Of the Power of the Keys, Chapter 3
CAP. III.
Sect. 1 THe only difficulty remaining in the point, will be, who are the Apoſtles ſucceſſors in that power; and when the queſtion is asked of that power, I muſt be underſtood of the power of governing the Church peculiarly (of which the power of the Keyes was, and is a principal branch) for it muſt again be remembred, that the Apoſtles are to be conſidered under a double notion: 1. As Planters, then as Governors of the Church. The title of foreign in its literall notation of Miſſus, ſent, (Embaſſadour or Meſſenger) belongs peculiarly to the former of theſe, and ſo though it have ſome extraordinary privileges annext to it, neceſſary to the work of planting, (as the gift of tongues, the power of working miracles) which ennobles it beyond the order of Governours in the Churches ſince their plantation, yet in the perſons of the Apoſtles, it was but a precedaneous power, preparatory to that other of ruling, or governing, which no doubt is the reaſon that Chryſoſt. calls Ignatius the martyr, both foreign & foreign, an Apoſtle and Biſhop, and perhaps is the meaning of that ſaying of an Anonymus writer, in mBibl. num. 254.Photius, foreign, That the Apoſtle Timothy was by St Paul ordained, and enthronized, or ſeated Biſhop of the Metropolis of the Epheſians, i. e. that he that had helped to plant Churches, and ſo was an Apoſtle ſent out to that purpoſe, was at length ordained Biſhop to govern that of Epheſus being planted. Which diſtinction being premiſed', the queſtion will now more eaſily be ſatisfied, being propoſed in theſe terms, [Who were the Apoſtles ſucceſſors in that power, which concerned the governing theſe Churches which they had planted] And 1. I anſwer, that it being a matter of fact, or ſtory, later then that the Scripture can univerſally reach to it, cannot be fully ſatisfied, or anſwered from thence, any further then the perſons of Timothy or Titus, &c. and the ſeverall Angels of the Churches in the Apocalypſe (who are acknowledged by all the Antients to be ſingle perſons, that had power over all others in thoſe Churches,) but will in the full latitude through the univerſal Church in thoſe times, be made clear from the next evidences, that we have, viz. from the conſent of the Greek and Latine Fathers, who generally reſolve, that Biſhops are thoſe ſucceſſors. This I ſhall not be ſo unreaſonable as to attempt to prove at large through the writings of thoſe Fathers, but content my ſelf with one or two of the firſt of them.
Of this number I conceive the teſtimony of Clemens Romanus Sect. 2 in his Epiſtle to the Corinth. (which hath been ſo often of late produced) might to any diſintereſſed perſon be allowed to have ſome force in it; where ſpeaking of the Apoſtles, he ſaith,p. 57. that they foreſeeing that there would be contention and emulation, foreign about the name, or (as foreign may denote, foreign) dignity of Biſhops or Epiſcopacy, foreign (for I doubt not but that is the reading, and the ſenſe there) they ſet down a liſt, or continuation of ſucceſſors, (as when Heſychius, (and out of him Varinus) renders foreign, perhaps it may be a falſe print, as there be many in the edition of that book, for foreign, but howſoever the Analogy from thence will extend to this alſo, that as foreign ſignifies foreign, ſo foreign, will ſignifie foreign, inheritance, or ſucceſſion) that when any dyed ſuch a certain perſon ſhould ſucceed him. To which affirmation of Clemens, when I have added (that which all Eccleſiaſticall Stories have made familiar to us) that there were preſerved in ſeveral Churches ſuch nforeign. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. & ſucceſſiones Epiſcoporum quibus Apostolicam quae in unoquoque loco eſt, Eccleſiam tradiderunt, Ib. lib. 4. cap. 63.rols and catalogues of Biſhops beginning from the Apoſtles in each See, I ſhall conceive that that of Clemens was a pertinent teſtimony to this purpoſe; eſpecially when the voice of antiquity is ſo clear, that oforeign, Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3.Clemens himſelf was one of thoſe Biſhops (an Adjutor of the Apoſtles in their life time, and after the departure of Linus, and Cletus, the onelyonly one that retained the name of Biſhop in Rome, all others being ſtiled Presbyters only) that pSolus Clemens ſuperſtes, ſolus Epiſcopi nomen retinuit, tum quia inter adjutores Apoſtolorum ſolus ipſe reſtabat, …um quia jam invaluerat distinctio Epiſcopi, & Presbyteri, it a ut caeteris Eccleſiae Romanae Presbyteris qui cum ſolo Clemente eſſent, nomen illud non fuerit tributum.Vedelius at Geneva hath at large acknowledged it, Exercit. in Ignat. Ignat. Epiſt. ad Mar. Caſſabol. c. 3.
Sect. 3 After Clemens (an aſſertor at once, and example of this truth) I muſt next appeal to the Martyr Ignatius himſelf alſo Biſhop of Antioch, that lived in the Apoſtles age, and is by the enemies of Epiſcopacy diſcerned to be ſo full a treaſure of this truth (and of others in this kind) in ſo many notable paſſages, that there hath been no way (imaginable by thoſe who reſolve to have it otherwiſe) to reſiſt the plainneſſe of his authorities; but firſt by qIgnatius foreign ubique inculcat Epiſcoporum ſupra Presbyteros gradum eminentem. Salmaſ. apar. ad l. de prim. Pap. p. 55.ſcoffes and defamations; Secondly, by rNon eſſe Ignatium tam certò ſcio quàm me haec ſcribere. ib. p. 58. non eſſe Ignatium luce clarius eſt, &c. nemo mihi unquam perſuadebit, &c. p. 56.confident rejecting of our whole volume of his Epiſtles, as ſpurious, and of a latter birth; and thirdly, by ſome very ſlender ſhewes of proof, that they are ſo. One ſpecial of this ſort (which I ſee lately made uſe of by Salmaſius, and for which it ſHaec argumenta praeſtantiſſimo Salmaſio nuper probata gaudeo. Blondel. Apol.now appears he was beholding to a ſight of Blundels book, not then printed) I ſhall mention to remove prejudices, and it is this; that in the Epiſtle to the Magneſians, he diſtinctly calls Epiſcopacy foreign, which, ſaith that learned Grammarian, ſignifies it to be a new Order, and he attempts to prove it, becauſe foreign, ſaith he, cannot be referred to the age; and foreign ſignifies foreign, agreeable whereunto he interprets foreign, 2 Tim. 2.22. to be novae, or novarum rerum cupiditates, new deſires, or of new things.
