called them Apostolici He must therefore questionlesse mean the choice men of the People and then those choice men must be concluded to constitute Bishops and not onely to consent to their constituting as before he had set it And then I desire he will say positively that this was his meaning and that from any place of Scripture or ancient Writer he will shew me where any choice men of the people constituted Bishops after the departure of the Apostles 33. Secondly when he saith that the words ex iussu Dei approbatione by the appointment and approbation of God are added by me 't is not imaginable what he should meane by it Those words are evidently set by me as an argument that they could not want the approbation of the people because they were sufficiently furnished by the appointment and approbation of God as had appeared by the testimony of Clement set down in the page immediately precedent And what is produced by me as an argument to convince the unconcludeney of Blondel's collection can it be blamed in me as an insertion or addition either to Clement's or Blondel's words 34. And when he goes on reproaching this Edition with his as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated for the constituting of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned I hope it hath sufficiently appeared that there was such command or appointment of God more than intimated by Clemens in that Epistle and the like exprest in Scripture in many parallel cases and this particularly a designation of the persons which were to be ordained and so somewhat beyond the general institution of the Lord Jesus which he speaks of I suppose he meanes the commission of the Apostle to Titus and the like that Elders should be ordained in every Church 35. Thirdly When he saith 't is argumentatively weak and unconcluding he must mean that this argument of mine is a weak and unconcluding argument I shall therefore repeat it again and put it formally into a syllogism They who had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God cannot then be thought to want the acceptation of the people But the Bishops spoken of by Clement had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God Therefore they cannot be thought to want the acceptation of the people What proposition can here be denyed I confess I see not 36. The Major hath it's evidence in its self for certainly that which is already done and done by God's appointment needs no other extrinsecal addition or accomplishment unlesse that also be ordained by God which in this case of the acceptation of the Bishop by the people no way appears and till it doth appear cannot be supposed or pretended by any to be thus needfull 37. And for the Minor it is the expresse affirmation of Clement that they that instituted them examined and approved them by the spirit and knowing by the Lord Christ having perfect foreknowledge of what should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted these Bishops and this is mention'd by Clement as an aggravation of their crime that rejected these that were thus constituted And then I hope the premises having strength the conclusion from them regularly inferr'd will not be denyed me 38. For as to the examples of Saul and David I am sure they prove nothing for if there were perfect truth in all which is here pretended which is more than from the circumstances of the stories I can affirm viz. that God who designed them Kings would have the People come together to choose them then from that act of God's will it was and from God's expressing it that the convening and election of the People was necessary and if God had not will'd it or not appointed it it had then as certainly not been necessary 39. Now let any such declaration of Gods will be shew'd that he would have the People convene and choose their Bishop and then I shall think my argument weak but otherwise I must not think it concluded so by these examples 40. So in the case of the Deacons Act. 6. the Apostles appointed the Disciples to seek out seven men from among them withall directing them how they should be qualified and reserving to themselves the intire power of constituting them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the office of Deacon And so nothing from that third instance can be inferr'd against us it being no way parallel to the case in Clement as already is visible For in the Acts the Disciples look out and choose v. 5. the persons and bring them to the Apostles v. 6. and the Apostles lay their hands on them in the remainder of that verse But in Clemens God designs the persons and so in the other Scripture instances and in that of Clemens Alexandrinus of the first Bishops of Asia ordained by St. John and the Apostles and their successors ordain and lay hands on them 41. As for that of Act. 14. â—3 that the ordaining of the Elders was with the Peoples election by the way it was even now by as well as with the consent of the People or indeed that any mention of the People is made there or so much as intimated by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that I can say is that it hath been disproved as far as any that I know of hath yet endeavoured to prove it i. e. all arguments that I have seen for it I have elswhere answered But what will ere long be manifested I am not able to forecast and so am not now to provide answers by divination 42. No more am I able to foresee what he saith will one day be found and yet I think it is very possible Neither he nor I may live to see that day when any thing shall be farther manifested in this matter than what the great Doctors already suppose The resolution of the question what right every one hath in these affairs being founded in plain matter of fact viz. what Christ or his Apostles instituted in the Church and that being already as visible to them that are conversant in Scripture and antient Records of the Church as it can well be imagined to be till either a new mine of such Records is sprung or men receive knowledge of story by Revelation Neither of which am I forward to expect in this age 43 In the next place for his objections against my interpreting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Gods extraordinary revealing whom he would have ordained they will soon vanish also For 1. the place of St. Paul concerning Timothies ordaining of Deacons and appointing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them be first tryed or examined 1. Tim. 3. 10. belongs nothing to this of the trying by the spirit Timothy might have ordinary meanes of trying and the whole discourse of St. Paul then setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained tends to that and then he had no need of extraordinary 44. And so
