may be in them 4. Master Brightman I know and some others 't is possible may have interpreted the Angel to signifie the whole College of Pastors and truly I should much sooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of these Assemblers than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman He was one learned man long knowne to be unkinde to our Pralates and here are many for ought I know as learned though under the same praejudices 5. Some others here cited I cannot believe are brought to testifie this but onely that what is said to the Angel in each part of the Epistle was said to the whole Church and not onely to the Bishop and if that be all they say it is that which we cannot doubt to affirme with them and have oft confest to understand Christ's Epistle so without any incommodity to our praetensions 6. If I mistake in these conjectures I desire pardon and shall hope to give a better account when I reade the testimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited For in these derivations of testimonies the Assemblers citing them from Smectymnuus Smectymnuus from Master Foxe Master Foxe from Primasius c. there is great possibility of mistake and therefore I shall follow the example before me forbeare adding any more of this matter 7. In the next place they are pleased to take notice as of an objection against their interpretation that some Authors say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle others that Onesimus was Bishop others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that time and therefore these Angels must needs be taken individually for so many single persons 8. Of this Objection which they have thus formed for us there is onely thus much of truth that out of authentique Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothies being constituted by St. Paul Bishop of Ephesus for Onesimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius's writing to the Ephesians that Polycarpe was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by S. John of all which we have spoken enough already 9. But of all or any of these being Bishops in those Cities at the very time of Christ's addressing this Epistle to the Angels of each this had no where been our affirmation nor would it have beene usefull to us in any considerable degree if we had grounds positively to affirme it All that is needfull to us is this that by the Antient Records which evidence them to have been so early Bishops in two of those Churches to which Christ's Epistle was sent and Bishops in the notion wherein we now use the word we are secured of the truth of ouâ— collections when from the mention of the seven Angels of the 7. Churches we assert the Ecclesiasticall power in the hands of a single Bishop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Christ And supposing some other persons and none of these three to have beene those very numericall Angels to whom those Epistles were written this conclusion of ours stands yet as firme as if we could demonstrate it of those very numericall persons there being no reason to doubt but the same manner of Government continued all the Scripture times and to Timothies successour and Onesimus's predecessor being as certainly Bishops as either Onesimus or Timothy himselfe when withall we have already produced mentions from the Antients of the Catalogues of those Bishops which succe dede Timothy in that See 10. Having thus set right the Objection for them so as it is owned by us to be an Objection against them it will now soone appeare what force there is in their answers to it and those are three 11. First that they that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeale to Episcopacy they make that glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injury is offered by Objections to Onesimâ—s 12. But first you see whatever our opinion is exprest to be we have not affirmed either of these as to the person either of Timothy or Onesimus but left it uncertaine who the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was whether either or neither of these but some successor of the one and predecessor of the other and so what charge soever falls on that Angel it falls not necessarily on either of these 13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties affirmed by them and acknowledged by me that the Epistle being addrest to the Angel of Ephesus the Church or diffusive body the Christians in it were concerned in the contents of it And then whatsoever charge be found in the Epistle of how heavy a nature soever even of Apostacy it selfe yet there is no necessity the Angel or Bishop should be personally guilty of it and so whosoever the Bishop was though Timothy himselfe our zeale to Episcopacy hath not beene so blind or transporting as to put us on any uncharitable censure to affix any unhandsome character upon so glorious a Saint 14. Lastly to remove this answer yet one degree farther from being satisfactory it no where appeares that apostacy is in that Epistle laid to the charge whether of the Church or Angel The first part is all in commendatiâ—n of their former zeal and the later wherein their charge consists v. 4. is only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not as is suggested losing their first love but remitting it Their love to Christ had formerly been strong as death pure and vehement such as had cast out all feare of dangers and evidenced it selfe in couragious confession but now though it were not quite lost yet it was remitted lessened in the degree not so intense as formerly and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen that fall doth not necessarily signifie Apostacy or renouncing of Christianity for then it had been an impertinent threatning to remove their Chandlestick v. 5. but a falling from the former degree a cooling of the intense heat which had been so laudable in them And so still there is more invalidity in this first answer Section XII Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop THe second is that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called Bishop of Ephesus in their sense 2. To this I reply 1. That Timothies being an Evangelist no way prejudgeth his being a Bishop in our â—ense An Evangelist is one commissionated by any of the Apostles ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell to any City or People And a Bishop is one commissionated by the like Apostle to praeside in and governe a Church already planted And what hinders but that he that hath beene employed in the former capacity to plant may elsewhere or in the same place be appointed to Governe and