The dealing of this learned Grammarian in this buſineſſe will Sect. 4 be ſufficiently ſtrange to him, that conſiders the whole matter. I ſhall only (in paſſing) give ſome few hints of judging it, by telling you firſt, that the generality of Copies read not foreign, but foreign the youth of the Biſhop (and no one of the Greek editions hath ſo much as mention'd any various lection in that place, till now the Florentine or Laurentian copy hath given us that variety.) Secondly, that the whole context of the Epiſtle drives to this of foreign, as even this Author confeſſes, by ſaying, that he perſwades them to receive their Biſhop, and give him honour, quamvis aetate juniori, though he were younger then they, and again that he goes on to tell them, foreign, that it becomes them not to be too familiar with the age of their Biſhop. But then beſides this, thirdly, the vulgar, and even Geneva edition reading foreign, back it with citation of places of Scripture pertinent only to that ſenſe, as that Wiſdome is not alwayes with the hoary hair, &c. Fourthly, that other reading is not avowed by, or cited from any Greek manuſcript, but onelyonly that in the Laurentiana Bibliotheca, and the old Latine, made uſe of by the moſt Reverend Primate of Armach, which is directly tranſlated out of it, and ſo doth not at all adde to the authority. But then fifthly, if that reading of foreign ſhould be acknowledged, yet would it conclude nothing againſt the Order of Biſhops in thoſe firſt times. For 1. what if it were a new Order in Ignatius his time? that were pretty antient, Ignatius living with the Apoſtles; for that it was written by ſome body elſe above 200. years after Chriſt, wil want ſome other probation. Secondly, there is no neceſſity that foreign muſt ſignifie a new order, for although, as he ſaith, foreign doth not ſignifie age, nor foreign young, but may be interpreted foreign new, &c. yet we are not bound to accept that interpretation of it, when the Context of the Epiſtle belongs to another matter, and when another interpretation of this phraſe may be given, which (if that reading were acknowledged) wil reconcile all difficulties; For why may not foreign ſignifie ordination? and foreign that, that belongs to a foreign, or a young man, and ſo it ſhall be the Ordination of a young man, or a young mans being Biſhop, which might have been apt to provoke contempt in inferiors, if that good Martyr had not fortified them againſt that temptation. And laſtly for the interpretation of that place of S. Paul to Timothy, it is ſo new, and ſo irrationally preferred before the ordinary one, that one may juſtly conclude, 'twas prejudice, and willingneſſe to find an example for his novelty, that made him think of this; for why ſhould not the luſts (there appointed to be avoided) be youthfull luſts, or ſuch as young men are ſubject to? why new luſts; or deſires of new things? were not the old ordinary luſts (ſo frequent among young men) fit enough to be avoided? might any other be enjoyed, ſo they were not new? I am ſorry I have inſiſted ſo long on ſo weak an objection, and yet it is the beſt that that learned man (ſo much looked on, and believed in this matter by thoſe who deſire change) hath produced, on which to build a…l his confidence, that thoſe Epiſtles are not Ignatius's: And 'tis a little ſtrange that another learned man tGrot. diſcuſſ. foreign p. 400.And. Rivet ſhould ſpeak of Epiſcopacy as of a novell order, and adde [ſive foreign ut loquitur Ignatius foreign] making Ignatius to ſay this, which if he doth, then is not only his Illuſtriſſ. Salmatius deceived, but alſo Epiſcopacy muſt be acknowledged in Ignatius's time, in which if it were acknowledged to be novel, it will ſtill be antient enough; and ſo 'tis indeed by that Author confeſt (perhaps by incogitancy) in the next page, when he acknowledges, that the cuſtome of Presbyters joyning with the Biſhop in impoſition of hands on a Presbyter (which ſure is to ſuppoſe, not to deny the office of Biſhops) ex veteris aevi reliquiis manſit, and ſpecifies what age he means, by [juxta illud Apoſtoli per impoſitionem manuum Preſbyterii] wherein yet it had been more ingenuous to have rendred foreign cum, and not have chang'd it into per, quite contrary to the text; but this by the way. As for that other argument added by Salmaſius, that in that Epiſtle to the Magneſians there is mention of the word foreign (as when he ſaith that Chriſt was not, foreign) by which he concludes that Epiſtle writen after Valentinus, whoſe Idiom that was; if the argumemt were concluding, (as vAnnot. p. 277.Iſ. Voſſius in his late Edition hath ſufficently proved it is not) it cannot ſure be in force againſt us, who find no ſuch thing in our former Greek Copies; or, if we did, could readily acknowledge any ſuch paſſage to be ſuppoſititious, and thoſe few words taken into the text out of the margent, without caſting away the whole volume of Epiſtles in that fit of jealouſie, or rage; if I could diſcerne in that writer any other ſh…w of argument againſt that general opinion, which the Chriſtian world hath had of theſe Epiſtles, I ſhould proceed to the weighing of it. But now upon the Edition of Blondels book (out of which Salmaſius only brought us ſome gleanings) we find a great deale of paines taken to caſt off thoſe Epiſtles; and it is very obſervable firſt, that he that hath taken in all the antient Church-writers into his catalogue (even Hermas himſelfe, without any note or character of apocryphal ſet upon him) and out of each of them laboured (though very improſperouſly) to gather ſome honey to his hive, ſome word or other, that might look like an accordance with that opinion which he aſſerts out of St Hierome, and, it ſeemes, had skill enough to make even Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, (and many others that have innumerable manifeſt places againſt the foreign or equality of Biſhops and Presbyters) inſtrumental to his deſigne, was not able to find one ſentence in Ignatius, which might be perſwaded to be uſefull to him, and therefore hath expreſt that ſeverity on him, that he hath not thought reaſonable on any other, even thoſe which all antiquity hath rejected; So partial and unequal is the mind of man, when that foreign (that I ſay no worſe) hath the ruling of our counſels. The exceptions which this learned man hath made againſt Ignatius being the author of thoſe Epiſtles, are 1. Scriptionis genus affectatum, an affected kind of writing, pompous Epithets (which ſaith he, could not agree with an