Elders or Presbyters here mention'd were properly those whom he calls Bishops Diocesans men of a third order and rank above Deaâ—ons and Presbyters in the Church Administrations and Government And for those who are properly called Presbyters there were then none in the Church To give colour to this misrable evasion Diss 4. c. 10 11. He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons In some Churches that were small not yet formed or compleated nor come to perfection at the first planting of them how well this is accommodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church being confessedly great numerous furnished with great and large gifts and abilities is seen with half an eye How ill also this shâ—ft is accommodated to help in the case for whose service it was first invented is no lesse evident It was to save the sword of Phil. 1. 1. from the throat of Episcopacie he contendeth for That Epistle is directed to the Saints or Church at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Two things doe here trouble our Doctor 1. The mention of more Bishops than one at Philippi 2. The knitting together of Bishops and Deacons as the onely two orders in the Church bringing downâ—… Episcopacie one degree at least from that height whereto he would exalt it For the first of these he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitane Church of the Province of Macedonia that the rest of the Churches which had every one their severall Bishops Diocesan we must suppose were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi so that though the Epistle be preciselyâ—… directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Bishops that were with them must be supposed to be the Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitane The whole Countrey must have been supposed to be converted and who that knowes any thing of Antiquity will dispute that and so divided with Diocesans as England of late was the Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi but how came it then to pâ—sse that here is mention made of Bishops and Deacons onely without any word of a third order or ranke of men distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders To this he answers secondly that when the Church was first planted before any great number were converted or any sit to be made Presbyters there was onely those two orders instituted Bishops and Deacons and so that this Church of Philippi seems to have been a Metropoliticall Infant The truth is if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the contradictions of his answers one to another not onely in this but almost in every particular he deals withall an intanglemen which he is throwne into by his bold and groundlesse conjectures he will finde it to be as endlesse as fruitlesse but it is not my present businesse to interpose in his quarrells either with himselfe or Presbyterie As to the matter under consideration I desire onely to be resolved in these few Queries 1. If there were in the time of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches not in so great and flâ—urishing a Church as that of Corinth and if all the places in Scripture where there is mention of Elders doe precisely inten Bishops in a distinction from them who are Deacons and not Bishops also as he asserts when by whom by what Authority were Elders who are only so inferiour to Bishops peculiarly so termed instituted and appointed in the Churches And how comes it passe that there is such expresse mention made of the office of Deacons and the continuance of it none at all of Elders who are acknowledged to be superiour to them and on whose shoulders in all their own Churches lies the great weight and burthen of all Ecclesiasticall administration As we say of their Bishops so shall we of any Presbyter not instituted and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ in the Church let them goe to the place from whence they came 2. I desire the Doctor to informe me in what sense he would have me to understand him Diss 2. cap. 20 21 22. Where he disputes that these words of Hicrome Antequam â—ludia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Cepbae communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia 〈…〉 be understood of the times of the Apostles when 〈…〉 Church of Corinth when it seems that neither 〈…〉 such thing as Presbyters in the 〈…〉 we can 〈…〉 As 〈…〉 Presbyters were Bishops properly so 〈…〉 who are they so 〈◊〉 of whom 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to be a 〈…〉 so called To 〈…〉 I 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the Scripture we 〈…〉 of Church 〈…〉 This 〈…〉 Doctâ—… is that of 〈…〉 give us 〈…〉 of Christ give us in every Church Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 than we 〈…〉 let those Bishops attend the 〈…〉 over which they â—…ching the 〈◊〉 and administâ—… O 〈…〉 in and to their 〈…〉 And I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 all the Comenders for Presbytery in this Nâ—â—ion and much 〈…〉 the Independents that there shall be a â—end of this quarrel that they will 〈…〉 with the Doctor not any living for the â—…duction of any 〈◊〉 soâ—t of persons though they should be 〈…〉 Presbyters into Church office and Government Onely this I must 〈…〉 this second sort of men 〈…〉 Presbyters than it doth Bishops and that word having been 〈…〉 third 〈…〉 we desire leave of the Dâ—ctor and his 〈…〉 if we also most frequently call them so no wayes declining the other application of Bishops so that it be applyed to signifie the second and not third 〈◊〉 of men But of this 〈◊〉 businesse with the nature conâ—… and frame of the first Churches and the 〈◊〉 mâ—stâ—k 〈…〉 men have be their owne prejudices been ingaged into in this dâ—… of them a 〈…〉 opportunity if God will may 〈◊〉 long be aâ—…ded 3. Here first I shall demand whence it appeares that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens c. Truly I doe not yet know or remember that I did This certainly was all and this can amount if to any but to one answer that which we have vindicated already that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia This indeed when it was proposed was more distinctly set down by 4. steps or degrees but then again those are no more two than foure answers 1. that the Epistle was addrest to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to the whole Province Secondly that to make it capable of that title Corinth was knowne to be the Metropolis of Achaia Thirdly that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia not onely to Corinth and so in any probability Clements was to doe also being written to the same and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore Fourthly that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the severall Cities
