with Answers and refutations of the principall Objections of Doctor Blondel and Walo Messalinus doe really stand in force and appeare not to be refuted now in whole or in part by these men who have often attempted to refute them I shall then leave them seriously and Christianly to consider but this one thing and to returne their anger not to me but to themselves what security of grounds they can build upon in their present practices particularly in their assuming to themselves that power or authority which doth not belong to them For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were as by Christ to the Apostles so by the Apostles given to the singular Governour or Bishop by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted over all and from that time to this regularly continued in a succession of Bishops in every Church and secondly if those which are now called Presbyters were by those who first instituted them placed in a second rank as of dignity so of power and never had all that power committed to them which to the Bishop was committed particularly not that of Ordeining the meanest Deacon much lesse Presbyters with power of Ordeining other Presbyters and thirdly if they on whose authority they most depend S. Hierome the Presbyter c. doe expresly assure them that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination but acknowledge the Bishop superior to the Presbyter in that and it is not imaginable how that power should be conveyed to any Presbyter now which was not vested in any at that time nor pretended to be so in above a thousand yeares after them And lastly if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven or give that which he hath not which the Scripture yeilds to as a rule by which both John Baptist John 3. 27. and Christ himselfe Luk 12. 14. was to be judged and the Apostle Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that generall rule to this particularity of Priesthood in the Church viz. that no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assume an honour to himselfe but who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 advanced by God saith Theophylact either immediately or mediately either by the Apostles or by those which received it successively from them all others being truly affirmed by the Antients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leap into the honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to corrupt the rule or law by which they should be guided then I say upon what solid grounds can they satisfie Conscience who without all pretence of necessity which by some is here made use of as an excuse the regular way being open and plaine before them have run before they were sent assumed that power to themselves which belongs not to them nor was ever by any which had it bestowed upon them I doe not foresee any more here necessary to be premised to our future debates and shall therefore hasten to them as to an unpleasant progresse that I would willingly be at the end of and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him whom we all professe to serve and obey in this as in all other things CHAP. I. Concerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Section I. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops FOr the vindicating of the Dissertations from all the exceptions which are offered against them in the Booke which I have now before me It is no whit necessary that I give the Reader any the most cursory view of the whole Booke I shall therefore fall in though abruptly on the sixt Chapter of the second part of it For although in some of the former Chapters of that part some indeavours are used to assert Presbytery against Episcopacy by Arguments so frequently produced by that party that they were every one foreseen and in the Dissertations largely evidenced to have no validity in them yet it falls out somewhat to mine owne and the Readers ease that I am not personally called into the lists till the beginning of the sixt Chapter which by the signall of some Latine words in the Margine out of Dissert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4. have markt me out as the person against whom that Chapter was intirely designed and I shall readily answer the call and not refuse the paines to examine every Section of that Chapter 2. The subject of this Chapter is the pretended as they please to stile it Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels And thus they begin their assault The second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine Right of Praelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they the Assertors of Prelacy were seven single persons and as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Archbishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blind or wilfull that endeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy Age that Men should still continue blind and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon 3. This is it seemes the first crime chargeable on mee as Author of the Dissertations that I am confident of my Assertion and condemne all others as blind or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And although this be no competent way of disproving what is asserted for it is no universall maxime or Datum among the Objecters that confident asserting should be lookt on as a character of falsity yet I that would much more be ashamed to have beene presumptuous than mistaken and deeme it not a sinne to have erred modestly am concerned to avert the envy of this their Prooeme and to give this essay how farre any the most moderate speeches may be disguised and deformed by a disadvantageous interpretation 4. These words in tantâ luce lie thus in the Dissertations Ad tertium accedo I proceede to the third thing that which concernes the Angels in the Apocalypse that by them are noted so many prefects of the chiefe Cities or Churches in Asia whom you may call not onely Bishops but Primates Enarchs or Metropolitans Each of these things must be briefly taken notice of First that each of these were single and properly called Bishops So Andreas Caesariensis pronounceth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seven Ephori inspectors or Bishops so called from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inspectors directly equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parallel to the number of the seven Churches are in that place of the Apâ—calypse called Angels This title of Angel is sufficiently knowne from Malach. 2. 7. to belong to the chiefe Priest of the Jewes for hee is called the Angel of the Lord of Hosts as the person from whom the Law was to be derived to the people Further more these Angels in that vision of Johns are likened to so many Starres which seeing Christ is
to discerne the word Church in the singular without any addition of Ephesus or the like which restraines it in all the examples there produced to be appliable to a farre larger body than the Church of one City and consequently be quit from all obligation of making the Elders of the Church Act. 20. 17. the Elders of the one City of Ephesus 45. There is little doubt I suppose but the Church of the whole World consisting of many Churches as the parts thereof may be and is in Scripture called the Church in the singular and so certainly may the Church of a Nation or a Province especially if it be united together under one Primate or Metropolitane as it is certaine the Churches and Cities neer Ephesus nay over all Asia were according to the plaine words of St. Chrysostome who when others affirme of Timothy that he was by Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Epheâ—us expresseth the same thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that Timothy had a Church committed to him or indeed an intire Nation that of Asia The like is ordinarily observable of Crete a whole Island with an hundred Cities in it in each of which Titus was appointed to ordeine a Bishop or Elder which yet is styled in the subscription of the Epistle to Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of Crete and the subscription never questioned upon that score by any that it spake improperly herein 46. And consequently there can be no harshnesse in this interpretation Paul sent to Ephesus and call'd the Elders of the Church to come to him to Miletus and in his Oration addrest to them called them Bishop of the flock and of the Church of God meaning them singular praefects of severall Cities of the Church of Asia especially of those which were neerest Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of the whole Nation 47. And so much in answer to that Objection in defence of their argument from the Elders of Ephesus as they call them 48. Another proofe of the same is there added Pag. 85. Thus The Syriack translation reads it he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus so Hierome Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae so concilium Aquisgranense 49. What authority St Hierome's testimony is to carry with us in this matter hath been elsewhere largely shewed and we may hereafter have farther occasion to declare it and our reasons of it At the present it is willingly confest that St. Hierome on Tit. 1. doth indeavour to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter is the same and from him Isidore Hispalensis de officiis Eccl. l. 2. hath the same and both have according to that prolepsis changed the words of the Text in the Acts and instead of what there we reade sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church they read sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the same Church expressing themselves to meane of the Church of Ephesus And the councell of Aken Aquisgranense having transcribed nine Chapters from Isidore verbatim consequently doe the like So that the authority of Isidore and that councell being as great as St. Hierome can make it from whom evidently it proceeds may yet be allowed to yeild to the farre greater authority of Polycarp's auditor Irenaeus who hath sufficiently cleared it to the contrary 50. As for the Syriack tanslation it is not here recited exactly accordingly to the truth For in that thus the words lie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Miletus he sent and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus where is but one mention of Ephesus not two as is here suggested from the translation that it reades he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus The short of it is Ephesus being but once named in that verse the Greeke placeth it in the begining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and this being the Originall must certainly over-rule all translations and accordingly all translations but one to read it onely the Syriack hath mis-placed the word Ephesus put it in the later part of the period quite against all Syntaxis and for doing so are here cited and their testimony made use of to assist Presbytery when the manifest truth in the Originall and by all other translations acknowledged would not allow them any the least advantage 51. After they had produced these two arguments to prove that the Church in the City was governed in the Apostles days by a Common-councell of Presbyters the Reader would hardly expect that which now next followes in these words From all this we gather that the Asian Angels were not Diâ—cesan Bishops but congregationall Presbyters seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more than one 52. This conclusion as the words lie consists of two parts 1. That each of these Asian Angels under the title of Congregationall Presbyters was seated in one Church This if it were meant as the words sound were the granting to us all that we contend and would hardly be reconciled with the third observation that the Church in the City was governed by the common councell of Presbyters For sure each of those Presbyters is not a common councell But I rather believe they have not so soone disclaimed their praemisses and therefore that it is more reasonable to interpret their words by their principles than their meaning by their words and so that by congregationall Presbyters they meant so many Colleges of such Presbyters seated each of them i. e. each of those Colleges in one Church And if that be their conclusion I must acknowledge it to accord perfectly with their praemisses which being already answered there remaines no force in the conclusion 53. And for the second part that not any of them was seated in more than one understanding it againe as the words sound it is no way contrary to our pretensions for we doe not thinke that the Angel of Ephesus was seated in Smyrna or in any Church but that of Ephesios and the territory thereof and although as that was a Metropolis other Cities were under it and so other Bishops subordinate to the Bishop of Ephesus yet was not any other City the Seat of that Metropolitane but onely Ephesus whereof he takes his denomination as although Rochester be under the Metropolis of Canterbury yet the Archbishop of Canterbury is not seated at Rochester but some other Bishop affixt to that City and Diocese As for any other meaning of it proportionable to that which we were faine to affixe to the former I confesse my selfe ignorant what it can tend to For it is as if they should say not any councell of Presbyters was seated in more Churches than one Which is as if they should say no one body is in severall places And I know no Prelatist that either directly or by consequence hath affirmed it is 54. What remaines in the last Paragraph of this Chapter
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
