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
that the seven Stars are found fixed in seven not one over divers Churches this I conceive not to be of any force For it being by us granted and presumed that each of the seven Asian Angels was Bishop of his particular Church one of Ephesus another of Smyrna c. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith that in case these seven were not the onely Cities and Churches in Asia as it is certaine they were not all Asia consisting of many more Cities being before this converted to the Faith all the other might have dependance on these seven 4. For this we know that two Bishops in England that were each of them first in one City for example in Canterbury or Yorke had yet each of them a superiority or Metropoliticall power over divers other Cities and when any Record styles one of them Bishop of Canterbury as the Scripture doth Angel of Ephesus we should sure acknowledge it a very infirme inference from the words of that Record to conclude that being Bishop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London Rochester c. 5. And this is the very parallel to the present instance and if it were not invalid enough by being a bare negative argument they are not said in Scripture to be one Starre over divers Churches all things that are are not said in Scripture those Angels have not therefore no names because they are not there recorded this parallel instance which supposes the contrary to their pretensions would be sufficient to invalidate it Section XVIII Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle A Fourth answer or rather confutation is added That if this opinion were true then Tertullian did not doe well in saying that St. John made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said that he made him Archbishop And our Saviour Christ had not given to these seven Angels their due Titles for he must have written to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other six 2. To this I reply that the affirming the seven Angels to have been Metropolitanes no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullians or our Saviour's style Not with Tertullian's for 1. an Arch-Bishop is a Bishop though dignified above some others of that order Secondly supposing Smyrna to be a Metropolis as no doubt if it were Tertullian knew and supposed it to be then his styling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna is aequivalent to his calling him a Metropolitaâ— or Archbishop As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England the affirming William Laud to be constituted Bishop of Canterbury is all one as to affirme him Archbishop 3. Thus when Chrysostome saith of Titus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intire Island and the judgement of so many Bishops was committed to him what is this but to affirme Titus Arch-bishop of Crete And yet Eusebius who believed this and adverted to it as much as Chrysostome uses this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Churches of Creet calling him Bishop distinctly though by the mention of the Churches in the plural 't is evident he meant the same that we doe by Arch-Bishop 4. So againe Eusebius of Irenaeus that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop of the Provinces of France which must needs signifie Archbishop of Lyons for so he was And 't is certaine that other of the Antients use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of those which were no otherwise qualified for that title as when Saint Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage under which the whole Province of Africk is comprehended is by the Councel of Constantinople called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of the region of Africk 5. The same answer will competently suffice for the reconciling Christ's style and ours for supposing Ephesus to have been a Metropolis the writing to the Angel of that Church implyes writing to those other Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus and need not be more fully exprest as when the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth and not onely so but to all the Saints and so all the Churches in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. 't is certaine that the former Epistle was written to those very same Churches viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth and yet it is inscribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia save onely in a general indefinite phrase with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus 6. Secondly the word in Christ's Epistle being not Bishop but Angel is not at all lyable to this exception For why may not an Arch-Bishop be as fitly called an Angel as a Bishop would be nay if it be remembred what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 6. that there are seven Angels which have the greatest power by him styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-borne rulers of the Angels parallel to the phrase in Dan. 7. 10. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head Lords or chiefe Princes or as we ordinarily stile them the Archangels of which number Michael is there named to be one There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of speech in Christ's style a most exact critical notation of their being Arch-Bishops and withall a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Bishop of Smyrna though he were Arch-Bishop just as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation 7. For a close of this mater they are pleased to adde their Character not over-benigne of those by whom this device as they style it was found out for the honour of Archpiscopacy that they did aspire unto that dignity 8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his discourse of the Original of Bishops this character can have no propriety in it he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many yeares before the writing hereof If it be designed for a reproach to me I shall elude the blow by not thinking it such For as at a time when Episcopacy it selfe was by the Parliament abolisht and that Act of severity actually put in execution it had been a great folly in any to hope that he should ever attaine to that Office of Dignity in the Church and what ever other follies I have been guilty of truly that was none of them so I thinke there could not a point of time more commodiously have been chosen in the space of above 1600 yearâ—s wherein a man might have better secured a Discourse for Bishops and Metropolitanes from the Censure of aspiring to either of those Dignities that was that wherein that Book was published 9. To this if I adde by way of retortion that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangeliei doe aspire every one of them to their
