The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 4
Section IV.
The third Hypothesis; that there is no real Disagreement, but a true Concord betwixt the Doctrine of Ignatius and that of the present Presbyterians.
I Now come to the third Hypothesis, and assert that Ignatius is not so clear and positive in the Matter of Episcopacy, as to denude Presbyterians of all rational Defence, should they acquiesce in his Judgement, and therein join with their Antagonists who still appeal to his Determination. For all he speaks of Presbyters as distinguished from Bishops may well be mean'd of these who are call'd Ruling Elders, and that there was such an Office in the primitive Church is made evident by what is commonly brought from Origen, Tertullian, Optatus, the African Code, and Augustine, frequently distinguishing them from preaching Presbyters. And Purpurius expresly terms them Ecclesiasticos Viros, Ecclesiastick Men: In vain therefore object Petavius and others that these were only Church-Wardens not properly Ecclesiasticks. And indeed the Ancients not only tell us there was such an Office, but also plainly assert that, through pride and haughtiness of the Church Doctors, this Custom was abolished, as Ambrose, or rather Hilary sufficiently witnesses. The Synagogue (saith heaCom. In. Ep. prior. ad Tim. Cap. 5. Vnde & Synagoga & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine Consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit, nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desidia, aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri.) and afterward the Church, had Elders, without whose Counsel nothing was to be done in the Church; which, by what negligence was abolished, I know not, except perchance it were through the sloth, or rather the pride of the Church-Doctors, while they desired to carry all the esteem their alone.
§. 2. Doctor Field tells usbField on the Church. Book 5. Cap. 26. That these were not Lay-Elders. Neither, as they themselves well know, do we so term them: but did as the Ancients reckon them among the Ecclesiasticks.
And we assert, that these very Lay-Elders (as he calls them) are understood by Hilary. For first, this Practice of the Christian Church is by Hilary deduced from the Synagogue, wherein there were Elders distinct from the Doctors or Pastors. Secondly, He attributes to the Elders, as their Office, only the Power of Consulting and Deciding, as being Assessors to the Doctors in the management of Church-Affairs, without intimating ought of their Power to dispense the Word and Sacraments. Thirdly, He expresly distinguishes them from all Doctors or Teachers of the Church, and therefore excludes them from all Power of Preaching, or Administration of the Sacraments. But Doctor Field saith that, Ambrose by the name of Teachers, whose sloth and pride he condemneth in this place, might fitly understand the Bishop, seeing none but Bishops have Power to preach in their own Right, and others but only by Permission from them. But this Answer supposes that the time was when Bishop, Teacher and Doctor, were reciprocal Terms, and that whoever had the Charge of never so small a Flock was the Bishop thereof: for who can believe, that ever any receiv'd the Charge of a Flock, to whom he was only to preach, and dispense the Sacraments as a Journey-man to another? Lastly, When Hilary speaks in the preterit Tense that the Church had such, tells that their Office consisted in being Assessors to the Teachers, and says that the use of these was laid aside, he clearly intimats that the Elders he speaks of, were well nigh abolished, and then scarce in Being Which by no means can be said of the preaching Presbyters. For let Bishops be not only as proud as Dr. Field would have them, but even as Lucifer himself, yet most certain it is that long after Hilarie's time, the Bishops in all weighty Affairs used, at least, to consult the Presbyters, and that both then and still afterward, preaching Presbyters were existent. But herein I will not inlarge. See their Glosses of both Scriptures & Fathers, whereby we vouch this Matter removed, to name no others, by Didoclavius cAlt▪ Dam. Page 917. & sequentes., to which I find nothing replyed. This clear Proof that there were in the primitive Church other Elders, distinct from those preaching Presbyters, who in the time of the Apostles, not much distant from that of Ignatius, were dignifi'd with the name of Bishop, furnisheth us with an Answer sufficient alone to solve whatsoever they can deduce from these Epistles. Their only Argument is that Ignatius distinguishes between Bishop and Presbyter, why then by Bishop may we not understand a Pastor of one Congregation, and under the name of Presbyter a Ruling Elder? They can only repone that Ignatius mentions but one Bishop of any City he wrote to, which yet required more than one Pastor. But one Man may be called the Bishop or Pastor of such a place, altho' he be placed in a Colledge; where a Plurality equally participats of the pastoral Charge and Honour: and that this Answer may please them the better, I shall give them Ignatius for my Patron herein; who, writing to the Romans, expresly termeth himselfdforeign &c. Bishop of Syria, to whose Charge, even our Adversaries being Judges, Antioch (only) one City thereof, was committed. 'Tis moreover certain and granted by our Adversaries, that there was even in one City frequently a Plurality of Bishops. But tho' 'twere yeelded that neither Scripture nor Antiquity favour these Ruling Elders, and therefore that these Ignatian Presbyters must be something else, we are yet where we were.
