guilty person and as such cited to answer what was objected against him making use of the envy under which Chrysostome then laboured shifted the Scene and becamse his judge nay as Photius tells us he and the rest of that Conventicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were Chrysostome ' s greatest enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at once Judges and Accusers and Witnesses of all that was charged against him And therefore we already see what heed is to be given to the accusatiâ—n of those Fathers ad quercum and how valid an argument can be deduced from it And we shall the better guesse at it if we consider also what other particulars were in the same manner that this was charged against him set downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca The 23. charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bath was heated for him alone and that after he had bathed Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath that no body else might bath The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ate alone living like one of the Cyclopes and betwixt these two new found crimes comes in this in the midst being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained many that had no Testimonialls which being set down by Photius as the summe of that charge referres us indeed to the ground on which their charge was built of his ordaining without a Councell and against the minde of his Clergy those testimonialls and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordaine without assistance of his Presbyters or that it was alwayes forbidden any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden also As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have set downe but halfe the Canon the whole runnes thus Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinetâ— ita ut civium conniventiam Testimonium quaerat That the Bishop ordain not without his councell of Clergy so that he seeke the liking and testimoniall of the Inhabitants Which againe onely serves to shew the use of the assistent Presbyters to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of but is no argument of the unlawfulnesse of sole ordination or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders So
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.
1. it is apparent in the Text that this Diâ—trephes whom Walo Messalinus a good friend to the praetensions of the Assemblers describes so as will conclude him a meâ—re Presbyterian Noluit saith he agnoscore superiorem aliquâ—m in Presbyteros habentem potestatem he would not acknowledge any superior having power over Presbyters contended for superiority not onely over his equals but over Saint Iohn himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith that Apostle he 〈◊〉 not us yeilds no obedience gives no heed to our letter of directions This certainly belongs not to the superiority or dignity of Bishops which reserves the Primacy to the Apostles intire and no way clasheth with it and onely pretends to that power and office of duty which for the preserving of unity and the good of the flock the Apostles thought fit to intrust and commit to them 5. Secondly Diotrophes was not as farre as appeares or we have reason to conjecture ordeined to any office of power in the Asian Church committed to that Apostles care but of himselfe without any mission nay expressely against the Apostles consent was willing to assume and exercise this power and is but an example of Corah's sedition and presumptuous humour and that is inevitably the case of the Presbyterian unlesse he can shew his commission for the power he pretends to all one with that of the Gnosticks censured by Saint Iude under the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gainesaying of Coraâ—â— and this no way belongs or is appliable to the practice of the Bishop who by Commission from the Apostle not by any ambition or presumption of his owne regularly ascends to this degree of office and dignity in the Church and useth it as regularly also in subordination to all his superiors 6. On this Occasion the Dissertations have offered a Dilemma to these Disputants which I should be willing to heare answered by them in this forme Either Diotrephes exercised in the Church the power of the Bishop in the notion of a singular Praefect assuming power over the Presbyters or he did not If he did not then is this consideration presently at an end Diotrephes is falsly accused and the innocent Bishop unjustly wounded through his sides who it seems was no Bishop But if it be said he did then I demand Why is not Diotrophes checkt by S. John for that presumption of affecting a power over his equals And why doth the whole charge lye another way that he received not S. Iohn's Letters nor paid due obedience to them Or why is that very thing charged so heavily on the Bishops in our age and punisht so severely in them which the Apostle living and seeing and upon occasion taking notice of Diotrephes his insolence doth not so much as reprehend or accuse in him 7. For as to the Epithet which he bestowes upon him that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that loved the praeeminence supposing that were the title of his fault yet that extends not the Apostles speech to censuring or blaming the use of that power but onely the ambition and affectation of it which were otherwise lawfull to be enjoy'd as when t is noted in the Pharisees that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love or affect the uppermost seats in the Synagogues which otherwise simply to have sat in had implyed no crime of theirs for to this very end that some body should sit in them they were certainly erected and 't is known that there was among them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 head of the Consistory