and so they are generally rejected by those who mainteine ours as well as their interests I shall onely adde that there is no one word in them concerning Bishops nor were they ever produced by any Prelatist in defence of them Next then say they As for his other twelve Epistles five of them are by invincible arguments as we conceive proved by Vedelius to be written by a Pseudo-Ignatius Eusebius and Hierome make mention but of seven Here also will easily be granted by us whatsoever is demanded For though Vedelius a Divine of Geneva since the casting out of their Bishop and setting up of the new Government might well be lookt on as a partiall arguer or Judge concerning Ignatius's writings yet it being true and by me formerly acknowleged that Eusebius and St. Hierome mention but seven Epistles of his I shall also be ready to yeild to the utmost that Vedelius contended that there be no more then seven Genuine Epistles of Ignatius not that every of the other five can be proved to be suppositious but because the antient testifications of the Church doe not make it so evident that those other five are all his as of the other seven they doe According to this concession it is that in the Dissertations all the Testimonies which are produced in defence of Episcopacy are taken out of those seven Epistles which St. Hierome the Presbyter and onely trusted friend of the Presbyterians doth acknowledge to be his But of these seven also they have somewhat to say in these words And for those seven though with Scultetus Vedelius and Rivetus we doe not renounce them as none of his yet sure we are they are so much adulterated and corrupted that no man can ground any solid Assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius's workes I hope I shall not now be lookt on as an intemperate asserter of Episcopacy if in this third step also I goe so farre with the Presbyterians as to yeld that I shall rest contented even with those parcells of those seven Epistles which these most rigid censors even Vedelius himselfe which published him at Geneva is content to acknowledge for his If this be allowed me I shall need demand no more The matter is evident any man may consult Vedelius's edition and finde testimonies as cleare for our turne as could be wisht in those parts of those Epistles which he allowes of But for the purging of Ignatius as of all other Antients I suppose the Method which Vedelius used proceeding for the most part by his owne conjecture and phansie is not likely to be the best The one course which any Judicious Man would require or depend on hath been used in this matter since Vedelius had done his best I meane the most antient copies in Europe have been consulted and God's Providence hath been eminently discernable in the result of that inquiry Isaac Vossius a knowne learned Man of that part of the Reforme◠Church which is governed by Presbyters hath met with an Antient Manuscript in the Medicaean library which hath none of the suspected Epistles and is perfectly free from those passages which were formerly among sober Men made matter of suspicion against the Epistles And as in them we finde those very passages intire which the Antients have cited out of them so from them againe all the Testimonies are fetcht which we desire to make use of in this matter So that if ever Ignatius wrote those Epistles which from Polycarpe downward the Antients generally agree that he wrote I have no reason to feare or doubt but his authority and the Testimonies I have brought from him will be of full value and force in this matter When this Copy out of the Medicaean Library was first transcribed by Vossius the greatest enemies of Episcopacy were much taken with it D. Blondel confesses that he presently got a Transcript of it compared it with the Testimonies which the Fathers Polycarpe Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Ierome Chrysostome c. had cited out of Ignatius and finding them all to agree with this copy confesseth of himselfe that he was glad for this age of ours that we had now gotten that very copy that 1300. yeares ago Eusebius had used and expected great light from thence But at length this proved not for his turne the Author spake so much of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season that he set himselfe to form arguments against it which are answer'd at large in the Dissertations But beside this Greeke copy of Vossius's Edition it fell out very opportunely that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh about the same time met with some antient Latine copies in England which he thought fit to publish although the Translation were rude and barbarous and that Latine Edition of his was found every where agreeable to that Greeke of Vossius freed as that from all interpolations and by this concurrence of these Providences there is all reason to think that we have at last the Epistles of Ignatius as purely set out as either that of Clemens or Polycarpe or any other antient writing And in this purity it is that we now appeale to it and have the three orders in the Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and