superiority of order is made equivalent to a superiority of power for that from the time of our Saviours Resurrection is granted them by our Adversaries though it is denied their Successours Thus we enlarge or abate or evacuate that Commission that God himself has given them at our own meer will and pleasure If it be convenient for our cause to assert in one place that they were vested with no superiority of Power they shall be put off with an empty superiority of order separated from power If in another that Assertion seem not so convenient to our purpose they shall be presently advanced to an absolute supremacy over the other Pastors of the Church but then that must last only during their lives and as for their Successours we are pleased to degrade them from the Apostolical both Order and Authority and allow them nothing but an empty degree of I know not what but to say no more of the difference between Order and Degree As for the distinction between Order and Jurisdiction though in one place I affirm that the Apostles were a distinct Order from the other Clergy without any superiority of Jurisdiction yet in another if my cause require it there shall be but one order in the Christian Clergy and no difference but what is made by Jurisdiction and the Bishops themselves shall be equal to Presbyters in order by Divine Right and only superiour in jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical Constitution For so I read that for our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a Power of Order and a Power of Jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the Sick administring Sacraments c. but there are other things which every Presbyter has an aptitude and a Jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that Power does belong to the Church in common and belongs not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of Ordination and Church-Censures and making Rules for Decency in the Church This is that we call the power of Jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publick and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of Order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular Persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed Whatever truth there is in this the Assertion is plain that our Saviour appointed but one order in the Clergy and that the difference which has since been made by the consent of the Church consists in nothing else but Jurisdiction And this is very consistent with the former Assertion that there was no difference between the Apostles and the LXX beside distinction of order when now there is no more by divine appointment than one order in the Church And yet after all this their fluttering between Order and Power Degree and Order Power of Order and Power of Jurisdiction all superiority of Order so much as it is is so much superiority of Power Thus to take their own Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the President of the Assembly was so far superiour over his Colleagues in Power as he was in Order For whatsoever was peculiar to his Office gave him some more advantage in the Government of the Common-wealth than they had for the very power of calling and adjourning Assemblies presiding and moderating in them is no small degree of Power in a Republican Government But seeing the difference between a superiority of Order and Power is thought to be made out best by these parallel Instances of Commonwealths let us run the parallel with the Apostles and the LXX for if to be superiour only in Order is to be President in an Assembly or Prolocutor in a Convocation and if this were all the Office peculiar to the Apostles then when our Saviour appointed seventy Disciples and twelve Apostles he made twelve Prolocutors over a Convocation of seventy Seeing therefore that is too great a number of Speakers for so small an Assembly it is manifest that when he separated them for a distinct Office he intended something more by an Apostle than meerly a Chairman in a Presbytery and whatever it is it is either an higher power than others had or it is nothing at all Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convinced in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing intended For it is not enough to shew a List of some Persons in the great Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth and Caesarea c. This I perceive to be our Adversaries darling Objection being the only matter made use of to shift off several heads of Argument This was the proof of the defect of the Testimony of Antiquity as to places and is now here the only evidence of its ambiguity and by and by will be called in as the only instance of its Repugnancy But certainly their fondness to it is not grounded upon any great vertue that they see in it but they are only forced for want of more material Arguments to lay a mighty stress upon such poor pretences as in any other dispute they would be a shamed to own For first supposing the Succession cannot be shewn in all Churches is that any proof against the Succession that can And suppose I cannot produce a List of Bishops at Philippi Corinth and Caesarea shall I thence conclude against the Succession though I have very good History for it at Jerusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria This is such an Inference as rather shews a mans good will to his Opinion than his Understanding But I have already proved that it is highly reasonable to conclude the customs of those Churches that are not known from those that are and apparently absurd to question the Records of those that are preserved for the uncertainty of those that are not But secondly What though we do not find in all Churches an accurate Catalogue of the succession of all Bishops do we find any Instance in any one ancient Church of any other form of Goverment If we can that were something to the Argument but that is not pretended in the Exception But otherwise because the exact
