but Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as â—hree distincct Orders in the Church from the Scripture we know not Neither did Clemenâ— in his Epistle to the Corimbâ—ans know any more than we doe which a few instances will manifest Saith he speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons as in the Church at Philippi this man knows but the 〈◊〉 Order he is utterly unacquainted withall And that the difference of this mans expressions concerning Church Rulers from those in the Epistle under consideration may the better appear and his asserting of Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same may the more clearly be evidenced I shall transcribe one other passage from him whose length I hope wiâ—l be â—xcused from the usefulnesse of it to the purpose in hand Page 57 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so it seems was the manner of the Church in his daies that their Officers were appointed by the consent of the whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Bishops of whom he was speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And suâ—dâ—y other discoveries are there in that Epistle of the like nature It is not my design nor purpose to insist upon the parity of Bishops and Presbyters or rather the Identity of the Office denoted by sundry appâ—llations from these and the like places This work is done to the full by Blondellus that out labour in this kind were that the purpose in hand is prevented He that thinks the arguments of that Learned man to this purpose are indeed answered throughly and removed by D. H. in his fourth Dissertation where he proposes them to consideration may one day think it needfull to be able to distinguish between words and things That Clemens owns in a Church but two sorts of Officers the first whereof he calls sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters the other Deacons the Doctor himself doth not deny That in the judgement of Clemens no more were instituted in the Church is no lesse evident And this carries the conviction of its truth so clearly with it that Lombard himself confesses Hos solos ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse de â—is solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere lib. 4. sent D. 24. 2. To supersede a conclusion not magisterially dictated that were the confidence quarreld at in me but regularly inferr'd from premises there can be no more necessary than to discover the falsenesse of the premises or their weaknesse and incompetency to induce that conclusion And this being already done particularly and at large 't is impertinent to give any further answer to or account of this conclusion I shall onely lightly pass through the several steps of it and acknowledge of his conclusion as much as either here or from the premises I find any reason to acknowledge and briefly touch at the reasons before more largely rendred why other parts of it may not be consented to 3. And 1. what he saith of these Epistles that they seem like the children of the strange wives speaking part the language of Ashdod and part the language of the Jews hath perfect truth in it being applyed to the former corrupt Editions of Ignatius but none at all nor any appearance of any as it is applyed to that volume by which we desired to be judged in the businesse of Episcopacy 4. Secondly what is by these Epistles as they are in our more emendate Copies affirmed of Bishops is very agreeable to what is by the Scripture by Clemens by Polycarpe said of the same subject all which under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like describe their office and require subjection and obedience to be payd to them 5. Thirdly for the three orders particularly for the second of those three which antiently and still but either rarely or not at all in the Scripture are called Presbyters but may most distinctly be styled Presbyteri secundarii or partiarii Elders of a second rank admitted to the exercise of some parts of the Episcopal office but not to all and so distinguisht from Bishops or Elders of the first rank These the Prefacer cannot but know that I doe not undertake to find either in the Scripture or in Clement's or in Polycarp's Epistle and that though I have reasons to assure me that when the namber of believers increased so far that there was both need of them and competent store of fit persons to undergoe that office then such Presbyters were ordained to bear part of the burthen with the Bishop as the seventy Elders with Moses and I have compent reasons to perswade me that this was done in some places before the departure or decease of all the quire of Apostles particularly that St. John instituted such in Asia when he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet this was not so universally done thus early as that either the Writers of the Scripture could or after them Clement at Rome should be required to make mention of it And for Polycarpe though I suppose and doubt not but he lived to see such in the Church yet there was no necessity that in that one Epistle of his he should mention them or use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of any others but Bishops it being certain that after the secundarie Presbyters were instituted the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still continued common to Bishops and was not presently appropriated to Presbyters as is elswhere made clear out of Iraeneus Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian Dissert 4. c. 22. and in the vindication of them from the exceptions of the London Ministers 6. It remains therefore that the Epistles of Ignatius are the best records of Primitive Antiquity on which to build this second Order of Secundarie or Partiarie Presbyters which if they were instituted personally by St. John or if they were designed by the other Apostles and not ordained in their times onely because thus early 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius's style there was no need of them their Institution will still be Apostolical though not mentioned in the Apostles writings as in the Answer to the London Assemblers hath been shewn also 7. Fourthly concerning the title of Pastorsâ—nd â—nd Doctors or Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture he cannot but know the account given by me viz. that by all and each of those Bishops are to be understood as hath been shewed Dissert 4 c. 14 15. and nothing being here said to disprove it 't is but petitio principii to suppose the contrary So also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers I have spoken at large Dissert 4. c. 13. The like of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they have none but Deacons joyn'd with them Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. All which are perfectly agreeable to my hypothesis that there are no single Presbyters or middle order of Officers betwixt Bishops and Deacons that I discern mention'd in Scripture So the use
Elders or Presbyters here mention'd were properly those whom he calls Bishops Diocesans men of a third order and rank above Deaâ—ons and Presbyters in the Church Administrations and Government And for those who are properly called Presbyters there were then none in the Church To give colour to this misrable evasion Diss 4. c. 10 11. He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons In some Churches that were small not yet formed or compleated nor come to perfection at the first planting of them how well this is accommodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church being confessedly great numerous furnished with great and large gifts and abilities is seen with half an eye How ill also this shâ—ft is accommodated to help in the case for whose service it was first invented is no lesse evident It was to save the sword of Phil. 1. 1. from the throat of Episcopacie he contendeth for That Epistle is directed to the Saints or Church at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Two things doe here trouble our Doctor 1. The mention of more Bishops than one at Philippi 2. The knitting together of Bishops and Deacons as the onely two orders in the Church bringing downâ—… Episcopacie one degree at least from that height whereto he would exalt it For the first of these he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitane Church of the Province of Macedonia that the rest of the Churches which had every one their severall Bishops Diocesan we must suppose were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi so that though the Epistle be preciselyâ—… directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Bishops that were with them must be supposed to be the Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitane The whole Countrey must have been supposed to be converted and who that knowes any thing of Antiquity will dispute that and so divided with Diocesans as England of late was the Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi but how came it then to pâ—sse that here is mention made of Bishops and Deacons onely without any word of a third order or ranke of men distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders To this he answers secondly that when the Church was first planted before any great number were converted or any sit to be made Presbyters there was onely those two orders instituted Bishops and Deacons and so that this Church of Philippi seems to have been a Metropoliticall Infant The truth is if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the contradictions of his answers one to another not onely in this but almost in every particular he deals withall an intanglemen which he is throwne into by his bold and groundlesse conjectures he will finde it to be as endlesse as fruitlesse but it is not my present businesse to interpose in his quarrells either with himselfe or Presbyterie As to the matter under consideration I desire onely to be resolved in these few Queries 1. If there were in the time of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches not in so great and flâ—urishing a Church as that of Corinth and if all the places in Scripture where there is mention of Elders doe precisely inten Bishops in a distinction from them who are Deacons and not Bishops also as he asserts when by whom by what Authority were Elders who are only so inferiour to Bishops peculiarly so termed instituted and appointed in the Churches And how comes it passe that there is such expresse mention made of the office of Deacons and the continuance of it none at all of Elders who are acknowledged to be superiour to them and on whose shoulders in all their own Churches lies the great weight and burthen of all Ecclesiasticall administration As we say of their Bishops so shall we of any Presbyter not instituted and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ in the Church let them goe to the place from whence they came 2. I desire the Doctor to informe me in what sense he would have me to understand him Diss 2. cap. 20 21 22. Where he disputes that these words of Hicrome Antequam â—ludia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Cepbae communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia 〈…〉 be understood of the times of the Apostles when 〈…〉 Church of Corinth when it seems that neither 〈…〉 such thing as Presbyters in the 〈…〉 we can 〈…〉 As 〈…〉 Presbyters were Bishops properly so 〈…〉 who are they so 〈◊〉 of whom 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to be a 〈…〉 so called To 〈…〉 I 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the Scripture we 〈…〉 of Church 〈…〉 This 〈…〉 Doctâ—… is that of 〈…〉 give us 〈…〉 of Christ give us in every Church Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 than we 〈…〉 let those Bishops attend the 〈…〉 over which they â—…ching the 〈◊〉 and administâ—… O 〈…〉 in and to their 〈…〉 And I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 all the Comenders for Presbytery in this Nâ—â—ion and much 〈…〉 the Independents that there shall be a â—end of this quarrel that they will 〈…〉 with the Doctor not any living for the â—…duction of any 〈◊〉 soâ—t of persons though they should be 〈…〉 Presbyters into Church office and Government Onely this I must 〈…〉 this second sort of men 〈…〉 Presbyters than it doth Bishops and that word having been 〈…〉 third 〈…〉 we desire leave of the Dâ—ctor and his 〈…〉 if we also most frequently call them so no wayes declining the other application of Bishops so that it be applyed to signifie the second and not third 〈◊〉 of men But of this 〈◊〉 businesse with the nature conâ—… and frame of the first Churches and the 〈◊〉 mâ—stâ—k 〈…〉 men have be their owne prejudices been ingaged into in this dâ—… of them a 〈…〉 opportunity if God will may 〈◊〉 long be aâ—…ded 3. Here first I shall demand whence it appeares that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens c. Truly I doe not yet know or remember that I did This certainly was all and this can amount if to any but to one answer that which we have vindicated already that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia This indeed when it was proposed was more distinctly set down by 4. steps or degrees but then again those are no more two than foure answers 1. that the Epistle was addrest to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to the whole Province Secondly that to make it capable of that title Corinth was knowne to be the Metropolis of Achaia Thirdly that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia not onely to Corinth and so in any probability Clements was to doe also being written to the same and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore Fourthly that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the severall Cities