Sancti Patres Canones Apostolorum numeraverunt inter Apocrypha exceptis capitulis quinquaginta quae decreverunt regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda The Holy Fathers have numbred the Canons of the Apostles among Apocryphal writings except onely fifty Canons which they have decreed to be annext to the rules of the true doctrine i. e. to the Book of Canons received by them Where again by the way the notion of Apocryphal is evident as opposed to those which are received into the Codex Regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda And so by Bellarmine whom he names in the front of those most learned Papists and of him saith expresly and truly that he approves onely of 50 Canons of 85 de script Eccles in Clâ—m And then again I have now minded him of that which was before evident that the second Canon which was cited by me was one of those fifty and so not disproved by that learned Papist As for the other two Baronius and Binius whom he names to the same purpose as those who have disavowed and disclaimed them as Apocryphael I shall not accuse his confidence but must think he was in some haste that he could doe so Baronius being by him acknowledged to adde 30 more and Binius to have made a little inlargement of Canons which sure doth not intimate that they disavowed or disclaimed the fifty 8. So when he saith of them that they are faintly defended by any of the Papists I shall desire to know among many others Bovius Lamb. Gruterus Stapleton Haleander c. what he thinks of Turrian whether he were a Papist or no and whether he were a faint defender of them nay whether Monsieur Daillé take no notice of his zeal for them If he doe not I shall very much wonder at it If he doe I shall have the more reason for my question how he that sends me to be taught by M. Daillé had not learned so much from him that there was some Papist by whom they were not faintly defended So again when he saith that they have been throughly disproved and decryed by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them I might certainly mind him of more Protestants than one that have been far from decrying them I shall not mention as I might the severall Bishops of our Church since the Reformation and our Divines in their writings that make their Appeals to them frequently and with as pompous forms of citations as I have done semper inter genuinos habito I shall not adde the learned Hugo Grotius because I know not whether any or all of these may not be deemed by him to be no Protestants Onely what doth he think of Frigevillaeus Gautius He certainly An. 1593. in his second part of his Palma Christiana dedicated to Queen Elizabeth c. 1. 2. was far from disavowing and decrying those Canons How little short he came of Turrian himself I shall not now tell him lest he be disavowed as no Protestant for so doing but leave him at his leisure to inquire whether one such example might not have taken off from the generalitie of the affirmation decryed by all Protestants or indeed whether D. Blondel's vouching them in the manner which I shall by and by set down might not have had some force in it if he had taken notice of such things But all this by the way as an Essaâ— that some other men as well as H. H. may be confident in asserting 9. Secondly When immediately after his Animadversion on my words he mentions his Exceptions to the Books of Apostolical Constitutions and Canons taken out of Daillé and the learned Vsher 't is apparent that these all belong to the Books under Clement's name called the Apostles Constitutions But then it must be remembred that that Book of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Constitutions is another thing clearly distinct from the Book called the Apostles Canons and there is but one way imaginable to involve the later under the censure that belongs justly to the former and it is this That in some Copies the Constitutions and Canons are put together into one Volume and that 〈◊〉 Photius his time and that in the end of the Canons there is a solemn confirmation of the Constitutions But then it must be remembred again that these are later Copies which so confound them and I take not them to be genuine and that Canon is the eightie fifth of that Book and so no part of the first fiftie which I suppose to be the onely genuine Canons and consequently that none of the ridiculous things in the Constitutions is imputable to that former Collection but indeed on the contrary that one expression in that eightie fifth Canon which prescribes the keeping them close because of some mysterious passages in them is justly thought by learned men to betray them both the later 35 Canons and the Constitutions so magnified by them to be of a much later Edition than that which they pretend to 10. And thus I hope I have vindicated my self and given the grounds of my Assertion And for the confidence I did not I confess expect to be charged with any immoderate degree of it from any nor doe I yet discern how those few words in the Parenthesis semper inter genuinos habito could be deem'd so criminously guilty of it or that hee that undertook to be my Monitor having in so short a time proved so much more guilty of it should in any reason think himself the most competent for that office 11. To help him to any appearance of reason and so to qualifie him thus to charge me some want of observation of vulgar stile must be necessary either in not adverting what is ordinarily meant by their title of Apostolick Canons or some other the like That he takes the meaning of that title to be their pretension to be written by the Apostles or by Clement at their appointment I conclude from the words with which he begins that Paragraph The first writings that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures are the eight Books of Clement commonly called the Apostles Constitutions being pretended to be written by him at their appointment with the Canons ascribed to the same persons and if according to this his notion he conceive me by the word genuine to affirm that they are rightly so ascribed he is mistaken 12. That those Canons whether to the number of 85. or but of 50 were written by the Apostles I never meant but neither is that the meaning of those that cite them and call them as I have done by the vulgar name of Apostolick Canons If there be any doubt of this I shall prove it by competent testimonies whether among Papists or Protestants Of the former in stead of many I instance only in that account which Gabriel Albispine in his Observations rendreth of it that some of these Canons the fifty he means being made by the Successors of the Apostles the