Apoſtle, panting in the chaines of Martyrs) ſuch as foreign, &c. foreign, and among them foreign] the very naming of which, I ſuppoſe, doth ſhew the frivolouſneſſe of the charge, and weakneſſe of the inference from it; for ſure an Authour may uſe compounded words, (yea and words of his own making, as, I ſuppoſe, St Paul's foreign is acknowledged to be, and yet many of theſe recited from thoſe Epiſtles are not) without the crime of affectation, as well as St Paul might his foreign, and the like: and though a holy Martyr in his chains may not be allowed the vanity of affectation as that hunts for glory from men, yet ſure he may be allowed to have elevated affections, and by the command of them, to uſe expreſſions which are not vulgar & ordinary. The ſecond is his barbarous words, foreign, which indeed are Latine words made Greek, but ſo there are many more in the New Teſtament, in ſtead of thoſe four charged on Ignatius as barbariſmes, theſe fifteen which are ready at hand to me, (I will not take the pains to ſeek for others) foreign, and many as Latinizing (i. e. barbarous) phraſes, foreign, and the like. And 'tis a little ſtrange how this learned man hath minced this matter, confeſſing indeed that there is foreign in the Goſpel (naming only one of ſo great a number) and foreign in Hegeſippus: and for the excuſe of that one word in Hegeſippus, Euſeb. l. 3. cap. 27.adding that he was at Rome from the year 150 to 170. whereas this liberty might be allowed either Ignatius, or Hegeſippus, without having been ſo long at Rome, as wel as the Writers of the New Teſtament, which have three times more of ſuch words then he cites out of both of them. The third is, ſeverall paſſages, quae incommodè dicta videri poſſunt, which may ſeem incommodiouſly ſpoken, (and if it be but [ſeem,] and that but [may ſeem,] and at laſt but [incommodiouſly ſpoken,] ſure this charge will not wound deep) & comparationes non exactae ad amuſſim, compariſons not drawn by the rule exactly, (and truly the Martyr that was not to be permitted to have the vanity to affect, might as well be thought not to have the leaſure to take the line and the plummet, and delineate every expreſſion ſo exactly; But what are the miſcarriages, and defects in this kinde? why, that he calls the Spirit foreign a cord, and Faith foreign the Leader, whence, ſaith he, in Ignatius's eſteem, Fidei potior quàm Spiritus functio, Faith hath a nobler office then the Spirit. But why may not I more truly ſay, that the advantage in that compariſon is given to the Spirit, becauſe that is ſaid to draw, when Faith doth lead only? 'Tis certainly clear that his anger was very cauſleſſe, who could quarrell at that doctrine, which is in effect no more then this, That the Word of God apprehended by Faith doth lead us our way to heaven, and the Spirit of God is the cord to draw us thither. 2. That he calls his bands foreign, ſpirituall jewels, in which he wiſhes he might riſe, whereas, ſaith Blondel, there is nothing properly ſpirituall in the bands which wicked men put on the body of a martyr, and no hope that he ſhould riſe in thoſe bands. But ſure his ſufferings may be called his bands, and thoſe be matter of joy, and foreign to his Spirit, more then all the Gemmes to the moſt vain glorious worldling, and this be very commodiouſly expreſt by thoſe words, and then ſure he might wiſh, (though not hope) (and foreign is no more) to have this matter of joy continued to him, and ſo that he might riſe with them. 3. That he uſes foreign and foreign ſo oft; What a cruelty upon a patient Martyr is this, not to give him leave to uſe ſuch frequent innocent words as theſe frequently, as well as St Paul is allowed the very ſame, & foreign and foreign, &c. theſe are certainly ſtreined exceptions, the learned man was at great leaſure to quarel, when this provocation was accepted. 4. That when Baptiſme is called foreign weapons, he calls Faith foreign as an hlmet; love, foreign as a ſpear; patience, foreign as a compleat armour. For xQuid enim Fides, &c. con…erunt jam per Baptiſmum armato? Si Chriſtiani foreign Patientia est, quid novi jam accedit ex Fide galealo?what, ſaith he, doth faith and love, &c. confer to him that is already armed by baptiſme? and if patience be the Chriſtians compleat armour, what new advantage hath he by having a helmet from faith? but why may not Baptiſme be called weapons in the plurall, and every of thoſe graces profeſt and vowed in baptiſme, have their ſeverall uſes in the after life? and ſure the armour of baptiſme is not ſo perfectly of proof, but that there is need of the exerciſe of every one of thoſe Chriſtian virtues to hold out againſt the impreſſions of Satan, which are like to be ſo oft repeated; and if faith do not defend the head, and charity the heart, and patience and perſeverance every part of the body, i. e. every action of the future life, that ſubtle enemy may chance to wound us mortally. As for the new advantage of faith to him that hath the compleat armour of patience, the Author of that Epiſtle ſaith no ſuch thing, but on the other ſide firſt requires the helmet of faith, and then the foreign of patience, that ſure is the arming of all parts, which were not before armed, and that may go for an addition, as perſeverance is to ſanctity, and as our Saviour ſaith of his believers, that he that endureth to the end ſhall be ſaved. 5. That 'tis not likely that preſently after Ignatius comming into Aſia, Biſhops, Presbyters, and Deacons ſhould be ordained ejus rogatu, at his intreaty, qui ad Antiochinos Aſinorum gratulatorias Epiſtòlas deferrent, who ſhould carry the gratulatory Epiſtles of the Aſians to the Chriſtians of Antioch. I ſhall only ſay to this, 1. That they were ordained to ſome other end beſide this, yet might perform that task alſo, and that very ſolemnly. 