Apostles themselves but as to their immediate Successors whom they employed in the settlement of Churches and to whom they committed the Apostolical Power for their Government and these too he proves were stil'd Apostles such as Titus Timothy Epaphroditus Clemens Linus Marcus so that not only the Apostles but the Evangelists as they call'd them were distinguish'd from the other Clergy and endued with a superiority of Power over their respective Churches and hereby we gain the authority of Apostolical Practice not only for themselves but for their Companions and Successors which does not only extend our Argument but joyns together the practice of the Primitive Times of which we have certain Records with that of the Apostles and so prevents all their fond Dreams of an unknown Interval immediately after the death of the Apostles for if these Apostolical men supplied their Places it will be very easie to find out who supplied theirs Neither thirdly need I trouble my self with any long dispute concerning the Obligation of Apostolical Practice for whether or no meer Apostolical Practice be obligatory by vertue of their Example is very little material to our Enquiry for some things are too trifling or too transient in their own Natures to deserve to pass into prescription but it is enough in this case that what the Apostles did was in pursuance of our Saviour's Institution and that in a matter of perpetual concernment to the Church and they who require to the Obligation of such an Apostolical Practice an express Law to declare their intention that it should bind for ever are guilty of the same phantastick niceness as they that require the same for the perpetuity of every Divine Law and therefore have been consider'd already And for that reason I shall add nothing more to what I have already said as to this particular than to grant that whatever the Apostles either commanded or practised upon some particular temporary and occasional Cases was not sufficient to found any universal and unchangeable Obligation because the reason of the Precept was apparently transient and the goodness of the action casual But otherwise if there were any Prescript or Practice of theirs though it were not founded upon any Divine Institution that did not relate to peculiar Occasions and Circumstances but are or may be of equal usefulness to all Places Times and Persons that is a certain and undoubted evidence of their constant and unabolishable Obligation And therefore here I shall only put them to their former task to assign what particular ground and reason there was of establishing a Superiority and Subordination of Church-Officers in the times of the Apostles that is ceased in all succeeding Ages of the Church and till they can discharge this Task advise them not to depart rashly from so sacred and venerable a Prescription But that which improves the Argument both from our Saviour's Institution and the Apostles Practice into a complete Demonstration is the practice of the Primitive Churches in the Ages next and immediately succeeding the Apostles For if the Government of the Church were by our Saviour founded upon Divine Institution in an inequality of Church-Officers and if the first Governours of it thought themselves obliged to keep close to its Original Platform and if their immediate Successors conceived themselves as much obliged to observe the same as imposed upon them by the Command of Christ and deliver'd to them by the Example and Tradition of his Apostles that certainly may serve for a very competent proof of its necessity and perpetuity Now then as for the power and preheminence of the Episcopal Order it is attested by the best Monuments and Records of the first and most remote Antiquity and we find such early instances and evidences of it that unless it descended from the Apostles times we can never give any account in the World whence it derived its Original And this brings us upon the main sanctuary of our Adversaries viz. The defectiveness of Antiquity in reference to the shewing what certain Form the Apostles observed in settling the Government of Churches and here they run into a large common place of the deep silence of antiquity and the defectiveness of the Records of the Church in the interval next and immediately succeeding the Apostles But here in the first place I must desire them to consider that if this Objection be of any force against the certainty of Apostolical Tradition in this particular it will utterly overthrow all the testimony of the Ancients as to all other matters of Faith and particularly as to the certain Canon and Divine Authority of the Scriptures for if they are not as is pretended competent Witnesses of the practice of the Apostles because of their distance from the time of the Apostles neither for the same reason are their reports to be relied upon with any confidence as to the certainty of any of their Writings It is not to be expected that I should here reprent how false this exception is de facto and how unreasonable de jure either against the Constitutions or the Authentick Epistles of the Apostles it is enough that they stand and fall together so that whoever opposes the Divine and Apostolical Form of Church Government as delivered to