vinctum à militibas duci ad magnam Romam My sentence is that Ignatius that saies he carries about in himselfe the crucified i. e. that calls himselfe Theophorus as he did in that answer to Trajan's calling him Cacodaemon Nullus Theophorum vâ—cat Cacademoâ—em shall be carried bound to great Rome and cast on the Theatre to the wilde beasts as we finde it in the relation of his Martyrdome Now this being then his ordinary title the other like words are directly of the same composition with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from hence I argued and I still thinke probably that his use of such compositions was an argument that he wrote these Epistles not that he wrote them not it being evident by that one word so vulgarly then used to signifie him Theophorus that such compositions were then agreeable to the eares and genius of that age 9. And the argument thus used by me was neither not apprehended or very uneffectually answered by opposing the words of Saint Hierome of Didymus that he exprest himself an Apostolical person by the simplicity of his language So Didymus might and yet the argument conclude probably that these Epistles were written by Ignatius because as he was vulgarly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so words of the like nature with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 familiarly discernable in those Epistles 10. As for the other words by Blondel objected which were of other formes of composition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My answer is that none of these are at all Monstreus in the language of a Syrian that writes Greek and that in the New Testament words are to be found as distant from common language and as extraordinarily compounded as these for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word made on purpose by Saint Paul without example of the like not onely of the same in other authors 11. To this answer of mine here is no kind of reply but of scoffes onely But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian and neer to Martyrdome though he writes his Epistles from Troas and Smyrna which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch and yet every where he saith he is going to Rome what is that to any man what style he used in his writings and so in the mode of sarcasme 12. But I wonder what caused this mirth and in sadnesse demand whether I ever rendered it as the reason of his using those new compositions that he was neer to Martyrdome he cannot but know that that was the plea for the exuberance of his affection which might render the reason of the warmer expressions which Blondel had censured for too much Rhetorick and to that it was proper though not to making of new words which is the present businesse 13. Secondly why might not he be a Syrian and write as a Syro-Graecian would write although his Epistles were dated from Troas and Smyrna 'T is sure enough that he lived at Antioch and that was the Metropolis of Syria the souldiers carrying him bound to Troas and Smyrna was not likely so suddenly to change his dialect or make him write more familiar Greek than in Antioch he would have written and being called vulgarly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Antioch what wonder is it that he should now write in the same style use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Smyrna 14. Thirdly For his going by Trâ—as and Smyrna from Antioch to Rome all records of his journey make it certaine and if it were not the neerest way the account hath been given of that in the former section And so the Praefacer might well enough have kept his countenance and spared his Sarcasmes Here was nothing to discompose him nothing ridiculous in all this 15. Lastly therefore for the foure Latine words turned into Greek used in those Epistles produced by D. Blondel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my answer is 1. that there is nothing strange in that it might be as great matter of wonder that in seven Epistles there are no more of that kinde 16. To which here it is replyed 1. that the Epistles are not so large a volume a few houres will serve to read them over 2. that no Roman Customes Observations Orders nor rules of Government did administer the least occasion of the use of these words and 3. that the like number cannot he produced out of all the Greek Fathers that I own the reading of 17. To these I answer 1. that as farre from large as the Epistles are there might as probably have been more such words as so many seven Epistles each of them being much longer than some of the Apostles in the Scripture if they had had but one such word a piece which sure each might as reasonably have as any this had almost doubled the number which now we finde in the objecters own computation And indeed three of these foure being altogether in the Epistle to Polyearâ—e which if with some I should leave out of the Collection of the Genuine I should have enough behind to maintain Episcopacy in all the other sixe there remaines but one which in no immoderate proportion 18. Secondly That as in Hegesippus fragments left to us in Greek Blondel hath taken notice of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as perfect and unexcusable a Latinisme as any of these so in the one Epistle of the Church of Smyrna of a very moderate length concerning Polycarps Martyrdome another piece of the same ages production we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another parallel instance of the use of such words at that time 19. 3ly The like words and phrases in the New Test which is also no vast volume though not fit to be read ad clepsidram the length of it measured by the houre-glasse are so many more than these that are accused and produced from these Epistles neer thirty for foure that this may well vindicate so small a number and make it more strange that there are no more than foure than it ought to be that there are so many 20. So in the next place for the foure heads into which he brancheth the causes of the use of Latine words among Greek writers I answer 1. that if he hath observed foure other men may as lawfully observe some other and are no way obliged to marshall all they finde of this nature under one of his foure heades 2. That if there be by him acknowledged foure such heads of causes I may reasonably allow Ignatius to have used foure such words and render but this one single reason for them all that Antioch being part of the Roman dominion and many that spake Latine inhabiting there foure Latine words might easily be transfused into
but Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as â—hree distincct Orders in the Church from the Scripture we know not Neither did Clemenâ— in his Epistle to the Corimbâ—ans know any more than we doe which a few instances will manifest Saith he speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons as in the Church at Philippi this man knows but the 〈◊〉 Order he is utterly unacquainted withall And that the difference of this mans expressions concerning Church Rulers from those in the Epistle under consideration may the better appear and his asserting of Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same may the more clearly be evidenced I shall transcribe one other passage from him whose length I hope wiâ—l be â—xcused from the usefulnesse of it to the purpose in hand Page 57 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so it seems was the manner of the Church in his daies that their Officers were appointed by the consent of the whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Bishops of whom he was speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And suâ—dâ—y other discoveries are there in that Epistle of the like nature It is not my design nor purpose to insist upon the parity of Bishops and Presbyters or rather the Identity of the Office denoted by sundry appâ—llations from these and the like places This work is done to the full by Blondellus that out labour in this kind were that the purpose in hand is prevented He that thinks the arguments of that Learned man to this purpose are indeed answered throughly and removed by D. H. in his fourth Dissertation where he proposes them to consideration may one day think it needfull to be able to distinguish between words and things That Clemens owns in a Church but two sorts of Officers the first whereof he calls sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters the other Deacons the Doctor himself doth not deny That in the judgement of Clemens no more were instituted in the Church is no lesse evident And this carries the conviction of its truth so clearly with it that Lombard himself confesses Hos solos ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse de â—is solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere lib. 4. sent D. 24. 2. To supersede a conclusion not magisterially dictated that were the confidence quarreld at in me but regularly inferr'd from premises there can be no more necessary than to discover the falsenesse of the premises or their weaknesse and incompetency to induce that conclusion And this being already done particularly and at large 't is impertinent to give any further answer to or account of this conclusion I shall onely lightly pass through the several steps of it and acknowledge of his conclusion as much as either here or from the premises I find any reason to acknowledge and briefly touch at the reasons before more largely rendred why other parts of it may not be consented to 3. And 1. what he saith of these Epistles that they seem like the children of the strange wives speaking part the language of Ashdod and part the language of the Jews hath perfect truth in it being applyed to the former corrupt Editions of Ignatius but none at all nor any appearance of any as it is applyed to that volume by which we desired to be judged in the businesse of Episcopacy 4. Secondly what is by these Epistles as they are in our more emendate Copies affirmed of Bishops is very agreeable to what is by the Scripture by Clemens by Polycarpe said of the same subject all which under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like describe their office and require subjection and obedience to be payd to them 5. Thirdly for the three orders particularly for the second of those three which antiently and still but either rarely or not at all in the Scripture are called Presbyters but may most distinctly be styled Presbyteri secundarii or partiarii Elders of a second rank admitted to the exercise of some parts of the Episcopal office but not to all and so distinguisht from Bishops or Elders of the first rank These the Prefacer cannot but know that I doe not undertake to find either in the Scripture or in Clement's or in Polycarp's Epistle and that though I have reasons to assure me that when the namber of believers increased so far that there was both need of them and competent store of fit persons to undergoe that office then such Presbyters were ordained to bear part of the burthen with the Bishop as the seventy Elders with Moses and I have compent reasons to perswade me that this was done in some places before the departure or decease of all the quire of Apostles particularly that St. John instituted such in Asia when he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet this was not so universally done thus early as that either the Writers of the Scripture could or after them Clement at Rome should be required to make mention of it And for Polycarpe though I suppose and doubt not but he lived to see such in the Church yet there was no necessity that in that one Epistle of his he should mention them or use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of any others but Bishops it being certain that after the secundarie Presbyters were instituted the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still continued common to Bishops and was not presently appropriated to Presbyters as is elswhere made clear out of Iraeneus Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian Dissert 4. c. 22. and in the vindication of them from the exceptions of the London Ministers 6. It remains therefore that the Epistles of Ignatius are the best records of Primitive Antiquity on which to build this second Order of Secundarie or Partiarie Presbyters which if they were instituted personally by St. John or if they were designed by the other Apostles and not ordained in their times onely because thus early 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius's style there was no need of them their Institution will still be Apostolical though not mentioned in the Apostles writings as in the Answer to the London Assemblers hath been shewn also 7. Fourthly concerning the title of Pastorsâ—nd â—nd Doctors or Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture he cannot but know the account given by me viz. that by all and each of those Bishops are to be understood as hath been shewed Dissert 4 c. 14 15. and nothing being here said to disprove it 't is but petitio principii to suppose the contrary So also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers I have spoken at large Dissert 4. c. 13. The like of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they have none but Deacons joyn'd with them Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. All which are perfectly agreeable to my hypothesis that there are no single Presbyters or middle order of Officers betwixt Bishops and Deacons that I discern mention'd in Scripture So the use