2. That a probable argument, or a conceived improbability againſt a narration of a matter of fact (which relies not upon a confluence of all probabilities, but only on the authority of the Relatour) is of all other the moſt unconvincing; there was nothing ever done 1600 years ago, but a good phanſie will obſerve ſome improbability in it, and the matter of fact being ſtill but one, when the poſſibilities which never did come to paſſe, are infinite, ſome one of thoſe poſſibilities may perhaps become at a diſtance, to him that knows nothing of the fact (but would perſwade others that 'twas never done) tolerably probable alſo. 3. That he bids follow the Biſhop as Chriſt did his Father; and the Presbytery, ut Apoſtolos, as the Apoſtles, and ſaith that he that doth any thing clancularly without the Biſhops knowledge, is to be thought foreign to ſerve the Devil: whereupon, ſaith he, An Epiſcopos ullos Prerbyterorum comparatione Dominos, imo Deos à Chriſti martyre habitos credere par eſt? Is it fit to believe that any Biſhops in compariſon to Presbyters ſhould be counted Lords, yea Gods by that Martyr of Chriſt? But ſure this is to pervert and torment the ſenſe of that Martyr; For to bid follow Biſhops as Chriſt did his Father, is far enough from making Lords or Gods of them: nay if the compariſon were bound to hold that way, it were more proper to prove the foreign, or equality of Biſhops and Presbyters, for ſure Chriſt was equall with his Father: and 'tis obſervable that in the place of Polycarp ſet down by this learned man, p. 15. when obedience is required to Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Chriſt, he finds no fault with it, though that be the very thing actually ſaid by Polycarp of Presbyters and Deacons, that here he unjuſtly firſt impoſes on, then accuſes in Ignatius's words of Biſhops, which yet are, onelyonly for the manner of performing the obedience due to Biſhops, as Chriſt obeyed his Father, and cannot be extended to any equalizing the Biſhop to God, or the leaſt appearance of doing ſo. 'Twere too long to go thorow, and render formal anſwers to the reſt of the heap of exceptions, which are every one ſingle ſo ſlight, and of no value (and conſequently the totall of them will not amount any higher, it being not in the power of 1000 probables to become one demonſtration, or to be equipollent to one, much leſſe of a few ſlight improbables) that 'tis clear the number of the exceptions was the thing depended on, and not the weight of them: Witneſſe theſe four more, that ſhut up the rear; 1. That he ſaith that all pious men are changed foreign into a new leaven, which he thinks inconvenient, when St Paul calls the Godly foreign unleavened, whereas Chriſt being by Ignatius in the next words expreſſed to be that foreign new leaven; there is then nothing fit to be quarrel'd in it, unleſſe to grow in grace, and the practiſe of all Chriſtian duties (which is the meaning of that expreſſion) being an inconvenient adviſe. 2. That he bids fly to the Apoſtles foreign, as to the Presbytery of the Church, whereon having reſolved that by the Apoſtles he muſt mean the Apoſtles writings, (becauſe in the ninth of Trajan then paſt all the Apoſtles were dead) he concludes that the Author of that ſaying makes no more of the Apoſtles writings, then of the Congregations of men ſubject to error. Where in all ſober reaſon and equality, if the Apoſtles ſignifie the Apoſtles writings, then the foreign need not ſignifie any other latter Presbytery, but thoſe Apoſtles themſelve, who when they wrote thoſe writings, were the Chriſtian Sanhed…in, or Presbytery of the Church, which was to decide all their controverſies in Religion. 3. That writing to Polycarp, tanquam ad plebe…um neſcio quem, as unto an ordinary perſon, he ſaith, foreign, obſerve your Biſhop: as if forſooth the Epiſtle written to Polycarp might not be written to the Church under him alſo, to whom 'tis clear that plural precept [foreign] muſt belong, and not to any one man, though he were never ſuch a plebeian. 4. That he ſaith he will flatter, nay, if they will not, force the wild beaſts to kill him, which ſaith he is like the deſperabunda ſaeculi mancipia, the moſt deſperate ſlaves among the heathen. As if theſe fervent expreſſions of deſire to ſuffer for Chriſt were thus to be deformed, and charged againſt a pious man. After all this unprovoked ſeverity, one act of grace and mercy theſe Epiſtles are vouchſafed from this Authour, viz. that he contains himſelf from making uſe of one paſſage which ſuppoſitionis earum argumentum videri poſſit, might ſeem an argument of the ſuppoſititiouſneſſe of them; (and yet no greater an argument then that [multa quae incommodè dicta vider poſſunt] made up a great number of arguments even now) the paſſage is, that he diſputed profeſtly againſt the foreign thoſe that affirm'd Chriſts, humanity to have been but an appearance, no reality; for ſaith he, whether you make Caſſ…an with Baronius, or Saturninus, Baſilides, and Valentinus the anteſignanos Docetarum, the principal Authors of that hereſie, theſe being under Adrian and Antoninus Pius, will appear to be after Ignatius: having gone thus far, he comes off again, with a Volens hoc argumento abſtineo, he willingly abſtains from uſing this argument; becauſe ſaith he, Simon Magus was before Ignatius, and he, ſaith Irenaeus, taught this doctrine of Chriſts appearing only, not being a true man; and that Caſſan, &c. were call'd the chief of them, muſt ſignifie, not that they were the firſt broachers, but in their times the chief maintainers and abetters of that hereſie. This mercy, I confeſſe, was but ſeaſonable, and had much of Juſtice in it, and ſhews that that Author was able to have anſwered his other arguments, if he had ſo pleaſed, particularly that which is made uſe of ſo confidently both by him and Salmaſius of foreign, the Valentian dialect, which is by Iſaacus Voſſius ſatisfied with this very anſwer which here Blondel gives to the uſe of the word foreign, viz. that Valentinus was not the firſt that ſaid foreign ortion, but that 'tis agreed on by the Antients, that he was not the founder of a new, but reviver of an old opini…n foreign, ſaith Irenaeus, and other Fathers to the ſame purpoſe as Iſaacus Voſſius hath collected their affirmation sin his Annot. on the place. Having gone thus far in rejecting theſe Epiſtles, he is at laſt at leaſure to remember and acknowledge, Plenom illis ipſis, quas confictas putamus Epiſtolis, fidem habere Patres, that the Fathers (indefinitely, if not univerſally, and it ſeems he had no one to produce to the contrary, if he had, he would certainly have produced it, and with reaſon have depended on it more, then all theſe other Topicks) afforded a full plenary belief to theſe very Epiſtles, which the two Champions of the age Salmaſius and he think to be ſuppoſititious, [putamus] is but a poor word, Salmaſius could ſpeak bigger on weaker or fewer arguments, [tam certò ſcio, quam me haec ſcribere.] To this authority of the Fathers againſt his opinion, his anſwer is ſhort, but hath much weight and aſperity in it (which they that have as ſtrong an appetite to lay the Presbyterians flat, as the Presbyterians have expreſt to deſtroy the Biſhops, they that have the