notion And yet even by him these of this uppermost degree are called Seniores and Majores natu Elders Praesident probati quique Seniores the Elders praeside Apol. c. 39. and of the Bishops of Rome the series of whom he had brought downe to Anicetus lib. 3. contr Marcion cap. 9. he expresses them by Majores natu successors of the Apostles in his Book written in verse against Marcion And there will be lesse wonder in this when it is remembred that after this in Saint Cyprian's times who hath been sufficiently evidenced to speake of Bishops in our moderne notion of them Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in vulgar style calls them Seniores and Praepositi Elders and Provosts in his Epistle to Cyprian and againe Praesident Majores natu c. the Elders praeside evidently meaning the Bishops by those titles And so much be spoken in returne to what they have objected from these two Antients Irenaeus and Tertullian supposing that I have competently performed the taske by them imposed on the Praelatists shewed that the Bishops spoken of by them were Bishops over Presbyters and by them understood to be so Sect. VI. Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormitan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councel of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councel of Carthage IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epistle ad Euagrium the unanswerablenesse of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Massalinus seeming to say that it never can be answered whereas say they if I had been pleased to cast an eye upon the vindication written by Smectymnuus I should have found this answer What this answer is we shall see anon In the meane it will be necessary to give a briefe account what it was which is called a triumphing over these two learned men And first it is sufficiently knowne what advantages the defenders of Presbyter◠conceive themselves to have from that one Antient writer the Presbyter Saint Hierome From him they have the interpretation of those Scriptures which they thinke to be for their use as that the word Bishop and Presbyter are all one in several texts of Scripture and both signifie Presbyters and that the Apostles at first designed ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Ecclesiae gubernarentur that the Churches should be governed by the common Councel of Presbyters and that it so continued till upon the dissentions which by this meanes arose in the Church it was judged more prudent and usefull to the preserving of unity ut unus superponeretur reliquis that one should be set over the rest and all the care of the Church belong to him And this saith Hierome in toto Orbe decretum decreed and executed over the whole world By whom this was conceived by him to be thus decreed he gives us not to understand in that place nor in what point of time he thought it was done but leaves us to collect both from some few circumstances as 1. that it was after Schismes entred into the Church and one said I am Paul I of Apollos c. And if it were immediately after that then the Presbyterians will gaine but little by this Patron For his whole meaning will be that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many but soon saw the inconvenience of doing so and the Schisme and ruptures consequent to it and changed it themselves and setled one singular Bishop in the whole power of Government in every Church to which very fitly coheres what Clement had said that lest new contentions should arise about this singular dignity and authority who should succeed to it they made a roll or Catalogue of those which in vacancies should succeed in each Church That this was not in Hierome's opinion done thus early in the Apostles time the Presbyterians think they may conclude from what he saith on Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse Majores Let Bishops know that their greatnesse and superiority over Presbyters is held rather by custome than by Christs having disposed it so But it is very possible that this may not prove the conclusion which is thought to be inferred by it For here Consuetudo Custome as opposed to Christs disposition may well signifie the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apostles times and ever since to S. Hierome's days and that may well be severed from all command or institution of Christs so Jerom's opinion may well be this that Christ did not ordain this superiority of one above another but left all in common in the Apostles hands who within awhile to avoid Schism put the power in each Church in the hands of some one singular person And that this was Hierome's meaning I thought my selfe in charity to him obliged to thinke both because in this sense his words would better agree with the universal affirmation of all Orthodoxe Christians that before him and after him too unlesse those few that took it on his credit speake of this matter and also because if this be not his sense he must needs be found to contradict himselfe having elsewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apostolicall tradition i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church And now before I proceed I desire the ingenuous Reader who is contrary minded to consider what he can object to this conclusion of mine thus inferr'd concerning S. Hierome's opinion and consequently what probability there is that the Presbyterians cause should be superstructed on any Testimony of S. Hierome supposing what I am next to demonstrate that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apostles And this is evident in his Epistle to Euagrius where having againe delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes Et ut sciamus-traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteritestamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templ◠fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesiâ vendicent That we may know that the Apostles traditions are taken out of the Old Testament we have this instance that what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Levites were in the Temple the same the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the Church Where these three degrees and so the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apostles On occasion therefore of inquiring into Hierome's meaning and because this place so readily offered it selfe to
A VINDICATION OF THE DISSERTATIONS CONCERNING EPISCOPACIE From the ANSVVERS or EXCEPTIONS offered against them by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici By H. HAMMOND D.D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1654. TO THE READER IN Erasmus's distribution of his owne writings into Tomes the 8th we finde thus inscribed by him Octavum occupent Apologiae Me miserum Et hae justum volumen efficient It was his great infelicity that the Apologies and Answers to exceptions and calumnies which he was constreined to write made up an intire large Volume in folio Now though I have that pleasure in the temper of that person which gives me security by the Romanists Proverbe never to be deemed one of their good Catholicks and so may probably partake of some part of his fate yet 't were great insolence in me who have not troubled the World with a tenth proportion to that were with he hath favoured it to expect the Tithe of that consideration which is required to make one capable of that degree of infelicity which lay a full load on him Neverthelesse these few last moneths have given me a tast and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I am to expect For besides the reproaches of one learned Gentleman to which being barely such I have no one word to retribute but that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ directs me to I have farther met with some variety Many exceptions though litle of contumely from these Assemblies More and in a very distant Character from a large Preface of Animadversions on the Dâ—ssertations sent me lately from Oxford others also there are which I have not yet had leasure to weigh but soon purpose and hope to do it and if either I discerne my selfe or finde it the opinion of others that what is already said in the Tracts which they oppose be not sufficient to prevent or remove the scruples proposed by them I shall willingly dedicate some time of vacancy to that imployment At the present the Exceptions of the London Ministers have challenged the precedence and here are offered to consideration And because the Praeface from Oxford falls on the same sort of matter Episcopacy and Ignatius's Epistles as they are defended in the Dissertations I purpose God-willing that an Answer to that shall now follow assoone as the Printer can dispatch it And that is all that I had to say to the Reader by way of Praeface THE TABLE CHAP. I. COncerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Page 9. Section 1. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Timothy of Onesimus of Policarpe p. 15. Sect. 3. Of the negative argument from S. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation p. 19 Sect. 4. Of S. Johns writings Againe of Diotrephes p. 25 Sect. 5. Of S. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops p. 29 Sect. 6. Of the word Angel and Star pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel p. 35 Sect. 7. Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols Of Bishop and Elder being the same p. 38 Sect. 8. Of the singularity of each Angel The objections from the use of the plurall number p. 41 Sect. 9. Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. p. 45 Sect. 10. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. p. 47 Sect. 11. Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church not to the Bishop only Of Timothy Onesimus and Polycarp being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches without any charge of Apostacy falling on them by this meanes p. 50 Sect. 12. Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop p. 55 Sect. 13. Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plural number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna p. 56 Sect. 14. Of Beza's interpretation of the Praesident p. 57. Sect. 15. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimones of Cyprian and Fermilian p. 51 Sect. 16. Of the Churches of Asia being Metropoliticall Of the paucity of believers p. 54 Sect. 16. Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans p. 67 Sect. 17. Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches p. 71 Sect. 18. Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle p. 64 Sect. 19. Of division into Parishes and Vnion into Diocesses Of Diocesan Bishops in the Apostles dayes Elders in every Church Act. 14. Elders of the Church Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception p. 75 CHAP. II. OF the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament p. 92 Sect. 1. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed Ibid. Sect. 2 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 95 Sect. 3. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder p. 100 Sect. 4. Of reverence to Antiquity and the interpretations of the Antients Of Praelatists disagreement among themselves 102. Sect. 5. Inconveniencies objected and answer'd Of more Bishops in one City No Presbyters in the Apostles dayes The no Divine right of the order of Presbyters p. 105 Sect 6. A first confession objected and vindicated Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia Elders Aldermanni p. 108 Sect. 7. A second confession of the Bishops Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province Philippi a Metropolis and a Colony p. 110 Sect. 8. 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 p. 112 Sect. 9. A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet p. 116 Sect. 10. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. p. 118 Sect. 11. A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and. 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered Elders for Rulers or Bishops p. 122 CHAP. III. COncerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question Page 129. Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Bishops and Deacons the onely offices at the first Corinth Metropolis of Achaia What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy Hegesippus's testimony of the contentions at Corinth Clement a Bishop p. 129. Sect. 2. The Testimony of Policarpe That he was himselfe a Bishop His mention of Ignatius's Epistles fit to give authority to them being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Antients p. 139 Sect. 3. A vindication of Ignatius's Epistles Vossius's edition of them and the Archbishops of
Armagh Some Testimonies out of them The cause of his so inculcating obedience to Bishops Mr. Causabones Testimony considered and the Allegations from the Archbishop of Armagh Three reasons against these Epistles answered No Marriage without the Bishop Of the Reformed Churches Of the Church of Scotland after the first conversion p. 143 Sect. 4. Of Salmasius's conceit that these Epistles were written at the time of Episcopacy first entring the Church p. 163 Sect. 5. Testimonies of Iraeneus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops p. 165 Sect. 5. Testimonies of Tertullian Seniores Majores natâ— for Bishops so in Firmilian p. 169 Sect. 6. S. Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio S. Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormâ—tan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councell of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councell of Carthage p. 171 Sect. 7. The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present p. 187 Sect. 8. Of the Châ—repiscopi p. 189 A VINDICATION OF THE Dissertations concerning Episcopacy From the Answers or Exceptions offered against them by the London-Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici The INTRODUCTION Of the occasion of this Worke The state of the Controversie The Heads of the Prelatists Plea from Scripture and Antiquity with some Observations assistant to them The considerable concernements of the question BEing advertised from many hands that the Booke called Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici which is lately published by some who intitle themselves the Provinciall Assembly of London hath undertaken to consider and confute many passages of the Dissertations three years since published in Latine in defence of Episcopacy against D. Blondell and others I have thought my selfe obliged to examine whether there be any thing objected by them in relation to those Dissertations which may reasonably move me to retract what was there either with diffidence proposed or more confidently asserted by me 2. And having diligently surveyed the whole Booke that I might omit no passage wherein my interests might be in the least concern'd being truly able to affirme from that view that it hath yielded me no one syllable of usefull Exhortation no motive to retract any period or alter any expression in those Dissertations but as farre as I doe perswade my selfe that this Provinciall Synod containes in it Men of judgement and abilities to maintaine the truth and convince gaine-sayers so farre I am forced to assume that what I have written is testified to be Truth and by that priviledge competently secured against all opposers I might herein reasonably acquiesce without farther importuning the Reader or my selfe with impertinent vindications onely trusting and adventuring the whole matter to the judgement of each intelligent Reader who is obliged by all Rules of Justice to compare either by his Memory or by his Eye those passages in this Booke and the Chapters in the Dissertations to which they are confronted 3. But I am againe told that many who have read and are moved by the Arguments and Answers of this Booke and the Authority of a Provinciall Synod are yet disabled to be so just as to examine them by comparing them with the latine Dissertations and that we are fallen upon those times wherein whatsoever is not answered is cried up as unanswerable an humour of which if I might be permitted to receive the fruits I should have no temptation to complaine there being so much a greater part of those Dissertations which was never attempted to be answered I continue still under some seeming obligation to give an exact account of the whole matter as it lies in contest betweene this Provinciall Synod and those Dissertations and I shall hasten to doe it when I have first by way of necessary Introduction premised these two things 4. First the state of the Controversy as it generally lies between us which is this whether the Apostles of Christ when they planted Churches in each City left them in the hands of many to be governed by the Common Councell of those many erecting an equality or parity of severall Rulers in every City to whom all others were subjected and they to none or whether they placed the Superiour power and Authority in some one and subjected all others to him Other consequent differences there are arising from hence and those of such weight and concernment to those with whom I now dispute in case the Truth be not on their sides as will make this returne to their Objections no lesse than a duty of Charity as to Brethren if by the Grace of God they shall judge it reasonable to make that use of it but this is the one Basis of all whether the Apostles planted parity or imparity in the Church many equall Governours in one City or but one in each The former is the Presbyterians interest to defend the latter the Prelatists And so the controversy stands between them to be debated and evinced by such evidences as a matter of Fact is capable of the Right being by both sides acknowledged to follow that Fact i. e. by the Testimonies of those who are fit to be credited in this matter Secondly the briefe heads of the Plea by which I have undertaken to maintaine the Prelatists assertion 1. By Scripture 2. By the Records of the first times the Writings of those who were neerest the Apostles and either affirme what was done by the Apostles or how it stood practiced in the Churches all the World over which were planted by them As for the third way of arguing from the universall consent and practice of all Churches for about 1400. yeares together i. e. from about the yeare 140. till the Reformation this I doe not insist on as I might with all evidence because it is knowne and confest by the Adversaries and all that is by them pretended is that parity and equality being prescribed and practiced by the Apostles soone after their death and quite contrary to their plat-forme Prelacy was introduced into all Churches It being their desire and demand now a little different from what M. Calvin at first proposed to the Churches of Helvetia that all may be reformed and reduced to the state wherein the Apostles left it 6. In the managing the proofes proposed by mee I have used this method which seemed to mee most convincing 1. To insist on some few Testimonies under each head which are sufficient to conclude the matter on the Prelatists side and then to propose some observations which may accord all other places both of Scripture and antient writers with those Testimonies and that conclusion 7. The speciall proofes of Scripture are taken First from the power derived as from God the Father to Christ so from Christ