principelium urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quos provinciae integrae in iâ— multarum inferiorum â—…bium Ecclesiae earumque Epâ—scopi tanquam ad Archiâ—pâ—scopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum and taking it for granted that he hath proved Diâ—cesan Bishops sufficiently before though he hath scarce spoken any one word to that purpose in his whole book for to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of a Bishop others acting in some kinde of subordination to him by the name of Elders and Presbyters upon the account of what hath been offered concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption he sacrifices his paines to the Metropoliticall Archiâ—piscopall dignity which as we must suppose is so clearly founded in Scripture and Antiquity that they are as blind as Bars and Moles who cannot see the ground and foundation of it But first be it taken for granted that the Angels of the seven Churches are taken for the Governors of those Churches then that each Angell be an Individuall Bishop of the Church to which he did belong 2 be it also gâ—anted that they were Bishops of the most eminent Church or Churches in that province or Roman politicall distribution of those Countreys in the management of the government of them I say Bishops of such Churches not uâ—bium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor termes them what aâ—…ce is maâ—e by all this to the Assertation of a Metropoliticall Archiepâ—…pacy I cannot as yet â—…isâ—…vâ—r That they were ordinary officers of Christs institution relâ—…ing in their office and ordinary discharge of it not oneâ—y to the particular Churches wherein they were placed but to many Churches also no lesse committed to their charge than these wherein they did reside the Officers Rulers Go â—…ors of which Churches depended on them not onely as to their advice and counsell but as to their power and jurisdiction holding their place and employment from them is some part of that which in this undertaking is incumbent on our Doctor to make good if he will not be supposed to prevaricate in the cause in hand 3. Being here called out anew to the maintaining of what I had said in the Dissert concerning Metropoliticall Churches and Bishops and having so lately been ingaged in the same taske by the exceptions of the London-Ministers and many objections which here in the processe of this discourse are lightly proposed being by them formerly made and accordingly answer accommodated to them and yet farther the maine thing which is here done being to set downe many Latine passages out of the Dissert and to deem them confuted by the bare recitall of them upon these grounds I doe not foresee that there will be any necessitâ— of making any large returnes to this last but not concisest part of his digressâ—on What had been returned to the London-Ministers the Reader will finde in that Vindication Cap. 1. Sect. 16 of which number by the fault of the â—…rinter â—e will meet with two Section and so on for the three subsequent Sections and to the Dissertationâ— themselves and that viâ—…ication of them I shall willingly referre this matter Yet shall I not oâ—…t to gather up whatsoever I shall here finde â—…ggested which was not there punctually spoken to and of that nature here are foure things in this Paragraph 4. First that in the 5. Ch. of Diss 4. I commence per saltum taking it for granted that I had proved Diocesan Bishops before though saith he I had scarce spoken one word to that purpose in my whole Booke To this I answer that as in the first Dissertation had answered one sort of objections against Episcopacy and in the whole second Diss asserted it out of Ignatius and Saint Hierome himselfe so in the third I had deduced it from Christ and the Apostles and I suppose laid those grounds and by all antiquity confirmed and by answer of Blondel's objections vindicated them so that they were competently fitted to beare that structure of Episcopacie which I had laid upon them and then having in the fourth Diss added to this the visible practice of this in the hands of single Governors whether the Apostles in their severaâ—l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their successors the first Bishops called secundarie Apostles mentioned in the Scripture and yet more particularly in the Angels of the seven Churches which being acknowledged to be the Governors of those Churches were proved to be single Governors of them which was the onely thing in question betwixt Blondel and me I had some reason to hope that I might be allowed to have spoken some one word to that purpose in that Booke before I came to prove those Angels to have been Metropolitans which he knowes was not attempted tâ—ll all this of Episcopacie had been premised by me 5. The reason which he addâ—s in a parenthesis why he affirmes thus expresly that I had scarce spoken one word to prove a Diocesan Bishop in that Booke is the second thing I am to reply to For saith he to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of Bishop others acting in some kinde of subordination to him under the name of Elders and Presbyters will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumâ—tion 6. To which I answer that the question lying as there it did betwixt Blondel and me there can be no doubt but if I have evinced the power in every Church to have been in the hands of a single Bishop and either no college of Presbyters in that Church or else those Presbyters subordinate to the Bishop meaning by subordinate subject to his power and authority over them I have also evinced the cause against Blondel And this I may have leave to hope is there done till the contrary be made appeare and here being no offer of that but onely a mention of the account of what hath been offered by the Prefacer concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes 1. that account hath already been shewn to have no force in it 2. if it had it belongs not to the controversie as it lay betwixt me and Blondel but is as contrary to Blondelâ— pretensions as to mine and so still I cannot see how I fell under his Animadversion in this matter or how I commenced per saltum in doing what there I did as regularly as I could imagine 7. The third thing is that I call the Bishops of the most eminent Churches urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he will have called Bishops onely But of this there can be no Controversie the fitnesse and propriety of words being to be judged from the use of them and the case being cleare that a Metropolitan especially a Primate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the antient Councels and Church-writings and from them and not from Scripture which useth no higher style for them than of