us by the Primitive Church does upon his own principles defeat and reject all the proofs of the Divine Authority of the holy Scriptures in that those sceptical grounds and pretences he is forced to urge against one fall as dangerously on both And this may serve to prevent and invalidate the force of their Argument without answering it when if they should deal as rigorously in any other case as they are pleased to do in this the most certain and undoubted Records cannot escape the severity of their censure Though our comfort is that neither of them are liable to such wild and wanton Objections in that as I shall shew the Tradition of the Church was always constant and uninterrupted and that there was no such Chasm as is pretended between the times of the Apostles and the next Christian Writers For to say nothing here of the Canon of the Scriptures though the men of that Age left us no formal Histories and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops in all their several Sees wherewith some men unreasonable enough upbraid us when it is so manifest that it was at that time too young for that care in that as yet there was scarce any succession Yet were they no less than Apostolical men that vouched the Apostolical Order and Jurisdiction of Bishops and this one would think enough to satisfie any modest or ingenious man of their Institution from the beginning When it is asserted or rather supposed by the very first Writers of the Church that were capable of attesting it So that whoever can withstand their Evidence is proof against all Evidence of matter of Fact and may if he please laugh at all the Tales and Legends that are told concerning the
great conceit that these Epistles appeared not till two hundred Years after Ignatius whereas by his own confession Origen writ within one hundred and forty Years Thirdly It cuts off the great pretence that Eusebius was the Founder of this mistake whereas it hereby appears that if it were one he only followed his Predecessors in it But the main of the Controversie here is the second thing Whether those Books ascribed to Origen in which Ignatius is quoted are really his or not Daillé says No but his learned Adversary has with no less than evidence of Demonstration proved they were though if he had not done it St. Jerom has done it long since who plainly tells us that himself translated them out of Origen's Greek into Latine And now after these I need add nothing of the Testimony of Eusebius and those that follow him for if he be mistaken their Authority is of no use if he be not it is of little necessity but that he is not is demonstrated from these more ancient Testimonies Though if any man desire more Witnesses I shall refer him to my learned Author who has summon'd them out of every Age from that in which the Epistles themselves were writen down to that next our own But to all the Testimonies of the Ancients what do our Adversaries oppose irst Salmasius opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople by which says he the Authentick and spurious Books of the Church were distinguish'd and among many others the Epistles of Ignatius are censured for Apocryphal Books But to this it is replied by the Pious the Reverend and the Learned Dr. Hammond that the opinion of one Author especially of later date for Nicephorus lived not before the ninth Century was not of weight and authority enough to oppose to the consent of so many ancient Writers Secondly That the word Apocryphal which is used by Nicephorus does not always signifie Spurious but it is very often used by Ecclesiastical Writers as opposed to Canonical and so is given to Books whose Authors were never question'd only to seclude them from the Canon of the Scripture To the first it is replied by Daillé and that I must say with impertinency enough that the authority of Nicephorus is at least equal to Dr. Hammonds as if the Dispute were between them two whereas the Dispute was between Walo and the Doctor who when he had produced the Testimonies of the Fathers of all former Ages could not but think it very hard that the opinion of one late Writer should be opposed to all their Authority To the second he replies That it is true that the word Apocryphal is oftentimes opposed to Canonical yet it is very frequently too used by Ecclesiastical Writers as equivalent to Spurious and Counterfeit and that therefore the Doctor in vain takes refuge in the Ambiguity of the word But certainly it is the manifest design of these men to tire out their Adversaries with verbose Trifles For who could have expected this Answer that when Walo had argued from the word Apocryphal as if it only signified Spurious and that when to the Argument the Doctor had answer'd that it no ways follows because it as often signified not Canonical who I say after this would have expected that his Adversary should upbraid him with taking Refuge in the ambiguity of the word when the Ambiguity of the word alone was not only a full answer to but a clear confutation of the Argument But he replies secondly That some of the Books joyn'd with it are confessed by all to be Supposititious and therefore as they were censur'd for that reason so must the Ignatian Epistles But this is manifestly false and though if it were true it follows like all the rest For the Censure has no regard to their Author but whether Spurious or Genuine to their Authority and only designs to shut them out from creeping in among the Canonical Scriptures For that was the only danger it aim'd to prevent least the Books that either were or pretended to be of Apostolical Antiquity should