exprest my self to think but that this was the most commodious meaning to be affixt to Hierom's words ad Euagrium so as they might be reconcileable with the many other testimonies brought out of him which concluded it his opinion also that the three orders were of Apostolical institution But if I am now asked my sense expresly whether I thinke thus it was as Hierome I thinke conceived it I answer positively that I thinke Hierome was mistaken in that circumstance and that Clemens Romanus and the Records that Epiphanius citeth are much a more competent authority for the contrary that Bishops were first instituted whensoever any Apostle in his travaile planted a Church in any Citie and retein'd not the Government in his own hands Yet if by any Record it shall be made to appear that before any such Citie was left by the Apostle and so before any Bishop were instituted in it the Elders or as those may signifie the chief believers a name of age as well as of power were trusted by them for some short time of their absence as I mention'd it there sect 20. as a possible thing there will then be some ground of Hierom's mistake in that circumstance But this I confesse more than yet hath any way appear'd to me and therefore I am content to part with it as a phansie or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to help St. Hierome and not so much as a conjecture And so much for his Quaeries 22. As for his addition by way of Corollarie to his questions the answers to thâ— quâ—stions have already perfectly supersedeâ— it The three orders â—…ignatius have already appeared to be of Apostolical iâ—stituâ—… and the very frame of the first Churches though there was no need of the second of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the first plantation in every City And it will not be easie for any man which hath looked into antient writings to be perswaded the contrary It being the universal affirmation of all that speak of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius to St. Hierome and for many hundred years downward though there be some difference in some few circumstances St. Hierome thinking that Presbyters first ruled in common before the singular Bishop was brought in over them for the avoiding of Schismes that the three orders were all instituted in the Church by the Apostles appointment And if this be the sad mistake and prejudice from which he will shortly deliver us I may have leave to advise him the one method of attempting it that cheaper of setting Antiquitie aside in the delineation and not the more costly of professing to make his appeale to it as in this Preface he hath adventured to doe 23. One thing he here thinks farther necessarie for him to adde that the Scripture more frequently terms this second sort of men Elders and Presbyters than it doth Bishops wherein there be but these three misadventures 1. That this second sort of men are frequently mention'd in Scripture 2. That this second sort of men are sometimes call'd Bishops in Scripture 3. That they are frequently call'd Elders there No one of which he will ever be able to justifie Let him please to turn to the Vindication of the Dissert from the Exceptions of the London Ministers capâ— and if against what is there said or before in the Dissertations he thinke himselfe able to evince any one of these three propositions I shall willingly acknowledge my selfe his Disciple being also sure that unlesse both Bishops and Elders signifie nothing but Piesbyters in every place their signifying most frequently so is the giving the question the yielding the whole cause to the Prelatist 24. As for the taskes of the Bishops office and his performance of them I shall willingly grant him my suffrage let them discharge them and I beseeâ—h all who have any way hindred them at length to let and quietly permit them On condition he will doe this as cheerfully as I I shall never câ—ntend with him concerning the nature of theâ—â— task â—e it as he â—aith their attending their particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they are appointed the Bishop of Oxford over that Flâ—ck or portion to which he was and is a pâ—inted and so all others in like manner be it their preaching and administring the holy Ordinances of the Gospel in and to their own flock and whatsoever else of duty and râ—tiâ—e officii belongs to a rightly â—onstituted Bishop And let all that have disturbed this course so duly setled in this Church and in all the Churches of Christ since the Apostles planting them discern their error and return to that peace and unity of the Church from whence they have so causelesly and unexcusably departed and let none be so uncharitable as to surmise that he which thus exhorts them hath any other design in doing it than that which alone he professeth to have their timely and now if ever seasonable Reformation CHAP. VI. Of Testimonies in Ignatius deemed to favour the Congregational way Sect. 1. The Prefacer's pretensions avoyded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Hypothesis confutable from Ignatius The power of prejudice Of Popish Churches Chorepiscopi Metropoles Conformity of Ecclesiastick with Civil distributions The Ignatian Churches phansied by the Prefacer The Gnostick haeresie no deflowring of the purity of the Church The several branches of the phansied Model how well grounded in Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Catholick a National a Metropolitical a Diocesan Church in Ignatius Num. 1. BUT we are from Clemens once more brought down to Ignatius again and of the great prejudices and mistakes and unjust apprehensions which we Prelatists have had in reading and bringing testimonies from him we are now to be admonished in these words as followeth 2. To return then to our Ignatius even upon this consideration of the difference that is between the Epistles ascribed to him and the writings of one of the same time with him or not long before him as to their language and expression about Church-Order and Officers it is evident that there hath been ill favour'd tampering with them by them who thought to prevaile themselves of his authority for the asserting of that which never came into his mind As I intimated before I have not insisted on any of those things nor doe on them altogether with the like that may be added as a sufficient foundation for the total rejection of those Epistles which goe under the name of Ignatius There is in some of them a sweet and gracious spirit of Faith Love Holinesse Zeal for God becoming so excellent and holy a witnesse of Christ as he was evidently breathing and working Neither is there any need at all that for the defence of our Hypothesis concerning the non-institution of any Church-Officer whatsoever relating to more Churches in his office or any other Church than a single particular Congregation that we should so reject them For although many passages usually insisted on and carefully collected by D. H. for the proof of such
of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders for Bishops T it 1. 5 7. is by me acknowledged though not of Bishops for Presbyters which conceit is as largely elswhere confuted 8. And for the two large and expresse places here transcribed out of Clemens they had before been particularly produced by me and found perfectly to consent and accord with the notions which out of Scripture I had received and which by Epiphanius were vouched 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the profoundest Records And for Blondel's collection to the contrary I shall hope that to other men my answers will appear more than verbal and though I have here somewhat an unkind character given me of them viz. that they that approve them may one day think it needfull to distinguish between words and things yet I am not quite discouraged being competently assured that if he that said so had had any thing else to say any more than words to object against them he would not have been so reserved or sparing of his pains as to have denyed it place in his Animadversions 9. Lastly 'T is evident what he saith that I doe not deny Clement's owning but two sorts of Officers in a Church Bishops sometimes called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Deacons But it is as evident by my words what I mean by Clement's words that I mean as he doth viz. that at the Apostles first preaching and planting the Faith in Cities and Regions before any multitude of Believers came in they constituted in each City no more but a Bishop and one or more Deacons after the exemplar in Jerusalem where James the Lord's Brother soon after our Saviours ascension was constituted Bishop there and seven Deacons Act 6. to attend him but as yet no Presbyters of any middle order between them and him 10. This I have cleared concerning those first times out of Epiphanius and taken notice of the causes of it intimated both by Clemens and him 1. The paucity of fit men for that office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there were not found among them men fit to be constituted Presbyters and 2. The no need of any more at that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in each City or Region served the turn onely he could not be without a Deacon which is the more manifest because the Bishops and Deacons which were then instituted were as in the former of these testimonies from Clemens appeares the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first fruits of their labours their first converts and the flock assigned them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that should afterwards believe 11. To this if the words of Lombard would agree as they will so far as here cited if only by Ecclesia Primitiva we understand the first age or infancie of the Church at the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first preaching of the Apostles then that testimony would by me be fully subscribed also meaning by the duos ordines the Bishops truly so called and by him styled Episcopos Presbyteros and Deacons concerning whom and whom onely 't is true praeceptum Apostoli nos habere that we have the precept of the Apostle viz. St. Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus But the truth is Lombard's words belong to another matter a nicety that is gotten into their schools that Episcopacy and Presbyterie are not diversi ordines but diversi gradus not different orders but onely different degrees of the same one order of Sacerdotium or Priesthood upon a phansie that Sacerdo is so called from sacra do delivering or imparting holy things so faith he expresly Ideo autem etiam Presbyteri sacerdotes vocantur quia sacrum dant Presbyters are also called Priests because they give holy things In which matter as it is of little importance which way the question is decided as long as the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is agreed on to be such as hath some Powers reserved to the one which are not common to the other so if Lombard's words should by any be thought farther extensible as founded in that opinion that first Presbyters ruled in common and that beside them there were none then but Deacons I must then think it as reasonable for me to be permitted to forsake Lombard in this as the Prefacer will deeme it for him to depart from him in other matters 12. For though it be here set down as an argument of the evidence and clear conviction and so of much more than of the bare truth of the position that Lombard himselfe confesseth it which I suppose is not an acknowledgement that all that Lombard saith is true but an insinuation that this of Bishops as maintained by me is for the matter a Popish Doctrine and yet is in this particular rejected and the contrary confest by Lombard an eminent Popish Doctor yet I must crave leave to interpose my exceptions to this way of arguing or concluding 13. 