to the Apostles not as to a Common councell of sociall Rulers but as so many severall planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it And this is largely and clearly deduced Dissert 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. And this power being by them derived to Bishops in each City in the same manner as they used it themselves which is also farther evidenced and vindicated c. 5. c. this was deemed a first competent proofe of this matter and as a confirmation of it it was observable that the first Bishops made by them were in the very Scripture called Apostles James the Bishop of Jerusalem c. Diss 4. c. 3. 8. A second principall proofe of Scripture is taken from the severall mentions of the so many Churches of Asia and the so many Angels assigned to them one to each as a singular Governour or Bishop in the Revelation And in discourse of these wee have found great evidence of the fact to authorize us to improve the conclusion a little higher than was necessary to the defence of the maine cause viz. to affirme of these Angels that each of them was an Archbishop or Metropolitan and having done so to discerne upon undeniable grounds that there were many other such mentioned in the Scripture though not under that title as James the brother of the Lord Metropolitan of all Judea Titus of all Crete with an hundred Cities in it c. 9. And the wayes of according all other Scriptures with these have been briefly these 1. By observing this difference betwixt Cities and Metropoles as the true cause and occasion of the mentions of many Bishops in not of one City meaning thereby the Bishops of all the Cities under that Metropolis as Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. Secondly by examining the Nature of all the words which I conceived to be used in Scripture for Bishops as beside Apostle and Angel forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder and in the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefe Priest and Sacerdos Priestâ— each denoting Dignity and Authority and all cleared to be in their own nature applicable and by the circumstances of the Context to be actually applied to the singular Governours in each City most of them constantly so and that one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not constantly so yet very rarely otherwise And this is done Dissert 4. c. 7. and so to the end of that Diss Thirdly by observing the paucity of believers in many Cities in the first Plantations which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordeined any more than a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each City and that this was accordingly done by them at the first is approved by the most undeniable antient Records Such as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the profoundest Histories out of which Epiphanius makes this Observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there wanted Bishops and there were found persons worthy of the Office Bishops were constituted but where there was no multitude there none were found among them to be constituted Presbyters and they satisfied themselves with a Bishop alone in a place Onely the Bishop could not possibly be without a Deacon and accordingly the Apostle tooke care that the Bishop should have his Deacons to minister to him That which is thus cited by Epiphanius out of those Antient Records is found clearly affirmed by Clemens Romanus an Apostolicall person and witnesse of the Apostles practice that they being sent out by Christ as hee by his Father went out Preaching the Gospell and proclaiming it through Regions and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should afterward believe To both which wee shall againe adde what Ephiphanius prefaceth in that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when the preaching was new the Apostle St. Paul wrote agreeably to the present state of affaires We have here so cleare an account of the reason of the Apostles immediate subjoyning of Deacons to Bishops Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. viz. because those were the onely two Orders then constituted in every Church that these two places which are made use of by the adversaries against us are most punctuall evidences of the Truth of ours and of the unseasonablenesse of their pretentions 10. As for the Testimonies out of the first Antiquity The ground-worke I have chosen to lay in Ignatius his Epistles because the Testimonies thence are so many and so evident and the Writer so neere the Apostles time that holy men being Martyr'd in the 10. of Trajan to whose Reigne S. John lived and most of his Epistles written to the very Churches of Asia planted by St. John and the Bishops of many of them named by him and of one Bishop the Presbyters under him that if that one Authors Testimonies be attended to there is an absolute decision of the whole matter on the Prelatists side To which purpose I have also vindicated these Epistles from all that hath been objected to them in these late yeares and asserted their Authority by as antient and authentick evidences as can be vouched for any antient piece next the Holy Scriptures themselves and contented my selfe with the most pure and uncorrupted Copies and Editions of it 11. In accord with these Testimonies I have also produced many others out of Clemens Romanus Hegesippus Polycarpe Papias Polycrates Iustin Jrenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tâ—rtullian and as many of the first times as have said any thing to this matter and found a full consent in all and in most irrefragable suffrages which conclude this whole controversie on the Prelatists side To which I have also added some few observations of unquestionable truth as 1. That of the continuance of the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder to signifie Bishop in our Modern sense among some of these most antient Church writers whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used by any but for a singular Governour Secondly that of the distinct Congregations of Iewish and Gentile Christians in the same City the grounds of which are evident in Scripture and consequently of the severall Governours or Bishops over them which was usefull for the removing some seeming difficulties in the Catalogues of the first Bishops of Rome Antiâ—ch c. and some other the like not for the serving the Necessities of our Cause but as supernumerary and ex abundanti And upon these and such like heads of probation we have built our plea descending also to a particular survey of Saint Hierom's testimonies which are by the adversaries principally made use of against us And if what is thus copiously deduced in the Dissertations together
that one of that name Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in the tenth yeare of Trajan wherein Ignatius wrote that Epistle 7. Secondly that by one indication there is some small reason to guess that this Onesimus was then lately come to that dignity I meane Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church that God had given them the favour to obtaine or have such a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8. Thirdly that according to Epiphanius his setting down the time of John's banishment and visions in the dayes of Claudius there must be above 50 yeares distance between the date of this Epistle of Christ and that of Ignatius and consequently that it is not so likely that Onesimus that was their Bishop in the later should be that very Angel in the former 9. Fourthly that as I can have no cause to consent with Ado in lib. de Fest Apost ad 14. Cal. Mart. that this Onesimus in Ignatius was hee that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon so nor to adhere to the Roman Martyrologie that he whom Paul mentions was constituted Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy 10. And therefore fiftly it must be remembred that both the Greeke Menologies and Simeon Metaphrastes who celebrate his memory on March 13. acknowledge not that Onesimus to have been at all Bishop of Ephesus and that others also of the antients make him to have been Bishop of Beraea and martyr'd in Domitian's Reigne and Dorotheas in Synopsi expresly affirmeth that Gaius succeeded Timothy in Ephesus 11. From all which it followes that Onesimus mentioned by Ignatius was some later Bishop of that City who bare that very Ordinary Greeke name and so that his being Bishop of Ephesus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation not interferes with their opinion who thinke Timothy to have beene that Angel The appearing incompetibility whereof was it I spppose that brought in here the mention of Onesimus 12. This was here seasonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place and will be of use to be remembred in the processe of their Discourse 13. Thirdly for Polycarp's being Bishop of Smyrna as there is left no place for the doubting of that if either Irenaeus that lived in his time and saw him or if Tertullian who lived not long after and was a curious Antiquary may be believed in their joynt affirmations of a knowne matter of Fact so it is againe no where affirmed by me that hee was the very man to whom that Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna was sent and if that were their meaning they have againe misreported my words 14. All that I had said I thinke was proved irrefragably that in two of those Churches mentioned in the Apocalyps Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick testimonies affirmed to be constituted Bishops the one by St. Paul the other by St. John and that is a competent argument added to others to inferre that the Angel of each of those Churches was a single person and so a Bishop in the Prelatists not in the Presbyterians notion of the word an assertion which I need not feare will yeild any advantage to the adversaries and so I as briefly commit it to them Section 3. Of the negative Argument from St. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation IN the next place by way of answer to this plea of the Prelatists we are referred to three writings of their party Smectymnuus the Vindication of Smectymnuus the Humble Addresses of the Divines at the Isle of Wight wherein say they these things are fully clearely and satisfactorily handled 2. But it being certaine that every one of these three was publisht some yeares before the Dissertations I should thinke it strange that the particulars there insisted on by me should by divination be thus answered before their conception being able truly to professe that though I am not unwilling to make use of any mans aid for defending truth yet none of those writings to which any of those three were given in answer were by me made use of in those compositions 3. But we are superseded the trouble of examining any of these three by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be usefull for the turne and then in like manner I shall more willingly receive from these what shall appeare to answer or prejudge our plea than undertake new troubles in farther unnecessary search of it 4. First then they desire it may be considered that S. John the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the by I suppose for the Printer failes me name Bishop Hee names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation yea when he would set out the office of those who are neerest the throne of Christ in his Church Rev. 4. he calls himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Christian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day and Christ himselfe the Word now both these are found in the writings of St John And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if wee consider that Polycarpe as it related was made Bishop by him And no doubt if hee had been made Bishop in a prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe 5. We are now to consider what degree of conviction or Argument to the prejudice of our pretensions can be fetcht from this large consideration And first it is most evident and notorious among all Artists that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Bishops in St John's time because St. John doth not mention Bishops It is the same way of arguing as if they should conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonicall Chapters of Hester because God is not found once mentioned in those Chapters And yet of this inartificiall kinde is the whole discourse of this Paragraph the premisses barely negative throughout all the consideration And so nothing is conclusible from it to the prejudice of us or benefit of our adversaries 6. Secondly all that this consideration pretends to is terminated in the bare name of Bishop that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John and by us contested by the singularity of the person one Angel in each Church and other Characters to conclude the Office of Bishop as irrefragably as if the word Bishop were there specified Nay of this wee have a competent experience that if the word Bishop had been found there