creep into the Canon And it is plain from the Decree it self that Nicephorus intended nothing else than to determine the Canonical Books of Scripture and prevent all others that came nearest to them in Age from obtaining sacred Authority But says Daillé Pope Gelasius when he defines what Books are Apocryphal he does not confine it meerly to the Canonical Scriptures but to all other Ecclesiastical Writers not allowed of and therefore this must be the meaning of Nicephorus That is to say that because Gelasius in his Decree determines what Ecclesiastical Books of what kind soever are to be reputed Orthodox what Heterodox that therefore Nicephorus when he distinguishes the Canonical Books of the New Testament from the Apocryphal does not mean as himself declares but must be understood in the sense of Gelasius And yet when all is done there is no such Testimony but the whole Story is a meer Dream of their own who catch at any shadow that may seem to serve their turn For sirst it is certain That Nicephorus was not the Author of the Stichometria Secondly That the Author of it whoever he was did not pass this censure upon Ignatius his Epistles For we find in it only the name of Ignatius without any mention of his Epistles Which indeed cannot in Daillé's sense be call'd Apocryphal because they were never esteem'd Canonical For that is the true Original of the distinction that whereas there were some Books written by the Followers of the Apostles as Clemens Barnabas and Hermas left these by reason of their nearness to the Canonical Books should in process of time be reckoned with them the Church was careful to range them in a Classis by themselves And whereas there were many other Books that pretended to be dictated by the Apostles and written by their Disciples lest they should gain the Authority they pretended to it concern'd the Church to give them the Apocryphal Mark. Seeing therefore Ignatius Epistles were never upon either of these accounts in any probability of being accounted Canonical it would have been a needless Caution to refer them to the Apocryphal Catalogue And though to Ignatii Daillé after his usual way of making bold with his Quotations adds Omnia It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be added as it is in another Index of Apocryphal Books in the Oxford Library It being the custom of some idle men of those times to make Institutions of Divinity and then fasten them upon Apostles and Apostolical men out of which as our learned Author with great probability conjectures was afterward made that Collection which goes under the name of Apostolical Constitutions Now these spurious pieces pretending to Canonical Authority it was very requisite to prevent and discover the Imposture But whatever probability may be in this Conjecture of which we stand in no need I am
succession of Persons in any Bishoprick has not been preserved with that care and diligence that it ought or might have been to conclude that therefore there was no certainty of the Episcopal form of Government is the same thing as to conclude that there never was any ancient Monarchy in the world because in all their Histories there are some flaws or defects or disagreements as to the names of Persons in the succession But we think it enough that where we find an established Monarchy though we meet with some intervals of History in which the Princes names that then reigned are uncertain or forgotten and meet with no Records that the Government was at that time changed into a Common-wealth to conclude that the Monarchy was all along preserved And that is the case of Episcopal Government in the Church in that in all times and places where and when Records have been preserved we find the same Form practised and therefore ought to conclude that the same was observed in those short intervals of time if we suppose there were any such in which they were lost Though I do not find that the Register of particular Persons is so defective as is pretended but that in most Churches their very names are accurately enough recorded Thus first for the Church of Jerusalem in which we find a succession of fifteen Bishops before its destruction attested by the best and most ancient Writers of the validity of whose Testimony we have no reason to doubt For it is no Objection that so many Bishops should be crouded into so narrow a Room that many of them could not have had above two years time to rule in the Church When almost all that time the Jews were in Rebellion against the Romans continually provoking them by their Insurrections to the utmost severity both against Jews and Christians for as yet the Romans understood no difference nor were they broken into any open division among themselves all these Bishops being as formally circumcised as any of the most zealous Retainers to the Jewish Religion So that it is no more wonder that so many Bishops should succeed in so short a time than that such an incredible number of Jews should perish by the Sword But secondly It is less material to enquire as Scaliger does where the Seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem was from the time of the destruction of the City by Titus till the time of Adrian For what if he had no Palace was he no Bishop Or what if we cannot tell where he assembled his Flock was there no Church Perhaps it was in a Cockloft at Pella but because we cannot tell where it was was it no where And therefore to return the Quere Was there then a Church of Jerusalem If there was whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent or all together I would fain know where it was and