Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 3 · Section 7 – Section 8
Sect. VII.
The Teſtimonies of Ambroſe and Auſtin. Conſignare uſed for conſecrating the Euchariſt, and that belonged to the Biſhop when preſent.
THere now followes in the next place the paſſage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambroſe on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Epiſcopacy 'twas not held unlawfull for a Presbyter to ordeine without a Biſhop, they urge out of St. Ambroſe theſe words, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri conſignant, ſi praeſens non ſit Epiſcopus, In Aegypt the Presbyters conſigne, if the Biſhop be not preſent. And the like out of Auſtine (or whoſoever was the Author) in Quaeſt. ex utroque Teſtam. Qu. 101. In Alexandria & per totam Aegyptum, ſi deſit Epiſcopus, conſecrat Presbyter, In Alexandria and through all Aegypt, if the Biſhop be wanting, the Presbyter conſecrates. And having done ſo, they adde, which words cannot be underſtood (as a—defender of Prelacy would have them) of the Conſecration of the Euchariſt; For this might be done by the Presbyter praeſente Epiſcopo, the Biſhop being preſent, but it muſt be underſtood either of confirmation, or (which is more likely) of ordination, becauſe Ambroſe in that place is ſpeaking of Ordination.
To this I ſhall briefly reply, 1. That it is ſure enough, & granted by the moſt eminent Presbyterians, that theſe two Books, whence theſe Teſtimonies are cited, were not written either by Ambroſe or Auſtine, but by ſome other (Hilarius Sardus, ſaith Blondel) and unjuſtly inſerted among their works, and then the authority of ſuch ſuppoſititious pieces will not be great to over-rule any practice otherwiſe acknowledged in the Church of God.
Secondly, that the miſtakes of Blondel and Salmaſius, concerning the meaning of the former of theſe places, were ſo evidently diſcovered by the ſecond of them (the conſignant in the one, interpreted by conſecrat in the other) that I conceived it ſufficient, but to name them, For can there be any thing more unqueſtionable than this, that conſecrare in antient writers ſignifies the Conſecration of the Euchariſt? And then if conſignare be a more obſcure phraſe is there any doubt, but it muſt be interpreted by that which is ſo much more vulgar and plaine? and all the circumſtances beſides being exactly the ſame in both places, what doubt can there be, but in both, the words are to be underſtood of the Euchariſt?
Yet becauſe ſome advantage was by this their miſunderſtanding ſought to the Preſbyterians cauſe, they now reſolve; and inſiſt, that it muſt not be rectified, though they know not which to apply it to, Confirmation or Ordination, and pretend not to produce any Teſtimony, where conſecrare is ever uſed for the latter, or conſignare for either of them. And indeed*Apol. p. 57. Blondel and†Appar. ad. lib. de Prim. Salmaſius were yet more uncertaine, for they thought it might alſo belong to the benediction of Penitents, and that as probable as either of the two former; And when the truth is rejected, thus it is wont to be.
As for the onelyonly reaſon which inclines them to confine it to Ordination; becauſe Ambroſe in that place is speaking of Ordination, if the place be review'd, it will not be found to have truth in it; He ſpeakes immediately before of the ſeverall Miniſteriall Acts, Preaching and Baptizing, adding indeed that Scripta Apoſtoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi, quae nunc in Eccleſia eſt, The writings of the Apoſtle doe not in all things agree to the Order, which is now in the Church. There is mention of Ordinatio indeed, but that ſignifies not Ordination, as we now uſe it for ordaining of Miniſters, but manifeſtly the foreign, the rule, or order uſed in the Church, in ſeverall reſpects, ſaith he, different from what it was in the writings of the Apoſtle.
And for their objection againſt my interpretation, that it cannot be underſtood of conſecrating the Euchariſt, [becauſe this the Presbyter might doe when the Biſhop was preſent] If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Antients, the Canons of the Apoſtles, Ignatius ad Magneſ. the 56 Canon of the councell of Laodicaea, and Tertullian, that the Presbyter might not adminiſter either Sacrament without the Biſhop's appointment, and diſtinctly of this Sacrament: Non de aliorum quam de Praeſidentium manu Euchariſtiam ſumimus, we receive it not from the hands of any but the Praeſidents, i. e. (in his ſtyle) the Biſhops, Tertull: de Cor. Mil. they could never have thought this a reaſonable Objection, It being evidently the ſenſe of the Antient Canons, (to which the deſcription of the practice in Juſtin Martyr doth perfectly agree, Apol. 2.) that onelyonly the Biſhop had power to conſecrate the Euchariſt, and in his abſence onelyonly, the Presbyter, to whom he gave that power.