§. 3. Our inquiry is after a Diocesan Bishop, we're sent to Ignatius to find him, but all, after the strickest search, we meet with, is only a Bishop or Pastor of one single Congregation as these ensuing Places proclaim.
Let none (saith heeEp. ad Smyrnaeos. foreign—foreign &c. do any of these things that ought to be practised in the Church without the Bishop, let that Worship be counted Lawfull that is performed by him; or which he (at least) has permitted, wheresoever the Bishop is, there let also the Multitude be present, even as where Christ is, there is also the Church: it is not lawfull either to Baptize or Celebrate the Lord's Supper without the Bishop, but whatsoever he alloweth, that is acceptahle to God, that whatsoever is done may be established. From which Passage it's evident that Ignatius supposes and allowes one of these Bishops to each particular Flock or Congregation; without whose Presence the Word and Sacraments were not to be dispensed: and altho' he adds that in some Case his Allowance or Approbation did warrant the practising thereof; yet I'm sure none can Infer any thing therefrom except that at some rare times, when the Bishop happen'd to be absent from his particular Flock (which uses to fall out to every particular Pastor) another approved by him might, untill his return to his Congregation, discharge his Office. And againfAd Polycarpum—foreign. Let there be (saith he) frequent Gatherings of your selves together or Congregations. Inquire thou (speaking to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna) or seek after every Man by his Name, neglect neither servants nor hand-maids. From whence it's clear, that this Ignatian B…shop was particularly to be acquainted with, and have particular Inspection of every one who was under his Charge; which I'm sure cannot be easily performed by a Diocesan Bishop; but is proper only to a Pastor of a particular Congregation: or who can forbear to conclude as much from another Passage of the same Author, where he saithgAd Ephesios. foreign &c. Whosoever is not within the Altar is deprived of the Bread of God, for if the Prayers of one or two have so much efficacy, of how much weight must these be that are put up by the Bishop and the whole Church. Sure I am, the genius and ayr of this Passage, proclaims Ignatius speaking of such a Bishop or Pastor, as is under a Tye reciprocal between him and one particular Flock or Congregation. And againhIbidem. foreign &c. In obedience to the Bishop, break-Bread, which is the Medicine of Immortality. Neither is he a greater Friend to Diocesan Prelacy, while he admonisheth the Church of Philadelphia in these wordsiAd Philadelphicos. foreign &c. Children of the Light and of the Truth, fly Divisions and Corrupt Doctrines, and wherever the Pastor (viz. the Bishop) is, thither you as Sheep follow him. And againkIbidem. foreign &c. One Flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ, and one Cup in the Vnion of his Blood, one Altar and one Bishop. Add to all this, that Ignatius every where in these Epistles, speaks to, and of the Bishop; as a correlative of, and with respect unto the People or Flock, and not Presbyters or inferiour Pastors, as the proper Object of his Episcopal Office. Seeing then all the Pastors of any Church he writes to, might equally be term'd Bishop or Pastor of such a place; seeing whatsoever he saith to or of Bishops, hath a particular reference to the Flock or People; and seeing, finally, so many things spoken by Ignatius of these Bishops, can agree only to Congregational Pastors; I conclude, that by these Ignatian Bishops, not Diocesan Prelats, but Pastors of particular Flocks, not only may but of necessity must be understood. And it's further observable that Preaching, Visiting of particular Persons and the rest of the Pastoral Work is either injoin'd unto, or clearly intimated to belong to the Bishop only, but nothing to the Presbyters, save sitting in Council with him. Now if our Opposites insist on their contrary Argument from the largeness of the Cities, and from this that Ignatius still speaks but of one Bishop therein, and hence conclude that he must be Diocesan; the result of all must be a sharper Conflict between Ignatius and himself, and so a fuller proof of the spuriousness of these Epistles, it being evident from what is adduc'd that this Bishop was only a Pastor of a single Congregation, yea so evident that it hath puzl'd the learn'dest of our Opposites.