ſame exceptions againſt all diſtinction, or diſcrimination of Lay and Clergy, as Blondel and Salmaſius have againſt the impariety and inequality of Biſhops and Presbyters, will, when they can hope to be heard, be ready enough to make uſe of, and muſt not be denied to have urged an argument ad homines unaſwerable, whenſoever they ſhall pleaſe to make uſe of it) and 'tis but this, Quid tum? What then? the authority of the Fathers in a matter of fact (as that Ignatius wrote theſe Epiſtles) caſt off without any ceremony, or difficulty in two ſyllables. And the reaſon for ſo doing, which is added will help the matter but little; Quàm multa minimè ſuſpicaces ac imparatos & fefellerunt ſemper, & quotidie fallunt? How many things have alwayes deceived, and daily do deceive men that are not ſuſpicious, nor upon their guard? And if all the Fathers of the Church, beginning from thoſe that were neareſt Ignatius's time, muſt be involved in the number of theſe incautious, cheatable men, I ſhall be afraid to mention the conſequences, that will too readily be deducible from hence. I ſhal only ſay; May not this liberty, or licence rather, be ſoon extended very inordinately to the invaſion of the ſacred Canon of Scripture? Nay, when the ſame current, and conſent of Fathers, which delivers down all the books which make up our Canon of Scripture, for Canonicall, and Theopneuſt, ſhall be found at the ſame time to deliver down, and make uſe of theſe Epiſtles of Ignatius, onelyonly with the diſtinction of Apocryphal, (and mean by that, not ſuppoſititious books, or books which are under ſuſpition that they are not their off-ſpring, whom they call Father, but only books of inferior authority, as Apocryphal is oppoſed foreign, to the books of divine Scripture, & legi Domini, to the Law or word of God, & foreign to thoſe that are put in the Canon, and in a word, foreign, as you may ſee in the end of Nicephorus's Chronography, and in others; inter ſcripta novi Teſtamenti novi apocrypha, numbred among the apocryphal books, not of Ignatius, but of the New Teſtament, and appointed to be read by pious men, though not allowed that ſame authority and dignity, in which the books of Sacred Scripture have been juſtly eſtated) when, I ſay, the ſame hands of the antient Church ſhall deliver both the Epiſtles of St Peter for Divine Scripture, and theſe Epiſtles of Ignatius for the Epiſtles of Ignatius, though not for Divine Scripture, who can ſay that yWal. Meſſalin.Salmaſius when he had thus confidently thrown off theſe Epiſtles from being written by Ignatius, did not conſequently, and agreeably to his foreign in throwing off one of St Peters Epiſtles alſo? And who can think it reaſonable that our warineſſe and cenſoriouſnes ſhall enable us at 1500 years diſtance to judge more truly of a matter of fact, (which none but they that are near, be they never ſo wary, and ſuſpicious, can diſcern any thing of) then they that lived in thoſe times which were neareſt to the ſcene of action? Nay, how much more rational is that of the ſame Salmaſius? who in the controverſie about the parts of the Croſſe, i. e. when he conceiv'd antiquity to be favourable to that opinion which he defended, hath made this argumentative againſt his adverſaries, An credibile eſt Gregorium qui vixit tanto tempore poſtquam crucis ſupplicio nemo amplius afficebatur, certiorem eſſe teſtem de habitu crucis totius, &c. quàm eos authores qui ſcripſere cùm adhuc paſſim in uſu eſſet communiſſimo nocentum crucifixio? Is it credible, that he that lived ſo long after the uſe of that kind of death was left off, ſhould be a ſurer witneſſe of any thing that belongs to it, then thoſe Authors that wrote when it was in uſe? De Cruce, p. 255. And again, if Blondel may ſay without proof, that the Fathers were incautious in general, and thence conclude, that they were actually deceived in this particular; Why may not I as reaſonably affirm (having given my reaſons, when he hath not) that Blondel is too cenſorious, and partial, and willing to bring all to the cauſe he hath eſpouſed, and thence conclude (knowing how contrary theſe Epiſtles are to his intereſts) that he hath actually expreſt his paſſion, and injuſtice in this cauſleſſe cenſure of theſe Epiſtles? I have done with this learned mans obſervations in this matter, and when I ſhall hear of any other argument which can ſeem of force againſt theſe Epiſtles, I ſhall be glad to conſider it, profeſſing my ſelf to conceive, that as long as that one Author ſtands in the Church in his juſt value, the cauſe of Prelacy and Hierarchy cannot want ſupports, every page almoſt of thoſe Epiſtles being ſufficient (which the adverſaries acknowledge in ſaying he doth foreign in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, at all turns aſſert Epiſcopacy) to interpret the obſcurer veſtigia in the New Teſtament, and to aſſure us what was the practiſe and doctrine of the Apoſtles and Primitive Churches in that point; and that is the reaſon I have inſiſted ſo long on a thing which may ſeem ſo extrinſecall to my firſt undertaking, and ſhall not think my ſelf out of my way, if I be content to return to this controverſie again (as having ſuch an immediate influence on the cauſe in hand) whenſoever I ſhall be call'd to it; In the mean, I ſhall content my ſelf with this view of that matter; and for the preſent, as I cannot but conceive it raſhneſſe to caſt an Epiſtle of St Peter upon a bare affirmation in a Parentheſis (quae ſola planè genuina eſt) ſo will it be in a lower degree, but in like manner, to deal with a moſt antient Apoſtolical-ſpirited volume, upon ſuch unproved cenſures as theſe; and it is obſervable, that the firſt writer that ever undertook to be thus ſevere againſt that whole volume of Epiſtles, did with as much confidence, and as little pretention to argument, caſt off one of the books of Canonical Scripture. This I thought not amiſſe here to inſert, to vindicate the writings of that antient Martyr, though it may be taken for a parergon in this place.