if you cannot tell me conclude as you do that there was no Church at all And so he has answered his own little Objection himself that the Church follows the Bishop and is not confined to stone Walls and therefore that the Church of Jerusalem was then at Pella though there was no such place as Jerusalem as at this day the Patriarchal Seat of Antioch is at Meredin in Mesopotamia and that of Alexandria at Grand Cairo As for the succession at Antioch I find not the least ground to doubt of its truth for I think it no objection that though it be clear it is not certain whether they succeeded St. Peter or St. Paul for be it either or both or neither it is all one so it be any that is enough that there was a succession though we did not know the particular Founder of the Church in whom it began and whoever of the Apostles it was whether one or more they had Apostolical Authority over it and whoever succeeded them succeeded in the same form of Government As for the Church of Rome all the difficulty is about the succession of Linus and Clemens being both reckoned in the first place but the conjecture is very probable that Clemens succeeded St. Peter in the Church of the Jews as Linus did St. Paul in the Church of the Gentiles and that surviving both Linus and Cletus that succeeded him till the union of the two Churches he governed both For whatever ground there is for the conjecture that there were separate Churches of Christian Jews and Gentiles in other Cities there is a very probable foundation for it at Rome in the Apostolical History Acts xxviii where St. Paul expresly declares to the Jews that from thenceforth he would preach only to the Gentiles and so in all probability gathered a distinct Church of them by themselves And therefore it is observable that in that famous passage of Irenaeus in which he derives the succession of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter and Paul down to Eleutherius his Cotemporary that he speaks not of the Church of Rome in the single number but Ecclesiae Petro Paulo Romae fundatae canstitutae as if they had been several Churches And to this purpose it is a pretty observation of Mr. Thorndike that St. Pauls being buried in the Way to Ostia and St. Peters in the Vatican as we understand by Caius in Eusebius seems to point them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians the other of the Gentiles in that the Vatican was then the Jury of Rome and notorious for the Residence of Jews But though these first Records could not be fully made out we have no reason to doubt of the History but rather to suspect some mistake in after-times or the omission of some circumstance that might if it had been recorded have removed the difficulty For it is very hard that when Irenaeus to mention no more gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter down to the time when himself was at Rome and who lived not at a greater distance from St. Peter than we do from the first Archbishop in Queen Elizabeths Reign that we should suspect the whole truth of his Relation because we cannot give an account of all the particular circumstances of the Succession This I say is too hard dealing with any ancient Records though the conclusion is much harder that because we have no certainty of all the Persons that succeeded in Church-Government and of the particular manner of their Succession that therefore we have no certainty of the particular Form of it notwithstanding we have no Record of any form but one As for the Church of Alexandria there the Succession is acknowledged to be clearest as indeed it is unquestionable only it is imputed to the choice of Presbyters but of that in its proper place the evidence of personal Succession is enough and all that is pertinent to our present debate And the succession of Ephesus might have been as unquestionable but that one Leontius pleads at the Council of Calcedon that all
the Prerogatives of Princes unless they misuse it and if they do as they go beyond their Commission so they deserve their punishment in this lâ—fe among the worst of Rebels and Traytors and are sure to have it in the next For as their Power is not only purely spiritual void of all temporal force and coercion so are they in the first place and above all things forbidden to use any violence or raise any disturbance against Government So that if any Prince think good to oppose them in the Execution of their Office and to punish them for so doing they are not to oppose him but only to sacrifice their lives in justification of their cause and submission to his will and for so doing they shall have their Reward But if they shall make use of any other Weapons whatsoever beside Prayers and Tears and Sufferings they then suffer deservedly as disturbers of the publick Peace And so much the more in that they have been so expresly forewarned by our Saviour that whosoever shall draw the Sword in his cause shall be sure to perish by it And as upon this principle he founded his Church so upon it his Apostles built it when in pure obedience to his command they preached the Gospel all the World over And if any Prince were pleased to countermand them they did not plead any exemption from the Government much less did they Libel it but only represented the Innocence and Justice of their Cause and if he were not satisfied declared their readiness to submit to his pleasure and the penalty of the Law And in this they enjoyed no other exemption from the Prerogative of Princes than what is or ought to be chalenged by every private Christian who is indispensably bound to make profession of his