1. That neither I nor any true member of the Church of England owe or pay any observance to the bare dictates of Lombard or indeed farther than he hath reasons or proofs of Scripture or Antiquity to confirm them 14. 2. That in this point which must be waged by Testimonies there are none produced I shall adde producible by him out of Scripture to prove that ever there was a time when there were in the Church none but those two orders of Presbyters in our modern notion and Deacons I may without immoderate confidence assume that all that can be offer'd to this purpose are consider'd and answer'd in the Dissertations 15. 3. That the principal Testimonies of Antiquity on which in this matter some Papists build being some obscure words of St. Hierome the Presbyter which yet must be so understood as to be reconciled with his making the three orders to be of Apostolical tradition the result must be this that though they are mistaken in some circumstances yet they maintaine with us the more substantial truth that Bishops are instituted by the Apostles 16. So 't is elswhere made made evident of Panormitan who though he affirme that immediately after the death of Christ all the Presbyters in common ruled the Church yet postmâ—dum saith he ordinaverunt Apostoli ut â—rearentur Episcopi certa Sacramenta eis reservarent illa interdicendâ— simplicibus Presbyteris Within a while the Apostles ordained that Bishops should be created and reserved certain Sacraments to them Confirmation and Ordination and forbade them to be meddled with by simple Presbyters And accordingly it is also in the forecited place of Lombard in the beginning of that 24 Dist Presbyteri licet sint Sacerdotes tamen Pontificatus aepicem non habent sicut Episcopi quia ipsi nec chrismate frontem signant nec Paracletum dant quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio Actorum Apostolorum demonstrâ—t Presbyters though they be Priests yet have not that superior part of the Pontificate which the Bishops
called them Apostolici He must therefore questionlesse mean the choice men of the People and then those choice men must be concluded to constitute Bishops and not onely to consent to their constituting as before he had set it And then I desire he will say positively that this was his meaning and that from any place of Scripture or ancient Writer he will shew me where any choice men of the people constituted Bishops after the departure of the Apostles 33. Secondly when he saith that the words ex iussu Dei approbatione by the appointment and approbation of God are added by me 't is not imaginable what he should meane by it Those words are evidently set by me as an argument that they could not want the approbation of the people because they were sufficiently furnished by the appointment and approbation of God as had appeared by the testimony of Clement set down in the page immediately precedent And what is produced by me as an argument to convince the unconcludeney of Blondel's collection can it be blamed in me as an insertion or addition either to Clement's or Blondel's words 34. And when he goes on reproaching this Edition with his as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated for the constituting of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned I hope it hath sufficiently appeared that there was such command or appointment of God more than intimated by Clemens in that Epistle and the like exprest in Scripture in many parallel cases and this particularly a designation of the persons which were to be ordained and so somewhat beyond the general institution of the Lord Jesus which he speaks of I suppose he meanes the commission of the Apostle to Titus and the like that Elders should be ordained in every Church 35. Thirdly When he saith 't is argumentatively weak and unconcluding he must mean that this argument of mine is a weak and unconcluding argument I shall therefore repeat it again and put it formally into a syllogism They who had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God cannot then be thought to want the acceptation of the people But the Bishops spoken of by Clement had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God Therefore they cannot be thought to want the acceptation of the people What proposition can here be denyed I confess I see not 36. The Major hath it's evidence in its self for certainly that which is already done and done by God's appointment needs no other extrinsecal addition or accomplishment unlesse that also be ordained by God which in this case of the acceptation of the Bishop by the people no way appears and till it doth appear cannot be supposed or pretended by any to be thus needfull 37. And for the Minor it is the expresse affirmation of Clement that they that instituted them examined and approved them by the spirit and knowing by the Lord Christ having perfect foreknowledge of what should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted these Bishops and this is mention'd by Clement as an aggravation of their crime that rejected these that were thus constituted And then I hope the premises having strength the conclusion from them regularly inferr'd will not be denyed me 38. For as to the examples of Saul and David I am sure they prove nothing for if there were perfect truth in all which is here pretended which is more than from the circumstances of the stories I can affirm viz. that God who designed them Kings would have the People come together to choose them then from that act of God's will it was and from God's expressing it that the convening and election of the People was necessary and if God had not will'd it or not appointed it it had then as certainly not been necessary 39. Now let any such declaration of Gods will be shew'd that he would have the People convene and choose their Bishop and then I shall think my argument weak but otherwise I must not think it concluded so by these examples 40. So in the case of the Deacons Act. 6. the Apostles appointed the Disciples to seek out seven men from among them withall directing them how they should be qualified and reserving to themselves the intire power of constituting them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the office of Deacon And so nothing from that third instance can be inferr'd against us it being no way parallel to the case in Clement as already is visible For in the Acts the Disciples look out and choose v. 5. the persons and bring them to the Apostles v. 6. and the Apostles lay their hands on them in the remainder of that verse But in Clemens God designs the persons and so in the other Scripture instances and in that of Clemens Alexandrinus of the first Bishops of Asia ordained by St. John and the Apostles and their successors ordain and lay hands on them 41. As for that of Act. 14. â—3 that the ordaining of the Elders was with the Peoples election by the way it was even now by as well as with the consent of the People or indeed that any mention of the People is made there or so much as intimated by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that I can say is that it hath been disproved as far as any that I know of hath yet endeavoured to prove it i. e. all arguments that I have seen for it I have elswhere answered But what will ere long be manifested I am not able to forecast and so am not now to provide answers by divination 42. No more am I able to foresee what he saith will one day be found and yet I think it is very possible Neither he nor I may live to see that day when any thing shall be farther manifested in this matter than what the great Doctors already suppose The resolution of the question what right every one hath in these affairs being founded in plain matter of fact viz. what Christ or his Apostles instituted in the Church and that being already as visible to them that are conversant in Scripture and antient Records of the Church as it can well be imagined to be till either a new mine of such Records is sprung or men receive knowledge of story by Revelation Neither of which am I forward to expect in this age 43 In the next place for his objections against my interpreting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Gods extraordinary revealing whom he would have ordained they will soon vanish also For 1. the place of St. Paul concerning Timothies ordaining of Deacons and appointing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them be first tryed or examined 1. Tim. 3. 10. belongs nothing to this of the trying by the spirit Timothy might have ordinary meanes of trying and the whole discourse of St. Paul then setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained tends to that and then he had no need of extraordinary 44. And so
one of the two following heads of discourse and therefore I am now to hasten to them Onely to be sâ—re to have neglected nothing that can expect to be considered in the least It is here presently visible 1. how causelesly Ignatius is quarrell'd with for mentioning the Orders of the Church upon no occasion when the designe of his Epistles being to preserve truth and peace among the Churches he had no better and more compendious way to doe it than by requiring their subjection to their Governors and thereupon he so constantly inculcates it and this is a very important occasion and that which alwayes makes it very seasonable and pertinent whensoever it is done by him 6. Secondly How fallaciously the discourse proceeds which supposeth Clemens to call those Presbyters which ought to signifie as among us the word now signifies collegues and fellow-rulers in the same Church whom before he had called Bishops adding that he plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters and that their Spirituall Governors were the Presbyters of the Church and a plurality of Presbyters in the same Church whereas all this while he knowes that Clement saith that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons in all Cities and Regions and that these are by us cleared to be singular Bishops and that to prevent contentions they left a list of successors to that singular office in each Church and that these singular Bishops are oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders not onely before but after Clemens even by those that appeare and are acknowledged to assert the three Orders and consequently that Clement may well be allowed to style them so in whose time for ought appears there were none of that second order now vulgarly called Presbyters yet erected either at Rome from whence or at Corinth or in all Achaia to which he wrote this Epistle 7. Thirdly How infirme a way of arguing it is to say that Clement doth not in the least intimate any singular person promoted above his fellows and that had there been any such at Corinth it had been impossible he should be thus pass'd by in silence when he knowes that the Apostles constituting Bishops and Deacons and what followes on that account is by us insisted on and confirmed to be more than an intimation of it and when the whole purport of the Epistle is to preserve the authority of the Governors of the severall Churches under that Metropolis whom he knowes we contend and prove to be the singular Bishops and must not forgoe that pretension till it be confuted 8. To proceed to the second head of discourse his asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters For this it is certaine that he makes no tender of any other argument or appearance of proofe but onely the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders Presbyters in the plural whom therefore he concludes to be many Presbyters in the same Church But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder signifies Bishop in Scripture in Clemens in Polycarpe in those of the Antients after them that are knowne to assert the singular Bishop above Presbyters in each Church And this having been said and cleared in the Dissert is not in the least attempted to be disproved by him 9. Secondly These many Elders are not all or more than one said or intimated by Clement to be in one City For the Epistle as was shewed in the Dissert is I suppose most certainly may have been addrest by Clement not to the single Church of that one City of Corinth but to the Churches of all Achaia or Greece of which Corinth was the chiefe being the Metropolis 10. That it was not so is barely said but largely proved in that place Dissert 5. cap. 2. first from the title of the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is on each part the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole province as of Rome so of Corinth the Region and territory that belonged to either of those Metropoles which in that age was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the adjacent region exprest by Ignatius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the region of the Romans by Polycarpe in the same kind speaking of Philiâ—pi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church adjoyning or belonging to Philippi and by Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province belonging to Corinth of which Dionysius was Bishop or Metropolitan 11. Secondly this was proved by the analogie held between this Epistle of Clemens and the Epistle of Saint Paul inscribed to the Corinthians For I demand was not this Epistle of Clement written to the same Church or Churches to whom Saint Paul's two Epistles had been addressed That it was is more than probable by the Common title and other Characters in the Epistle it selfe incline to it As that he refers them to the Epistles of Saint Paul written to them and that upon the like occasion of divisions and factions so early crept in among them So pag. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take saith he the Epistle of Saint Paul consider what he saith to you in the beginning of his preaching to you certainely it was by inspiration from God that he wrote to you concerning himselfe and Cephas and Apollos because that then ye had partialities and inclinations to one more than to another but that partiality brought lesse sinne unto you Here still it is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you that before and now were guilty of this sinne of carnality admiration of person faction and now at length sedition and so the same Churches now and then to whom these Epistles on that occasion were addrest and there is no circumstance producible that restrains one more than the other 11. Now of the Epistles of Paul it is evident they were not confined to the one City of Corinth but to all the Churches of Achaia so it is specified of the secondâ— of them 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaâ—a And though this be not expresly said of or in the first Epistle or in this of Clement yet the relation that one hath to the other will conclude it of those also and the phrase which there we find superadded to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all that are called by the name of Christ all Christians in every place and the like forme at the conclusion of this The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with all every where that are called by God hath in all probability the same importance for that being universal and extended beyond Corinth must not yet be interpreted of all Christians in the world for that would make each of these a Catholick Epistle and would conclude the Apostle to have received an Epistle from the Catholick Church to which this returne was made c. 7. 1. and
so likewise the particular sins sinners both there and here to which they apply their exhortations the inâ—est the going to Law before heathen judicatures the seditions c. doe evidently restrain it from that latitude which two circumstances being balanced on each side will certainly leave it in the middle betwixt the one Church of Corinth on the one side and the universal Church of the whole world on the other and so leave it commensurate and applyable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the coasts of Achaâ—a Thus when 1. Cor. 3. 5. it is said of Apollos that he hath watered them as the Minister by which they to whom he wrote believed and so in this of Clemens that they had beene factiously inclined to Apollos it is evident by the story in the Asts that this belonged not onely to Corinth but to Achaia indefinitely Act. 18. he resolved to go into Achaia and coming thither he contributed much to those that believed v. 27. 12 To these are added these farther indications that in the Epistle to the Romans sent from Corinth the salutations are sent from the Churches of Christ in the plural Rom. 16. 16. mention is made of the Church which is at â—enchrea which is one of these Churches v. 1. so what the Apostle writes in these Epistles concerning the collection for Judea 1 Cor. 16. 1. and 2 Cor c. 8. and 9. evidently belongs to all Achaia Rom. 15. 26. Macedonia and Achaia have pleased to make a certaine contribution and I know your forwardnesse Achaia hath been ready or prepared 2 Cor. 9. 2. and so when c. 1. 9. he had said when I was present among you and wanted I burthened no man it fâ—llowes v. 10. this boasting shall not be shut up against me in all the regions of Achaia Where still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you and Achaia are all one and if that liberty be but allowed in this Epistle the whole difficulty is at an end for then as there were many cities and Episcopâ—l sees in Achaia the chief of which was Corinth and what was sent to that Metropolis was from thence to be communicated as it belonged to all those others so the Bishops of each of these might very fitly be called by Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and not the Elders of that one Church or City of Corinth but all that related to that Metropolis 13 This I may have leave to hope will be lookâ— on as a â—irmer foundation on one side to conclude that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders which is also the title of Bishops in this Epistle being also called Bishops here a title which as is elsewhere shewed at large as farre as the Scriptures never was applyed to a bare Presbyter were the several Bishops or singular Governors of the many cities of Achaia than the bare number or multitude of them without any other circumstance to inforce it will be sufficient to infer that they were the many Presbyters in one city 14. To come therefore to the third thing the taking notice of this answer and his endeavouring to invalidate it I shall briefly examine whatsoever is said by him in pursuit of that attempt And his first Method is that of the Scoffer to prepare his reader to look on this answer as ridiculous he doubts not but the Doctor makes himselfe merry if he can suppose any so wedded to his dictates as to give it intertainment for it is plainly jocular and againe I must in the same Scophick humor be styled a learned man so to be allowed to excercise my phansie to sport with my owne imaginations 15. But 1. truly Sir I was neither then nor am now at so much vacancy which might call for sport If I were I would finde out more Christian-like divertisements 2. I could never think that what was thus confirmed by Arguments and this had bin done in the Dissert on the same grounds of probation which have here been mentioned could be liable to the censure either of Dictates on one side or of jocular on the other and 3. If he had been as well able to confute my answer or confirmations of it as he was to scoffe and cry â—…cular c. he must needs have thought it more like a Christian and a Scholar and a propugne of truth to have insisted wholly on the former and omitted the latter Lastly I learn from hence wherein my crime consisted when I said of one of Blondel's observations from Clement that it was instar prodigii It seemes I should have said that it was plainly â—ocular have smiled instead of wondring and all had been very well 16. Having thus answered his proeme I come to his narration And there truly I finde no one argument of force to countenance or justifie his mirth A cumulus there is but that will signifie nothing unlesse some one of the particulars of which it consists do so And that they cannot do being by him known to be denied by me before they are mentioned and yet no proof added to support them 17. As 1. that the Epistle is directed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least intimation of any other Church or Churches and after in the like words a little varied that there is not an apex or tittle to intimate the designation of it to any but the Church of Corinth This is a negative unproved and concluding nothing whereas it is evident to him that the very phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by me for more than an intimation that it was the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province which he wrote to and that the consent betwixt this and S. Paul's Epistles intimated them to be addrest to the same and so to the Churches of all Achaia 18. So 2. when he saith the difference it was written about was occasioned by one or two persons in that Church onely and that it was that Church onely that is exhorted to order and due subjection to Elders that is petitio principii and that which no way appeares in the Epistle one or more of these might be in other Churches of Achaia and those other Churches might be all exhorted to order and subjection to their severall Bishops 19. 3. When he falls back so soon into his first Topick again that of Contumelie the fabrick of after-ages lies so close to the Doctor 's imagination that there is no entrance for the true frame and therefore every thing must be wrested c. and yet more that whereas I ought to crop off head and heeles a phrase that I have not met with cropping off heels I chose to stretch and torture 1. It is evident how easily this might be retorted thus that the fabrick of this last part of this last age in this Island of ours lies so close on my Monitor's imagination that the frame in Clement's time of a Church governed by Bishops ordeined by the
principelium urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quos provinciae integrae in iâ— multarum inferiorum â—…bium Ecclesiae earumque Epâ—scopi tanquam ad Archiâ—pâ—scopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum and taking it for granted that he hath proved Diâ—cesan Bishops sufficiently before though he hath scarce spoken any one word to that purpose in his whole book for to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of a Bishop others acting in some kinde of subordination to him by the name of Elders and Presbyters upon the account of what hath been offered concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption he sacrifices his paines to the Metropoliticall Archiâ—piscopall dignity which as we must suppose is so clearly founded in Scripture and Antiquity that they are as blind as Bars and Moles who cannot see the ground and foundation of it But first be it taken for granted that the Angels of the seven Churches are taken for the Governors of those Churches then that each Angell be an Individuall Bishop of the Church to which he did belong 2 be it also gâ—anted that they were Bishops of the most eminent Church or Churches in that province or Roman politicall distribution of those Countreys in the management of the government of them I say Bishops of such Churches not uâ—bium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor termes them what aâ—…ce is maâ—e by all this to the Assertation of a Metropoliticall Archiepâ—…pacy I cannot as yet â—…isâ—…vâ—r That they were ordinary officers of Christs institution relâ—…ing in their office and ordinary discharge of it not oneâ—y to the particular Churches wherein they were placed but to many Churches also no lesse committed to their charge than these wherein they did reside the Officers Rulers Go â—…ors of which Churches depended on them not onely as to their advice and counsell but as to their power and jurisdiction holding their place and employment from them is some part of that which in this undertaking is incumbent on our Doctor to make good if he will not be supposed to prevaricate in the cause in hand 3. Being here called out anew to the maintaining of what I had said in the Dissert concerning Metropoliticall Churches and Bishops and having so lately been ingaged in the same taske by the exceptions of the London-Ministers and many objections which here in the processe of this discourse are lightly proposed being by them formerly made and accordingly answer accommodated to them and yet farther the maine thing which is here done being to set downe many Latine passages out of the Dissert and to deem them confuted by the bare recitall of them upon these grounds I doe not foresee that there will be any necessitâ— of making any large returnes to this last but not concisest part of his digressâ—on What had been returned to the London-Ministers the Reader will finde in that Vindication Cap. 1. Sect. 16 of which number by the fault of the â—…rinter â—e will meet with two Section and so on for the three subsequent Sections and to the Dissertationâ— themselves and that viâ—…ication of them I shall willingly referre this matter Yet shall I not