and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governor of the Synagogue to whom that seat belonged by God's appointment 8. Nay for the very desire as farre as is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 1. desiring and coveting it is allowed by the Apostle to be terminated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a good and consequently a desireable worke and if Diotrephes be supposed guilty of any other it may safely be yeilded to have been a fault in him without praejudice to the good office which he so vitiously and criminously affected according to that of Theodoret that the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuses not the desire simply but the desire of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and teacheth to desire not the honour but the vertue not to covet the dignity but to seeke the worke of the dignity the taske to which it belongs By all which and much more added in the Dissertations it is evident how little advantage hath accrued to the Assemblers from their mention of Diotrephes out of Saint John and by consequence from their second consideration Section V. Of St. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops NOw succeeds a third consideration viz. That the same Authors that say that S. John made Polycarpe Bish of Smyrna that S. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. John himselfe sat many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which say they is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops For though they doe eminently containe the Episcopall Office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostle and to make their Office Ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostles and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madnesse to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom wee shall have occasion to cite to this purpose hereafter 2. Whether this consideration be likely to contribute any thing to their advantage save onely by amusing the Reader and keeping him longer in expectation that somewhat may possibly be produced to the disparagement of our plea I desire may distinctly be considered by these degrees 3. First I acknowledge that stile the same Authors to belong truly to antient Writers produced by mee in the Dissertations who as they doe affirme St. John to have constituted Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna Diss 4. c. 5. Sect. 5. and St. Peter to have placed Ignatius Bishop of Antioch Diss 5. c. 1. Sect. 18. so they consent also that St. John sat Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitane of all Asia so Eusebius frequently that after his returne from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred or governed the Churches there i.e. in Asia and as he cites it lib. 3. cap. 31. out of Policrates his Epistle died there So the antient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being recalled by Nerva's decree he sat downe at Ephesus and himselfe personally with seven Bishops his adsessors those in all probability the Bishops of the seven Churches in the Revelation
hee governed the Metropolitan City of Ephesus that prime Metropolis of all Asia to the Bishop whereof saith Chrysostome was intrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Nation of Asia These testimonies may suffice for the substance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Ephesus and under it all Asia which is the notion wee now have of a Bishop Metropolitane and Primate 4. As for the word Bishop how can it be inconvenient to bestow that upon him when hee discharged the Office nay when Christ himselfe that great exemplar and originall of this power is expresly called the Bishop of our Soules as well as the Apostle when the Office from which Judas fell and to which Matthias is assumed is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishoprick Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture usage the Fathers of the Church have continued the style Apostolos i. e. Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles i. e. Bishops and Governours of the Church saith Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were the first or chiefe in Rome the same persons Apostles and Bishops saith Epiphanius and Apostoli Episcopi sunt firmante illud Petro Apostolâ— the Apostles were Bishops as is confirmed by Peter in these words His Bishoprick let another take saith Hilarius Sardus and againe Areall Apostles â—Tis true saith hee quia in Ecelesiâ unus Episcopus because in each Church there is one Bishop And Nemo ignorat Episcopos servatorem Ecclesiâ—s instituisse Ipse enim priusquam ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is ignorant that our Saviour instituted Bishops in the Church for before he ascended to Heaven hee laid his hands on the Disciples and ordained them Bishops saith the Writer of the questions on the Old and New Testament and Sanctus Matthâ—us Episcopatum sortitus est St. Matthew was Bishop saith Gildas And to shut up all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that the Apostles were Bishops St John in Asia St. Andrew in Achaia St. Thomas in India saith Gabriel Philadelph And agreeably when St. John of whom we now speake calls himselfe in the front of two Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder the Greek scholiast resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And so there is no newes in thus affirming 5. But then secondly when they take this for an evident demonstration that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense this is very farre distant from a demonstration having not arrived to the lowest degree of probability or credibility For what is a Bishop in the Prelaticall sense but a single person governing in chiefe in a City or wider circuit And such certainly was St. Peter at Rome S. John at Ephesus c. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keyes the donation of which instituted them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward 's in Gods House Governours of the Church in this or that City or Region and ordained other Bishops there Thirdly therefore when 't is added that it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops I reply that it is most certaine they may not onely because these so many antient Writers through severall ages have called them so and may not with any justice from us be accused of impropriety but because the donation of the Keyes did as properly make them Bishops as the Commission to goe preach to all Nations being added to it made them Apostles To which purpose let these few things be considered 1. That it is here by the Assemblies acknowledged that the Apostles did eminently conteine the Episcopall Office which though it be a little hastily expressed and should be I suppose that the Apostolicall Office did eminently containe the Episcopall yet there is no doubt but this is the meaning of it that the Apostles had all the Episcopall power in their hands and over and above something more and if they had Episcopall power then sure in respect of that they may as properly be called Bishops as in respect of their Apostolicall Commission which they had also they may be properly called Apostles Thus we know that they that have first the power of Deacons bestowed on them and after of Presbyters are questionlesse Deacons still though they be also Presbyters and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Bishops are certainly Presbyters still though they be also Bishops and doe not lose the former power by being advanced to the latter are not lessened by this increase of their dignity 7. Secondly that when an Apostle is differenced from a Bishop it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church or by the Vniversality of his Diocese the all the World to which his Commission extended whereas the ordinary Bishop's power and Diocese are more limited But then these differences are of no force in this matter they onely conclude that the Apostle is more than a Bishop in those two respects not that in other sufficient respects he is not a Bishop 8. Thirdly when the Apostles had each of them not onely all together in a consistory that unlimited power in respect of the extent to all the World given to them by Christ wee know that after his ascent they parted and distributed this Province among them assigned every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper place or lot to which he should betake himselfe for the planting of the faith of Christ And then there will be no doubt but that hee who according to his line in St. Paul's phrase had planted the faith in such a City or Province and sat downe and confirmed and farther instituted which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine as well as in the word and govern'd them and exercised all Episcopall acts among them might in so doing be stiled a Bishop in that City or province and that as truely and as properlâ— as he that could doe all the latter and not the former building on another mans foundation goâ—erning and instructing where another had planted the faith might be said to be 9. Nay fourthly we know that although by Canons of the Church there is provision made upon prudentiall considerations that no man shall be made a Bishop sine titulo without a title or particular See to which hee is assigned yet before those Canons forbad it such Bishops there were and those never doubted to be properly Bishops though they were not affixt to any Diocese And then nothing can hinder but that the Apostle who had each the whole World for his Title though hee were never affixed to any particular Diocese or Province might be most properly styled a Bishop for all that But this is ex abundanti more than is needfull to our present praetentions
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
requiring and so not be so eminently worthy of the double honour as he that actually doth both so certainly he that rules well in any Church and beside the care belonging to rule undergoes that other double hard travell so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies of preaching the faith to Infidels and confirming and instructing believers doth very highly deserve the double honour and alimonie And this as it is the exact meaning of that Text so it utterly supersedes all force of this objection or exception against our understanding it of the Presidents or Bishops in the Praelaticall sense Fourthly For the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. by which they say I understand Episcopacy I answer that I interpret it of some combination either of Apostles or Apostolical persons and Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret's phrase such as were vouchsafed the Apostolicall grace i. e. of Paul assuredly 1 Tim. 2. 