Suppoſing then this writer to ſtand in the ſame repute in Sect. 5 the Church of God, in which he did, before he was obſerved to be unreconcileable with the deſigns of the new Reformers, I ſhall proceed to make uſe of his teſtimony. He commands obedience to be paid to Biſhops foreign, as to the Apoſtles; to the Presbyters as to the Seventy, to the Deacons, as to the Deacons in the Acts. The paſſage is known, and although in another place, he makes the Presbyters parallel to the Apoſtles, and the Biſhops to Chriſt, yet theſe places are eaſily reconciled, it being clear, that that latter place conſiders the Apoſtles at the time, when Chriſt was here on earth, at which time they were indeed but a ſecond rank (and in that reſpect it is that Origen ſaith, Tr. in Mat. 24. Propriè Epiſcopus Dominus Jeſus eſt, Presbyteri Apoſtoli, Chriſt is properly the Biſhop, and the Apoſtles Presbyters) but the former place conſidering that after Chriſts departure, is that which more properly belongs to this matter; this power (though promiſed before) being not yet inſtated on them, till after his reſurrection, immediately before his leaving of this world (or indeed till the coming of the Holy Ghoſt) at which time they were left the Governors of the Church, as Chriſt had been before, and the Biſhops, their ſucceſſors ever ſince. To which purpoſe St Cyprian, Ep. 65. Apoſtolos, i. e. Epiſcopos & Praepoſitos Dominus elegit, the Lord choſe Apoſtles, i. e. Biſhops and Governors. So Judas's Apoſtolical function is called foreign Biſhoprick Act. 1.29 ſo Theodoret thinks Epaphroditus was Biſhop of the Philipians, becauſe he is called foreign Apoſtle, and on 1 Tim. 3. ſaith thus, foreign, thoſe that are now call'd Biſhops, they then call'd Apoſtles, ſo Titus, ſaith he, and ſo Apollos, and ſo (ſaith Remig. on 1 Cor. 4.) Soſthenes alſo. Thus St Hilary frequently calls St Paul Epiſcopum, Biſhop. And Hilarius Sardus in Eph. Apoſtoli Epiſcopi ſunt, the Apoſtles are Biſhops. So the Scriptor qu. in vet. & nov. Teſt. qu. 27. Nemo ignorat Epiſcopos Servatorem Eccleſ…is inſtituiſſe, ipſe enim priuſquàm in coelos aſcenderet, imponens manum Apoſtolis, ordinavit eos Epiſcopos. No man is ignorant that our Saviour inſtituted Biſhops over the Churches. For he himſelf before he aſcended to heaven, laying his hand on the Apoſtles ordained them Biſhops. So ſaith Rabanus Maur. in 1 Tim. 4.14. of the Apoſtles times, Epiſcopi provincias integras regebant, Apoſtolorum nomine nun cupati. The Biſhops were call'd Apoſtles. So doth Blondel himſelf confeſſe not only out of Gildas, that St Matthew Epiſcopatum ſortitus eſt, was Biſhop, but acknowledges it of St James the brother of the Lord, as the voice of all antiquity, that he was Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Jacobum Hieroſol. Eccleſiae Epiſcopatum conſtanter aſſerunt veteres omnes. Apol. pro Sent. Hieron. p. 50. And if it be ſaid, that he meant by the word Epiſcopus Biſhop, no more then a Presbyter, one of many; I ſhall only then put him or the Reader in minde, what the ſame Blondel in his cenſure of the Pontif. Epiſtles (when they ſay he was not ſo ſevere againſt Biſhops) hath put together of St James. Hieroſol. Eccleſiam rexiſſe ſtatuunt veteres, & à Chriſto Epiſcopale munus accepiſſe, ait Hegeſippus apud Hieron. in Cat. Epiphan. haer. 78. Hieron. in Gal. c. 1. Greg. Turon. l. 1. c. 17. Nic. Methon. de pane conſecr. à Chriſto & Apoſtolis. Euſ. l. f. 7. c. 19. Conſtit. l. 8. c. 35. Ab Apoſtolis, Conſtit. l. 7. c. 48. l. 8. c. ult. Clem. Alexand. apud zThe ſame author in his Chron. p. 43. affirms that he was by the Apoſtles ordain'd Biſhop of Jeruſalem, the nineteenth year of Tiberius, i. e. the very next year in his account after the death of Chriſt.Euſeb. l. 2. c. 1. Athanaſ. in Synop. Euſeb. l. 2. c. 2. Hieronymus de Script. Eccl. Beda de 6. aetat. & Martyrl. ad Cal. Maii. & Chron. Gr. anon. Scriptor. foreign, acknowledging all, that as Biſhop he governed that Church, as a ſingle perſon, ſa…e in the ſee or throne; all the difference between the Antients being, whether by Chriſt or the Apoſtles, or both, or by St Peter only, he was ordained Biſhop.
Thus, ſaith S. aHom. 86. in Joh.Chryſ. did Chriſt inveſt the Apoſtles with this Sect. 6 power of retaining and remitting ſins, foreign, &c. as when a King ſends Governors over Provinces, he gives them power of impriſoning and releaſing, intimating the foreign or Rulers of the Church to be the men that are here repreſented by the Apoſtles, and ſo in L. 3. foreign ▪ ſpeaking of the weighty office of Biſhops (to excuſe himſelf who had fled from it) he principally inſiſts on the power which is intruſted to them, and in that reſpect applies to them the ſtyle of the faithfull and wiſe Servant, whom God makes Ruler over his houſehold. So Theophylact on Matth. 18. foreign, They that after the manner of St Peter, are vouchſafed the honor of being Biſhops, have the power of binding and looſing. So again appears by the forecited Teſtimonies of the foreign Preſidents in St Chryſ. and the foreign Praefects of the Church, in Theophylact. And ſo in the name and ſenſe of the Greek Church, Gabriel of Philadelphia, foreign in his ſecond difference betwixt the Greek and the Roman Church▪ foreign, The chief Prieſts, i. e. Biſhops, are the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, and in plain words, foreign, So that 'tis manifeſt, that the Apoſtles were Biſhops, and applies to them that of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 45.16. of Gods conſtituting them rulers over all the earth, and names the ſeverall Churches wherein the ſeveral Apoſtles ordain'd Biſhops, St John in Aſia, St Andrew in Achaia, St Thomas in India, &c.
Thus alſo among the Latines St Jerome who was not very Sect. 7 favourable to Biſhops, ſaith expreſly that they were the Apoſtles ſucceſſors, Epiſcopi omnes Apoſtolorum ſucceſſores ſunt. Ep. 83. ad Evagrium. So St Ambroſe, Claves illas regni coelorum in beato Petro Apoſtolo cuncti ſuſcepimus ſacerdotes. All we, that are ſtiled Sacerdotes, in the bleſſed Apoſtle St Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven. And what Sacerdos ſignifies among the Writers of that time, and particularly in St Ambroſe, the obſervation of any diligent Reader will inſtruct him; viz. that which the [ſuſcepimus] applyed to St Ambroſe's perſon, will inforce, he being Biſhop of Millain at that time, (and this is agreeable even to the heathens acception of the phraſe, who uſe Sacerdos and Pontifex promiſcuouſly; witneſſe Servius in Aen. 3.) So de dignitate Sacerd. c. 2. he ſhews out of Scripture, that the ſheep are delivered Sacerdotibus, I ſhall render it to Biſhops, becauſe it follows, and ſo muſt be ſubject to thoſe Rulers. So in St Chryſ. in the fore-cited foreign. l. 2. The word foreign (which together with Paſtor in Latine, is ordinarily the Biſhops Title, in order to the Shepherds office of ruling, and governing, as well as feeding the flock) and foreign, Sacerdos, are promiſcuouſly taken, and the latter by the Interpreter there rendred Epiſcopus, Biſhop.