Grounds of the Apostles instituting Metropoles The frame of Heathen Governments and the patterns among the Jewes civil and sacred Nâ—… 1. NExt he proceeds to that which I adde as an image of this model in the Church taken from Gods direction to Moses for the government of the Jewes thus 2. Bâ—…u Doctor addes Sect 5. Illud â—x Judâ—â—rum exemplari transcripsisse Apostolâ— vidâ—mur cum Mo aâ—… a id lege cautâ—m essâ—t ut Judiâ—es ministriâ—… qualâ—bâ—t civâ—taâ—e ordinaâ—…ur Deut. 16. 18. illâ— vâ—…ebus dabiâ—s ad Juâ—â—…cem Mâ—fis suâ—…ssâ—…m â—â—nedrio Hiâ—rosolym tano cinctum recurreâ—e â—…ntur Cap. 17. 9 anâ—… in Sâ—ct 6. â—e pâ—ovâ—s Jerusalem to have been the Mâ—…s of thâ—… Nâ—…ion Eg â—giaâ—… vâ—…o laudem But 1. The Dâ—… presume knowes befâ—…e this that those with whom he hath to 〈…〉 give him he thing in question upon his begging or request 〈…〉 consideration and inquirie is whether the Apâ—… any such modell of Church order and Government as is by the Doctor contended for to this he tells you that the Apostles seeme to have done it from the patterne of Mosaical institutions in the Church of the Jewes But Doctor the question is not with what respect they did it but whether they did it at all or no This the Doctor thought good to let alone till another time if we would not grant him upon his petition that so they did 2. This then is the Doctors second argument for his Diocesan and Metropolitan Prelates His first was from the example of the Heathers in their civill administrations and rule this second from the example of the Jewes Not to divert into the handling of the Church and Political state of the Jewes as appointed by God noâ— that dissonancie that is between the institution of civil Magistrates and Evangelicall administrations this is the summe of the Doctors reasoning in his 5 6 7 and 8. Sections God in the Church and among the people of the Jewes chose out one City to place his name there making it the place where all the types and ceremonies which he had appointed for the discovery and shadowing forth of the Lord Iesus Christ were visibly and gloriously to be managed acted and 〈◊〉 forth â—undry of them being such as whose Typicalnesse would have been destroyed by their muliplication and principally on this accounâ—…ing that place or City which was first Sâ—… the seat of the Kingdome or habitation of the chiefe ruler for the administration of Justice who appointed Iudges in all the Land for the good and peace of the people therefore the Churches of Iesus Christ disposed over the face of the whole world freed from obligations to Cities of Mountaines walling before God in and with a pure and spirituall worship having no one reason of that former institution in common with the Church of the Jewes must be cast into the same mould and figure I hope without offence I may take leave to deny the consequence and what more I have to say to this argument I shall yet deferre 3. One great fallacy I am here charged to be guilty of but having been oft accused of this very crime I yet never had the ill luck to be convict by him that I begge the question againe which saith he is onely this Whether the Apostles institutea any such order or no 4. But can this be a begging the question when Sect. 9. of that Chapter I expresly undertake to prove that the Apostles did institute such model and when he himselfe in the very next paragraph expresly confesses that I proceed to prove it 5. Can that be said to be begged which is undertaken to be proved and the proofes as yet not so much as considered by him and so certainly not invalidated Or can a man be bound to prove his assertion before he hath explained what he meanes by it or upon what grounds of credibility he affirmes it 6. That which I doe in that Chapter may analytically be divided into two parts 1. the grounds upon which 〈◊〉 conceive the Apostles thus modell'd the Church and secondly the proofes or testimonies by which I manifest that they did so The question in hand being a matter of fact whether or no the Apostles instituted Metropolitical Churches c. that was to be proved or disproved onely by testimonies and if that be not attempted to be done but taken for granted that were indeed a begging of the question but a due place being reserved for that in the latter part of the Chapter I conceive it no breach of the Lawes of discourse owned and exemplified by artists first to render the assertion credible by proposing the grounds upon which I conceive they did it 7. And those grounds were of two sorts 1 The known frame of the Heathen Governments where they came to plant the Gospel and by attending to which they should plant it more advantagiously and then what Nazianzen saith of Julian that it was in him a wise but a wicked policy for the reducing Heathenisme among Christians to appoint the heathen Priests to make use of the Christian observances may be very credible as an act of Divine policy in the Apostles to make their advantage for the propagating and preserving the Faith by observing and not going contrary to the civill distributions which they should meet with among the Heathens 8. Secondly The patternes of this among the Jewes and those we know the more considerable in this because they were there instituted by God himselfe and because many other observances in Christianity are by Christ and the Apostles visibly accommodated from the Jewes And againe there are two of those patterns one in their civil managerie Judges and Officers in every City Deut. 16. 18. and Moses in matters of higher concernment and difficultie with 〈◊〉 Sanâ—â—dâ—im at Jerusalem and the other in their Ecelesiastical the three families of the Levites separated for the sacred offices a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chiefe over them Num. 3. 24. and over them Eleazer the Sonne of Aaron the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the chiefes of the Levites And the advantages of order and unitie and due administration of Justice which recommended those formes among the Jewes were all fit to be taken care of and consequently were so many motives to induce the Apostles to copy them out under the New Testament and to observe the like uniformity in all their Plantations 9. And these grounds being thus laid as a foundation to support and fit the building which in the remainder of the Chapter was regularly i. e. by testimony of the Scripture and the Antient Church superstructed on it I cannot guesse what I could otherwise have done in respect of the Method than what was there designed by me And truly if I did let the proofe of the fact alone as he saith till another time as long as that other time was so neer at hand in the same Chapter in the very next Section after the