the Obedience and respects due to them as evidently and irrefragably asserted in very many places as any truth of Scripture can be expected to be After all this most distinctly deduced in the Dissertations they yet proceed we will not say they for our parts trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject If he please he may read what the Archbishop of Armagh what Rivet Vedelius and Cooke in his Censura Patrum and what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles There is a Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the Objections of the two last But this Doctor should doe well to answer also what the Archbishop of Armagh hath written about these Epistles who proves at large that six of them are nothae the other six mixtae and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincerae genuinae who also tells us out of Casaubone that among all the Ecclesiasticall Monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence than in Ignatius's Epistles This being the summe of their charge on me in this place that having answer'd all the Arguments of Blondell and Salmasius I hope satisfactorily or else they were very unkinde not to expresse their dislikes of some one answer I have not yet answer'd the Arguments of the Archbishop of Armagh against these Epistles I shall hope that when either I have done that or given competent reason why I need not do it I shall not need to travaile any farther in this Argument yet to omit no paines which they can but thinke of prescribing me I shall take the whole matter of this their last Section before
me and consider every part of it And 1. For Rivet Vedelius and Cooke in Censura Patrum 't is evident that their exceptions and censures belong to the former Printed Copies of Ignatius that especially which had beene set out by Mastraeus a Papist against whom Vedelius his Edition and Exercitations were chiefly designed But then Vedelius having called this volume to a very strict examination 't is evident that that Copy which he had thus purged cannot be still lyable to his and the like exceptions which before were made against the former Copies As for Salmasius and Blondell their exceptions have as is here confest been already examined and I need say no more of them till those answers be some way attempted to be invalidated which here they are not but instead of it I am called to answer the Archbishop of Armagh his Arguments Lastly therefore for the Archbishop of Armagh It is first somewhat unexpected that what he had said as the ground and occasion of making a new Edition setting out this very antient Copy and by it purging Ignatius who had before been so corrupted in his opinion should now be proposed to me to be answered who use that very Copy which that Archbishop set out and acknowledge it was formerly as corruptly set forth as he conceived it to be Is it not visible that the Archbishop's whole designe in two impressions of those Epistles was to set them out free from all corruptions and mixtures and interpolations which they had before been under And that all his discourses in his Prolegomena were to prove the former editions to have been corrupt and so that theâ—e was great need of seeking out better Copies and that he verily thought he had now found such And then what can be required of me to answer in his writings who am directly of his opinion in all the substantiall parts of the whole matter As for lesser doubts as whether that one to Polycarpe be among the genuine or no though with Eusebius and St. Hierome I believe it is and have given the reasons of my opinion yet I need not controvert this with any because the other six will still serve my turne abundantly and the Testimonies out of the most purged Geneva or Amstelodam-editions of those six will sufficiently vindicate Episcopacy in our present notion of it to be then received and of the Apostles erecting in the Church A few of these Testimonies I shall here set downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Reader may know the unquestionable opinion of Ignatius and how farre I am from necessity of using any corrupted copy of those Epistles First then in his Epistle to the Smyrnaans we have the three Orders set down distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like in 3. places to the Ephesians in 3. to the Magnesians in 4. to the Philadelphians in 4. to the Trallians So secondly we have their particular Bishops mentioned as such Polycarpe of Smyrna in the Epistle to the Magnesians Onesimus of Ephesus in his congratulation to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they had such a Bishop adding Burrhus his Deacon Damas of the Magnesians together with the names of two of their Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius and Sotion the Deacon all in the Epistle to the Magnesians Polybius of the Trallians in the Epistle to them Thirdly we have his affirmation concerning Bishops through the whole World that they are constituted as or by the minde of Christ i. e. sent by him as he by his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ is the mind or by or according to the mind of the Father sent and Commissionated by him to reveale his will to us and so the Bishops constituted through the World are the minde or by the minde of Christ Fourthly he tells us that all in the â—hurch particularly Presbyters must yeild obedience to the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all follow the Bishop in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that being subject to the Bishop yee may be sanctified in all things in Ep. ad Eph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yee ought to pay all reverence to the Bishop adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had observed their pious Presbyters to doe though their Bishop were yong in Ep. ad Magnes