in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian but will not trouble my self or Reader with them He that is curious and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People may take Aventinus into his Hands and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops and governed by Presbyters only It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly but however as he goes along he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops even before they were brought into subjection to Rome CHAP. XIX Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors and continued down to our own Times This Doctrine says Mr. O. meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop hath been maintained also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors both of the Roman and Protestant Communion both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us All I am concerned for is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records at or since the Reformation For 't is nothing to me if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer much less of the Dissenters whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea My design is upon Mr. O. himself and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government Mr. O. has alledged three against us the little Treatise commonly called The Bishops Book another called The Institution of a Christian Man and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet the late Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Irenicum all which as I shall prove belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII and whatever Opinions are there to be met with are not to be imputed to our first Reformers at least not as their fixed and settled Judgment for I reckon that in Hen. VIII's Days the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb newly conceived not brought forth that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born and in its Swadling Cloths and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity that it has yet been able to attain unto during which Queens Government something also is objected to us which shall be examined in its Order The Bishop's Book was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments the Creed and the Grounds of Religion fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction 'T was composed by sundry Bishops of whom Cranmer was chief by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII in the Year 1537. established by Parliament and Printed by Tho. Barthelet with this Title The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man Out of this Book Fox has furnished us with this following Passage That there is no mention made neither in the Scripture nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor or Author of the Church being within the Times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or constitute any Distinction or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves and the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power c. and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church From hence Mr. O. has gathered for he refers to Fox's Martyrology that these Bishops the Authors of that Book affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Ans. This Deduction is downright false and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words The design of that Prince at that time was to throw off the Pope and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed that as the Apostles were equal among themselves so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times or according to Jerom that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Archbishops and particularly the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops particularly not over the English only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake But from the beginning it was not so Here is not one word of Presbyters or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops Now that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book I appeal to what I find elsewhere taken thence by Mr. Strype How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope but to the King's Laws That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel in matters Civil and Moral but by Grant and Gift of Princes that it was always and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes with the Consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call again into their Hands or otherwise to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given and permitted by their Authority and Assent and Sufferance without which if the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop whatsoever should take upon them any Authority or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil that Bishop is not worthy the Name is an Usurper and Subverter of the Kingdom That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church as well as that of Rome That there is no difference in Superiority Preeminence or Authority of one Bishop over another But they be all of equal Power and Dignity and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome The Equality here spoken of in the beginning and in the latter end of this Period is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church but between Bishop and Bishop Church and Church and particularly that no Church that of England especially is subject to Rome And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops such Priests
in the New 〈◊〉 there is no mention of other degrees and Distinctions of Persons in Orders that is of Persons Ordained by Imposition of Hands except Deacons and Presbyters For Bishops were not consecrated again by any express appointment in Scripture according to the prevailing opinion of those times 'T is lastly to be observed that in the necessary doctrine c. that we read that Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor ever had Power Authority and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Scripture 't is in the Latin Translation added cetrosque Inferiores Episcopos aut Presbyteros which makes no alteration For who is there that believes not that the Archbishop of York has no Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Chester nor over the Presbyters of this Diocess but what is given him by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Law of the Land for Peace and Orders sake But 't is worthy our Notice that in the K's Book as is before at large set down Orders or Ordination is taught to be A Divine Gift or Grace given by the Imposition of the Bishops Hands That the Apostles gave this Grace and appointed the Bishops after them to do the like What need we any more Here are Bishops having the Power of Ordaining distinguished from the Ordained sc. Priests and Deacons But when all is said and whatever Sense any Man shall think fit to put upon these passages out of the King 's and Bishop's Book I make little account of At best they express the Mind and Opinion of Hen. 8th Cranmer and other Bishops who were all still ingag'd and held fast in the Toils of Popish Errors and Superstitions all their Design hitherto in these Books being only to cast off the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope For the Rest they continued yet Papists all over Cranmer himself who was chiefly imployed in drawing up these Books still retained his old Errors and Prejudices suck'd in with his Milk and continued Zealous for the Corporal Presence even to the last Year of Hen. 〈◊〉 In the necessary Doctrine publish'd 1543. 