And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them Stars of the same magnitude and Angels of the same order without a difference or distinction 2. But this is a way of proving a thing which is denyed by another which they know is equally denyed by him against whom they dispute and therefore that argument can be of no force with us 3. 'T is most true indeed what they begin with that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body for so 't is certaine every Church is whether governed by one or more Rulers But the Church is not the Angel any more than the candlestickes are the Stars but punctually distinguished from them Rev. 1. 20. But this I suppose was a mistake hastily fallen from them and I shall not pursue it any farther 4. Their argument I conceive depends upon the plurality of Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were at Ephesus Act. 20. when Paul takes his leave of them and calls them Bishops But to this they know I have answered clearly that as in other places of Scripture so in that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders being all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops denote not the many Presbyters of the one City of Ephesus but the many Bishops of that and other Cities of Asia which at that time by S. Paul's summons sent to Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of Asia were called and met together at Miletus 5. To this purpose Irenaeus is a witnesse beyond exception who speaking of these Elders or Bishops addes ab Epheso proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were assembled from Ephesus and the next Cities in which as the faith was planted as well as in Ephesus even in all Asia so there is no reason to doubt but there were Bishops in them as well as in Ephesus seven such Churches we know are here mentioned in the Revelation and that Paul was as carefull to take his leave of them as many as could conveniently come to Miletus in his hasty progresse as of the Bishop of Ephesus hee is justly deemed to have been 6. Other arguments and authorities I need not here accumulate for this notion of Elders Act. 20. because here is no appearance of reason offered to prove their or impugne our Assertion This perhaps will be afterward attempted and then I shall as occasion requires farther enlarge In the meane it sufficeth that it yet no way appeares that Ephesus was governed by many Presbyters and not by one Bishop and therefore this second offer of reason is as deficient as the first to prove the Angel of that Church to have been a collective body Section X. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. THeir third reason is because It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other Bookes of Scripture but in this very Booke of the Revelation in mysterious and prophetick writings and visionall representations such as this of the Starres and Golden â—Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usuall way of Representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Rev. 8. 2. It is said that John saw seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks I suppose it should be seven Angels Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels that stand before God but all doe Dan 7. there are many more instances brought in the Bookes forementioned 2. To this third Reason I have no obligation or notice to give credit any farther than the evidences perswade for many of which though we are referred to Smectymnuus c. yet having received promise from these that they would borrow a few things from those others I shall with reason hope that what they have upon choise borrowed leaving as they say much more behind is the most satisfactory and solid of any thing by them produced and consequently if there be no force in these instances to oppugne our conclusion we shall not expect to finde more convincing ones by travailing farther and gathering up out of those dispersions what they have refused to take up and offer to us 3. The thing they would prove is that 't is usuall with the Holy Ghost in this as in other mysterious prophetick Bookes to expresse a number of things or persons by singulars Their proofes are but three and the first is of no force because the word Church denotes a singular thing as well as Candlestick that represents it for though a thousand men make up one Church yet one Church is but one thing considered as a Church and proportionably as one Candlestick in the singular is set to denote each Church so there are seven Candlesticks to represent the seven Churches 4. As for the second that of the Angels that that signifies many Ministers that cannot be offered as a proofe being it selfe the matter of the question And indeed though Church be a collective body and so one Church is knowne to consist of many men yet Angel is not of that nature one Angel neither signifies many men nor many Angels 5. And whereas the parallel is set betwixt the word Candlestick and the word Angel that they each are singular words by which multitudes are represented that is a mistake for the parallel lyes betwixt Church and Angel and on the other side betwixt Candlestick and Starre as appeares Rev. 1. 20. and both these are individual things the Church an individual Church and there be seven such individual Churches and the Angel an individual Angel and there be seven such individual Angels and there can be no more pretense that one Angel should signifie many Ministers than that one Church should signifie many Congregations 6. Lastly for the third proofe that of seven Angels Rev. 8. 2. if that were granted to Doctor Reynold's authority that the seven Angels there signifies all the Angels yet would it not at all contribute to the proofe of the point in hand which is that many shall be signified by a singular for we know that seven are not a singular but the custome indeed being ordinary to use a certaine definite number for an uncertaine or indefinite and the septenary being a perfect number and so fittest for the turne 't is more tolerable that the number of seven may represent some greater number one plural a larger plural than that a singular one should doe so 7. And yet secondly there is no great reason to doubt but that the seven Angels are indeed very seven Angels and no more This I collect 1. from the seven Trumpets that were given them ver 2. and the specifying them by that Character the seven Angels which had the seven Trumpets ver
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
a temporary President or Prolecutor and brought no manner of reason to confirme it will have very little validity in it 5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peeres which inferres not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is alwayes the same person or the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least conclude that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels yet they might be neither Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators 6. But the authority of those Divines which had this answer from Beza addes nothing of weight because nothing of proofe to it As for their similitude it concludes nothing but this that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament to shew the thing possible to have been not to prove that so it was And the matter of our present inquiry is not what a kinde of president Christ and his Apostles might if they would have left in each Church but what really they did And that must be contested by the best Records of those times not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments And that is all I neede to say to that Section Section XV. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimonies of Cyprian and Fermilian AFter the authority of Mr. Beza backt with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight is added in the second place the authority of Dr. Reynolds who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith 2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Originall of Bishops and Metropolitanes and I shall not neede here to recite it being of some length and indeed nothing in it defined or exprest of his opinion that the President when he was made such either continued to be equall with the rest of the Presbyters or lasted but for a time so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship not among but over Elders which I suppose must imply some power and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop and applies to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian and Cornelius of whose notion of Bishops that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly nay that in nothing it differeth from ours I am sufficiently assured and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert 3. c. 3. § 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is neede of it I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many mention this one evidence more 3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop who had beene wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the annuall Councell of Bishops with him Cyprian returnes this Answer that it was his humility to make this complaint to the councell Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem quâ possis de illo statim vindicari when by force of his Episcopall power and by authority of his chaire hee had power himselfe to inflict punishment on him immediatly and that punishment afterward specified ut eum deponas vel abstineas either to depose him or suspend him 4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopall power without any joyning with him to judge and censure the inferiour Officers of the Church and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere Episcopo praeposito suo as it followes in that Epistle to acknowledge the honour of their Priest and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them All power in the hands of one set over all call'd promiscuousâ—ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style 5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian and his Collegues Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p 58. that by his collegues he meanes his Presbyters where yet there is no other proofe of it but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle Cyprianus cum Collegis and Ego collegae Cyprian with his collegues and I and my collegues This is a great but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader as will soone appeare 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle where he tells of Aurelius was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth what he and his Collegues had done and so sure were not those Collegues that did it with him Or secondly if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Collegues Ep. 58. we shall but looke forward to the next Epistle 59. for that will fully discover it being this Cyprianus caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI where Cyprians Collegues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him 6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian which they there subjoyne of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordeining by whom say they the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood But againe 't is cleare by the expresse words of the Epistle that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Councel Necessariâ— apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unuâ— conveniamus 'T is necessary that every yeare we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care adding concerning the Church in opposition to Hereticks that all power and grace is placed in it ubi praesident majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem wherein the Elders praeside and have power of Baptizing absolving and ordeining an evident description of the Bishops But this by the way as an essay what their testimonies out of the Fathers scattered sometimes in this Book would be found to be if this were a place to examine them 7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another Praesident even among Bishops the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province and so a Metropolitan All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not 8. Yet after all this there lyes no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor
by the view of them And the first they produce is this 25. The Apostles went about ordeining Presbyters in every Church Act. 14. 23. 26. But surely this is an infirme argument Every Church signifies without question more Churches than one viz. Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch v. 20. 21. And if in each of those one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be ordeined that certainly will satisfie the importunity of that Text and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the plurall viz. foure Elders in those so many Churches And if because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the singular number they therefore thinke that those plurall Elders must be ordeined in each of those Churches This is too grosse a mistake for Scholers to be guilty of it being certaine that that is not the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of the English Church by Church or in every Church i.e. more Elders in more Churches one in every one 27. Their next proofe is from Act. 20. 17. Paul called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church to them The like may be said of the other six Churches 28. What may be said of Ephesus I grant may be said of the other six Churches but the Text no where affirmes it of Ephesus and so the analogy will no way prove it of the rest All that the Text saith is this And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church This is not to say the Elders as that signifies Presbyters in our moderne notion of the one City and so Church of Ephesus but the Elders i.e. Bishops either of the Asian Church of that whole Region or at least of the Ephesine Province the neighbouring Bishops of the Churches or Cities that were under that Metropolis of Ephesus who by St. Paul's sending his summons to Ephesus the chiefe City of the one and chiefe Metropolis of the other which consequently had daily meanes of communicating intelligence to those other Cities might thus most commodiously be advertised of St. Paul's comming and provide to meet him at Miletus 29. That this is no strain'd interpretation or answer is elsewhere evidenced and may summarily appeare by these two testimonies one of Irenaeus here formerly mentioned l. 3. c. 14. ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were called from Ephesus and the rest of the neerest Cities adjoyning to it This is an expresse evidence which being allowed puts the whole matter out of question And although in a matter of fact a testimony of so credible a person that lived so neere the times being an auditour of Polycarpe the first Bishop of Smyrna and is not contradicted by any contemporary is of a competent authority and need not any other Topickes to assist it yet for the removing all possible prejudices from it and rendring it yet more indubitable I shall a little farther enlarge for the confirming of it 30. And 1. the Apostle at his meeting with them v. 18. begins in this style yee know from the first day that I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons An addresse to them either as to the Elders of Asia indefinitely as many as could conveniently come to Miletus at that time or at least as to more than to the Elder or Elders if that could be truly pretended of one City of Asia peculiarly or exclusively to all others 31. So againe v. 25. And now behold I know that yee all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more This evidently addresses the speech not onely to the inhabitants of one City but to all those as many as were then present among whom hee had gone preaching the Faith of Christ and that we know was done by him to the other Cities and not onely to that of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in passage though not so solemnly as at Ephesus going through all the Region and preaching the Gospell to all saith Oecumenius on 2 Joh. And so t is expresly said Act. 19. 