and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject to the Bishop so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give heed to the Bishop in Ep. ad Philad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject and it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell yee that obey the Bishop in Ep. ad Trall Fifthly he oft addes that nothing ought to be done in the Church without licence of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let none without the Bishop doe any of the things that belong to the Church instancing in Baptisme and the other Sacrament in Ep. ad Smyr and so in the Epistles to the Philadelâ—hians and Trallians Sixthly that a convenient reverence and respect is also due to the Presbyters and to the Deacons as is every where taken notice of by him almost in every Epistle And all this and much more we have in the Copies which are now come most uncorrupt unto us And there is no imaginable way to avoid the force of these Testimonies and the authority of that holy Martyr for Episcopacie but the una litura expunging or casting away the whole volume of Epistles For the truth is his whole designe before his departure from the world being this one of divine Charity to fortifie the severall stocks to which he wrote against the poyson of Hereticks the Gnosticks so early creeping in and despising the Governors of the Church as they had done the Apostles themselves and the Doctrine of the Apostles being by him knowne to be deposited with the Bishops in each Church and having particular assurance of the sanctity and founâ— faith of the present Governors of these Churches to which he writes He thinkes fit to make use of this one most compendious course most immediately tending to his end to keep them all in obedience to their Bishops and officers under them and to make the contrary as it was indeed the sure marke of Haereticks whom they were to avoid And so this is it which hath so fill'd all the Epistles except that one to the Romanes with continuall discourse of the Bishops c. And it is evident that in that present conjuncture of affaires nothing could with more reason and â—tnesse have been insisted on Meane while that I may returne to the place from which I have a while diverted It is so certaine and evident of the learned Archbishop of Armagh that he never disputed against the validity and authority of these Epistles thus purged that it cannot be unknowne to them that thus dispute what arguments he hath urged for the
authority of them and in like manner what and how satisfactory answers he hath given to the speciall exceptions of others which very thing occasioned a particular letter of reply to him from D. Blondell which by that Archbishops favour I received and made my rejoinder to it in the Dissertations This I hope may be sufficient to have said in this matter instead of undertaking so unreasonable a taske of answering any thing asserted by that Archbishop As for that which followes out of him and M. Casaubone of Baronius and the Papists making such use and placing such confidence in these Epistles above all other Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is speedily answered also out of what is already said that they were the former corrupt editions which were abroad in Baronius's time with all those supposititious additions interpolations which the Papists are either by Mr. Casaubone or that Archbishop said to have made use of there being no one word or period in this volume to which my appeale is made which yeildeth any advantage to the Papists in any point nor is it nor can it be pretended by any that it doth unlesse by those in whose opinion the mainteining of Bishops is reputed for such And therefore that very learned man M. Casaubone is so far from rejecting all these Epistles that he distinctly promiseth nonnullaruâ—n ex illis antiquitatem se novis rationibus tuiturum that he will if God permit defend the antiquity of some of them by reasons which others had not taken notice of Exerc. 16. Cont. Baron Sect. 10. And this promise of his is cited by the Archbishop Dissert de Epist Ign. pag. 136. so farre is it from all appearance of truth which is cited as the opinion of these two learned men After all this three Reasons they will briefly offâ—r why they cannot build their judgâ—ment concerning the Doctrine of the Primitive Church about Episcopacy upon Ignatius's Epistles 1. Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius Gelasiuâ— and Theodoret which are either not to be found in these Epistles or to be found altered and changed and not accoâ—ding as they are quoted This is Râ—vets argument and pursued at large by the Archbishop to whom we referre the Reader Being among their other Readers referr'd to the Archbishop of Armagh for the validity and pursuit of this first reason I shall to him very securely make my appeale what force there is in it against the volume of Epistles now twice in severall formes published by him And in the â—rolegomena to the former of them pag. 15 16 c. this is most evident that the passages cited by Athanasius Gelasius and Theodoret which were not indeed to be found in the former printed Greek copies are exactly discerned and evidenced by him to be in the old latine Interpreter which he therefore thought fit to publish both out of Caius College and Bishop Montacutes Library The same hath he farther shewn cap 4. pag. 19. c. out of the same and other of the Antients Eusebius Hierome c. and set downe the places in columnes by way of parallel to demonstrate the agreement of this Copy with the genuine Ignatius And is it not a little strange that I should be now referred to that Archbishop for the pursuit of this argument which he hath so distinctly proved to be of no force against the Copy which now I use but to concurre in demonstrating the purity of it Their second Reason they draw from his