likewise that from Can. 2. is onely a Testimony for the fitnesse and usefulnesse of that custome still retein'd and used in our Church in all Ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons that the Presbyters there present should lay on their hands by the hand of the Bishop and so joyne in the Prayer or benediction but no proofe that a Presbyter might not be ordeined by a Bishop without the presence of such Presbyters I have for a while gone aside from the consideration of S. Hierome's testimony the designed matter of this Section and allowed my selfe scope to take in all the testimonies of Antiquity which are made use of by these Assemblers for the justifying their Ordination of Ministers And I have done it on purpose though a little contrary to my designed Method and brevity because after the publishing of the Dissertations against Blondel I remember I was once told that though it was not necessary yet I might do well to add some Appendix by way of Answer to that one head of discourse concerning Presbyteriall Ordination and the Instances which were objected by him For which reason I have now as neer as I can taken in all in this place which are in their Appendix produced on that head and doe not elsewhere in this briefe reply fall in my way to be answered by me For some others mentioned by D. Blondel I refer the Reader to the learned paines of the Bishop of Dâ—rry in his vindication of the Church of England from the aspersion of Schisme p. 270. c. And so being at last returned into my rode againe This may I hope suffice to have said in the justification of what was done in the Dissertations concerning St. Hierome both to cleare his sense and for the setting the ballance aright betwixt his authority on the one side and the authority of Ignatius on the other betwixt some doubtfull sayings of the former which seemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apostles instituting imparity which yet elsewhere he affirmes to be Apostolicall tradition and the many cleare and uncontradicted constant sayings of the latter which are acknowleged to assert it Which one thing if it be not in the Dissertations so done as may satisfie any impartiall Judge that Ignatius in full concord with all is to be heeded on our side more than St. Hierome in some few of his many Testimones can be justly produced against us I shall then confesse my selfe guilty of over-much confidence but if therein I have not erred it is most evident that I need not undertake any farther travaile in this whole matter Sect. VII The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present THere now followes in the next place the passage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambrose on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Episcopacy 't was not held unlawfull for a Presbyter to ordeine without a Bishop they urge out of St. Ambrose these words Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Aegypt the Presbyters consigne if the Bishop be not present And the like out of Austine or whosoever was the Author in Quaest ex utroque Testam Qu. 101. In Alexandria per totam Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter In Alexandria and through all Aegypt if the Bishop be wanting the Presbyter consecrates And having done so they adde which words cannot be understood as a defender of Prelacy would have them of the Consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present but it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination To this I shall briefly reply 1. That it is sure enough granted by the most eminent Presbyterians that these two Books whence these Testimonies are cited were not written either by Ambrose or Austine but by some other Hilarius Sardus saith Blondel and unjustly inserted among their works and then the authority of such supposititious pieces will not be great to over-rule any practice otherwise acknowledged in the Church of God Secondly that the mistakes of Blondel and Salmasius concerning the meaning of the former of these places were so evidently discovered by the second of them the consignant in the one interpreted by consecrat in the other that I conceived it sufficient but to name them For can there be any thing more unquestionable than this that consecrare in antient writers signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist And then if consignare be a more obscure phrase is there any doubt but it must be interpreted by that which is so much more vulgar and plaine and all the circumstances besides being exactly the same in both places what doubt can there be but in both the words are to be understood of the Eucharist Yet because some advantage was by this their misunderstanding sought to the Presbyterians cause they now resolve and insist that it must not be rectified though they know not which to apply it to Confirmation or Ordination and pretend not to produce any Testimony where consecrare is ever used for the latter or consignare for either of them And indeed Blondel and Salmasius were yet more uncertaine for they thought it might also belong to the benediction of Penitents and that as probable as either of the two former And when the truth is rejected thus it is wont to be As for the onely reason which inclines them to confine it to Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination if the place be review'd it will not be found to have truth in it He speakes immediately before of the severall Ministeriall Acts Preaching and Baptizing adding indeed that Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est The writings of the Apostle doe not in all things agree to the Order which is now in the Church There is mention of Ordinatio indeed but that signifies not Ordination as we now use it for ordaining of Ministers but manifestly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule or order used in the Church in severall respects saith he different from what it was in the writings of the Apostle And for their objection against my interpretation that it cannot be understood of consecrating the Eucharist because this the Presbyter might doe when the Bishop was present If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Antients the Canons of the Apostles Ignatius ad Magnes the 56 Canon of the councell of Laodicaea and Tertullian that the Presbyter might not administer either Sacrament without the Bishop's appointment and distinctly of this Sacrament Non de aliorum quam de Praesidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus we receive it not from the hands of any but the Praesidents i.