§. 4. Of this mind is Joseph Mede. lProof for Churches in the second Century. Pages 28, 29.For speaking of these Ignatian Epistles, It should seem (saith he) that in these first times before Dioceses were divided into those lesser and subordinate Churches, we now call Parishes, and Presbyters assigned to them) they had not only one Altar in one Church, or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithfull, united under one Bishop or Pastor; and that was in the City and Place where the Bishop had his See and Residence: like as the Jews had but one Altar and one Temple for the whole Nation united under one High-Priest. And yet, as the Jews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one, tho' their Altar were but one; there namely where the Bishop was. On Sunday (saith Justin Martyr) all that live in Towns or in the Country meet together in one Place; namely, as he there tells us, to celebrate and participate the Holy Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celebrate in? And unless this were so, whence came it else that a schismatical Bishop was said to set up another Altar; and that a Bishop and an Altar are made Correlatives? See St. Cyprian Ep. 40. 72. 73. Et de unitate Ecclesiae. And thus perhaps is Ignatius also to be understood in that forequoted Passage of his, foreign &c. Where 'tis clear that Mr. Mede well perceived the thing we now plead for in Ignatius, viz. that this Bishop was only the Pastor of a single Flock. Indeed fear to offend his Friends, or something else, made him say so little as he could, and something that he ought not to have said while he would parallel this Altar with that of the Jews: yet he's express enough that all subject to the Bishop met in one place for Participation of the Sacraments, and consequently for hearing of the Word; and moreover really acknowledgeth that Dioceses then were only what Parishes are now, and if so, tho' they had other Oratories 'tis nothing to the purpose of our Opposits, which yet his (perhaps) proves him afraid to assert. For he knew well enough, that, seeing, as he grants, all under his Charge took their Communion with the Bishop at his Church, which, as every one knows, was then Celebrated (at least) every Lord's day, any other Oratories for publick Worship had been altogether unnecessary; with which superfluities the Church in these early and tempestuous days was not at all acquainted. In vain therefore Dr. Maurice, mDefence of Diocesan Episcopacy. Pag. 37. and 38.that he may at once abuse both Mede and Ignatius, tells us that Altar in the primitive sense signified not only the Communion Table but the whole Place where the Chair of the Bishop and the Seats of the Presbyters were placed: and in this sense there was but one Altar in one Diocess, as there is now but one Consistory, as is clear from Ignatius and Usher. And to be in one Altar, which is Ignatius his Phrase is only to be in Communion with the Bishop. And this Dr. Maurice would have to be Mede's meaning thereof. But the falshood of this is not only evident from Ignatius, who all along (as we have seen) reciprocats his Bishop with the Pastor of a particular Flock, but also from Mede's express words, as we have already observed from them. I pass as scarce good sense Dr. Maurice his saying that Altar not only signified the Communion Table, but the whole place of the Bishop's Chair &c. The Dispute not being what place or thing in a Church, Altar signifi'd, but if thereby in Ignatius one or more places for publick Worship be meaned: yea this my sense of Ignatius, Doctor Wake nGenuine Epistles of the Apostolick Fathers. Pages 183, 184.seems to grant, while he says, speaking of these Ignatian times, that none officiated but either the Bishop himself or he who was appointed or allow'd by him, and that they had in every such Place of their Assembling, one Table, or Altar at which they performed this Service. We have heard already Mede rightly observing out of Ignatius, that the Altar or Communion Table was (only) at the Bishop's Residence, and where he officiated. And we see from Dr. Wake that in every place of solemn Worship they had an Altar or Communion Table. The Conclusion then is, which we also already heard Mede acknowledging, that there were then no fewer Bishops than Places of publick Worship, which is the Truth, and what we conclude from Ignatius.
And to these add the words of one who is neither unskillfull in these Matters, nor yet Partial in favours of Presbytry. In the beginning (saith heoDr. Burnet on the 1. and 2. of the Apost. can. Page 51.) the Bishops whole Charge was called foreign, and by the strain of Ignatius his Epistles, especially that to Smyrna, it would appear, that there was but one Church, at least but one Place, where there was one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes, for he saith, there was one Bishop, one Church and one Altar. And now judge of the symphony of this Assertion, with the Principles of the Author, or how he could averrpConfer. Page 314. that if these Epistles be Genuine the Cause of Presbytry will be undone. But of all things most strange and unaccountable is Dr. Pearson's Conduct in the Dispute, who with indefatigable pains and vast learning wrote his Defence of Ignatius to the end (as he pretends) he might well nigh infallibly establish a Diocesan Bishop; and yet has proved so far from hitting the white at which he ultimately levell'd, that on supposition of the sufficiency of his Vindiciae, he most sufficiently demonstrats the Identity of Bishop and parochial Pastor during the time of Ignatius, and thus inavoidably ruines what he most earnestly intended to repair. And now behold the vast Fabrick and Engine wherewith they threaten the utter Ruine of Presbytry turning upon and shattering to pieces their Dio cesan Hierarchy.
—Nec enim Lex justior ulla,
Quam necis Artifices arte perire sua.