21. that after the two yeares and three moneths spent at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he staid and spent some time in Asia And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truely saith that not onely at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia Paul had perswaded and turned away the people 32. Secondly then the Faith being before this time successefully propagated through all Asia and not onely in this one City of Ephesus there were without question Churches accordingly gathered and compacted in many other Cities as well as in Ephesus before this time of Paul's parting never to see them againe And not onely in the other Metropolis six more of which are owned by the Objectors Smyrna and the rest Rev. 1. but also in the lesser Cities which were not Metropoliticall and yet more especially in those Cities which were neerest Ephesus and which as belonging to that Metropolis had frequent resort thither to the Assises which were there kept Act. 19. 38. and so must be supposed to have received speciall influences from the Apostle's residing there for the space of two yeares and three moneths Act. 19. 8. 10. 33. To which purpose it must againe be remembred that as Timâ—thy is by Eusebius styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province that belongs to Ephesus l. 3. c. 4. which is all one as to make that a Metropolis over other Cities and accordingly in the order of Metropoliticall Sees at the end of Codinus the Bishop of Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primate of all Asia so Ignatius in Traâ—an's time is by joynt consent of the antients affirmed to have written Epistles to two Churches Magnesia and Trallis which are known to be Cities under this Metropolis of Ephesus and to have named the Bishops of each Damas of the one and â—olybius of the other 34. And as there is no question among any but that Ignatius wrote such Epistles to those Churches Salmasius cites that to the Trallians expresly as the Epistle of Ignatius which certainly he would never have done if he had doubted whether ever Ignatius wrote to them and indeed all that is questioned by him and D. Blondell is but this whether the Epistles now extant under his name be genuine or no not whether Ignatius as all writers accord wrote seven Epistles of which these which we now speake of are two so there is no ground of imagining that they were of a later plantation than that which is here recorded to be wrought by St. Paul Act. 19. All Asia having then heard the Faith v. 10. and received it in a remarkable manner v. 20. and a great dore saith St. Paul being opened to him at Ephesus peculiarly which must needs have influence on the Cities next adjoyning to it in
Titus was Apostle of the Cretanes and Timothy of the Asiaticks So when Chrysostome and Theophylact and Oecumenius approve of the third species and affirmes Bishops to be called Presbyters and Deacons also and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Bishops yet of each of them it is notorious that they asserted the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters not onely in their owne but in the Apostles time And to that purpose the concession and testimony of Peter Moulin was produced that the most famous Bishops of the antient Church Chrysostome c. did not thinke it any diminution to their dignity that the words Bishop and Elder were at first conceived to be used in the same sense which observation being premised and thereby the Prelatists pretensions competently secured which soever of those senses should be accepted so long as they that were authors of the assertions be permitted to give their owne interpretation of them It was then I thought perfectly seasonable and safe to discusse the question freely and to set downe what to me appeared most probable without prejudice to any other dissenter and upon those termes and not otherwise these two propositions were offered to farther consideration of learned men 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture constantly signifie a singular Bishop 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop and sometime but rarely a Presbyter These are somewhat different from the two paradoxes affixt to me And in these termes I shall now resume them againe and cleare them to be no paradoxes And begin first with the former of them concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop And this is already done 1. By considering the originall notation and use in the Old Testament of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then by going over every place in the New Testament where the word Bishop is used Section II. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naturally signifying an overseer and used by Aristides for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour the same that Justinian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles and by Cicero ad Articum rendred speculator custos one that lookes to and guards a Province and so fitly styled Angel who 's generally deemed to have those two Offices and is in the Scripture called an eye and vulgarly a guardian doth in the Greeke of the Old Testament sometime render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is common to God Lord Angel and generally denotes Dominion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Praefect or Commissary intrusted with the administration of some affaire whether in army as a Commander Numb 31. 14. in Mechanicall working as a Master-workeman 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City a Ruler or Prince Nehem. 11. 9. peculiarly the chiefe of the Priests v. 10 in the Ministery of the Temple as Eleazar the Ruler of the Levites Num. 4. 16. and lastly in the House of the Lord the Ruler set over that 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the result of all this is that it generally signifies an office of charge and dignity and power and superiority over others all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and so is most fitly qualified to signifie the like viz. a praefecture in the Christian Church under the New Testament Accordingly there we finde it applied 1. to Christ himselfe the Bishop of our soules who though he ministred to his Disciples yet owned the title of Lord and Master as that which from them belonged to him Joh. 13. 13. Secondly to the Apostles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is used it is evidently capable of a sense very agreeable to these premisses being never once used in the New Testament but where it will be very commodious to render it Bishop in our moderne notion of the word for a singular prefect in each Church not a collegue in a Presbytery This is at large shew'd by a survey of every of those places First that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle takes leave and exhorts the Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost They are there bid to feed the Church of God i.e. the Christians of the severall Cities of Asia or neer about Ephesus as was in the last Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus auditor to Polycarpe made Bishop of Smyrna by St. John and therefore may well be resolved to be the singular Bishops of those Cities and not onely of the one City of Ephesus as was largely shewed in the last Chapter The second place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi is added with the Bishops and Deacons where although some of the Greeke Commentators which at the same time assert Episcopacy do for that very reason because there could not be many Bishops in one City understand that place of Presbyters in our moderne notion and adde that the words Bishop and Presbyter yea and Deacon too were not as yet distinct but promiscuously used the one for the other here the word Bishops for Presbyters as elsewhere the Presbytery is used for Bishops 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reason because Presbyters ordeined not a Bishop And although many expedients were ready at hand to keepe the Text from being usefull to the Presbyterians in case it were granted that by Bishops the Presbyters were meant as that Epaphroditus their present Bishop as is acknowledged by Theodoret Chrysostome and Theophylact who are most favourable to that interpretation was with St. Paul at the writing that Epistle c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies peculiarly Bishops and I doubt not but it may doe so referring it to all the Bishops of the severall Cities belonging to that Metropolis For such was Philippi both as the first-fruits of all Macedonia first converted to the Faith 2 Act. 16. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prime City of that Province of Macedon v. 12. of it selfe before it's conversion and so saith Photius distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly Polycarps Epistle to them is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole province that belongs to Philippi In which there being diverse Cities and Bishops in them the Epistle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all as the Epistle to the Corinthians appeares to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia and being inscribed to Philippi was to be communicated to those others as the Epistle to the Colossians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received whether as Tertullian seemes to believe that to the Ephesians or any other in like manner to
be communicated to the Colossians and the Epistle of the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch did belong and was communicated to all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Act. 16. 4. And then all that the immediate subjoyning of the Deacons in that place will conclude is onely this which is farre from yeilding the Presbyterians any profit that as Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Churches being but newly planted there were not Presbyters as yet constituted among them onely a Bishop with one Deacon or more in each City in like manner as it was at Jerusalem Act. 6. where after James's assumption to the Bishoprick which the Ecclesiasticall writers tell us of the seven Deacons are soone instituted no Presbyters being created in the middle betwixt the Bishop and them that either Scripture or antient Record informe us of And Clemens St. Pauls fellow Labourer mentions it as the generall practice that the Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the faith Thus farre is this from being a forced interpretation being perfectly regular and conformable to what we read of those times out of the best and antientest Records of them And if in any circumstance we should be lyable to mistake yet for the maine the Reader will hardly thinke it possible when he remembers this very Church of the Philippians to be one of those expressely named by Tertullian among whom in his time Apostolorum Cathedrae suis adhuc locis praesidebantur The Chaires of the Apostles were yet extant praesiding in their due places which concludes some Bishop or singular praefect to have succeeded the Apostles in this Church as in those other Thessalonica c. and by Theodoret whose authority is most used against us in this matter to prove that the Bishops were Presbyters here Epaphroditus is expresly affirmed to be that Bishop The next place is that of 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he coveteth a good worke A Bishop therefore must be blamelesse where there is no reason of doubting but the Bishop is the singular praefect or Governour of the Church For the onely appearance of the contrary being againe as in that to the Philippians the immediate subjoyning of Deacons and their qualifications v. 8. that presently vanisheth if againe we remember the observation of Epiphanius which he had out of the most antient Records and was found exactly conformable to the expresse words of Clemens Romanus the contemporary of the Apostles that at the beginning of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the government was compleate in all the Offices the Apostles and Apostolicall persons placed in the Church by them such as Timothy to whom here he gives the directions created no more but a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each Church the present state of things neither requiring nor being well capable of any more in respect of the paucity of the Christians to be governed or instructed and of those which were fit to be made Presbyters And although Theodoret againe with some few others interpret the place of Presbyters yet 't is as evident he doth it not to the disadvantage of Bishops adding in the same place that the Bishops especially should observe these Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as those which had atteined to a greater honour Meanewhile S. Chrysostome interprets it distinctly of Bishops as I have done and in that notion of Bishops which severs them from Presbyters such as governe in each City and addeth the qualifications to be such as being spoken of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe agree to Presbyters also And accordingly Theophylact interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President and Ruler without any mention of Presbyters There remaines but one place and that of the very same nature with this last and must certainly be regulated by it Tit. 1. 7. For a Bishop must be blamelesse as the steward of God answerable to that notion of the word Bishop in the Old Testament for the Ruler set over the House of the Lord 2 Kin. 11. 18. i. e. the Steward to whom the Keyes of the House were committed Isa 22. 22. That this is the singular Bishop in every City signified before v. 5. by the Elders which Titus was left in Crete to constitute is the joynt affirmation of St. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius on those words of v. 5. Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By Elders he there meanes Bishops as in the Epistle to Timothy appointing them to be constituted in every â—ity for he would not have the whole Island administred by one but that every â—ity should have it's proper Pastor or Bishop that so the labour might be the lighter and the care more exact In Crete there were certainly many Cities Eusebius mentions an hundred of all which saith he Titus was made Bishop by St. Paul that under him saith Theodoret he might ordeine Bishops to which Chrysostome and Theophylact adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might have power to judge or censure those Bishops as a Metropolitan and Primaâ—e over them There is now no other place wherein the word Bishop is used and by this briefe view of these I hope the first proposition is competently rescued from meriting the censure of Paradox whether that signifie novell or strange this being so conformable both to the nature and use of the word to the tradition of the antient Church and the importance of each Scripture where it is used that Bishop should signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the singular Pastor or Governour in each City or Church Section III. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder NOw to the second proposition which pretended not to so much positivenesse but is set down in a greater latitude of defining that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop though sometimes but most rarely a Presbyter Of this I shall now need to praemise but these few things First that the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in the Old Testament doth denote most properly and signifie most constantly as in all Languages the word is found vulgarly to doe a Ruler or Governour This is so largely deduced and demonstrated in the Annotation on Act. 11. 30. that I shall not indeavour farther to manifest it Secondly that as in some places of the New Testament the word is necessarily to be understood of Bishops so in every other place it is very fitly capable of that interpretation This is againe so particularly evidenced to the Latine Reader Diss 4. c. 19 20 21 22. and to the English Reader Annot. on Act. 11. b. and 14. a. that I cannot deeme it reasonable to tire my selfe farther with