And to the ſame purpoſe moſt clearly St Cyprian, Ep. 12. Sect. 8 ſpeaking of the Lapſi, thoſe who having fallen were under the cenſures of the Church, and how the Presbyters had preſumed to reconcile, or abſolve them, he concludes that they did not (Reſervare Epiſcopo honorem Sacerdotii ſui, & Cathedrae (reſerve to the Biſhop the honour of his Prieſthood, and chaire, ſhewing the indifferent uſe of thoſe words Epiſcopus and Sacerdos, at that time and that in oppoſition to Presbytery, appropriating to the one the Power of the Keyes, excluſively to the other. This he had ſet down more plainly before Epiſt. 10. ſhewing and aggravating the greatneſſe of the fault of thoſe Presbyters that had taken upon them to uſe the Keyes ▪ in that caſe, Praepoſitum ſibi Epiſcopum non cogitantes, not thinking that there was a Biſhop ſet over them; quod nunquam omnino ſub anteceſſoribus factum eſt, reſolving that it was a fact without any precedent in the Church; and again, L. 1. Epiſt. 3. having proved the Epiſcopal power to be immediately from God, he expreſſeth it in theſe words, Sacerdotalis authoritas & poteſtas divinâ dignatione firmatur, The Sacerdotall power is ſetled by divine dignation, and addes the occaſion of all Schiſmes in the Church to be, quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, that the Biſhop is not obeyed: Nec unus in Eccleſia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex, vice Chriſti cogitatur; and that 'tis not conſidered, that the one Prieſt, i. e. Biſhop, and Judge, is for the time in the Church in Chriſts ſtead; which is yet more clear by his making Sacerdotum Collegium, The Colledge of Prieſts, all one with Coepiſcoporum conſenſus, The conſent of Fellow-biſhops, and preſently adding, that he that ſets himſelfe above this unus Sacerdos, one Prieſt, ſe non Epiſcopi, ſed Dei Judicem faceret, makes himſelf Judge not of the Biſhop, but of God. And therefore 'tis a ſtrange proofe of Blondels, that Epiſcopacy and Presbytery is all one, from that ſpeech of Pontius Diaconus concerning this Cyprian, Apol. pro Sent. Hieron.Quod ad officium Sacerdotii & Epiſcopatus gradum novellus electus eſt, having before ſaid, Presbyterium & Sacerdotium ſtatim accepiſſe. Whereas the equipollence of the word Sacerdos and Epiſcopus being obſerved, and the difference of Presbyter from them, doth clearly infer the contrary; and that is apparent by the very place, Multa ſunt quae jam Presbyter fecit; ad probationem bonorum operum ſatis eſt, quod ad officium Sacerdotii & Epiſcopatus gradum adhuc novellus electus eſt. He was it ſeems a Presbyter firſt, and did many things in that ſtate, and a proof that he did ſo, was his election to the office of Sacerdos or Biſhop, when he was a novice, then preſently or ſoon after his converſion, where the difference of his being a Presbyter and a Biſhop is moſt manifeſt. So when St bin Pſal.Hilarius Pictav. ſaith, Aarone Sacerdotes ſignificari non ambiguum, in Levi, miniſtros oſtendi; the ſame Blondel concludes, Sacerdotes ſive praepoſitos, & ſeniores to be all one, not knowing or obſerving again that that Sacerdos ſignifies Biſhop, who is there ſet parallel to Aaron, in lege primus Sacerdos, the firſt Prieſt in the law.
Sect. 9 Many other evidences might be produced out of thoſe and after times, as in the Councel of Taurinum ſpeaking of Palladius; A Triferio ſacerdote fuerat mulctatus, he was puniſhed by Triferius, who, that he was a Biſhop, (if it were doubted) would appear by the acts of that Councel, and particularly by his excommunicating Exuperantius, a Presbyter, Can. 4. which ſure none but a Summus Sacerdos, a High Prieſt, or Biſhop could doe.
Sect. 10 But there can be no need of more proofs in this matter, and if there were now any more doubt, that the Biſhops were the confeſt ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles in this Priviledge or Prerogative, that one Canon of the Apoſtles might ſatisfie it, foreign, &c. Let not the Preſbyters, or Deacons do any thing without the conſent of the Biſhop, for he hath the people of the Lord intruſted to him, and ſhall one day be required an account of their ſouls: which beſides that it is evidenced to belong to this power of the Keyes, by the uſefulneſſe of that to the diſcharging the truſt about ſouls, appears further by the foreign, the prohibiting of Presbyters to do any thing without him.
Sect. 11 A ſaying, which whatſoever is thought of it, is the voice of the firſt Antiquity. Ignatius muſt begin the number in Epiſt. ad Trall. foreign. It is neceſſary that whatever ye do, ye do nothing without the Biſhop. And if, becauſe it follows immediately, foreign, obey the Presbyters, as the Apoſtles. it be conceived, that that precept belongs to the people onelyonly, and not to the Presbyters, it will then be eaſily replyed, that to the whole matter the ſame Ignatius in Epiſt. ad Magn. hath given it in a latitude, which had prevented this ſcruple foreign. As the Lord Chriſt doth nothing without the Father, ſo you alſo without the Biſhop; You, whether Presbyter, or Deacon, or Laick. Once more in Epiſt. ad Smyrn. foreign. Let no man without the Biſhop do any of thoſe things which belong unto the Church. And the Councel of Laodicea hath (almoſt in Ignatius's words) commanded the ſame. Can. 56. foreign, The Presbyters muſt do nothing without the conſent of the Biſhop; and many more acts and Canons might be produced to the ſame purpoſe.
And if againſt all theſe, this exception be made, that by the Sect. 12 force of ſuch Rules not only the power of the Keyes, but alſo all other power belonging to the Church is appropriated to Biſhops: to this the Anſwer (as it will be eaſie, ſo it) will tend much to the clearing, and ſerve for the ſhutting up of this whole matter; That indeed there is great truth in the objection, that all power in all matters Eccleſiaſtical did primarily belong to the Biſhop, and no others, even Presbyters themſelves; but as it was by the Biſhop communicated to them, not only by that firſt act of Ordination, in giving them the foreign, or firſt power, but alſo by a ſecond act neceſſary to give them that other power to uſe or exerciſe that power, when they have it.