6. and perhaps of Barnabas perhaps of some other Apostolical person with him in like manner as both Peter and John style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Ignatius styles the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church and as of Ignatius himselfe S. Chrysostome affirmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the hands of more Apostles than one were laid on him in his ordination to the Bishoprick of Antioch To which matter the Scholion of Chrysostome is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speakes not here of Presbyters but Bishops adding the reason because Presbyters did not ordaine Bishops and so Theophylact and Oecumenius Lastly for the other two places of not-rebuking and receiving an accusation against an Elder though in those places it were clearely for my interest to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbyter in our moderne sense for then as Epiphanius saith there is an evidence of proofe that the Bishop hath power over the Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy over the Elder saith he but never the Elder over Timothy Yet I confesse my selfe inclined by other considerations to foregoe that advantageous sense of the place Because Timothy being placed in the prime Metropolis had power over the Bishops of lesser Cities and that as hath oft been shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of â—udging as well as of ordeining Bishops which is elsewhere evidenced to be the opinion of S. Chrysostome in order to the understanding of this place And so still the crime is not very great or reproachfull which I am said to have confest it amounts no higher than the former confession had done that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus and yet this you see without any necessity to extort it from thee save that of speaking freely what I conceived most probable For otherwise nothing could be more for the advantage of the maine cause I defenâ— than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders should signifie Presbyters in these two places Sect. IX A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet THeir fourth charge is that I am forced to confesse that Titus was Archbishop of Creet and that he received no commission from S. Paul to ordaine single Elders but onely for ordeining Bishops in every City It seems say they this Author slights the Postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those antient Fathers that are cited by his owne party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-Bishop and so must Timothy also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Arch-Bishops hath beene sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse That Titus was Arch-Bishop of Creet I confesse again that I cannot but believe till I am shewed how the contrary were possible i. e. how he that was fastned in and as Eusebius saith had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopacy of a whole Island which had an hundred Cities in it and was there placed that he might ordeine Bishops under him in each of those Cities Tit. 1. 5. 7. and as the antients adde exercise jurisdiction over them should be other than an Arch-Bishop That this was his condition hath been shewed already And for the inconveniences that it is prest with they will prove very supportable For I shall not at all be obliged thereby to slight either Postscript or Fathers but give the disputers example to pay them all reverence being very well able to discerne the Bishop through the Archbishop having never imagined that the styling Michael an Archangel was denying him to be an Angel He certainly was an Angel and that of an higher degree or else could never have been justly called an Archangell and 't is just so with Titus if I had not thought him a Bishop I could never have affirmed him an Archbishop and they that in common speech give him the title of Bishop doe no way intimate their thoughts to be contrary to mine for every Archbishop is certainly a Bishop though every Bishop be not an Archbishop And therefore if all the danger of my assertions falling to the ground be consequent to this of Titus or Timothies proving to be no Archbishop I shall deeme them competently safe for each of them were unavoidably such Timothy Archbishop of Ephesus the prime Metropolis of all Asia and Titus of the whole Island of Creet and accordingly to those two peculiarly as such directions are given for the ordeining Bishops and Deacons in every City And the proofes which were offered to the contrary have I suppose already been answered and being not here thought fit to be recited the replyes shall not be so impertinent as to appeare without their antagonists Onely because it is here inserted as part of my inconvenient confession that Titus received no Commission from Saint Paul to ordaine single Elders which I believe I no where say any otherwise than that the Commission cap. 1. 5. was to create Bishops in every City I shal freely tell them my opinion of that viz. that a greater power may very fitly be said to comprehend under it the lesser of the same kinde and consequently that both Timothy and he which had Commissions to ordaine Bishops in every City had also by the same commission power to ordaine single Presbyters where those were usefull to be ordained as is evident by the qualification of Deacons and Widows after-mentioned in one certainly and as I conceive in both Epistles for that supposeth their Commission to extend to the ordeining of those who yet had not been named in them if we may guesse by that of Titus cap. 1. 5. And so much also of that part of my confession which is as free and unforced as the former had been and I believe as fafe to the affirmer Sect. X. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. BUt the fift and
authority of them and in like manner what and how satisfactory answers he hath given to the speciall exceptions of others which very thing occasioned a particular letter of reply to him from D. Blondell which by that Archbishops favour I received and made my rejoinder to it in the Dissertations This I hope may be sufficient to have said in this matter instead of undertaking so unreasonable a taske of answering any thing asserted by that Archbishop As for that which followes out of him and M. Casaubone of Baronius and the Papists making such use and placing such confidence in these Epistles above all other Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is speedily answered also out of what is already said that they were the former corrupt editions which were abroad in Baronius's time with all those supposititious additions interpolations which the Papists are either by Mr. Casaubone or that Archbishop said to have made use of there being no one word or period in this volume to which my appeale is made which yeildeth any advantage to the Papists in any point nor is it nor can it be pretended by any that it doth unlesse by those in whose opinion the mainteining of Bishops is reputed for such And therefore that very learned man M. Casaubone is so far from rejecting all these Epistles that he distinctly promiseth nonnullaruâ—n ex illis antiquitatem se novis rationibus tuiturum that he will if God permit defend the antiquity of some of them by reasons which others had not taken notice of Exerc. 