Had they been pleaſed to have taken notice of theſe Canons and antient Records, punctually ſet downe by mee in that place, it muſt certainly have prevented this their exception, and utterly robbed them of thoſe two Teſtimonies to that Propoſition. And as to that of the Alexandrian Biſhops out of Hierome, that is alſo largely anſwered by me, Diſſert. 3 c. 10. but that againe they were reſolved not to take notice of.
Sect. VIII.
Of the Chorepiſcopi.
THere ſtill remaines one mention of me, upon occaſion of the Chorepiſcopi or Regionary Biſhops, Append. p. 138. Of that ſubject they are ſomewhat large, and ſo D. Blondel had been before them, and in anſwering him, all their pretenſions from thence, and that whole argument (by them purſued. P. 135. 136, 137. 138.) is punctually anſwered, before it was produced, Diſſert. 3. c. 8.
And yet they go on roundly, as if there were no ſuch thing, onelyonly in the cloſe they adde, There is another whom we forbeare to name, that ſaith that the Chorepiſcopi were Biſhops. But hee addes, though they were Biſhops, yet they were made but by one Biſhop, and Biſhops meerly titular and ſine Cathedrâ, which is all one as if he ſhould ſay, they were not properly Biſhops.
That which is ſaid of the Chorepiſcopi in the Diſſertations is too long to be here ſo impertinently repeted, If the Reader pleaſe to conſult the place, I have no feare that he will returne unſatisfied in any thing that is by theſe men objected againſt Praelacy from that head. A Dilemma is there uſed, which, whether they were Biſhops or no, will certainly ſecure us.
As to their preſent argument againſt me, I anſwer, that what I ſay of thoſe Chorepiſcopi, is, not that they were Biſhops meerly titular, but that they were Proxies or vicarii of the Biſhop of the City, acting by Commiſſion from him in the Region or Countrey, and were under the Biſhop of the City and Ordained by him, and ſo were true Biſhops, but not of the Cities, had Ordination as other Biſhops had, though three Biſhops were not by the Canon required to the ordaining of ſuch, but onelyonly that one Biſhop of the City, whoſe Proxy or Vicarius the Chorepiſcopus was: Biſhops in caſes of neceſſity, ordeined ſine titulo, without a title or City to which they were affixt, and for ſome time allowed to ordeine Presbyters and Deacons in the Countrey, and to doe ſome other things in the Biſhop's ſtead.
All which is ſo largely ſet downe in the Diſſertations, and vindicated ſo abſolutely from ſerving the Presbyterians intereſt, that I muſt not for ever doe the ſame thing againe, tranſcribe what is there ſaid abundantly, and nothing here objected againſt it, but that what I affirme of them, makes them to be not poperly Biſhops. Where if by properly Biſhiops they meane Biſhops of Cities, they ſay very true, for I affirme them to be, as their title aſſures me they were, Regionary Biſhops, Vicarii and Proxies to the City Biſhop.
But that they were mere Presbyters, and no more, and by their being Presbyters had the Power to Ordeine other Presbyters (which alone is the Presbyterians taske to make good, if they will have it uſefull to the proofe of their concluſion, their*Append p. 133 4. Propoſition, That Presbyters, during the Prevalency of Epiſcopacy, had not onelyonly an inherent power of Ordination, but in ſome caſes did actually ordeine) this they doe not undertake to make good againſt the diſcourſe in the Diſſertations; And therefore I have no excuſe to make any larger reply to them.
The Concluſion.
I Have now gone through every part of my deſigned Method, and not omitted one intimation of theirs, wherein I could thinke my ſelfe concerned; And that it may appeare that I ſhould not have choſen this, as a ſeaſon, to begin any debate concerning a ſubject ſo forgotten in men's minds as Epiſcopacy is, I ſhall thus conclude the Readers trouble, without examining what elſe they ſay on this ſubject; having, I hope, competently ſecured my ſelfe from the Opinion of having formerly attempted to ſeduce any, ſo little either to his or my owne advantage.
THE END.