over-much extolling himselfe in his Epistle to the Trallians where he saith that he had attained to such a measure of knowledge that he understood heavenly things the orders of Angels the differences of Archangels and of the heavenly host the differences between powers and dominations the distances of thrones and powers the Magnificencies or Magnitudes of Aeones or Principalities the sublimity of the Spirit the excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims the Kingdome of the Lord and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such arrogant boasting can proceed from such an holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was And who would believe that the writer of this Appendix which had cited the Archbishop of Armagh in his Prologomena to his first Edition of Ignatius and so could not but be able to have consulted that Edition should thus thinke to defame and blast the whole volume of Epistles for one such periods sake which is not to be discerned in this or that Archbishops latter or in Vossius's edition of them to which onely he must know we make our appeale for Episcopacy In these Copies the words are quite distant from what is here cited and in effect directly contrary to them evidences of the greatest humility now when he was so neer the honor of Martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I am not because or in that I am in bonds able also to understand heavenly things the Positions of Angells their assemblies of Principalities or of the Rulers of them both things visible and invisible Besides this I am yet also a Disciple c. What arrogance I pray or boasting is there in this and yet he addes no more in that place but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For many things are wanting to us that we may not be left behinde by God thinking himselfe utterly unworthy of the honour and fearing he may yet misse of it to suffer Martyrdome for him And so much for the second Reason The third which say they is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over-anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange and Hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacie were not upheld and with such multiplyed repetitions ad nausâ—am usque that we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel suppâ—sitias esse vell â—oede corruptas and that they doe neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such an holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them What reasons and designe Ignatius had to exhort the Christians to whom he writes to oâ—edience to their Governors in the Church hath already been said at large this being the onely expedient that at that time could be thought on to keep out most dangerous heresies out of the Church And therefore what that holy Martâ—r did in that kind when he was carryed from his owne Church never to returne to it againe cannot be lookt on as the seeking any great things for himselfe and so contrary to either his piety or humility but as a desire full of both those that the Church of God might enjoy truth and peace after the beasts had devoured him As for the strange and hyperbolicall expressions mentioned in the objection and exemplified in the two
their quarrelling with it leave out this latter part of Presbytery and Deacons they cannot finde in their hearts to quarrell or accuse him for bidding them follow the Presbytery as the Apostle the onely crime was to bid them follow the Bishop not as Christ in the dative i. e. as they follow Christ but as Christ followes his Father the onely pâ—acular offence to recommend unity with and obedience to the Bishop But that by the way It followes in the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no Man without the Bishop doe ought which belongs to the Church Let that be accounted a firme Eucharist which is done by the Bishop or him whom the Bishop shall permit Where the Bishop appeares there let the multitude be as where Christ is there is the Catholick Church It is not lawfull without the Bishop i. e. as before without commission from him either to Baptize or Administer the Eucharist but what he approves of thus in these publick Ministrations that is well pleasing to God that it may be saâ—e and firme whatsoever is done It doth well that men know God and the Bishop as their Ruler under God with whom his truth is by the Apostles deposited he that honours the Bishop is honoured by God he that doth any thing clancularly without him serves the Devill performes a very acceptable service to him For so in a very eminent manner the Hereticks of that age the Gnosticks did which secretly infused their devilish Leaven and deadly poyson into mens hearts by which they took them quite from Christ but could not have done so successefully if this Holy Martyr's counsell here had been taken What inconvenience can be imagined consequent to our affirming that Ignatius was the author of these words I confesse not to comprehend Of this there is no question but that it is the ordinary Language of the antient Church and accounted necessary in an eminent degree to preserve unity and truth in the Church and to hold up the authority of Governours among all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without the minde of the Bishop Can. Apost 40. and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he is intrusted with the people of the Lord So in the 56. Canon of Laodicaea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters must do nothing without the minde of the Bishop and so in the Councell of Arles Can. 19. The Presbyters must doe nothing in any Diocesse sine Episcopi sententia without the Bishops minde and sine authoritate literarum ejus without authority of his Letterâ— All that is here offer'd by them to make the like words in Ignatius a competent charge upon which to throw away the whole volume of