16. Cont. Baron Sect. 10. And this promise of his is cited by the Archbishop Dissert de Epist Ign. pag. 136. so farre is it from all appearance of truth which is cited as the opinion of these two learned men After all this three Reasons they will briefly offâ—r why they cannot build their judgâ—ment concerning the Doctrine of the Primitive Church about Episcopacy upon Ignatius's Epistles 1. Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius Gelasiuâ— and Theodoret which are either not to be found in these Epistles or to be found altered and changed and not accoâ—ding as they are quoted This is Râ—vets argument and pursued at large by the Archbishop to whom we referre the Reader Being among their other Readers referr'd to the Archbishop of Armagh for the validity and pursuit of this first reason I shall to him very securely make my appeale what force there is in it against the volume of Epistles now twice in severall formes published by him And in the â—rolegomena to the former of them pag. 15 16 c. this is most evident that the passages cited by Athanasius Gelasius and Theodoret which were not indeed to be found in the former printed Greek copies are exactly discerned and evidenced by him to be in the old latine Interpreter which he therefore thought fit to publish both out of Caius College and Bishop Montacutes Library The same hath he farther shewn cap 4. pag. 19. c. out of the same and other of the Antients Eusebius Hierome c. and set downe the places in columnes by way of parallel to demonstrate the agreement of this Copy with the genuine Ignatius And is it not a little strange that I should be now referred to that Archbishop for the pursuit of this argument which he hath so distinctly proved to be of no force against the Copy which now I use but to concurre in demonstrating the purity of it Their second Reason they draw from his over-much extolling himselfe in his Epistle to the Trallians where he saith that he had attained to such a measure of knowledge that he understood heavenly things the orders of Angels the differences of Archangels and of the heavenly host the differences between powers and dominations the distances of thrones and powers the Magnificencies or Magnitudes of Aeones or Principalities the sublimity of the Spirit the excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims the Kingdome of the Lord and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such arrogant boasting can proceed from such an holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was And who would believe that the writer of this Appendix which had cited the Archbishop of Armagh in his Prologomena to his first Edition of Ignatius and so could not but be able to have consulted that Edition should thus thinke to defame and blast the whole volume of Epistles for one such periods sake which is not to be discerned in this or that Archbishops latter or in Vossius's edition of them to which onely he must know we make our appeale for Episcopacy In these Copies the words are quite distant from what is here cited and in effect directly contrary to them evidences of the greatest humility now when he was so neer the honor of Martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I am not because or in that I am in bonds able also to understand heavenly things the Positions of Angells their assemblies of Principalities or of the Rulers of them both things visible and invisible Besides this I am yet also a Disciple c. What arrogance I pray or boasting is there in this and yet he addes no more in that place but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For many things are wanting to us that we may not be left behinde by God thinking himselfe utterly unworthy of the honour and fearing he may yet misse of it to suffer Martyrdome for him And so much for the second Reason The third which say they is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over-anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange and Hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacie were not upheld and with such multiplyed repetitions ad nausâ—am usque that we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel suppâ—sitias esse vell â—oede corruptas and that they doe neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such an holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them What reasons and designe Ignatius had to exhort the Christians to whom he writes to oâ—edience to their Governors in the Church hath already been said at large this being the onely expedient that at that time could be thought on to keep out most dangerous heresies out of the Church And therefore what that holy Martâ—r did in that kind when he was carryed from his owne Church never to returne to it againe cannot be lookt on as the seeking any great things for himselfe and so contrary to either his piety or humility but as a desire full of both those that the Church of God might enjoy truth and peace after the beasts had devoured him As for the strange and hyperbolicall expressions mentioned in the objection and exemplified in the two
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
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.