't was taught that in the Ave Mary the Blessed Virgin is Honoured and Worshipped that the reading the Old and New Testament is not so necessary as of Duty the People ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Polity of the Realm shall think convenient that the Publick Law of the Realm had so restrained it The seven Sacraments are in the Book its self asserted and explained Prayers for the dead recommended upon the Authority of the Book of Maccabees and of the Ancient Doctors in Masses and Exequies Now this is an hopeful Book to establish Protestant Doctrines by and thence to affirm the Protestant Church of England was of the Mind there were no more Officers in the Church than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons At best the Reformation was but now on the Anvil and Cranmer and the other Reformers were but Hammering it out by Degrees Nor can we believe they always or at that very time declared their own Opinions fully and freely Hen. VIII was an Haughty and Sturdy Prince impatient of any Oppósition and resolved to assume unto himself all the Popes Usurped Powers Cranmer and his Associates thought it a good step towards their Design if they could but shake off the Tyranny of the Pope hoping after this point once gain'd they might in good time compass their whole Design and establish the Church upon the sure Foundations of Truth To please then the Humour of the King and gratify his Pride it must be declar'd and acknowledged forsooth by the Bishops when they took out their Commissions as Cranmer himself did more than once that all Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical flowed from the King that the Bishops Exercised it only by the Kings Courtesie that the King impowred them to Ordain to give Institution and to do all other parts of the Episcopal Function of which Opinion Cranmer himself was Anno 1540 and even in the first of Edward the 6 th or pretended to be In short this Character Dr. Burnet gives of the Archbishop that his greatest weakness was his over Obsequiousness to Hen. VIII There is then no Colour to ascribe any thing we meet with in these Books as the free and settled Judgment of Cranmer much less as the the Doctrine of the English Protestant Church And if any Man shall pretend by these Testimonies to overthrow the Divine Right of Bishops he will be oblig'd to lay aside the Divine Right of Presbyters also who were at the same time and in the same manner subjected to the Will of the King and to the Laws of the Land as any intent Reader may observe from the aforesaid Passages out of the Kings and Bishops Books And so much of this matter The Third Testimony objected against us is the Celebrated MS. in the Irenicum from whence we are informed That Cranmer and other Bishops set forth this to be their judgments that Bishops and Priests were one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion alledging Jerom in Confirmation Ans. I have said enough of Jerom already and need not repeat or apply it here I chuse 1. to present the Reader with some particular account of that MS. before I directly reply to the Objection The King called a Select Convention of Bishops and Learned Doctors at Windsor Castle who were to give their Resolutions of several Questions relating to Religion every one under his own Hand They did so and Cranmer's are particularly 〈◊〉 in the said MS. Those which belong to Our present purpose are Quest. 9. Whether the Apostles lacking an higher Power as not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by necessity or by Authority given them of God Ans. Cranmer All Christian Princes have committed to them immediatly of God the Whole care of all their Subjects concerning the Administration of God's Word for the care of Souls That the Prince has sundry Ministers under him as Bishops Parsons Vicars and other Priests who are appointed by his Highness unto that Ministration That the said Officers and Ministers as well of one sort as of the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and Orders of Kings and Princes That in the Apostle's time when there were no Christian Princes the Ministers of Gods Word were appointed by the consent of the Christian Multitude among themselves That sometimes the Apostles sent and appointed Ministers of God's Word sometimes the People did chuse them and those sent and appointed by the Apostles the People of their own will accepted not for the Supremacy or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to Command as their Princes and Masters but as good People ready to obey the advice of good Consellors Quest. 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first If Priest then the Priest made the Bishop Cr. Ans. The Bishops and Priests were at one time and
of the Title seems to argue the discontinuance of the Office Ans. 1. It is held not without Reason that the name Apostle descended at least upon their next and immediate Successors which some call Secondary Apostles the Inseriour Ministers being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters But in a little time the Apostles Successor laid aside that Title of Apostle out of modesty contenting themselves with that of Bishop and the inferiour Ministers with that of Presbyter To this purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is evidence sufficient in the Scripture of these Secondary Apostles such perhaps was James the Just and 〈◊〉 the Apostle of the Philippians Titus and others are called Apostles 2 Cor. 8. 23. Therefore it may be further observed that the Ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 'em indifferently both Apostles and Bishops as may be seen in Jerom 〈◊〉 and Salvian as Mr. B. informs me It may not here be passed over that in after Ages the Learned Writers often called the Apostles themselves by the Name of Bishop as may be seen in in Cyprian and Hilary and in Eusebius Peter is reckoned the Bishop of Rome in conformity to the Language of their own time when Bishop signify'd the Supreme Officer of a Church This Observation shews clearly that the Apostolical and the Episcopal Office is the same in reality But I answer 2. That the changing of the Title of the Office cannot import the ceasing of the Office Caesar was Emperor by the Title of Perpetual Dictator Augustus his Successor by that of Caesar and the following Emperors by those of Caesar and Augustus though Caesar at length was appropriated to one as yet only designed and named the Emperor's Successor whatever were their Titles they were all Emperors But to come nearer home and to Instance in a Matter more directly to our purpose At the Reformation in Scoltand the Prelatical Rulers of the Churches were stiled Superintendents yet the Office of Bishop was not therefore changed because the Title was The Superintendents had the same Power to inspect the Churches in their own Districts as the Bishops had To conclude the change of the name Apostle into Bishop is no prejudice against the Episcopal Power being the same as the Apostolical was and succeeding into its place It will again be Objected that since Ordinary Presbyters are confest on all hands to succeed the Apostles in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments why not then in the other parts of the Apostolical Office sc. the Ordaining and Governing Power Ans. The Solution of this Difficulty such as it is depends upon Matter of Fact sc. how God was pleased by the Apostles to determine this Point This is not the place to dispute the Question whether the Apostles convey'd their whole Power and Office unto every or to all Presbyters it has I am in hopes been cleared in the Negative both in these and my former Papers but to the Objection I reply that when an Office is attended with Variety of Work it does not follow of necessity that he who succeeds in one part of the Office must be reckoned to succeed in all It cannot be doubted but the Apostles had it in their Power to divide and put the several parts of their Office into several hands and we have an Instance that they did so They made seven Deacons unto whom they committed the care of the poor and distribution of the publick Alms which was before in the Apostles themselves But then no one will say that because the Apostles conferred upon these Seven one part of their Office that therefore they must be understood to have committed to 'em all the rest sc. the Powers of Ordination of Government and of Discipline By parity of Reason though Presbyters succeeded the Apostles and were by them Ordained unto that part of the Apostolical Office viz. Ministring in the Word and Sacraments it will not follow that they also received the whole Apostolical Power that of Ordination Government and Discipline 'T is further Objected That the Apostolical Power extended it self every where the Evangelistical reached to divers places and Countries but it cannot be pretended that the Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction is so large and as it were unlimited 'T is rather confined unto a certain Compass or District as we plainly see for which reason the Bishops are not the Apostles nor the Evangelists Successors Ans. 