oâ—…t to gather up whatsoever I shall here finde â—…ggested which was not there punctually spoken to and of that nature here are foure things in this Paragraph 4. First that in the 5. Ch. of Diss 4. I commence per saltum taking it for granted that I had proved Diocesan Bishops before though saith he I had scarce spoken one word to that purpose in my whole Booke To this I answer that as in the first Dissertation had answered one sort of objections against Episcopacy and in the whole second Diss asserted it out of Ignatius and Saint Hierome himselfe so in the third I had deduced it from Christ and the Apostles and I suppose laid those grounds and by all antiquity confirmed and by answer of Blondel's objections vindicated them so that they were competently fitted to beare that structure of Episcopacie which I had laid upon them and then having in the fourth Diss added to this the visible practice of this in the hands of single Governors whether the Apostles in their severaâ—l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their successors the first Bishops called secundarie Apostles mentioned in the Scripture and yet more particularly in the Angels of the seven Churches which being acknowledged to be the Governors of those Churches were proved to be single Governors of them which was the onely thing in question betwixt Blondel and me I had some reason to hope that I might be allowed to have spoken some one word to that purpose in that Booke before I came to prove those Angels to have been Metropolitans which he knowes was not attempted tâ—ll all this of Episcopacie had been premised by me 5. The reason which he addâ—s in a parenthesis why he affirmes thus expresly that I had scarce spoken one word to prove a Diocesan Bishop in that Booke is the second thing I am to reply to For saith he to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of Bishop others acting in some kinde of subordination to him under the name of Elders and Presbyters will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumâ—tion 6. To which I answer that the question lying as there it did betwixt Blondel and me there can be no doubt but if I have evinced the power in every Church to have been in the hands of a single Bishop and either no college of Presbyters in that Church or else those Presbyters subordinate to the Bishop meaning by subordinate subject to his power and authority over them I have also evinced the cause against Blondel And this I may have leave to hope is there done till the contrary be made appeare and here being no offer of that but onely a mention of the account of what hath been offered by the Prefacer concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes 1. that account hath already been shewn to have no force in it 2. if it had it belongs not to the controversie as it lay betwixt me and Blondel but is as contrary to Blondelâ— pretensions as to mine and so still I cannot see how I fell under his Animadversion in this matter or how I commenced per saltum in doing what there I did as regularly as I could imagine 7. The third thing is that I call the Bishops of the most eminent Churches urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he will have called Bishops onely But of this there can be no Controversie the fitnesse and propriety of words being to be judged from the use of them and the case being cleare that a Metropolitan especially a Primate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the antient Councels and Church-writings and from them and not from Scripture which useth no higher style for them than of
Sancti Patres Canones Apostolorum numeraverunt inter Apocrypha exceptis capitulis quinquaginta quae decreverunt regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda The Holy Fathers have numbred the Canons of the Apostles among Apocryphal writings except onely fifty Canons which they have decreed to be annext to the rules of the true doctrine i. e. to the Book of Canons received by them Where again by the way the notion of Apocryphal is evident as opposed to those which are received into the Codex Regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda And so by Bellarmine whom he names in the front of those most learned Papists and of him saith expresly and truly that he approves onely of 50 Canons of 85 de script Eccles in Clâ—m And then again I have now minded him of that which was before evident that the second Canon which was cited by me was one of those fifty and so not disproved by that learned Papist As for the other two Baronius and Binius whom he names to the same purpose as those who have disavowed and disclaimed them as Apocryphael I shall not accuse his confidence but must think he was in some haste that he could doe so Baronius being by him acknowledged to adde 30 more and Binius to have made a little inlargement of Canons which sure doth not intimate that they disavowed or disclaimed the fifty 8. So when he saith of them that they are faintly defended by any of the Papists I shall desire to know among many others Bovius Lamb. Gruterus Stapleton Haleander c. what he thinks of Turrian whether he were a Papist or no and whether he were a faint defender of them nay whether Monsieur Daillé take no notice of his zeal for them If he doe not I shall very much wonder at it If he doe I shall have the more reason for my question how he that sends me to be taught by M. Daillé had not learned so much from him that there was some Papist by whom they were not faintly defended So again when he saith that they have been throughly disproved and decryed by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them I might certainly mind him of more Protestants than one that have been far from decrying them I shall not mention as I might the severall Bishops of our Church since the Reformation and our Divines in their writings that make their Appeals to them frequently and with as pompous forms of citations as I have done semper inter genuinos habito I shall not adde the learned Hugo Grotius because I know not whether any or all of these may not be deemed by him to be no Protestants Onely what doth he think of Frigevillaeus Gautius He certainly An. 1593. in his second part of his Palma Christiana dedicated to Queen Elizabeth c. 1. 2. was far from disavowing and decrying those Canons How little short he came of Turrian himself I shall not now tell him lest he be disavowed as no Protestant for so doing but leave him at his leisure to inquire whether one such example might not have taken off from the generalitie of the affirmation decryed by all Protestants or indeed whether D. Blondel's vouching them in the manner which I shall by and by set down might not have had some force in it if he had taken notice of such things But all this by the way as an Essaâ— that some other men as well as H. H. may be confident in asserting 9. Secondly When immediately after his Animadversion on my words he mentions his Exceptions to the Books of Apostolical Constitutions and Canons taken out of Daillé and the learned Vsher 't is apparent that these all belong to the Books under Clement's name called the Apostles Constitutions But then it must be remembred that that Book of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Constitutions is another thing clearly distinct from the Book called the Apostles Canons and there is but one way imaginable to involve the later under the censure that belongs justly to the former and it is this That in some Copies the Constitutions and Canons are put together into one Volume and that 〈◊〉 Photius his time and that in the end of the Canons there is a solemn confirmation of the Constitutions But then it must be remembred again that these are later Copies which so confound them and I take not them to be genuine and that Canon is the eightie fifth of that Book and so no part of the first fiftie which I suppose to be the onely genuine Canons and consequently that none of the ridiculous things in the Constitutions is imputable to that former Collection but indeed on the contrary that one expression in that eightie fifth Canon which prescribes the keeping them close because of some mysterious passages in them is justly thought by learned men to betray them both the later 35 Canons and the Constitutions so magnified by them to be of a much later Edition than that which they pretend to 10. And thus I hope I have vindicated my self and given the grounds of my Assertion And for the confidence I did not I confess expect to be charged with any immoderate degree of it from any nor doe I yet discern how those few words in the Parenthesis semper inter genuinos habito could be deem'd so criminously guilty of it or that hee that undertook to be my Monitor having in so short a time proved so much more guilty of it should in any reason think himself the most competent for that office 11. To help him to any appearance of reason and so to qualifie him thus to charge me some want of observation of vulgar stile must be necessary either in not adverting what is ordinarily meant by their title of Apostolick Canons or some other the like That he takes the meaning of that title to be their pretension to be written by the Apostles or by Clement at their appointment I conclude from the words with which he begins that Paragraph The first writings that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures are the eight Books of Clement commonly called the Apostles Constitutions being pretended to be written by him at their appointment with the Canons ascribed to the same persons and if according to this his notion he conceive me by the word genuine to affirm that they are rightly so ascribed he is mistaken 12. That those Canons whether to the number of 85. or but of 50 were written by the Apostles I never meant but neither is that the meaning of those that cite them and call them as I have done by the vulgar name of Apostolick Canons If there be any doubt of this I shall prove it by competent testimonies whether among Papists or Protestants Of the former in stead of many I instance only in that account which Gabriel Albispine in his Observations rendreth of it that some of these Canons the fifty he means being made by the Successors of the Apostles the
vinctum à militibas duci ad magnam Romam My sentence is that Ignatius that saies he carries about in himselfe the crucified i. e. that calls himselfe Theophorus as he did in that answer to Trajan's calling him Cacodaemon Nullus Theophorum vâ—cat Cacademoâ—em shall be carried bound to great Rome and cast on the Theatre to the wilde beasts as we finde it in the relation of his Martyrdome Now this being then his ordinary title the other like words are directly of the same composition with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from hence I argued and I still thinke probably that his use of such compositions was an argument that he wrote these Epistles not that he wrote them not it being evident by that one word so vulgarly then used to signifie him Theophorus that such compositions were then agreeable to the eares and genius of that age 9. And the argument thus used by me was neither not apprehended or very uneffectually answered by opposing the words of Saint Hierome of Didymus that he exprest himself an Apostolical person by the simplicity of his language So Didymus might and yet the argument conclude probably that these Epistles were written by Ignatius because as he was vulgarly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so words of the like nature with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 familiarly discernable in those Epistles 10. As for the other words by Blondel objected which were of other formes of composition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My answer is that none of these are at all Monstreus in the language of a Syrian that writes Greek and that in the New Testament words are to be found as distant from common language and as extraordinarily compounded as these for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word made on purpose by Saint Paul without example of the like not onely of the same in other authors 11. To this answer of mine here is no kind of reply but of scoffes onely But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian and neer to Martyrdome though he writes his Epistles from Troas and Smyrna which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch and yet every where he saith he is going to Rome what is that to any man what style he used in his writings and so in the mode of sarcasme 12. But I wonder what caused this mirth and in sadnesse demand whether I ever rendered it as the reason of his using those new compositions that he was neer to