Christian Faith and if the Laws of his Country so require to seal it with his Blood This was the constitution of the Church and the practice of it in its first profession and is the constitution of the Church of England in its Reformation For whereas a foreign Italian Bishop had for a long time usurped wel-nigh all both secular and spiritual Power into his own hands and by an exorbitant abuse of it had enslaved the Prince and empoverished the people only to enrich himself and his own Courtiers they that were concern'd after long patience and much provocation at last resolved upon what motives concerns not us to resume their Rights The King that Power which was exercised by the Kings of Judah of old and by Christian Kings and Emperours in the primitive Church And the Bishops that Power wherewith they were as immediately entrusted by virtue of our Saviours general commission to the Apostolical Order as any other foreign Bishop or Bishops within their respective Diocesses whatsoever And to prevent all jealousie in the Prince lest they should play him the same game that his Holiness had done who in ordinc ad spiritualia had finely stript him of almost all his Temporal Jurisdiction by excepting all Ecclesiastical both Persons and Causes from his cognizance They therefore freelv declare him Supreme Governour first Over all Persons so that no Ecclesiastical Subject might as formerly appeal from his Tribunal And in all Causes so that every Subject whatsoever was bound to submit to his Decrees and Determinations so far forth as either to obey his Laws as long as he own'd and protected true Christianity as the Christian Bishops of old did to the Christian Emperours Or if he opposed it chearfully and peaceably to submit to their Penalties as they did to the Roman Persecutors And whereas from the Precedent of the Apostles in the first Council at Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoyed a power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and good Order yet by the example of the Primitive Church they submitted the exercise thereof to his sovereign Authority protesting in verbo sacerdotis as it is stated in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy That they will never from henceforth presume to attempt alledg claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be call'd in the Convocation unless the King 's most royal Assent and License may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same and that his Majesty do give his Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf Whereby they do not pass away their power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give security to the Government that under that pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the disturbance of the Kingdom or injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in gratitude for his Protection and that without any abatement or diminution of their own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit all other Matters to his sovereign Will and Pleasure Whereby as they would bring no damage to the Church in that this power is exercised meerly in matters of Order and Discipline if the Prince did not approve of their Constitutions it would be no difficult thing to provide for Decency some other way so they would bring great security to the State when the Prince was assured that under that pretence they would not as the Roman Clergy had done distuâ—b or undermine his Authority And as they parted not with their Spiritual Legiâ—lative Power so not with any other Power proper to their Function as the Power of preaching the Christian Religion administring the holy Sacraments and conferring holy Orders Neither did any Prince in the least ever claim or exercise any of them And because the Romanists in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth made a mighty noise with this Objection as if by virtue of her Supremacy her Majesty had challenged a Spiritual or Ministerial Power in the Church the Queen has with great indignation disown'd any such Power and defied the Calumny And yet when she had made her disclaimour of any Spiritual Power in the Church she parted not with her Royal Supremacy over those that had it as we are particularly instructed by our Church in her 37th Article Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some dangerous Folks to be offended we give not our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments the which things the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to mention
sure there is as little modesty as reason in Salmasius his Argument when he opposes the single authority of Nicephorus to the concurrent Testimony of the Ancients But much less in Daillès defence especially when we consider with what state and confidence he ushers it in Ecce Auctores habemus multis ante nos seculis denatos ab omni contra Hierarchiam suspicione semotos qui omnia Ignatii scripta rotunde ac sine ullâ haesitatione ad Apocrypha relegarunt in stichometriâ Georgio Sincello in libro antiquissimo praefixâ For what confidence can be more enormous than that when these Epistles have been attested by some of the best of the ancient Writers ters to pretend to destroy their Authority by a multitude of Writers and yet produce but one and he at the distance of seven hundred Years But the last aggravation of his confidence is when he professes that he produces the authority of this Stichometria not to prove his own Opinion but only to remove the prejudice of its Novelty and yet cite no other Authors in its behalf For all the rest of his Proofs are drawn from Negative Authority