'T is no hard matter to get over this small Rub. This unlimited Power of the Apostles may be reckoned among their Extraordinary and personal Privileges and so does us no prejudice The Office may be the same though the extent of Power may be more in one than in another The Bishop of Eugubium was as truly a Bishop as the Pope of Rome And Ptolemy was as really and to all intents and purposes King of Aegypt as Alexander had been of that and many other vast Kingdoms and Provinces and as he was really a King so he was really Alexander's Successor also For who will say that William 〈◊〉 was not Will. the Conqueror's Successor because he succeeded him not in the Dukedom of Normandy as well as the Kingdom of England We see by these Examples that one may have several Successors into several parts of their Jurisdiction How large soever the Diocess of the Apostles or Evangelists was yet the Bishops may be their Successors unto some parts of their Jurisdiction Among the Romans they who inherited any part of the Decedent's Estate were they few or were they many were all called Haeredes and distinguished according to the Proportion allotted them Hence we read of Haeredes ex deunce ex quadrante ex semuncia ex semisse as well as Haeres ex asse who inherited all But what if after all this every Bishops Power extends it self through the whole World being not in its own nature limited and fixt to any one single District Some have thought so and upon good ground too After many other Reasons and Evidences of the Universal Power of Bishops given by Mr. B. p. 56. It seems to 〈◊〉 a strong Argument for it that Bishops in Synods have ever exercised their Power in other Diocesses as well as in their own I do not see by what Authority Bishops in Councils could take upon 'em to correct the Miscarriages of particular Bishops within their own Diocesses to remove the Heretical or Schismatical to restore the unjustly deprived to confirm the Customs and Polity of single Churches except on this one Principle That every Bishop is a Bishop of the Church Universal and has an inherent Power over all the World and every where 'T is true it must at the same time be 〈◊〉 that for Peace and Order's sake and to the end the Churches may be certainly taken care of Bishops are limited to some particular Diocess as to the constant and Ordinary Administration of Church Affairs and one Bishop is not suffered to interlope in anothers District
viz. consisting of three distinct Orders of Ministers the Title only of the Supreme Governours haply excepted and so continued after him as I said unto the time of Ignatius And Lastly having answered all the Objections raised against our Episcopal Government by Mr. O. in his Book Entituled A Plea c. So many of 'em I mean as seemed to carry any weight in them and concerned the times within the Compass of which I have confin'd my self hitherto that 's to say the Apostolical Age. After all this it remains that I consider the Arguments which to the same purpose he was drawn from Ecclesiastical History beginning where the Scripture ends and so descending unto these last Ages before which time Episcopacy was never brought into Question for Fifteen Hundred Years save by one Arch-Heretick Aërius of whom more hereafter My Adversary indeed thinks he has found in Old Authors many Instances favouring the Presbyterian Identity and Parity and Ordination by Presbyters This is now to be Examined If my Answers shall be thought Old I have this excuse for my self that the Objections are old also and in such a Case it is pardonable if not necessary especially when an Adversary demands and even duns yea and reproaches one for not having already undertaken it I pretend not then to make new discoveries never heard of before in the Controversy now before us though haply some few things not observed before may be here offered to the Reader but to apply the proper Answers unto the Old Objections wherewith Mr. O. has endeavoured to embroil and perplex the Truth I will not tie my self unto his Method which is not so well fitted to my design it being my purpose to Manage the Dispute only 〈◊〉 Matters of Fact which being once cleared from countenancing the Presbyterian or Congregational Polities Mr. O's Syllogisms will and must fall to the Ground I will then digest and dispose all his Authorities and my Replies to 'em though not exactly for the controversy 〈◊〉 not on the Niceties of Chronology yet pretty near to the Order of Time to which they belong I begin with the Epistle of Clemens Romanus unto the Church of Corinth which is the best Colourable Argument the Dissenters do or can bring for themselves CHAP. I. Of the Testimony of Clemens Romanus THE substance of what Mr. O. argues from this Epistle against Prelatical Episcopacy and in favour of Presbyterian Parity is whereas I affirm in T. N. Clement seems to make the Jewish High-Priest the Inferior Priests and Levites a Precedent for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons That Clement no where saith there were those three distinct Officers in the Christian Church Or that the Jewish Government was a Pattern of the Christian That Clement mentions but two Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons That He calls these Bishops Presbyters That they governed the Church of Corinth in common That He mentions no chief Bishop there That he exhorts the Corinthians to be subject unto their Elders That Clement ought to be expounded by Scripture Philip. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. In both which places two only Orders are to be met with That Clement does not intend to affirm there were three kinds of Officers in the Christian Church as in the Mosaical but only that both the one and the other Church that is the Mosaical with three Orders and the Christian with two were both established by the same Divine Authority Unto all which it 's reply'd 1. I readily grant Clement no where expresly affirms there were three distinct Orders in the Christian Church or that the High-Priests Priests and Levites in the Jewish Church were the Pattern of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian. Thus much is granted Nevertheless what I cited him for may be true and is so sc. That He seems to make the Jewish Government the Pattern of the Christian as we are wont to argue from him comparing the one with the other One would think this joined with Jerom's Testimony cited with it in T. N. pag. 1. were sufficient to warrant me thus modestly to 〈◊〉 that Clement seems to 〈◊〉 the Jewish Government a Pattern of the Christian which others before me have done as Dr. H. in his Dissertations and Dr. 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. c. l. 2. e. 11. But Mr. Mede deserves particularly to be taken notice of who has more than once declared his Judgment in this matter Let us hear him teaching us that In things for which we find no rule given in the New Testament there we are referred and left to the Analogy of the Old He instances in St. Paul arguing for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 in Infant Baptism in hallowing the first Day of the Week in the three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons asserted by Jerom to be derived from 〈◊〉 his Sons and the Levites and Lastly in this Passage of St. Clement to the same purpose Once more He Expounds those Words in Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians We ought to do all things in Order as the Lord has commanded putting the Question to himself thus Where has the Lord commanded this and answering himself thus In the Analogy of the Old Testament Now Clement in the next following parts of his Epistle treats in general of the time when the Christian Ministrations were to be performed the place where and the Persons by whom If then the Analogy of the Law was a Divine Commission unto the Christians if the Temple of the Jews a Precedent of the Christian Churches if the Jewish Sabbath of the Christian Lord's-Day why not the Levitical three Orders of the Christian 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons But that which is of most moment is that many other Fathers following Clement as Jerom Synesius Cyprian and Firmilianus of whom I have spoken elsewhere did not forget to allude or appeal to the Law of Moses in confirmation of the three Orders of Church-Officers among the Christians St. Cyprian said He had a Divine Law to punish his rebellious Deacon Quoting Deut. 17. 12. Numb 16. 1. Here He thinks himself invested with the same Authority as Aaron was and through Aaron to have received it from God The like we meet with in several other Epistles And indeed the names Sacerdos Sacerdotium Altare Sacrificium Oblationes c. so familiarly used by the Ancients and by our Clement himself to express the Christian Officers and Offices imply as much It may then with Reason be supposed that Clement intended the same 2. As I acknowledge Clement did not totidem verbis assert the Orders so I observe that though He expresly mentions two only yet he affirms no where that there were two only kinds of Officers in the Church of 〈◊〉 and no more Or thus though he mentions two only yet he denies not expresly but that there might be a third 3. I join issue with Mr. O. that Clement ought to be