Martyrdome he cannot but know that that was the plea for the exuberance of his affection which might render the reason of the warmer expressions which Blondel had censured for too much Rhetorick and to that it was proper though not to making of new words which is the present businesse 13. Secondly why might not he be a Syrian and write as a Syro-Graecian would write although his Epistles were dated from Troas and Smyrna 'T is sure enough that he lived at Antioch and that was the Metropolis of Syria the souldiers carrying him bound to Troas and Smyrna was not likely so suddenly to change his dialect or make him write more familiar Greek than in Antioch he would have written and being called vulgarly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Antioch what wonder is it that he should now write in the same style use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Smyrna 14. Thirdly For his going by Trâ—as and Smyrna from Antioch to Rome all records of his journey make it certaine and if it were not the neerest way the account hath been given of that in the former section And so the Praefacer might well enough have kept his countenance and spared his Sarcasmes Here was nothing to discompose him nothing ridiculous in all this 15. Lastly therefore for the foure Latine words turned into Greek used in those Epistles produced by D. Blondel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my answer is 1. that there is nothing strange in that it might be as great matter of wonder that in seven Epistles there are no more of that kinde 16. To which here it is replyed 1. that the Epistles are not so large a volume a few houres will serve to read them over 2. that no Roman Customes Observations Orders nor rules of Government did administer the least occasion of the use of these words and 3. that the like number cannot he produced out of all the Greek Fathers that I own the reading of 17. To these I answer 1. that as farre from large as the Epistles are there might as probably have been more such words as so many seven Epistles each of them being much longer than some of the Apostles in the Scripture if they had had but one such word a piece which sure each might as reasonably have as any this had almost doubled the number which now we finde in the objecters own computation And indeed three of these foure being altogether in the Epistle to Polyearâ—e which if with some I should leave out of the Collection of the Genuine I should have enough behind to maintain Episcopacy in all the other sixe there remaines but one which in no immoderate proportion 18. Secondly That as in Hegesippus fragments left to us in Greek Blondel hath taken notice of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as perfect and unexcusable a Latinisme as any of these so in the one Epistle of the Church of Smyrna of a very moderate length concerning Polycarps Martyrdome another piece of the same ages production we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another parallel instance of the use of such words at that time 19. 3ly The like words and phrases in the New Test which is also no vast volume though not fit to be read ad clepsidram the length of it measured by the houre-glasse are so many more than these that are accused and produced from these Epistles neer thirty for foure that this may well vindicate so small a number and make it more strange that there are no more than foure than it ought to be that there are so many 20. So in the next place for the foure heads into which he brancheth the causes of the use of Latine words among Greek writers I answer 1. that if he hath observed foure other men may as lawfully observe some other and are no way obliged to marshall all they finde of this nature under one of his foure heades 2. That if there be by him acknowledged foure such heads of causes I may reasonably allow Ignatius to have used foure such words and render but this one single reason for them all that Antioch being part of the Roman dominion and many that spake Latine inhabiting there foure Latine words might easily be transfused into
the Doctors gravity and selfe-denyall This is complained of by some who have tried it in reference to his late Comment on the Revelation And in this Differtation he is put by his owne thoughts I will not say guilâ—y to an Apologie cap. 1. Sect. 24. Quâ in re suffra gium suum tuâ—â—sse Hâ—gonem Grotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—x Annotationibus poâ—… nuper â—ditis postquam haec omn a Typographo transcripâ—a essent curâ—… perlectis edoctum gratulor Let not the Reaâ—er thinke that Doctor Ham had transmitted his papers full of raâ—e conjectures to the Prinâ—eâ— before Gâ—…us his Annotations on the Revelation were published but onely before he had read them The Doctor little thinkâ—s what a flye this is in his pot of Oyntment nor how undecent with all impartiall men such Apologies subservient to a frame oâ— spirit in bondagâ—… a mans owne esteeme and reputation appeare to be but let this passe and let the Saints that call upon the name of Jesus Christ in every place be the Saints in every part of Aâ—…a though the Epistle it selfe written indeed upon occasion takâ—n from the Church of Corinth yâ—â— was given by inspiration from God for the use not onely of all Saints in the whole world at that time wherein it was written but of all those who were to believe in any part or place of the world to the end thereof although the assertion of it be not built on any tolerable conjâ—cture but may be rejected with the same facility wherewith it is tendred what now will â—ence ensuâ— why hence it follows that Clement also wrote his Epistle to all the Churches in Aâ—haia Very good Paul writing an Epistle intituled chiefly to the Corinthians expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directs iâ— to all the Saints or Churches of Achaia yea to all that call upon the name of God in every place so that his Epistle being of Catholick concernment is not to be conâ—ined to the Church of Corinth onely although most of â—e particular things mentioned in that Epistle related onely to that particular Church Therefore Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of Corinth onely not onâ—â— mentioning nor insinuaâ—ing an intention of extending it to any other handling in it onely the peculiar concernment of that Church and a difference about one or two persons therein mâ—st be supposed to have wâ—iâ—en to all the Churches of Achaia And if such arguments as these will not prove Episcopacy to be of Apostolicall constitution what will prevaile with men so to esteeme it Si Pergama dextrâ defendi possent etiam hac deâ—ensa faissent And this is the â—ause of naming many Elders or Presbyters in one Church For my part I suppose the Doctor might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of his Dissert 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9. concerning two sundry different Churches where were distinct Officeâ—s in the same City Primò saith he respondeo non usquequaque verum est quod pro concesso fumitur quamvis enim in unâ Ecclesiâ aut 〈◊〉 plures simul Episcopi nunquam fuerint pray except them mentioned Act. 20. 28. and those Act. 14. 23. nihil tamen â—…are quin in eadem civitate duo aliquando â—…us diâ—â—erminati fuerint He might I say with more shew of probability have abode by this observation than to have rambled over all Greece to relieve himselfe against his adversaries But yet neither would this suffice What use may or will be made of this concession shall elsewhere be manifested 3. That which is extended to this length in this part of the Prefacers discourse may briefly be summ'd up into these four heads 1. a briefe touch of the difference betwixt Clemens and Ignatius the one mentioning but two the other three Orders in the Church 2. His asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters concluding that from the number of them many in that 〈◊〉 Church of Corinth 3. a taking notice of a first answer of mine to that argument and indeavouring to invalidate it 4. a reproach of my vaine-glory in borrowing notions from Grotius and being unwilling to be thought to doe so Which last though it hang loose from the matter in hand being perfectly extrinsecall to our Controversie whether about Ignatius Epistles or Episcopacie because 't is certaine that one that hath received help from Grotius is not for that the more likely to be in the wrong or to be unable to maintaine his assertions and because he that hath faults in his manners the vaine-glorious and ingratefull may yet by so good a guide as Grotius fall upon some truth yet I shall afterward punctually reply to and dispatch that also and shew how little happy the Prefacer is in all his acts of severity But as the order and the rule before me directs I must begin with the more materiall parts 4. And first for the difference betwixt Clement and Ignatius it was farre from being any observation of the Prefacers or usefull to him against us It is knowne to be a principal ingredient in the foundation on which I build and assert Episcopacie viz. that in the times of the Scriptures and of Clemens there appear to have been two and not above two Orders in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons that these Bishops were promiscuously styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Elders the nature of each word agreeing to denote a singular Governor and the use of it both in Scripture and Clemens no way inclining to determine it to a number or College of Presbyters in each Church ruling in Common Councel That Saint Paul Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1 Tim 3. expresly sets downe this course under the two plaine heads of Bishops and Deacons that Clemens is as expresse that the Apostles at their first preaching constituted or ordained their first converts to be Bishops and Deacons of those that should after believe that Epiphanius voucheth it out of the profoundest Histories the antientest Records that while the paucity of Christians was such as neither to need more than a Bishop and his Deacons in each Church nor to afford much choise of persons for any more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were contented every where with these two Lastly that when the number of believers was greatly increased and so permitted and required it then a second order under Bishops and above Deacons was erected in each Church by Apostles and Apostolical men particularly as may probably be collected by Saint John in Asia toward the end of his dayes and accordingly that Ignatius's Epistles written some yeares after John's death are the first that mention that second order 5. All this in every branch hath been distinctly cleared both in the Dissertations and since in the Vindication of them from the London Assemblers and not one word is here pretended to invalidate any one part of it any farther than as it will fall under