Epistles is onely this If this be true Doctrine what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as John Major saith lib. 2. Histor de Gestis Scotorum c 2. was after it's first conversion to the Christian faith above 230 yeares without Episcopall Government To this double question I might well be allowed to render no answer It being certainly very extrinsecall to the Question in hand which is onely this whether Ignatius wrote or wrote not those Epistles to examine what shall become of the Reformed Churches c. It were much more reasonable for mee to demand of the Objectors who suppose their Presbyteriall platforme as that is opposed to Episcopall to be setled in the Church by Divine Right If this Doctrine be true what did become of all those Primitive Churches all the World over which they confesse departed from this modell and set up the contrary and so of all the succeeding ages of the Church for so many 100 yeares till the Reformation and since that also of all the other Churches which doe not thus farre imitate Mr. Calvin casting out the Government by Bishops Is it not as reasonable that they should be required to give a faire and justifiable account of their dealing with and judging post factum of all these as I should be obliged to reconcile Ignatius his speech concerning his present age with the conveniencies of the Reformed Churches which he could neither see nor be deemed to speak of nor consequently to passe judgement on them by divination What they were guilty of which secretly infused their poyson into Men and Women in his age and would not let the Bishop the Governour of the Church be the Judge of their Doctrines and â—ractices he here tells us viz. That they performed service to the Devill in stealing Mens hearts from Christ But what crime it was in those of Corinth and through all Achaia to turne their Bishops out of their places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cast them out of their Episcopacy their Office and Ministration this he tells them not in that place Clemens Romanus had done it competently in his Epistle As for the particular case of those Reformed Churches which have done more then so not onely cast out their present Governours but over and above utterly cast off the Government it selfe there had been I confesse a great deale said both in this and other places of Ignatius and many other Antient Writers who yet never foretold these dayes abundantly sufficient to have restreined them from so disorderly proceedings if they would have pleased to have hearkned to such moderate counsells But having not done so Ignatius hath gone no farther he is only a witnesse against them he undertooke not the Office of a â—udge so farre beyond his Province hath pronounced no sentence upon them And to proceed one degree farther to the successors of those in the Reformed Churches as many as are justly blameable for treading in their Leaders steps though I may truely say they have as little taken that Holâ— Martyrs advise and more than so that they have retaind a considerable corruption in their Churches and that they should doe well if now they know how to restore themselves to that medell which they find every where exemplified in Ignatius yet till they shall have done so I know that they are exactly capable of being concerâ—d in any part of these words last cited from Ignatius For they that have no Bishop at all cannot be required to doe nothing without consulting with the Bishop They are justly to be blamed as farre as they are guilty that they have no Bishop but then that is their crime and they are to reforme it as soone as they please but that being supposed this of not consulting the Bishop while they have none is no new crime nor liable of it selfe to the censure of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here which was affixt to those that had Bishops and would not have their Doctrines examined by that standard of which they were the Depositaries And this is as much as is needfull to be said in this place for that first inconvenience affixt to Ignatius's words As for the other
transcribing it Thirdly that if any one or more places shall be thought by any man to belong to Presbyters in our moderne sense as that of Jam 5. 14. or the like I shall onely desire that he will bring any convincing proofe or authentick Testimony that in that or those places it so signifies and I shall most willingly grant it to him and be so farre from thinking it in the least degree disadvantagious to our pretensions that I shall not doubt to evidence it a demonstrative argument to confirm them but shall not need to insist on that till such proofe be offered Fourthly that by this it is already most evident that my assertion was not truely cited p. 92. in these words that wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meere Presbyter but of a Bishop properly so called Certainly neither my words nor sense extended to the wheresoever and it is to be being onely in a disjunctive forme either constantly so or sometimes but rarely otherwise Fifthly that if I were not misreported and the Paradox were as high and as positive as it is represented yet I conceive not the reason why they that have with great confidence affirmed that both Bishops and Elders do alway signifie in Scripture their Presbyters and no more for if either of those words do but once signifie a Bishop their Jus Divinum and whole cause falls to the ground irrecoverably should be so much at leisure from excusing themselves to accuse that for a Paradox in others which is not imaginable to be more an extreme on one side then theirs is on the other Lastly that if they doe not thinke it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these which they thus please to style Paradoxes which is in effect as if they should professe to deny and declaime against the conclusion without