limited district and even Ordain Presbyters and Deacons when expresly delegated thereto by the Diocesan that they refided in some Country Villages where their Ordinary and constant Work was no other than of Presbyters and so were look'd on as the Diocesans Presbyters which can by no means prejudice their Episcopal Character One may be a Bishop yet without a Diocess as one may be a Presbyter without a Title or Parish The Council of Laodicea thought fit to put an end unto this Order so did the Romans and Spanish Churches as also the English Haply the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Archdeacons might have the Title of Chorepiscopi for some while continued to them being substituted in their room but this is no proof that they were Presbyters at their first Institution when the real Episcopal Character was 〈◊〉 on them though no Diocess was yet actually allotted them This is what I thought needful and enough to be offered in Answer to the Difficulties started about the Chorepiscopi As for that Epistle to 〈◊〉 it shall suffice to note that 't is one of those which are accounted Spurious as may be Collected from Bellarmin himself whose Judgment is ejus scripta non extant exceptis paucis Epistolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suns inter Epistolds S. Hieronymi aliique in Hiftorid 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 22. l. 5. c. 10. 11. The rest therefore and this in particular are Apocryphal It was possibly counterfeited by some that lived after the Council of Hispalis there being a very great Agreement between this Epistle and that 7th Canon of the Council as who ever will read them must confess We shall not need therefore to be concerned at any thing brought against us out of this connterfeit Epistle CHAP. IX Of the Council of Nice MRO. as if all Antiquity were on his side omits not to argue even from the Council of Nice its self in favour of the Power of Presbyters Ordaining which is a discovery so new and surprizing that one would 〈◊〉 the Whole Chriftian Church had been blind above these 1300. Years last paft till he with the help of Mr. Baxter has been pleas'd to open all our Eyes at last and to assure us that the Council of Nice decree'd concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius at 〈◊〉 as follows Hi autem Qui Dei Gratia nostris lege vestris precibus adjuti ad 〈◊〉 Scbisma deflexisse compersi sunt sed se intra Catholica Apostolicae 〈◊〉 fines ab erroris Labe vacuos continuerint Authoritatem 〈◊〉 tum Ministros 〈◊〉 c Mr. O. has taken this Passage out of Mr. Baxter and he out of some Translator that did not or would not understand the Historian aright The Words are part of a Letter wrote by the Nicene Fathers to the Church of Alexandria wherein they gave an Account to that Church of what had been propounded and examined in the Synod and what had been decreed and confirmed therein as first That the Impiety of Arrius and his Accomplices had been brought into Question and condemned c. that as for Melitius it pleased the Synod to deal more gently with him than with Arrius viz. that he should remain in his own City but that he should have no Power to Ordain or to propose the names of the Candidates to the holy Function only he might retain the bare Title of his Honour that is of Bishop that those who had been constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him being first confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more solemn and Religious Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop of Alexandria might be allowed to joyn in matters properly belonging to them but that until they had obtained their Honour and Ministry again they should be second unto all those who in every Diocess and Church have been before proposed under the Authority of our most beloved Collegue Alexander And moreover should have no Power to propound the Names of those who are subject to Alexander nor in short to do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop of the Catholick Church of Alexandria This is all the Nicene Synod wrote concerning the Melitians or those who had been constituted and Ordained by Melitius Here 's not a Syllable of Presbyters or of Ordaining Ministers the passage may as well and is to be 〈◊〉 of Bishops and of Ordaining Bishops But for the more thorough understanding it we must remember that Melitius whilst Peter was Patriarch of Alexandria had been Bishop of Lycus a City in Egypt subject to the said Patriarch that during the Persecution under Maximinus Peter absconding Melitius had taken upon him to constitute or Ordain Bishops which belonged unto the Patriarch to do 'T is not indeed doubted but that he Ordained Presbyters and Deacons also nevertheless his first and Principal Crime as I believe was his Constituting or Ordaining Bishops which was a manifest invasion of the Patriarch's Right And that 〈◊〉 constituted and Ordained Bishops is proved by Valesius out of Epiphanius Nay the said Learned Annotator Evinces that Melitius constituted or Ordained Twenty Eight Bishops besides Five Presbyters and Three Deacons as he gathers from the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians from whence he makes no scruple to affirm that Socrates in this place speaks chiefly of Bishops constituted or Ordained by 〈◊〉 yet so as that Presbyters and Deacons also were 〈◊〉 by him 〈◊〉 says he if the Nicene Fathers hid herein decreed nothing against the Melitian 〈◊〉 they had left their work very lame and imperfect Besides 〈◊〉 became Schismatical not by Ordaining Presbyters but by Ordaining Bishops Hence Sozomen observes that Melitius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had usurp'd the Power of Ordaining which did not all belong unto him The Power of Ordaining whom Why not Bishops For till by this means he was fallen into 〈◊〉 he had certainly as Bishop Power to 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons but not of Ordaining or 〈◊〉 Bishops without the 〈◊〉 leave And this was I suppose if not his only fault yet his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore when the Nicene Fathers decreed that the 〈◊〉 who had been constituted and Ordained by 〈◊〉 might not intermeddle in the constituting or Ordaining others until themselves had been confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more Solemn imposition of Hands they must thereby mean that the Melitian Bishops being Ordained Schismatically were suspended from Ordaining until they had been confirmed by the Patriarch and some of the Egyptian Bishops subject to him And this is all that the Synod declar'd concerning the Melitians But neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Baxter for any thing I can see in the Plea have taken any Notice of this Passage 〈◊〉 whereof we are amus'd with something less Pertinent to the matter in Hand as I am now about to shew For the Nicene Fathers go on in that Epistle to speak of the Alexandrians that is such as had not withdrawn themselves from Alexander the
haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England in Subordination to and by the Popes Authority not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate and that in Civil and Moral Matters only The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another if haply it be another Book entituled The Institution of a Christian Man drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII and the Parliament and commanded to be Preached Out of this Book afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess Mr. O. cites as follows in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum Which Words it must be confessed look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight Ans. In the first place I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this and some other Books of the same nature and written with the same design The Bishops Book otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man of which before came forth again two Years after sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man Printed also by Barthelet That this also was once more Published in Engglish and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book according to the Custom of those Times though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer but called The King's Book because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation added to it by way of Preface and assumed to himself the being the Author of it Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book Entituled The Bishops Book because framed by them I guess it the same with that I first spoke of and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book but Entituled The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book going under this Title Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit 1544. in the Preface whereof 't is said to have been at first writ in English and then Translated into Latin by whom or by what Authority I find not and whether this be the same with Mr. O's I know not but this is sure Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops not about the superiority or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church I am apt to fear some foul play But concerning the Testimony its self as allowed of I shall speak more by and by Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man If it shall be said that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book but the Bishops Book yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other Thus then I read in the King's Book That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church given of God to Christian Men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands That this Sacrament was conferred and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed or limited by the Word of God for the nomination election presentation or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region provided made or to be made c. He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries both of Priests and Bishops sc. Teaching Preaching Ministring the Sacraments Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar loosing and assoiling from Sin Excommunicating and finally Praying for the whole Church and their own Flock in special That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices but with such sort and such Limitations as the Laws permit and suffer That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only that is Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio which I have seen there is some disagreement to be found For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition c. seems to speak of two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons the Christiani hominis Institutio expresseth it thus de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum Diaconorum Scriptura expresse meminit c. meaning as I suppose not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry sc. of Presbyters and Deacons That is the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons is only expresly mentioned in Scripture and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive not of Persons but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day It is not then affirm'd in either that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices that is Priests and Deacons and not Bishops according to the Scripture But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense and to his purpose rather sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions in Ordinibus but of Deacons or Ministers and of Presbyters or Bishops How Ministers and Bishops crept in here I 'll not say But they are capable still of the same Sence sc. that
were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Quest. 11. Whether a Bishop has Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture or no And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest Cr. Ans. A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scripture so may Princes and Governours and the People also by Election The People did commonly elect their Bishops and Priests Quest. 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and a Priest or only appointing to the Office be sufficient Cr. Ans. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture For Election and appointing thereunto is sufficient I have somewhat contracted the Archbishops Answers but so as to preserve the Sense full and intire and somethings I have omitted not Material as I Judge here to be set down These Questions and Answers in the MS. were subscrib'd T. Cant. and this is mine Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but remit the Judgment wholly to your Majesty To all which I reply 1. That though these were the Opinions of 〈◊〉 yet other Bishops unto whom the same 〈◊〉 were put were otherwise perswaded Mr. Strype has furnished us with different Answers given by some others of the learned Doctors or Bishops of that time from another MS. out of Cotton's Library To the 9th Question The Calling Naming Appointment and preferment of one before another to be a Bishop or Priest had a necessity to be done in that sort a Prince being wanting The Ordering Ordination appeareth taught by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture per manuum Impositionem cum Oratione This I doubt not will be own'd a truer and more Scriptural Resolution of the Question then Cr's was To Question 10th Bishops were first or not after These learned Men spake here cautiously Cranmer rashly and roundly pronounces To Quest. 11. Scripture warranteth a Bishop obeying the 〈◊〉 to Order a Priest per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione and so it hath been from the beginning They do not boldly define that Priest and Bishop were one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as Cranmer did To Quest. 12 Manuum Impositio cum Oratione is required unto the making of a Bishop or Priest So as only appointing it is not sufficient There is yet the Judgment of other Learned Men to be seen in Mr. Strype which I will add unto the former To Quest. 9th Making Bishops has two parts Appointment and Ordination Appointment which by necessity the Apostles made by Common Election and sometime by their own Assignment could not be done by Christian Princes because there were none yet now appertaineth to them But in Ordering wherein Grace is conferred the Apostles followed the Rule taught by the Holy Ghost per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione Jejunio A more solid and Judicious Answer then Cranmer's To Quest. 10 Christ made the Apostles first both Priests and Bishops but whether at one time some doubt After that the Apostles made both Bishops and Priests the names whereof in the Scripture be confounded They manifestly imply a real distinction between them in the beginning though they were one in Name or rather though both were called by both Names indifferently To Quest. 11 The Bishop having Authority from his Prince to give Orders may by his Ministry given to him of God in Scripture Ordain a Priest and we read not that any other not being a Bishop hath since the beginning of Christ's Church Ordained a Priest N. B. To Quest. 