of Achaia in each of which the Apostles had instituted a Bishop And this is all that is there said in that second Chap. of Diss 5 And yet farther no part of this adapted as an answer to that objection of the plurality of Elders or any other but as things thought fit to be premised concerning that Epistle of Clâ—… before the taking into consideration any testimony produced out of it 4. This might spare me the paines of fâ—rther considering what is here replyed to this supposed second answer But I have not hitherto been so thristy as might now justifie any such hasty dismission of him I shall therefore 〈◊〉 diâ—pâ—se the matter orderly before me which is a lâ—ttle disordered and iâ—…led by the Prefacers hasty handling and then give answer to every appearance of scruple mentioned by him 5. There are two things to the businesse of 〈◊〉 â—…ly observable in this Epistle of 〈◊〉 First what he saâ—th of the Apostles constitutiâ—â— of Bishops and Deacons at their first preaching of the Gospel and this â—…lly considered through all Regions and Câ—…s where they preached without any restraining of their speech to the whether Church of Corinth or Churches of Achaia This is considered in Diss 5. cap. 10. and reference made in the margent to a former discourse Diss 4. cap. 10. where out of the most antient Records it had been cleared that at the first the Apostles had constituted no more in every Church than here were mentioned a Bishop and one or more Deacons And so to this 〈◊〉 practice of the Apostles it is that that referres which is here by the Prefacerâ—iscalled â—iscalled the colour of this second answer which he farther styles a miserable evasion and so evidently it belongs not to the plurality of Elders in Corinth c. 6. The second thing there discernible is the plurality of Bishops styled also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders among those to whom he there writes And those say I are the Bishops of all Achaia as that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province perteining to that Metropolis 7. Now these things ought thus to have been severed and then having competently vindicated the former of these Chap. 3. Sect. 4. that there were indeed at the first but two orders shewing when the middle order of Presbyters came in viz. most probably in Saint John's time in Asia and so lately as I was required manifested the second that of the Bishops of Greece being meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders I might as I said have reasonably been spared from being so speedily called out againe to the same exercises 8. But as it is I shall now attend him and first when he objects that what was discoursed of some Churches small and not yet formed or compleated at the first planting cannot be accommodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most firme and antient and which I affirme to have then been a Metropoliticall Church being confestly great numerous To this I answer 1. That I have no where affirmed this Church to be in Clements time small unformed c. nor had any occasion or temptation to doe so 2. That I no where accommodate to this Church at that time what I had before observed of the Church indefinitely at the first planting These two are but effects of the Prefacers hast without any foundation in any words of mine 3. That if I am now asked whether at this time of Clement's writing there were any more than two orders in Corinth and the other Cities of Greece I must say as formerly that though 't is probable there were none yet I finde no foundation in this Epistle either for denying or affirming it 9. The chiefe occasion of writing the Epistle was the sedition against the Bishops or Governors of the first order on designe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cast out of their Bishopricks some of those whom the Apostles had placed over them and either for Prsbyters the second or Deacons the third order there was no such contention but only as saith he the Apostles foresaw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the name or dignity of Bishop and so there is no occasion to mention any but their Bishops which yet is far from concluding that there were not any other for Deacons we are sure there then were no Bishop being ever without such 10. Again that Bishops continued to retain the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders even after there was a second sort ordained whom we now call Presbyters hath elswhere appeared from Polycarp Papias Irenaeus and Tertullian who certainly lived to see them in the Church and yet call Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Seniores and so the Bishops being call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clement is no indication that there were at that time no second order of Presbyters in that Church 11. And yet on the other side Clement's death falling not far from St. John's which was in the third of Trajan 't is as possible and I confesse to me much more probable that there might be yet no Presbyters ordain'd at Corinth or in the rest of Achaia at the time of his writing this Epistle And so there lies no obligation on me whose conjectures are wont to bring me so little thanks from the Prefacer to interpose them in this matter where I have so little light to see by Onely I am sure that the Prefacer's objection here mention'd would be of no force against me in case I should deny that there were then any Presbyters at Corinth because as the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Clemens affirmes of it can be no more than this that this Church was founded and establisht by the Apostles themselves and so was kept upright by them till the time of this sedition which Hegesippus tels us was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primus being Bishop of Corinth so that concludes nothing for their having Presbyters ordain'd among them And when I said that at the first preaching of the Apostles they instituted none but Bishops and Deacons I never granted or implyed or believed that as soon as ever that was done they instituted more viz. Presbyters also 12. And whereas he phansies my observation to be made of some Churches onely that were small and not yet formed c. this is another mistake for I take Clement's and Epiphanius's words universally of all Churches at their first planting the fuller as well as the thinner plantations As at Jerusalem where all the Antients tell us there was a Bishop presently upon Christ's Ascension and the-number of Believers so great that there were seven Deacons instituted to attend him yet neither in Scripture nor in the Antients finde we any footsteps of this middle order of Presbyters in that Citie at that time or soon after And the reason is clear that though in some Cities there were more in some fewer converts and so comparatively to others
Grounds of the Apostles instituting Metropoles The frame of Heathen Governments and the patterns among the Jewes civil and sacred Nâ—… 1. NExt he proceeds to that which I adde as an image of this model in the Church taken from Gods direction to Moses for the government of the Jewes thus 2. Bâ—…u Doctor addes Sect 5. Illud â—x Judâ—â—rum exemplari transcripsisse Apostolâ— vidâ—mur cum Mo aâ—… a id lege cautâ—m essâ—t ut Judiâ—es ministriâ—… qualâ—bâ—t civâ—taâ—e ordinaâ—…ur Deut. 16. 18. illâ— vâ—…ebus dabiâ—s ad Juâ—â—…cem Mâ—fis suâ—…ssâ—…m â—â—nedrio Hiâ—rosolym tano cinctum recurreâ—e â—…ntur Cap. 17. 9 anâ—… in Sâ—ct 6. â—e pâ—ovâ—s Jerusalem to have been the Mâ—…s of thâ—… Nâ—…ion Eg â—giaâ—… vâ—…o laudem But 1. The Dâ—… presume knowes befâ—…e this that those with whom he hath to 〈…〉 give him he thing in question upon his begging or request 〈…〉 consideration and inquirie is whether the Apâ—… any such modell of Church order and Government as is by the Doctor contended for to this he tells you that the Apostles seeme to have done it from the patterne of Mosaical institutions in the Church of the Jewes But Doctor the question is not with what respect they did it but whether they did it at all or no This the Doctor thought good to let alone till another time if we would not grant him upon his petition that so they did 2. This then is the Doctors second argument for his Diocesan and Metropolitan Prelates His first was from the example of the Heathers in their civill administrations and rule this second from the example of the Jewes Not to divert into the handling of the Church and Political state of the Jewes as appointed by God noâ— that dissonancie that is between the institution of civil Magistrates and Evangelicall administrations this is the summe of the Doctors reasoning in his 5 6 7 and 8. Sections God in the Church and among the people of the Jewes chose out one City to place his name there making it the place where all the types and ceremonies which he had appointed for the discovery and shadowing forth of the Lord Iesus Christ were visibly and gloriously to be managed acted and 〈◊〉 forth â—undry of them being such as whose Typicalnesse would have been destroyed by their muliplication and principally on this accounâ—…ing that place or City which was first Sâ—… the seat of the Kingdome or habitation of the chiefe ruler for the administration of Justice who appointed Iudges in all the Land for the good and peace of the people therefore the Churches of Iesus Christ disposed over the face of the whole world freed from obligations to Cities of Mountaines walling before God in and with a pure and spirituall worship having no one reason of that former institution in common with the Church of the Jewes must be cast into the same mould and figure I hope without offence I may take leave to deny the consequence and what more I have to say to this argument I shall yet deferre 3. One great fallacy I am here charged to be guilty of but having been oft accused of this very crime I yet never had the ill luck to be convict by him that I begge the question againe which saith he is onely this Whether the Apostles institutea any such order or no 4. But can this be a begging the question when Sect. 9. of that Chapter I expresly undertake to prove that the Apostles did institute such model and when he himselfe in the very next paragraph expresly confesses that I proceed to prove it 5. Can that be said to be begged which is undertaken to be proved and the proofes as yet not so much as considered by him and so certainly not invalidated Or can a man be bound to prove his assertion before he hath explained what he meanes by it or upon what grounds of credibility he affirmes it 6. That which I doe in that Chapter may analytically be divided into two parts 1. the grounds upon which 〈◊〉 conceive the Apostles thus modell'd the Church and secondly the proofes or testimonies by which I manifest that they did so The question in hand being a matter of fact whether or no the Apostles instituted Metropolitical Churches c. that was to be proved or disproved onely by testimonies and if that be not attempted to be done but taken for granted that were indeed a begging of the question but a due place being reserved for that in the latter part of the Chapter I conceive it no breach of the Lawes of discourse owned and exemplified by artists first to render the assertion credible by proposing the grounds upon which I conceive they did it 7. And those grounds were of two sorts 1 The known frame of the Heathen Governments where they came to plant the Gospel and by attending to which they should plant it more advantagiously and then what Nazianzen saith of Julian that it was in him a wise but a wicked policy for the reducing Heathenisme among Christians to appoint the heathen Priests to make use of the Christian observances may be very credible as an act of Divine policy in the Apostles to make their advantage for the propagating and preserving the Faith by observing and not going contrary to the civill distributions which they should meet with among the Heathens 8. Secondly The patternes of this among the Jewes and those we know the more considerable in this because they were there instituted by God himselfe and because many other observances in Christianity are by Christ and the Apostles visibly accommodated from the Jewes And againe there are two of those patterns one in their civil managerie Judges and Officers in every City Deut. 16. 18. and Moses in matters of higher concernment and difficultie with 〈◊〉 Sanâ—â—dâ—im at Jerusalem and the other in their Ecelesiastical the three families of the Levites separated for the sacred offices a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chiefe over them Num. 3. 24. and over them Eleazer the Sonne of Aaron the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the chiefes of the Levites And the advantages of order and unitie and due administration of Justice which recommended those formes among the Jewes were all fit to be taken care of and consequently were so many motives to induce the Apostles to copy them out under the New Testament and to observe the like uniformity in all their Plantations 9. And these grounds being thus laid as a foundation to support and fit the building which in the remainder of the Chapter was regularly i. e. by testimony of the Scripture and the Antient Church superstructed on it I cannot guesse what I could otherwise have done in respect of the Method than what was there designed by me And truly if I did let the proofe of the fact alone as he saith till another time as long as that other time was so neer at hand in the same Chapter in the very next Section after the