in which he is no more happy than in his many one positive Testimony For when he argues that these Epistles were unknown to every Writer that does not quote them methinks it is an hard condition that he imposes upon all Authors to cite all the Books that they read But says he because of that great authority that Ignatius had in the Christian Church when any Christian Writers had any fair occasion for it it is very likely that they would have appeal'd to his Authority which because they have not done we may justly presume that there were no such Writings extant in their time This is the whole force of his Negative Argument and yet when he comes to particulars he is so unhappy as only to produce those Authors whose custom it is to avoid this kind of Quotations as we have already shewn concerning Irenaeus And so for Clemens Alexandrinus who though he is a great quoter of Heathen and Heretical Writers yet no where cites Ecclesiastical Authors unless such as he supposed to belong to the sacred Canon And so for Tertullian who too is frequent in the Testimonies of Heathens or Hereticks but scarce ever mentions any Ecclesiastical Writers and when he does it is not to prove or confute any Doctrine by their Authority And this in the last place is the case of Epiphanius who makes no mention of a great number of Ecclesiastical Writers that lived before him and when he does it in his Book of Heresies it is only in an Historical way either to spare his own pains or to justifie the truth of his own Relations out of other Histories but never as Daillé requires of him to prove the truth of his Opinion I mention no more of his Negative men who make a great shew in the Contents of his Chapter in that they are alledged altogether impertinently to his purpose because all those Passages which he imagines they were obliged to have quoted belong not to the ancient Copies of Eusebius but are taken out of the late Interpolations And now comparing the Testimonies on both sides we may very safely turn any honest man loose to judg of the Authority of these Epistles and that being once establisht we can neither have nor desire a more ample Testimony than they give us of the Primitive Practice of Episcopal Superiority The holy Martyr every where founding the Peace and Security of the Church against Schisms and Heresies upon the Bishops supreme Authority which he as our Adversaries fancy magnifies so highly though not more than the other Orders of the Church in their respective Function that they think that alone the main objection against the truth of his Epistles Though in truth setting aside all Testimonies the Argument and Spirit of them are no small proof of their genuine Antiquity Being composed of two Arguments peculiar to the first Writers of the Church a vehement zeal for Unity and a passionate sense of Immortality They were possest with a serious belief of the reality of our Saviour's Promises and therefore they lived in this World purely in order to the Rewards of the World to come And how earnestly the Author of these Epistles thirsted after it no good Christian can read without great pleasure and being affected with some workings of the same Passion And as for his way of securing Peace and Unity in all Churches by obedience to the Bishops and under them to the Presbyters and Deacons for his fundamental Rule was that nothing was to be done without the Bishop he derives it from our Saviour's Commission and Promise to the Apostles and their Successors for ever when he constituted them Pastors of his Flock and promised to be perpetually assistant to them by his Divine Providence in the execution of their Office And therefore he does not refer the Government of the Church to them for the greater Wisdom greater Learning or any other natural Advantages of the men themselves but only upon the account of our Saviour's express Institution who had sent them as his Father had sent him and had therefore engaged himself to be present with them to the end of the world so that upon that security to follow the Bishop was to follow Christ because he had undertaken to be the Bishops Guide And this being the state of the case between Ignatius and his Adversaries their Objections will not reflect upon his discretion but our Saviours Integrity and when the cause is brought to that Ignatius is secure and if any man be pleased to raise any further controversie it is only between our Saviour and the Leviathan And there I am content to leave it The next proof of the Primitive and Apostolical Practice of Episcopacy that we meet with among the Ancients is in the Apostolical Canons i. e. a Collection of the Decrees of Synods and Councils between the time of the Apostles and the Council of Nice so that they may not improperly be stiled the Code of the Canons of the Primitive Church And now concerning them the case of the Controversie is much the same with that of Ignatius Epistles for the Testimony that they give in to the Episcopal superiority is so full and plain that it is undeniable And therefore there is no avoiding them but by impeaching their Antiquity and Authority and as the state of the controversie is the same so is the success too for it has been thoroughly disputed between the said Monsieur Daillè and a very learned Divine of our own Church and that with the very same inequality of reason too I shall not give any large account of the engagement because the Books are so lately published and may be so easily perused and therefore I shall rather refer to the Authors themselves especially because I am not a little zealous to recommend one of them as