12 Only Appointment is not sufficient but Consecration that is to say Imposition of Hands with 〈◊〉 and prayer is also required For so the Apostles used to Order them that were appointed and so has been used continually and we have not read the contrary From the whole it appears that what ever was Cranmer's Opinion yet others were of a contrary Mind It cannot then be truly affirm'd that Cranmer's was the Judgment of the Church of England as farther may be confirmed by what Dr. Leighton reply'd at the same time unto the Queries 1. I suppose that a Bishop has according to the Scripture Power from God as being his Minister to create the Presbyter although he ought not to promote any one unto the Office of a Presbyter or admit him to any Ecclesiastical Ministry unless the Princes leave be first obtained in a Christian Common-Wealth But that any other Person has according to the Scripture Power to create the Presbyter I have not read nor learned from any Instance 2. I suppose Consecration by laying on of Hands is necessary For so we are taught by the Examples of the Apostles Thus much Dr. Durel who read the whole MS. by the permission of Mr. St. reports out of it in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Angli The Judgment then of Cranmer set forth in that MS. cannot with any Truth be ascribed to the Church of England it was the Opinion but of some Persons from which their Contemporaries we see differed much But 2. the Argument grounded on the MS. belongs not to the time when the Church of England was Protestant So that the Resolution of those Queries were rather of the Popish Church of England For the Questions were not put by Edw. VI. as was at first surmized but by Hen. VIII To make out which note 1. The Manuscript has no date nor any King named in it that called the Assembly at Windsor One may then ascribe it to the Father Henry as well as to the Son Edward 2. Cranmer submits himself and his Sentence unto the Judgment of the King But Edward VI. was a Child too young and unexperienced to ask these Questions or to have the final decision of them referred to him 3. Lee Archbishop of York who subscribed the Answers in the MS. died in the Year 1544. some Years before Edward was King by which Argument Dr. Durel says he convinced Mr. Still that the Convention was held at Windsor in the Reign of Hen. VIII not of Edward VI. 4. In Mr. Strype's Memor the King makes his Animadversions upon the Bishops Answers which cannot be thought the Work of Edw. VI. a Child but of Hen. VIII 5. The matter of the Questions and of the Answers of Cranmer sufficiently prove that Hen. VIII convened that Assembly at Windsor They both resemble the foresaid King's and Bishops Books and one Animadversion of the King in Mr. Strype which is since they confess appointing Bishops belongeth now to Princes how can you prove that Ordering is only committed unto you Bishops bewrays King Henry's aspiring to be invested with all the Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Power even of Ordination it self Of which see more in his Memorials P. 16 17. Append. N. 7. It. Mem. 141. Briefly as in his elder Brothers life time he was bred up in Learning that he might be Alterius Orbis Papa or
Order or call it what you please For the Presbyters Minister unto the People as effectually as the Bishops in all the Offices and Conveyances of Divine Grace And on this account are the Successors of the Apostles as much as the Bishops are The Presbyters Administer the Sacraments Preach the Word interpret Scripture reprove exhort incourage and comfort publish and declare Authoritatively and Ministerially the promise of the Remission of Sin and Eternal Life by Jesus Christ not only in the Sermons but after Solemn Confession of Sin and in the Visitation of the Sick and of such as have been troubled in Mind and Conscience In short to them in the 〈◊〉 Administrations appertains that Principal Gift and Commission Receive the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. Thus far Bishops and Presbyters are the same or as St. Jerom has it pene Idem gradus This is not to be doubted of For so they the Presbyters are the same with the Apostles But the peculiar and distinguishing Character and Office of the Bishop is to inspect Govern and Ordain Presbyters and succeeding Bishops On this account the Presbyter as Jerom also speaks is secundus gradus Thus much we own and freely confess let our Adversaries make the best of it they can I do suppose the difference and Preeminence and Superiority of Bishops from and over Prebyters and their Ordaining Power is sufficiently cleared to have been the Doctrine of the reformed Church of England from the beginning though Blondel would pick out of this Treatise something to the Contrary which is not my business here to take to task Lastly I shall only produce the Testimony of the English Divines in the Synod of Dort held 1618. 1619. The Bishop of Landaff Joseph Hall afterwards Bishop of Norwich John Davenant and Samuel Ward having approv'd all the Doctrines in the Belgick confession except Three Heads concerning Ecclesiastical Orders protested That the Government of the English Churches by Bishops Priests and Deacons was of Apostolical Institution Particularly Landaff in a Speech ran through the three Heads or Chapters and then entred this Protestation that there was not in the Apostles Times nor ever had been in the Church an Equality of Ministers From the whole I gather 1. That it has ever been the Judgment of the Protestant Church of England from the Reformation that there was by the Scripture and ought to be an inequality of Ministers and that Bishops are distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters 2. That the Presbyterians and Particularly Mr. O. do a great injury unto the Memory of that Great Man Archbishop Laud and through his sides unjustly Wound all that defend and assert Divine right of Episcopacy impeaching them of Novelty and altering the Doctrine of the Church That Renowned Prelate came into Play and became a Leader in this Church not till after all the Instances which I have alledged in proof of the Divine Right of Bishops Even the Bishop of Landaff and his English Collegues at the Synod of Dort were not Inferior to him nor was it in Laud's Power to Influence their Opinions He was not Archbishop of Canterbury till the Year 1633. not of St. Davids till 1621. two Years after the Synod was broken up It cannot therefore with Reason 〈◊〉 thought that these excellent Persons who assisted at that Assembly were led by the Nose or aw'd by the Authority of Dr. Laud. Nor do I find that he was any ways interested in their Deliberations or that he sent to them any Letters or Dispatches upon that or indeed any other subject It can hardly be believed since so many of the Calvinistical Points were then established doubtless to the regret of this Prelate Besides Dr. Andrews had before Laud written a Book to prove the Divine Right of Bishops surely not sway'd thereto by Laud who was or had been his Chaplain But to remove all the invidious Calumnies and Reproaches that have been falsly laid upon that unfortunate Prelate and the rest who before and after him have maintained the Divine Right of Bishops it were sufficient to call to remembrance that it was the Doctrine of Ignatius whose Testimonies 't is needless to repeat any more also of St. Cyprian Jâm pridem per omnes Provincias Urbes Ordinati sunt Episcopi and what he means by his jam pridem he explains elsewhere Sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto Mundo Divina dignatione praepositos Once more I read Cum hoc igitur omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur divina 〈◊〉 fundamentum sit Lastly of Jerom himself Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus Mundi Principes Ecclesiae which also he calls Traditionem Apostolicam writing to Evagrius which have been remembred before Now if some of Laud's immediate Predecessors or Contemporaries can be produced granting this as being of another Mind not seeing or not openly confessing and contesting the Truth 't was surely for want of Understanding Courage or Integrity But why these failings and defects should be laid in the balance with the undoubted Testimonies of the Fathers or prejudice the Wisdom and Faithfulness of others yea the Publick and Authoritative Declarations of our Church too is beyond my Capacity to comprehend