〈◊〉 which respect the common state of the Church as Zonoras interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being reserved and perteining to the care of the Metropolitan 8. This I suppose sufficiently expresses what subordination I meane the very same which the most Antient Canons of the Vniversal Church expresse to be due from the Bishop to the Metropolitan and then I shall not trouble my selfe to inquire what he meanes by some eminent Cities and Governors of a superior order in greater Cities which I should have thought had been Metropoles and Metropolitans had I not found them all placed by him in subordination to some one of high degree termed a Metropolitan And by that Character being assured that by the former he must meane no more but Bishops of inferior Cities I must be content not to understand the mysterie why they should yet be styled eminent and greater Cities and so briefly passe to the next thing 9. Secondly then he will examine my plea from that passage in the Acts cap. 15. and the thing he dislikes is my makâ—ng the question sent for resolution to Jerusalem to be referred to them by the single Church of Antioch This â—aith he 〈◊〉 doe not prove though if I could prove it it would doe me no good at all And yet to see in the processe of the discourse he severally grants all the rest And onely desires me not to be angry but to prove that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which is in effect to deny or bid me prove the conclusion without offering to deny above one proposition which therefore I must assume will if it be proved inferre the conclusion and so doe me all the good which I pretend to expect from it 10. Now truly that this question thus referred to Jerusalem was at this time Act. 15. 1. referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria I thought sufficiently proved by the text it selfe first cited cap. 14. 26. and 15. 3. In the former of these places the Apostles were come to Antioch as that signifies Antioch the great to difference it from another City of that name v. 21. the same which is by Plinie placed in Pisidia as here also it is ver 24. that City peculiatly where the Scripture saith they were first called Christians and whereof Euodius and Ignatius were constituted Bishops by Peter and Paul one of the Jewish the other of the Gentile Christians And being there they gathered the Church together ver 17. that I suppose to be the Church of the City of Antioch or if any more those certainly as some way relating and subordinate to Antioch which againe inferres Antioch to be their Metropolis Then of Antioch it followes that there they abodâ— v. 28. And then cap 15. 〈◊〉 certaine men which came downe from Iudea infused the Iudaical ritual doctrine into the brethren who are those but the Christians of Antioch where then they were And upon the dispute had with those Iudaiâ—â—rs v. 2. they determined that sure must still be the Church of Antioch peculiarly that Paul and Barnabas should goe to Jerusalem about this question and then ver 〈◊〉 they are brought on their way by the Church What Church is this still but the Church cap. 14. 27. i. e. the Church of Antioch 11. This was my way of proofe designed to lay the foundation of that argument of Antioch's being the Metropolitical See that this question was referred to Ierusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch And I must hereby thinke it competently proved unlesse some weake part be discovered in it or some absurdity or repugnancy be objected to it None of which I see is here done 12. For 1. as to that which is offered at by his saying that I have not proved that the brethren that taught the doctrine contested about ver 1. were onely of the Church of Antioch sure that is of no force For as I doubt not but the same doctrine might be and was infused into many others in Galatia Colosse yea and Rome it selfe as he truly â—aith and never conceived that the poyson was confined to or inclosed within Antioch so all that is needfull to my â—urâ—e is this that at this point of time noted Acts 15. 1. the Iudaizers pretensions were sollicited at Antioth and that on that particular occasion of the dispute betweene Paul and them the question was by them peculiarly referred to Ierusalem And that sure might be done by them alone though others farre distant as well as they either at that or some other time were disturb'd with the like scruples 13. That which the Prefacer here confesses that the disputes grew to the greatest height in Antioch is a very sufficient account in this matter why Antioch peculiarly should send up to Ierusalem about this question when others who were not so much concern'd in it did not doe so And moreover the convenience of such Messengers Paul Barnabas who could say so much from the successe they had had among the Gentiles toward the deciding of the question might both qualifie and incite them to doe it rather than any others at this time And so still there is more reason why I should conceive the question referred to Ierusalem peculiarly or alone by Antioch and not so by Colosse or Rome or Galatia and no appearance of any thing yet produced to the contrary 14. Secondly He addes then to Antioch brethren from other parts and Churches also came whilst Paul and Barnabas abode gâ—ere To what purpose this is urged by him I know not but this I know that there is no mention in that story of any such but onely of those which ver 1. came from Iudea and taught the necessity of Iudaizing And of them 't is not probable that they joyned with the Antiochians to referre the question to Ierusalem or if they did I am sure the Decretal Epistle from the Councel was not addrest to them but to the Gentile Christians ver 19. 23. and takes no other notice of them than as of seducers ver 24. And so still it appeares not of any that they thus referred the question but onely of the Antiochians 15. Thirdly Whereas he concludes it most evident from the Councel's answer ver 23. that the reference is made from all the Churches of the Gentiles if he meane it of all other Gentile Churches beside Syria and Cilicia as Phrygia Galatia c. Which he after mentions and Rome and Colosse which before he had mentioned there is no appearance of truth in it the text saying expressely that it was sent to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia But if he means it of all not absolutely but all of Syria and Cilicia and not onely of Antioch then as that is the very thing observed by me to prove that Antioch was the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia so certainly it is far