of many Cities each of which had a Bishop over them as when in the Councel in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyprian is said to be Archbishop of the Region of the Africanes Region there signifying the whole Province under that Metropolitane and so Cyprian himselfe makes it his observation Jampridem per omnes provincias singulas urbes instituti sunt Episcopi Antiently through all the Provinces and each of the Cities Bishops were instituted Where the Bishops in the several Provinces as those differ from the Bishops in each City are undoubtedly Archbishops And if that place so very agreeable to this of Clemens may be allowed to give us the meaning of it we see what it will be and how distant from these mens conclusion that the Apostles instituted Bishops in every City and in each Region or Province and in the Metropolis or chiefe City of it a Metropolitane or Archbishop But then 2. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie as they would have it a company of villages or little townes lying neer together so as to be here used in opposition to the Cities yet could it not be from hence concluded that the Apostles constituted Bishops in those villages The words are they preached through regions and Cities and constituted their first fruits earlyest converts into Bishops and Deacons which will be perfectly true though all the Bishops and Deacons constituted by them had their fixt seats of residence in the Cities For that they constituted Bishops in the Regions is not here affirmed Much more might be said in this matter to shew that the utmost concessions that the adversaries could demand from hence would no way hinder or disadvantage our pretensions but onely give the Chorepiscopi a greater Antiquitie in the Church than either they or we have reason to thinke they had of which whole matter the reader may see a full discourse Dissert 3. c. 8. Sect. 25. c. and of it somewhat we shall anon have occasion to repete from thence The second Testimony of Clemens is set down by them in these words That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Bishop being indued with perfect foreknowledg they appointed the aforesaid that is the aforesaid orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here they require two things to be noted 1. that by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2. 9. Ephes 1. 21. Heb. 1. 4. Rev. 11. so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie among the Corinthians was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57. 58. 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the cure of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us that the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things ordained only Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of Schismes To this they adde to supersede farther citations our of this Epistle It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the justification of our proposition let the Reader peruse pag. 57. 62. 69. 72. and take notice that those which are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle What this whole Epistle will yeild toward the proof of their proposition which is That after Christs Ascension the Church of God for a certaine space of time was governed by a Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops I thinke it reasonable for any that hath not read it to conjecture by these two testimonies which these who assert the proposition and here undertake to prove it have thought fit to cull out of it having withall nothing more to collect for their turne from the rest of the Epistle particularly from the comparing those foure pages 57. 62. 72. but only this that they which are called Bishops in one place are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in another Now this last they know is the very thing that I contend as from the Scripture so from this and other antient writings that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder are words of the same importance all the question is whether at the first both imported Bishops or both Presbyters in our moderne notion That there is no one circumstance so much as offered by them to consideration which may incline it their way is evident by their owne words neither of their two notes pretending to it only their conclusion affirming that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words of the same importance The whole matter therefore will still divolve to this one Quaere whether when Clement saith of the Apostles that they constituted none but Bishops and Deacons by Bishops a College of Presbyters in every City be to be understood or rather one Bishop with his Deacon or Deacons in every City For the clearing of this one difficulty for this being evinced all that their two notes affirme is directly on our side against them I shall here intirely set downe the whole place last produced of which they have left out one halfe It is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that must be by revelation from him that there would contention arise upon the name or dignity of Episcopacie i. e. about the authority of Bishops in the Church some opposing it and casting them out of their Offices as here in the Church of the Corinthians and through all Achaia was actually come to passe at this time and occasioned this Epistle to them For which cause therefore the Apostles having received perfect foreknwoledge that there would be such contentions on this occasion did for the preventing of them constitute the forementioned Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the Faith in their new plantations and after them so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Barnabas's Epistle Sect. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people that should be after and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 13. 42. that which should follow the next after gave a Series or Catalogue or manner of succession i. e. set downe a note of them which in each Church should succeed the present Incumbent that when they dyed other approved men might succeede to their office or ministery What can be more manifest than that the dignity which the Apostles conferred on the Bishops in each City and Province which in the former Testimony hath been cleared to belong to single Bishops not to any College of Presbyters was by them foreseen that it would be matter of Contention occasion of Sedition in the Church for the prevention of
which they used the probablest meanes imaginable named successors to the present Bishops in every Church who should supply the vacant places as soon as they fell and so prevent suing and contending for them and were by the speciall spirit of God directed who those successors should be so that the opposing their succession or casting them out afterwards must be a great sin even of resisting the spirit of God who had designed them to this inheritance Which next to Christ's bearing them in his right hand Rev. 1. 20. is the greatest character of dignity and evidence of Christ's approving of the Order and care of continuing it as the originall of union not division in the Church There is not by these men one word of objection offered against this conclusion thus formerly deduced in the Dissertations and therefore I need adde no more for the vindicating this testimony yet will it not be amisse here to interpose the words of Hegesippus one that was present at the time of that sedition and gives an account of it in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of the Corinthians continued in the right untill Primus was Bishop of Corinth Which is a testimonie as antient as that of Clement and tells us what Bishops they were which Clement speakes of such as Primus was at Corinth i. e. one singular Governour in a City The same will be yet more manifest if we consider what by all Authors is affirmed of Clemens himselfe the writer at the time of writing this Epistle that having been Saint Paul's Peter's Deacon Ignat. in Ep. ad Trall he was no Bishop of Rome by the joynt suffrage of Irenaeus and all the Antients even of Saint Jerome himselfe in his Catalogue and by him styled an Apostolical person on Isa 52. a companion of the Apostles in Interp. Com. Orig. in Rom. and by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 4. an Apostle in the sense that Theodoret saith those whom in his time they called Bishops had been at first called Apostles Accordingly of him saith Irenaeus in his Catalogue of the successive Governors of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third place from the Apostles Clemens came to the Bishoprick Which how it is easily to be accorded with those who truly make him Peters immediate successor see Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 6. c. Other testimonies there are producible from this Epistle of Clement which are all to the same purpose with the former As when he findes an image of the Ecclesiasticall state under Bishops and Deacons in the prophecie of Isaiah cap. 60. 17. where in the Greek translation then in use he had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will constitute their Bishops in righteousnesse and their Deacons in faithfulnesse speaking of the Judges and their Ministers and officers in every City And so againe when he exhorts them to give due honour to the Elders among them talkes of their sedition against their Elders and casting them out of their Episcopacy in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and removing them from that honoured office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another and the like All of the same importance and to be interpreted by the former Sect. II. The Testimony of Polycarpe That he was himselfe a Bishop His mention of Ignatius's Epistles fit to give authority to them being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Antients IN the next place followes their testimonie out of Polycarpe introduced in this manner The like Record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of John the Apostle who lived also within the first century and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ To this Testimony from Polycarp there is no reason I should deny any part of my assent being so perfectly such as the cause which I defend requires If there be with him but two orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons and he perswades the Philippians i.e. that whole Province the same to which Saint Paul had written consisting of many Churches all under that Metropolis of Philippi to be subject to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Deacons and sets the former of them in the comparison to answer God the Father the supream Monarch of Heaven and the latter to be the parallel to Christ who came out from Heaven upon his Fathers messages then what reason have I to doubt but that these Elders and Deacons are the very same which Saint Paul had called Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. which that it belonged to the severall Bishops of that Province of Macedonia hath before been sufficiently vindicated And therefore without farther debating this Testimony I shall adde some few things concerning this Polycarp which will helpe conveniently to cleere the whole matter First That as it is most true that is here said of him that he was a famous Disciple of Iohn the Apostle so this is added to his titles by the authontiâ—k Epistle of the Church of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was the most wonderfull person in our times being an Apostolicall and Prophetical Doctor and that he was a most glorious Martyr is the designed matter of that whole Epistle Secondly That this famous most admirable Apostolical Doctor and Martyr was the Bishop of Smyrna and so constituted by the Apostles as will appeare by three Testimonies each of them irrefragable 1. By the Epistle of that Church of Smyrna written on purpose concerning his Martyrdome a reverend piece of Antiquity fit to compare with any that remaines in the Church And there we finde in the close of his titles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Catholike Church which is in Smyrna i. e. both of Iewish and Gentile Christians there So Polycrates the eight Bishop of Ephesus borne within a while after Saint Iohn's death in his Epistle to Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr So Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. speaking of him saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was constituted by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna in Asia And then what possibility can there be that he being thus a Bishop nay Metropolitane himselfe as hath formerly been shewed writing to another Metropolis and commanding to obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Deacons should meane any thing else but Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly That this Polycarp as in this Epistle he acknowledgeth to have received an Epistle from Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You wrote to me and to Ignatius also so he tells them that he had sent them a collection of the same Ignatius's Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistles of Ignatius sent to us by him and as many others as we had by us we