This is out of question I judge that Presbyterian Ordination the Identity and Parity of Bishops and Presbyters has never yet been pronounced lawful much less of Divine Right by any Publick and AuthentickSentence of the Church of England since the Reformation except haply by that pack't Assembly of Divines not one of whom were Legally chose to sit at Westminster Some private Writers may haply be found inclining to the Opinion whereby Presbyters are equal'd unto Bishops and thought to be of the same Degree but I make no reckoning of such private Authorities though they were otherwise Persons of singular Learning Wisdom and Piety And some Passages favouring the Presbyterian Pretences may possibly be found in the publick Deliberations and Conclusions whilst Hen. VIII was Vindicating this Church from the Tyranny of the Pope and in his stead assuming it to himself Thus far we chang'd our Rider not our Burthen but it ought to be considered that as in those difficult times the Episcopal Power was subjected to the will of the Prince and to the Law of the Land and so may be thought not by Divine Right but Humane Constitution even so was the Power and Office of Parsons Vicars and Priests or Presbyters and from thence also it 〈◊〉 with equal Force that these also are but by Humane Law and thence derive their Authority Let us for example but look back unto Cranmer's Answer to the King 's 9th Query and we may be convinced hereof The substance of it is That the whole care of the Church is immediately committed to the Prince That Parsons Vicars and other Priests were to be appointed by His Highness to their Ministrations To the 10 th Query
Men who are not I believe a fiftyeth part of the People of England And these latter in respect of the Body of the Nation I can scarce admit to be elected they may more fitly be said to come in by Privilege Of the one hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation about fifty two or a third part are chosen Proctors by the Parsons Vicars and Rectors who are two thirds of the Clergy about an hundred and fourteen come in by vertue of their Dignities as Deans and Arch-Deacons or by the Election of the Chapters only Let any one then judge whether the lower Houses of Convocation are near so much cramp'd with Members by Privilege as the House of Commons is four parts of the House of Commons being chosen by not a fiftieth part of the Pople and the fifth part of 'em by about an eighth part of the People But a third part of the Convocation is chosen by two thirds of the Clergy and the rest by privilege If then the House of Commons notwithstanding what has been observed are by all Wise Men look'd upon as a just Representative of the People with respect unto their choice as well as their number I would know a Reason why the Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Now least what has been said shall not be thought clear enough and sufficient to evince what it is intended for there being a great uncertainty in such Calculations I shall compare the Convocation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who if I am not much mistaken will be found on both the forementioned Accounts that is of Number and of Choice to have been not so just a Representative of the Clergy as the Convocation is This will be dispatched in a very few Words In the Year 1643. the Parliament called that Assembly consisting of one hundred twenty and two Persons Of whom let it be noted 1. That they fell short of the two Houses of Convocation forty four in number besides that there were some Scots among 'em 2. That not one of 'em was chosen by the Clergy but all Nominated by the Parliament Either then let Mr. O. give over taxing the Convocation as if it were not a just Representative of the Clergy or confess the Westminster Assembly to have been packed to serve a Turn contrary to all Law and Justice In short and to retort Mr. O's Reflections the Assemby of Divines were all of 'em except a few Nominated for a Colour the Parliaments Creatures chosen by them alone The rest if they had joined in the Westminster Deliberations had been meer 〈◊〉 there were enough to out-vote 'em besides those Lords and Commoners who were taken into the Assembly like so many Lay-Elders to Influence their Counsels and prevent any Decree that might be offered contrary to that Parliaments Inclinations or Designs Mr. O. If the Rector can find no proof in Scripture that Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all how dare they the Episcopal-Clergy do it for a Fortnight If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending Ans. We suspend not by virtue of our own sole inherent Power but in conjunction with our Diocesan with his knowledge and consent There is a great Difference between an Inherent Power for Presbyters to suspend a precedent for which I require out of Scripture and to suspend for a time according to the Constitutions of the Church and in Subordination to the Bishop unto whom the Party Suspended may appeal Mr. O. Whereas I affirmed that the Ordinary Elders had not Supreme Authority in the Churches at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East the Minister inferrs that herein is imply'd that Ordinary Presbyters had the Supreme Authority before that time and Challenges the Rector to prove they were ever deprived of it afterward Ans. There is no such thing imply'd by the Rector but only supposed at most to avoid all unnecessary Disputes with his Adversaries But if it were out of question that the Ordinary Elders had once the Supreme Authority yet the Apostle committing afterward the Supreme Authority unto single Persons ex gr unto Timothy and 〈◊〉 and making no mention at all of the Ordinary Presbyters must be understood to supersede the Power that was before in the Presbyters and to subject them unto those single Persons for the future But this is the Point in Controversy throughout these Papers and needs not here to be insisted on Mr. O. Here the Rector fairly confesses there were no Bishops when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds Ans. The Rector supposes it only as is said before but does not grant it Nay he is quite of another mind But it sufficeth to his Hypothesis that single Persons were afterward at least Constituted Rulers Bishops in the Churches Mr. O. 〈◊〉 could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ans. Here Mr. O. if I take him right grants that 〈◊〉 was Ordained by 〈◊〉 taking the 〈◊〉 into his Assistance This is as much as I desire and the exact Pattern of our Ordinations Presbyters therefore did not by their own sole Power Ordain but in Conjunction with the Apostle On the other hand if the Revelation concerning Timothy's Ordination came to the Presbyters as well as to St. Paul they then acted not as Ordinary 〈◊〉 but as Prophets and so cannot warrant Ordinary Presbyters Ordaining by Virtue of their Ordinary Power 〈◊〉 it no where appears that Paul joined the Presbyters in Commission with Timothy it may then be reasonable to conclude that Timothy received the sole Power though 't is sufficient for me to say He had the Supreme Mr. O. But Paul joined 〈◊〉 with him in the Ordinations Acts. 14. 23. Ans. Be it so yet still if Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul as is manifest from Acts 14. 4 14. Gal. 29. And if Barnabas was equal to Paul as many believe and Mr. O. will not deny then we are but where we were before This is nothing to Ordinary Elders Ordaining That Barnabas was tho' not equal to Paul yet independent on him may be probably hence gathered that in the sharp Contest between 'em Barnabas submitted not to Paul but separated from him Acts 15. 39. Besides Barnabas received the same Commission that St. Paul did and at the same time Acts 13. 1 2. However admitting Barnabas was but a Secondary Apostle which I rather believe or 〈◊〉 yet Mr. O. will not I hope deny he was more than an Ordinary Elder what then is this to Ordinary Elders Ordaining by their own sole Power and inherent Authority And how will it hence 〈◊〉 that because Paul admitted Barnabas an Apostle at least a Secondary Apostle to join in the Ordinations Acts 14. 23. that therefore Timothy joined the Ordinary Presbyters with him All this notwithstanding I give Mr. O. what he cannot prove sc.