〈◊〉 which respect the common state of the Church as Zonoras interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being reserved and perteining to the care of the Metropolitan 8. This I suppose sufficiently expresses what subordination I meane the very same which the most Antient Canons of the Vniversal Church expresse to be due from the Bishop to the Metropolitan and then I shall not trouble my selfe to inquire what he meanes by some eminent Cities and Governors of a superior order in greater Cities which I should have thought had been Metropoles and Metropolitans had I not found them all placed by him in subordination to some one of high degree termed a Metropolitan And by that Character being assured that by the former he must meane no more but Bishops of inferior Cities I must be content not to understand the mysterie why they should yet be styled eminent and greater Cities and so briefly passe to the next thing 9. Secondly then he will examine my plea from that passage in the Acts cap. 15. and the thing he dislikes is my makâ—ng the question sent for resolution to Jerusalem to be referred to them by the single Church of Antioch This â—aith he 〈◊〉 doe not prove though if I could prove it it would doe me no good at all And yet to see in the processe of the discourse he severally grants all the rest And onely desires me not to be angry but to prove that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which is in effect to deny or bid me prove the conclusion without offering to deny above one proposition which therefore I must assume will if it be proved inferre the conclusion and so doe me all the good which I pretend to expect from it 10. Now truly that this question thus referred to Jerusalem was at this time Act. 15. 1. referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria I thought sufficiently proved by the text it selfe first cited cap. 14. 26. and 15. 3. In the former of these places the Apostles were come to Antioch as that signifies Antioch the great to difference it from another City of that name v. 21. the same which is by Plinie placed in Pisidia as here also it is ver 24. that City peculiatly where the Scripture saith they were first called Christians and whereof Euodius and Ignatius were constituted Bishops by Peter and Paul one of the Jewish the other of the Gentile Christians And being there they gathered the Church together ver 17. that I suppose to be the Church of the City of Antioch or if any more those certainly as some way relating and subordinate to Antioch which againe inferres Antioch to be their Metropolis Then of Antioch it followes that there they abodâ— v. 28. And then cap 15. 〈◊〉 certaine men which came downe from Iudea infused the Iudaical ritual doctrine into the brethren who are those but the Christians of Antioch where then they were And upon the dispute had with those Iudaiâ—â—rs v. 2. they determined that sure must still be the Church of Antioch peculiarly that Paul and Barnabas should goe to Jerusalem about this question and then ver 〈◊〉 they are brought on their way by the Church What Church is this still but the Church cap. 14. 27. i. e. the Church of Antioch 11. This was my way of proofe designed to lay the foundation of that argument of Antioch's being the Metropolitical See that this question was referred to Ierusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch And I must hereby thinke it competently proved unlesse some weake part be discovered in it or some absurdity or repugnancy be objected to it None of which I see is here done 12. For 1. as to that which is offered at by his saying that I have not proved that the brethren that taught the doctrine contested about ver 1. were onely of the Church of Antioch sure that is of no force For as I doubt not but the same doctrine might be and was infused into many others in Galatia Colosse yea and Rome it selfe as he truly â—aith and never conceived that the poyson was confined to or inclosed within Antioch so all that is needfull to my â—urâ—e is this that at this point of time noted Acts 15. 1. the Iudaizers pretensions were sollicited at Antioth and that on that particular occasion of the dispute betweene Paul and them the question was by them peculiarly referred to Ierusalem And that sure might be done by them alone though others farre distant as well as they either at that or some other time were disturb'd with the like scruples 13. That which the Prefacer here confesses that the disputes grew to the greatest height in Antioch is a very sufficient account in this matter why Antioch peculiarly should send up to Ierusalem about this question when others who were not so much concern'd in it did not doe so And moreover the convenience of such Messengers Paul Barnabas who could say so much from the successe they had had among the Gentiles toward the deciding of the question might both qualifie and incite them to doe it rather than any others at this time And so still there is more reason why I should conceive the question referred to Ierusalem peculiarly or alone by Antioch and not so by Colosse or Rome or Galatia and no appearance of any thing yet produced to the contrary 14. Secondly He addes then to Antioch brethren from other parts and Churches also came whilst Paul and Barnabas abode gâ—ere To what purpose this is urged by him I know not but this I know that there is no mention in that story of any such but onely of those which ver 1. came from Iudea and taught the necessity of Iudaizing And of them 't is not probable that they joyned with the Antiochians to referre the question to Ierusalem or if they did I am sure the Decretal Epistle from the Councel was not addrest to them but to the Gentile Christians ver 19. 23. and takes no other notice of them than as of seducers ver 24. And so still it appeares not of any that they thus referred the question but onely of the Antiochians 15. Thirdly Whereas he concludes it most evident from the Councel's answer ver 23. that the reference is made from all the Churches of the Gentiles if he meane it of all other Gentile Churches beside Syria and Cilicia as Phrygia Galatia c. Which he after mentions and Rome and Colosse which before he had mentioned there is no appearance of truth in it the text saying expressely that it was sent to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia But if he means it of all not absolutely but all of Syria and Cilicia and not onely of Antioch then as that is the very thing observed by me to prove that Antioch was the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia so certainly it is far
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be praevious to their blamelesse officiating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to say their consent was needfull or required to their constitution as to the thing to be done for that also supposeth it praevious to it 19. This was a competent security to me that my rejecting Blondel's conclusion was no Magisterial dictate of mine But then the Circumstances of the context through the whose Epistle make it most evident that Blondel then was and this Praefacer now is mistaken 20. For to represse the furie of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seditions against their Bishops he had before immediately told them how these Bishops were placed among them viz. after this manner The Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knew or understood by Christ that there would be contention for the name of dignity of Bishops For which cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having received perfect fore-knowledge they constituted the foresaid Bishops and after left a list or roll of successors that when any dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other approved persons should take up or succeed to their office 21. Here the Question may be What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 approved persons and who had the approving them For if the People had then Blondel and the Prefacer are in the right but if not then still here is nothing to be pretended for them 22. And indeed another yet former fundamental place of Clement in this Epistle takes away all place of doubting and tells us punctually whose approbation it was The Apostles saith he preaching through regions and cities constituted their first converts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examining or approving them by the spirit to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those which should come into the Faith 23. Here 1. it is not imaginable how the examination and approbation could belong to the people or the whole Church when those over whom they were constituted were not yet come in they are made Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those which should afterward come in to the Faith And 2. if there had been a full Church to choose yet the matter in Clemens extending not onely to the Bishops of the present but also to the successors for the future age what right could the then present people have to choose not onely for their own but the future age and so deprive their successors of their Priviledge 24. But waving both these the matter is otherwise cleare They are the same persons which did preach and constitute and examine or approve i. e. the Apostles did every of these And doing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Spirit by Revelation or direction of the Spirit in the same manner as they are said to know by Christ that there would be contention about this matter and that having received perfect fore-knowledge they constituted those Bishops it is evident they had no need of any act of the People in doing it and so that the examination and approbation was that of the Apostles and not of the People of the Apostles assisted and directed by the Spirit of God and not so much as advised that we heare of or instructed by the people 25. This farther appeares by another passage in that Epistle where this act of the Apostles approving by the Spirit and receiving perfect fore-knowledge what would fall out and what they should doe is by him illustrated by the example of Moses who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore-knew i. e. certainly had it revealed to him by God that Aaron should be the Priest 26. Examples of such Revelations of God's in the first times I have set downe in the Dissertations As first of Matthias when God being prayd to that he would demonstrate or declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the two he had chosen he did by lot point him out to be the person Act. 1. 24. Secondly of Paul and Barnabas Act. 13. 2. Thirdly of Timothy to whom the Episcopal dignity was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Prophesie 1 Tim. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the prophesies which had before been delivered of him 1 Tim. 1. 18. Upon which Chrysostome and Theophylact make their observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The dignity of Bishop which they there style of Doctorship and Priesthood being great wants God's direction that a worthy person may receive it And the same is affirmed by Clemens in Eusebius l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishops whom Saint John ordained in Asia that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified to him by the Spirit According to what Saint Paul had formerly said of the Bishops of Asia Act. 20. that the holy Ghost had set them to preside over the flock peculiarly 27. This I must think was and still is sufficient to cleare the difficulty and put it beyond question who they were by whom the Bishops in Clement are said to be approved certainly not the People but the Apostles that constituted them or yet higher the Spirit of God who signified or pointed them out unto them or by whose directions they approved them 28. I shall not now need more largely to insist on all the severalls here objected against me by the Prefacer By this clear setting down of the whole matter 't is certain all his exceptions must speedily vanish I shall but touch on them that have not yet so fully been taken notice of and prevented in passing 29. And 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were viri Apostolici though it was truly supposed by me yet was it not my magisteriall dictate but to my hand the plain affirmation of D. Blondel My words were regularly to be confronted to his conclusion in the very forme wherein he had produced it and so I was to set it by Apostolicis also 30. The Reader may if he will see my rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally by illustribus viris and the putting of i. e. Apostolicis Spiritu Dei probatis into a Parenthesis signified Apostolicis to be no rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but another character of the same men collected out of other parts of the Epistle 31. And so indeed it is most evident by the whole place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops constituted by the Apostles and after them by other illustrious persons that those that are there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illustrious men were the successors of the Apostles such as when they were gone constituted Bishops in the Church 32. And then what offence was there in my calling them Apostolicall persons Or what pretense for the Prefacer to say they were onely the choice men of the Church in opposition to my calling them Apestolicall Choice men of the Church I know they were for so must they be deemed who by the Apostles were left Rulers of it But such the Prefacer cannot meane when he sets it in opposition to me who