and nothing yet replied to my answers and therefore must not for ever turne the same stone begin the same task againe But for the conceit which is here cited from Salmasius which I confesse I considered not so much before as to make any reply to it viz. That these Epistles were written when Episcopacy properly so called came into the â—hurch and that proved from hence because in all his Epistles he speakes highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy that so the people that had been accustomed to the Presbyterian Government might the more willingly and easily receive this now Government by Episcopacy and not be offended at the novelty of it It is evident how easily this may be retorted and the argument as firmely formed to conclude that Presbyters were then newly come into the Church and therefore to make the people inclinable to give them a willing Reception without being offended at the novelty of them he still speakes highly in honour of Episcopacy Such Arguments as these you will guesse from hence how incompetent they are to conclude matters of fact done so many hundred yeares agoe such is the question whether Ignatius wrote these Epistles or no It is much more probable that they wanted Arguments of any reall validity who are faine to fly to such Succors as these Yet one farther misadventure there is in forming or making use of this conceit For what is said in those Epistles concerning the honour due to Presbyters or the Presbytery is farre from looking favourably on the Presbyterian Government for certainly as long as there is a Bishop properly so called set over the Presbyters as they know there is in all those Epistles and as long as the Presbyters are to do nothing without commission from him as they knew also and even now quarrell'd at it that by him they are required to doe there is little show of the Presbyterian modell discernible no whit more than there was in England long before they covenanted to cast the Bishops out of the Church It being certaine that no community or equality of Presbyters taken into councell with the Bishop doth constitute the Government Presbyterian as long as there be any Bishops to have power over Presbyters Else had the Convocation of Deanes Archdoacons and Clerks fourteen yeares agoe been the platform of Presbyterian Government in England This is I conceive a full answer to every the most minute part or appearance of Argument here produced against these Epistles and is all that was proper here to be said concerning Ignatius whose Epistles as long as they have any authority with us let it be in the most Reformed purified Edition that ever was or can be hoped for there is evidence enough for the Apostolicall Institution of Bishops in the moderne notion of the word And if after all this they must have no authority for no other crime but because they are such punctuall Asserters of this Doctrine 'T is to little purpose farther to examine or inquire what Antiquity hath affirmed or practised in this matter Sect. V. Testimonies of Irenaeus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops YEt because their Method leads us forward to consider some other of the Antient Writers and I have promised so farre to comply with them I shall now in the next place attend them to the view of two of those Irenaeus and Tertullian p. 114. 115. where having acknowledged of them that they say that Apostles made Bishops in Churches Polycarpe in Smyrna Clemens at Rome c. all that they require of us to prove is that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters and the reason why they thinke this needs proving is because both those Authors use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyteri Seniores for the same thing the one calling Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Xystus Presbyters of the Church of Rome in his Epistle to Victor the other calling the Presidents of the Churches Seniores in his Apologie and some other places are produced to the same purpose To this therefore I shall now briefly give answer i. e by concession that the same persons who by these two Authors are called Bishops are promiscuously called Presbyteri and Seniores also And therefore secondly that this question being thus farre as to the Names equally balanced betweene us they saying that Bishops signifies Presbyters in the moderne notion we that Presbyters signifies Bishops in the moderne notion some other Indications beside this of the Names must be made use of on either side toward the decision of it Of this sort there is no one offered to us by them and so as they have nothing to incline the balance their way so we have nothing to make answer to in that particular I shall therefore as the onely thing left for me to doe render some few Reasons why the words Bishop and Elders in these Authors must needs signifie Bishops in our Moderne sense And the first proofe as farre as concernes Ironaeus is because Irenaeus who useth these words promiscuously was himselfe a Bishop in our moderne notion and yet is by others in his own dayes call'd Elder of the Church of Lyons at that very time when he is acknowledged to be Bishop of it in our moderne sense of the word This I thus manifest in each part And first That Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in such a sense as we now use Bishop appeares by what Eusebius saith of him importing that he was Primate of all France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he he was Bishop of the Provinces through France Now this we know cannot be affirm'd of a moderne Presbyter who pretends not to any such wide and singular jurisdiction And this needs no farther proofe it being by D. Blondell in his Apologie for St. Hierome confest that 140. yeares after Christ i.e. nigh 40. yeares before this time the Government of the Church was in the hands of Bishops over all the World one in every Church set over all the rest of the Church For the second part then that at that time when he is thus an acknowleged Bishop and Archbishop he is yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of the Church I appeale to the Testimony of the Gallicane Church at that time as it lies recorded in Eusebius where in an Embassy performed by him in the name of the Martyrs of Lyons to Elentherius the Bishop of Rome we have these words concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have intreated our Brother and partaker Irenaeus to beare these Letters to you O Father Eleutherius and we beseech you to prize him at one very zealous of Christ's Covenant If we thought that
Justice would purchase a place to any we had commended him in a principall manner as Elder of the Church for so he is Here nine yeares after he had been Bishop and Archbishop of Lyons about the yeare of Christ 177. he is styled by those Letters Elder of the Church by which it appeares that in his time Elder was the title of Bishop in our Moderne sense and consequently so it may fitly signifie in his own writings and so must needs do there when 't is applied to those who were acknowleged Bishops at that time when by the Presbyterians acknowledgement Episcopacy was come in in that notion wherein we now understand it A second proofe of this is that what in one place out of Papias he saith of all the Seniores or Elders which in Asia converst with St. John that Clemens Alexandrinus who lived in the same time affirmes of the Bishops or Elders of Asia meaning by both of them the Bishops in our notion of the word Clemens Alexandrinus wrote his Stromata about the yeare 192. which is five yeares before Irenaeus Martyrdome in the 5. of Severus Now of this Clemens it is certaine 1. That he acknowleged the three Orders in the Church which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the three degrees or promotions in the Church of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and consequently must by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand Bishops in our moderne sense Secondly that when he makes the Relation of John's meeting with the Bishops of Asia which is the same matter which Irenaeus produceth out of Papias he calls them in the same period both Elders and Bishops indifferently For speaking of St. John he hath this passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Comming to a City not farre off and looking on the Bishop which was constituted over all seeing a young man he said This person I commit to thee And the Elder took him home brought him up baptized and at last gave him confirmation Here it is evident this Elder of Asia one of those which in Irenaeus conversed with Saint John is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop constituted over all in that City and agreeably when Saint John comes back that way againe he calls to him by that title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Bishop render us the depositum which both I and Christ delivered to thee in the presence of the Church over which thou art set Where againe he that is called Elder both by him and Irenaeus is also by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop set over the Church And so that is a second evidence of it Thirdly In his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome he speakes of his Predecessors thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders which were set over the Church which thou rulest Anicetus Pius Hyginus and Telesphorus and lib. 3. cap. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The blessed Apostles having founded and built the Church of Rome put the Episcopal office into the hands of Linus Anacletus succeeded him Clemens Anacletus Evarestus Clemens Alexander Evarestus then Xystus the sixt from the Apostles after him Telesphorus then Hyginus then Pius after him Anicetus after Anicetus Soter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in the twelfth place Eleutherus possesses the Bishoprick from the Apostles Here 1. it is evident that every one first named as Elders are yet single persons one succeding another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over or ruling the Church of Rome Secondly That for twelve successions together they are by Irenaeus lookt upon all as of the same ranke succeeding one another and the first as well as the last called Bishop which must conclude it to be understood by him in such a notion as is equally competible to all and so must be in our moderne notion if the great Asserters of the Presbyterian cause say true that about the yeare 140. i. e. certainly before Elutherius was Bishop of Rome there were Bishops over Presbyters all the world over Lastly Irenaeus speaking of some unworthy voluptuous Elders expresseth their faults in such a manner as cannot fitly belong to any but Bishops Principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt they are puft up with the â—ride of the principall place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the principall chair which as Bishops belonged to them â—or though it is as possible that Presbyters should be guilty of the pride the tumour and elation as that Bishops should be guilty of the same yet the occasion of it there mentioned the principalis consessio the chiefe place of dignity is peculiar to the one and not reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality of the other These evidences have readily offered themselves to shew what Irenaeus meanes by Presbyteri when he useth that and Bishops promiscuously viz. by both Bishops in our moderne notion and he that shall reade over that author diligently and compare his dialect with Polycarpe and Papias with whom he accords the former using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops as hath largely been insisted on and the latter for Apostles and Bishops single Governors of each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andrew Peter Aristion John Marke all Elders will doubtlesse finde many more proofes that thus he used the word and I shall adventure to undertake meet with no one indication to the contrary Sect. V. Testimonies of Tertullian Seniores Majores natu for Bishops so in Firmilian AS for Tertullian I shall need say no more but that it is the confession of the great Patron of Presbyterians that he doth aperte tueri communiusu receptam ordinis in Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos distinctionem Openly defend the received common distinction of the Ecclesiastick order into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he that can yet doubt of it let him examine his citations de Praescript cap. 41. de Baptisme cap 17. de Monogam cap. 11. de Fuga c. 11. And that de Baptismo as high cleare as that which was most quarrell'd with in Ignatius Dandi Baptismum jus habit summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus dein Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est The Bishop hath the right of giving Baptisme after him the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being preserved peace is preserved So that of him it is as cleare as of Irenaeus or Clemens that he must understand Bishop in our Moderne
the same as hath beene cited from Ignatius that all the world over the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles according to the minde of Christ In his Dial. adv Luciferian Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendit cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot sacerdotes and Si quaeris quare in Ecclesiâ baptizatus nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum disce hanc observationem ex â—a authoritate descendere quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schisms as Priests in the Churches If you demand why he that hath been baptized in the Church may not receive the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this observance dâ—scends from that Authority in that the holy spâ—it descended on thâ— Apostles 〈◊〉 Testimoâ—y as it shewes the necessity of a singular Bishop to avoid Schisms in the Church and so must affixe the institution of them on the Apostles who made provision against that danger and that I suppose is his meaning in that place which the Presbyterians make most use of so it directly derives the authority by which Bishops stand in the Church distinct from Presbyters and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles Lastly adv Jovinian 〈◊〉 Episcopâ— Presbyter Diaconus non sunt meritorum nomina sed offiâ—iorâ—m Nec dicitur si quis Episcopatum desilerat The Bishop and Presbytâ—r and Deacon are names of offices neither is it said If any man dâ—siâ—e a Bishoprick applying those Texts of Saint Paul concerning the qualifications of Bishops to the Bishop as in his time he stood distinct from Presbyters All this I supose may suffice to give authority to my collection and conclusion from plaine words of Saint Hierome that his meaning was as plaine and undubitable that Episcopacy was delivered downe and instituted in the Church by the Apostles themselves And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of these testimonies yet because I promised it I shall now adde that one argument ex abundanti and much more than is necessary to the same purpose viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning which I pretend it to be And that such as by these objectors cannot with justice be denyed to have a full irrefragable force in it having themselves made use of it against us which they ought not to have done if by themselves it shall now be denyed when it is produced by us In the close of their Appendix they have set downe several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Ministers and their first proposition being this that in the first and purest times there was ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters their proofe is this For these Bishops came in postea and pâ—ulâ—tim afterward and by little and little as Jerome saith And Panormitan lib. 1. Decretal de Consuetud cap. 4. saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesian◠〈◊〉 sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common