attempting to satisfie any reason by which it is inferr'd It might be as just in me to tender them answers of the same making and so to supersede any farther dispute in this matter But I shall not imitate their method but rather prepare to attend them in it and having thus farre served them by undertaking the taske which was due to them in giving the Reader a briefe view of the grounds of my Assertions which were too long for them to take notice of I shall now trace their steps and follow them which way soever they lead Section IV. Of Reverence to Antiquity and the Interpretations of the Antients Of Praelatists disagreement among themselves FIrst then say they we desire it may be considered that these assertions are contrary to antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren doe so highly magnifie and boast of it in this controversy and for receding from which as they say we do they doe most deeply charge us That these Assertions as farre as they are owned by me and are Assertions are so distant from being contrary to antiquity that they are founded in the Records of the most antient reverend authority hath appeared most plainly by what hath now been said and had before been laid as the ground of the interpretations in the fourth Dissert if they which gathered the conclusion from thence would have vouchsafed to take notice of the praemisses The utmost that can be with truth pretended is that some of the Texts which we have insisted on here and so likewise some of those where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders are mentioned are not by all the antients interpreted just in that manner as I thinke they may safely and most probably be interpreted and so as they will best accord with the opinions which those very antients appeared to have concerning the Originall of Episcopacy In this I hope I have not offended against the antient Church or if I had as I should have expected other accusers than those I have so should I waite for no other judge but my selfe and immediately submit to any penance for it But they which truely reverence antiquity discerne also wherein this Reverence is terminated not in adhering to every interpretation of each Text of Scripture given by any antient Commentator or Interpreter for truely that is absolutely impossible severall of them being known in interpreting of Texts very frequently to differ one from the other This can be no newes to any man who hath but lightly viewed them or but occasionally consulted Tirinus or such like later Commentators who have collected the Interpretations of the Antients and marshalled their names and told us how many have been for one how many for another sense of such a Text. And in affaires of this nature wherein they have neither taught Doctrines nor testified Traditions but onely exprest their single opinions or conjectures of an Apostles meaning in words capable of more senses than one I know no Praelatist that ever denyed later Writers liberty to recede from one and adhere to some other of the antients or if more convincing reasons appeared for any fresh interpretation never given before the like liberty hath been allowed And indeed if it were not so our studying of the Originalls inquiry into the nature of words and phrases observation of customes among the antients and all wherein learned men differ from unlearned consideration of the context and argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of each difficult place and all the other skills and advantages of a good Interpreter would all be unusefull first and then dangerous would tempt one oit to recede from some former Writers to forsake the roade and method so ordinary of transcribing other mens labours and by inciting him to say any thing which had not oft been said before which if it have why doth he againe trouble himself and others to repeat it would infallibly involve him under the burthen and guilt that is here laid on me of being contrary to Antiquity But I am unwilling to discourage them from any sort or degree of reverence to antiquity and on condition they will be fairely tried by it in any notion by which they can imagine to define that Reverence or the word Antiquity I will forgoe all my novell interpretations and say no one word which the Antients have not distinctly said before me and refer the whole fate of the cause to this judicature Their second consideration is that they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy from whence they conclude that till their brethren i. e. we Praelatists agree among themselves they need not spend time to answer the private Opinions of one Doctor To this I answer that it hath alwayes been deemed lawfull to any man which hath undertaken the defence of a Christian cause asserted constantly by the Church to choose his arguments as combatants do their weapons such as he thinkes are fittest for his managery and will most probably in his opinion convince
made use of but after another manner according to the Cities in which they kept their Courts or Assises as before was said of the Cities of Asia Accordingly when S. Paul first comes to Philippi St. Luke mentions it under the title of the prime City of the Province of Macedonia and is not that more to be heeded speaking so expresly of that City at that time then that Geographers description which no way discovers to what time it belongs and cannot belong to this time of the planting the faith at Philippi if S. Luke may be believed Secondly the same St. Luke saith of it at that time that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a colony of i.e. a City replenished by the Inhabitation of the Romanes And of those Colonies in chiefe Cities there is no question but they were especially chosen to be places of their Assises whither the Neighbouring Cities resorted for Justice and so were Metropoles in the civill accounts