This is the plain ſenſe of the Canon of the Councel of Arles, Sect. 13 Can. 19. nec Presbyteris civitatis ſine Epiſcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel ſine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia aliquid agere. The Presbyters of any City muſt not command any thing without the precept of the Biſhop, nor do any thing in any Pariſh, without authority of the Biſhops letters licenſing them to do it. Thus, I ſay, it is not only for the power of the Keyes, but even for the Sacraments. Ignatius's ſaying laſt produced in Epiſt. ad Smyrn is by him thus in larged, foreign. Let that Euchariſt be reputed firm (or rightly celebrated) which is done by the Biſhop, or by him to whom he ſhall give leave; and for Baptiſme, and that together, foreign, It is not lawfull without the Biſhop, i. e. without his leave, either to baptize, or adminiſter the Sacrament, foreign, but when he ſhall think fit according to Gods pleaſure, foreign, that all that you do, may be ſafe and firme. It ſeems the conſent of the Biſhop was thought neceſſary to make it ſafe for any Presbyter to doe any Eccleſiaſtical act, or to give validity to it, when 'twas done by him. So Tertull. de cor. mil. Non de aliorum quàm de praeſidentium manu Euchariſtiam ſumimus, We receive the Euchariſt from none but the Preſidents or Governors. They are all one with the foreign in Juſt. Mart. Apol. 2. to whom that whole buſineſſe is there remitted. So again Tertul. de bapt. Dandi baptiſmum jus habet Summus Sacerdos qui eſt Epiſcopus, dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen ſine Epiſcopi authoritate, propter Eccleſiae honorem, quo ſalvo ſalva pax eſt. The Chief Prieſt who is the Biſhop, hath the power of giving baptiſme, after him the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Biſhop, for the honor of the Church, which as long as it is preſerved, the peace of the Church will be preſerved alſo. So when the Scriptor. anon. quaeſt. in V. & Nov. Teſt. which is thought to be Hilary, ſaith, In Alexandriâ & per totum Aegyptum, ſi deſit Epiſcopus, conſecrat Presbyter; that in Alexandria and Aegypt, if there be no Biſhop, the Presbyter conſecrates, 'tis clear by the mention of that liberty in the Presbyter, as of a thing peculiar to Aegypt, and that too, only when there is no Biſhop preſent, that regularly this power belong'd to none but the Biſhops, and to thoſe Presbyters to whom he gave it. Where by the way will appear a great miſtake of Blondel and (I ſuppoſe out of him, as his many other Notes in his apparatus againſt Biſhops) of Salmaſius, who in another place of Hilary in Eph. 4. cited by both of them, [apud Aegyptum Presbyteri conſignant, ſi praeſens non ſit Epiſcopus, In Aegypt the Presbyters conſigne, if the Biſhop be not preſent] interpret conſigning, either to be cSive baptizatorum confirmatio, ſive poenitentium benedictio, ſive ordinandorum conſecratio. Blond. Apol. p. 57. & Salmaſ. in appar. ad l. de Prim. Papae.confirmation or bleſſing (I ſuppoſe abſolving) of penitents, or ordination. It being clear by the other place, juſt now cited, that conſignatio ſignifies there conſecrating of the Sacrament, which is peculiarly call'd conſecration, that of giving orders being ordination, not as he calls it ordinandorum conſecratio (which what it would grammatically ſignifie I know not, unleſſe ſome benediction of them that are after to be ordain'd) and it ſeems dSive de Euchariſtiae confectione, ſive de Chriſmatione, ſive de ordinationibus ſacris interpretari placeat.Blondel himſelf, p. 61. thinks it poſſible that conſignatio may ſignifie the conſecrating the Elements, and by what follows, I conceive him to uſe it in that ſenſe, ſaying, quod antiquis per ſolam Epiſcoporum abſentiam licuit, omnibus nunc abſolutè licet, that which antiently was made lawful to all (i. e. to Presbyters) onelyonly by the Biſhops abſence, is now abſolutely lawfull to all: Which I ſuppoſe he muſt mean of conſecrating the Sacrament, and I am ſure could not reaſonably believe of ordination. But this by the way, in paſſage, to confirm that aſſertion of Ignatius ſufficiently, that the Church was by the Apoſtles put into the hands of Biſhops, that ordinarily the conſent of the Biſhop was required to enable a Presbyter for any Eccleſiaſtical act, the plenitude of power being by Chriſt delivered down to the Apoſtles, and through them to their ſucceſſor-biſhops, and by them diſpenſt out to others in that meaſure, and thoſe portions, which they ſhould think fit.
And if it be demanded here, What it is which in our Church Sect. 14 is given to Presbyters in their Ordination, as the full importance of the form then uſed [Receive the Holy Ghoſt:] I anſwer, not all that is at any time contained under that phraſe, when it is uſed in the conſecration, but only the particulars which are after mentioned; and ſo diſtinctly not the power of ordaining, which is not mentioned, and which is a particular, that never was regular for any Presbyter in the antient Church to aſſume to himſelf, or to any number of that order without a Biſhop over them (and it would not be hard to give an account of all that hath been produced of late by Salmaſius, or any other from the origines Alexandrini, or any other record of antiquity to the contrary, but that it is foreign, and would be too large a foreign in this place:) and if the practice of ſome few Proteſtant Churches in this laſt Century be oppoſed againſt it; then 1. I ſhal conceive thoſe very unfit to be confronted againſt the Ʋniverſal for 1500 years; and therefore ſecondly, I ſhall not doubt to affirm, that want is not only a defect, but a corruption among them. Thirdly, it will be obſervable, that even thoſe that want it among them, have formerly thought fit to excuſe it by the caſe of neceſſity, and to acknowledge it their infelicity, but not their fault, (their ſuperiors in the State not permitting them to have Biſhops to ordain them;) and to give their judgements freely, that where Epiſcopacy is, it is to be preſerv'd; and where it is not, it is to be wiſht for; which is a ſufficient expreſſion of their ſenſe of it. And if the improſperouſneſſe of the cauſe of late in this Kingdome hath moved ſome of them to change their ſtyle, I ſuppoſe there is no greater reaſon to depend on their judgements who are mov'd or wrought on by ſuch extrinſecal arguments, then on his, who lately made no ſcruple to confeſſe, in giving his opinion of H. Grotius, Ego non probo prudentiam minùs felicem. He lik'd not the choice of that ſide which was not proſperous. And then fourthly, that this cannot be applicable by way of excuſe to thoſe who deſire to caſt out Biſhops where they are, on purpoſe that Presbyters may uſurp the power which belongs to them. Secondly, not al power of binding and looſing, retaining or remitting, though thoſe words are there added (whoſe ſins you do remit, &c.) but ſo much as the Biſhops or Governours are preſumed to have thought fit to impart to them, and what that is, will appear by other acts of our Church, eſpecially by the Liturgy: as 1. The declaring of abſolution in the Church after the Confeſſion of ſins; 2. The abſolving them by way of prayer before the Sacrament (in caſe the Biſhop be not preſent) and 3. in Baptiſmal waſhing, and 4. upon ſpeciall Confeſſion on the ſickbed; or any time elſe which may by analogy or reduction come under theſe ſame heads, as in the caſe of private conference, and confeſſion at other times: In all theſe the remitting of ſins is allowed among us to a bare Presbyter, not only by way of pronouncing, or declaring of abſolution, but (as a miniſterial act) actually abſolving him, (by Chriſts authority committed to the Presbyters) from all his ſins.
Sect. 15 All which yet will not extend to the abſolving from the band of Excommunication, or proportionably to ſuch power of binding, any further (at moſt) then to confer the firſt power of it, which if it be then given, doth yet remain (as the other power of Preaching, and adminiſtring the Sacraments) bound and reſtrained from being exerciſed, till they be further looſed by the donation of a ſecond power, as Luke 24.49. when Chriſt ſent them the Promiſe of his Father, which was at the time of his breathing on them, Joh. 20.22. and gave them a foreign, a grace, or firſt power of it, he yet reſtrains the exerciſe of it, till the actuall deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, (but tarry you in Jeruſalem till you be indued with power from above) and that is not done in this Church as it ſtands eſtabliſhed by Law, (in this particular of the Keys) till he become a foreign, a ruling Elder, whether by being made Biſhop, or otherwiſe by having Juriſdiction veſted on him: and thus much will ſerve turn for the firſt enquiry, on whom the power of the Keyes was beſtowed.