and ordained Priests and joyntly conferred all the Sacraments These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan being brought to prove the same proposition concerning ordination by Presbyters and the time of Bishops coming in to the Church It must sure be reasonable to resolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter that was Saint Hieromes sense also Now what that is will be discerned by setting downe Panormitane's words at large as they lye in the place cited by them The businesse he hath there in hand is to prove that custome is not of force so farre as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter shâ—uld performe an Episcopal act Ea quae sum ordinis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex consuitudine quantamcunque veâ—ustissimâ Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custome how antient soever be acquired by any Inferiour order The reason is quia consuetudo non facit quem capacem because custome doth make no man capable Then he makes this observation that Ritus Apostol orum circa sacramenta habent impedire characterus impressionem The rites or practice or Institutions of the Apostles about the Sacraments have power to hâ—nd â—the impression of the Character nam immediate post mortem Christiâ—omâ—es Presbyteri in communi regebant ecclesiam non fuerant inter ipsos Epiâ—scopi sed idem Presbyter quod Epiâ—copus pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta sed postinodum ad Schismata sedâ—nda fecerunt seu ordinaverunt Apostoli ut crearentur Episcopâ— certa sacramenta iis reservarunt illa interdicendo simplicibus Presbyteris For immediately after the death of Christ all thâ— Elders in common ruled the Church and so there were no Bishops among them but a Presbyter was the same that a Bishop and they joyntly conferred all the Sacraments But after a while for the appeasing of Schismes the Apostles caused or ordained that Bishops should be created and reserved to them some Sacraments or holy Rites forbidding single Presbyters to meddle with them and he concludes Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impressionem Characteris quia si Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt nihil conferunt and here you see that such an Ordination is able to hinder the impression of the Character because if Presbyters doe de facto confer them they confer nothing Where as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Bishops and specious words pickt out of him to that purpose doth yet distinctly affirme that Presbyters which confer Orders without a Bishop conferre nothing all their Ordinations are meere nullities and what could have been said more severely against their practice and their designe in citing him than this so he plainly interprets St. Jeromes assertion of the occasion and time of Bishops being set over the Presbyters that it was done by the appointment of the Apostles themselves and so that consuetudo custome in Jerome opposed to Christ's disposall is no more than postmodum ordinaverunt Apostoli after a while the Apostles ordeined opposed to immediatè post mortem Christi immediately after the death of Christ And then by the way as the Reader may hence discerne what force there is in this Testimony of Panormitan to support their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters for which besides St. Jeromes postea and paulatim and part of this testimony of Panormitan they produce no other and as by what was formerly said of the Testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian their chiefe supports for their second proposition
have already been utterly demolished so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their third Proposition concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsick power to ordaine Ministers will immediately vanish in like manner For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the same thing twice repeated to increase the number so 't is as evident that what is by them said is taken from St. Hierome and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops onely in respect of authority or for the preserving it intire and the unity of each Church which depended on that in St. Hierom's opinion the Ordination and consecration of Clerks i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons was reserved to the chiefe Priest i. e. the Bishop which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove the intrinsick power of Presbyters to ordaine Ministers I leave to any Reader to passe judgement And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Testimonie that of Leo set out in their front out of his 88. Epistle concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else it is commanded by the authority of the â—anons Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these which affirme this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops and that the authority of the Canons so requires to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsick power As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters were infallibly their due to enjoy and the Argument demonstrative that it was their Originall and intrinsick due because the Canons deny it What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe and not a Bishop this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture but onely because it was against the Canons of some councels is somewhat of the same nature with the former and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths for being never admitted to the Priesthood and assuming to himselfe the name of an Elder he dared to doe the things belonging to a Priest A censure which certeinly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Councels Two Testimonies more I shall touch on before I returne to the pursuit of my proposed Method and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum sâ—orum non ordinet That a Bishop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is Ordrined as the Bishop blesseth him and layes his hand on his head let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop And the conclusion deduced from these Testimones and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian is this that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed How truly this is inferred from the Praemâ—sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testimonies For the first this is the truth of the Story Theophilus a guilty person and as such cited to answer what was objected against him making use of the envy under which Chrysostome then laboured shifted the Scene and becamse his judge nay as Photius tells us he and the rest of that Conventicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were Chrysostome ' s greatest enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at once Judges and Accusers and Witnesses of all that was charged against him And therefore we already see what heed is to be given to the accusatiâ—n of those Fathers ad quercum and how valid an argument can be deduced from it And we shall the better guesse at it if we consider also what other particulars were in the same manner that this was charged against him set downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca The 23. charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bath was heated for him alone and that after he had bathed Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath that no body else might bath The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ate alone living like one of the Cyclopes and betwixt these two new found crimes comes in this in the midst being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained many that had no Testimonialls which being set down by Photius as the summe of that charge referres us indeed to the ground on which their charge was built of his ordaining without a Councell and against the minde of his Clergy those testimonialls and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordaine without assistance of his Presbyters or that it was alwayes forbidden any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden also As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have set downe but halfe the Canon the whole runnes thus Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinetâ— ita ut civium conniventiam Testimonium quaerat That the Bishop ordain not without his councell of Clergy so that he seeke the liking and testimoniall of the Inhabitants Which againe onely serves to shew the use of the assistent Presbyters to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of but is no argument of the unlawfulnesse of sole ordination or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders So
expedite it it was sure very reasonable to examine and observe what they which made most advantage of Hierome's authority should be found to say to this testimony of his for the Apostolical tradition of three orders And among these three principall persons offered themselves to our consideration D. Blondell Walo Messalinus or Salmasius and Lud. Capellus every of them having newly written on this subject and collected especially what Jerome had said of it Of these three the last was soone discerned to have dealt most prudently setting downe the other testimonies out of him but wholly omitting this The other two having not been so wary made use of another dexterity set downe the words but deferr'd their observations on them till some fitter season D. Blondell put it off to his sixt Section whereas upon examination he hath but three in his whole booke and so is certainly never likely to speake of it nor can be justly believed to have in earnest designed any such thing The other saith he expects more and better notes on it from Salmasius i.e. from himselfe in another booke viz. De Ecclesiastico Ordine and after a great volume come out of that subject 8. or 9. yeares after he yet never takes this place or his own promise into consideration This was all that my search produced and the taking notice of these plaine matters of fact the behaviours of these men in that which so much concern'd the whole cause to be taken notice of and laid to heart is all that was done by me and which is styled by these a triumphing over those learned Men. And I hope there was little of hard measure and as little of insolence in this Now because what these learned Men thus averted the doing is yet here said to be done by Smectymnuus and that if I had cast an eye on the vindication I should there have found that place of Hierome's answered I am now in the last place to obey their directions and consider the answer which from Smectymnuus they have set down for me And it is twofold the first is a civill denyall that there is any truth in the words For say they It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolicall Tradition when Jerome having mentioned John the last of the Apostles saith it was postea that one was set over the rest But is this the way of answering the place or salving the difficulty Hierome saith Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church that sure is this imparity are an Apostolicall Tradition and they answer It is hard to conceive how it can be properly so called What is this but to make Hierom's words as soone as ever he saith any thing which accords not with their interest as unreconcileable with truth as with his own former words which they had cited from him And then how much kinder to Hierome was I than they who thought it necessary to affix a commodious meaning to his former words and interpret confuetudo the custome of the Church begun in the Apostles dayes that so in thus saying he might be reconcileable with himself when he called Episcopacy a tradition Apostolicall As for the reason which makes this so hard for them to conceive from Hierome's words I believe it hath no force in it For though after the mention of S. John's words in his second and third Epistle he saith that postea afterwards this imparity was introduced yet this proves not his opnion to be that it was not Apostolicall tradition It might be done after the writing of those Epistles and yet in St. John's time i. e. before his death And though I believe St. Hierome was mistaken in thinking there were no Bishops till then it would have had more truth in it if he had said there were no Presbyters till then yet for all that I cannot doubt but this was his opnion because as he no where saith any thing which is contrary to this so here be saith expresly that it was Apostolicall tradition which in his opinion it could not be if it were not in the Church in his opinion before St. John's death And so there is but little appearance of validity in their first Answer And for their second that is somewhat like the former viz. that with Hierome Apostolicall tradition and Ecclesiasticall custome are the same If this be true then certainly I did not amisse in thinking that when Hierome used consuetudo custome in opposition to Dominica dispositio Christ's appointment or institution I ought to interpret custome in that place by Apostolicall Tradition in the other For how Ecclesiasticall custome with him and Apostolicall Tradition should be the same and yet Ecclesiasticall custome may not be interpreted by Apostolicall tradition especially when the same man affirmes them both of the same thing I confesse I cannot apprehend But then secondly because I must suppose that by making them the same they must meane to bring downe Apostolicall tradition to signifie Ecclesiasticall custome not to advance custome to signify Apostolicall tradition in the same manner as when they make Bishop and Elder the â—ame they bring down Bishop to signifie Presbyter but will not allow Elder to signifie Bishop that also will be worth examining a while And 1. Can there be any reason to imagine that Hierome or any man should set down that for an instance of Apostolicall tradition which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles but to be of a latter date That which is delivered by the Apostles and received and practiced by the Church may fitly be called a custome of the Church without adding or specifying that we meane the Apostolicall Church because the Apostles while they lived were a part of the Church and the following age was a part of the Church also But can it be truly said that that was delivered by the Apostles which was onely accustomed in the subsequent Church and not so much as introduced under the Apostles This certainly is another strange way of interpreting words or phrases quite contrary to all Lexicons or to the use of such words or phrases which unlesse they be changed it is as much as to say he that said Tradition Apostolicall did not meane Tradition Apostolicall And this sure will bring little credit to St. Hierome on whose authority they so much depend in this matter As for their proofe of what they say viz. because the observation of Lent which he saith ad Marcellum is Apostolica traditio is contra Luciferianos said by him to be Ecclesiae consuetudo that sure is not of force to conclude what they would have it for it may be or by him be deemed to be both an Apostolicall tradition and a custome of the hurch too it being very ordinary and reasonable that what the Apostles delivered the Church should also accustome and practice But could both these be said by him of that which he thought were but one of these That is