Thirdly of this City of Philippi 't is as evident that it was the first converted of all Macedonia and that from thence he went after to Thessalonica And so the right of Primogeniture which ordinarily gave claime to the Metropoliticall dignity in the Ecclesiasticall account as in the case of Antioch and Jerusalem appeares belonging to Philippi over and above the forementioned praecedence thereof in civill account there is no reason to doubt but this was a Metropoliticall Church an Elder Sister to Thessalonica and each a Mother to the Churches of lesser Cities of Macedonia that belonged to them According to which it is that Polycarpe in his Epistle mentions St. Pauls Epistles in the plurall written to these Philippians which learned men interpret of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and it cannot commodiously be understood any other way Sect. VIII A third Confession of Timothies being an Archbishop Of the qualifications 1 Tim. 3 2. belonging to Bishops Of the Bishops being worthy of double honour though he never preach Of the word and Doctrine Of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder THe third Confession is that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus that when Paul sets downe the qualifications of Bishops though he mention none but such as are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speake of Bishops in a Praelaticall sense and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith the Elders that Rule well are worthy of double honour this is saith this Author the Bishops that Rule well thereby holding out this great errour that a Bishop that Ruleth well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bids Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery that is saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder and not to receive an accusation against an Elder this is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meere Presbyters To this accumulative crime affirmed to be confest by me in so many particulars I answer by avowing my Confession thus farre 1. that I take Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus and conclude it from 1 Tim. 1. 3. then that Ephesus was a prime Metropolis of Asia from the testimonies of Pliny and Vlpian and generally the Church-writers And from those two put together I hope I may gaine liberty to confesse that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus Secondly That Paul 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. speaking of Episcopacy as of a good worke or office and the qualifications required in the person to be promoted to it speakes of a Bishop in the Praelaticall sense so I am sure Chrysostome doth understand him and the testimony was lately cited out of him and Theodoret that understands it otherwise yet applies it first to Bishops and saith on that occasion that their degree in the Church is superior to that of Presbyters And if no higher qualifications be required of a Bishop than are fit to be required of a Presbyter which yet I no where say and the argument taken from the no-other qualifications here specified than onely for the Bishop and the Deacon are of no force to induce it both because it is a negative argument and there is another reason for the omitting Presbyters because in this infancie of the Church there was not any such need of them the Bishop with his Deacon one or more were sufficient in every City and besides the qualifications assigned the Deacon may be common to him with the Presbyter as well as those assign'd the Bishop yet that is no prejudice to the superiority of the office or to my interpreting that Text of the Bishop For sure I may as conveniently say that the Bishop is named without the Presbyter at a time when there were Bishops but as yet no Presbyters in the Church and that when there were Presbyters instituted their qualifications were to be regulated by the rules given of Bishops as it can be imagined to be fitly said by them that the place is meant of Presbyters when the Apostle names Bishops expresly and when by many other evidences we know that then there were Bishops but by no footsteps can discerne that then there were Presbyters upon no other reason but that the qualifications are common to Presbyters Thirdly For the mention of the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. I doubt not but it may very commedicuoly be interpreted of the Bishops through all his Province for as there the style is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeside or rule so 't is certaine that in the use of the Church this was the title of the Bishops as hath formerly been shewed out of Justin Martyr and others and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priviledge of Primogeniture being assigned as his portion is an evidence thereof And the inconvenience that is here urged against that interpretation is perfectly of no force For 1. if from hence it might be concluded that a Bishop is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth then from their interpreting it of the Presbyter it will as much follow to be their oâ—inion that the Presbyter is worthy of double honour though he never preach But then secondly the truth is that neither of these conclusions follow either the one or the other interpration for the first phrase of labouring in the word and the other of labouring in the doctrine which by these are confounded and so exprest undistinctly by preaching denote two severall things the former the planting of the faith where it is not yet received which is constantly exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preaching the Gospell and the word the latter signifies taking paines in a Church already gathered for the confirming and farther instructing of believers And then as he that doth one of these may yet possibly not doe both occasion not