That Timothy did not Ordain alone 'T is enough to my purpose that he was constitued the Principal Judge and Director in Ordinations as in all other Acts of Jurisdiction Mr. O. The Rector having argued from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Timothy was intended the Resident Governour of the Church of 〈◊〉 the Minister denies it upon the Authority of Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these places produced against me is Limited by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes a great difference A Man may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reside or abide in a place one two or three Days or Months or Years and yet we know what 't is to reside when 't is spoken undeterminately As for those Words Till I come 1 Tim. 4. 13. 't is no Limitation of Timothy's Residence at 〈◊〉 nor does it imply that his Authority there must then cease If it were so then after Paul was come to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must have left off Giving attendance unto Reading to Exhortation to 〈◊〉 which yet I suppose were Duties perpetually incumbent upon him let the Apostle be at 〈◊〉 or not In a word St. Paul's going shortly to Timothy at Ephesus was not with intent to remove him thence but to Instruct him throughly how to behave himself in the House of God the Church committed to his Charge as is before observed and proved Nevertheless least the Apostle should be prevented of his intended Visit and should tarry long as he suspected might happen he sent him for the present this Epistle containing the sum of what afterward when he came to Ephesus he would more at large communicate unto him But these are Repetitions Mr. O. to prove that 〈◊〉 had been furnished with the same Powers at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica as he was afterwards at Ephesus Alledges the Rectors granting that unfixt Evangelists governed the Churches and Ordained Elders under the Apostles Ans. This Concession proves not that Timothy was furnished with the same powers in Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus For 1. It does not appear that Timothy was an Evangelist when sent to Corinth c. This is no where to be found in Scripture But in St. Paul's second Epistle to Timothy which was a great while after he had been sent to 〈◊〉 Philippi and Thessalonica then indeed 't is intimated he was an Evangelist and not before 2. It seems Evident unto me that Timothy was sent unto Greece and Macedonia for quite other purposes than to govern those Churches and Ordain 'em Elders His business at 〈◊〉 was To Establish and comfort the Christians there concerning their Faith 1 Thes. 3. 2. And afterward he went thither again to hasten their Contributions as I conceive His Business to 〈◊〉 was to carry the Apostles Letter concerning the 〈◊〉 Schisms and Contentions We read of no Commission given him to receive Accusations to reprove Offenders openly to examine the Qualification of the Candidates for Holy Orders or to Ordain Elders either at Corinth 〈◊〉 or Thessalonica as He had at Ephesus 3. Eusebius on whose Authority the Hypothesis of unfixt Evangelists depends describes them thus They went from place to place among those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith Or where no Churches were as yet established But Paul had already planted Churches at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica These then were not places proper for an unfixed Evangelist to be imploy'd in and therefore Timothy did not the work of an Evangelist in those Cities that is he had not the same Powers there as at Ephesus So that I still call upon Mr. O. to prove Timothy was furnished with the same Powers in Greece and Macedonia as he was after at Ephesus 4. If Timothy had been furnished with the same Powers at his going to Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus why should Paul resolve for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there to instruct 〈◊〉 in his Office And because he foresaw that Journey might possibly be put off for a longer time why did he dispatch a Letter to 〈◊〉 wherein in the mean while he gives him the necessary Orders for the better Ruling of the Church 〈◊〉 I suppose was not so forgetful as to need these Instructions if he had before been furnished with 'em when he was sent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Mr. O. A great part of T. N. is to prove That Presbyters were not Supreme Governours because the Apostles were above'em And yet that Timothy and Titus were Supreme Governours though the Apostles were above them also Either the Elders were Supreme Governours or Timothy and Titus were not Ans. I shew'd by Induction of Particulars that the Presbyters were subject unto the Apostles in every single Act of Government That either an Apostle or a Prophet was constantly at the Helm to guide and direct ' em The Elders had not a discretionary Power in any Case that we read of But Timothy and Titus though they also were subject to St. Paul whenever he thought fit to interpose yet generally speaking were left unto the Judgment of their own private Discretion as appears from the Rules of Government prescribed 'em by the Apostle There is a manifest difference between Timothy and Titus their subjection to the Apostle and that of the Ordinary Elders See the Preface Mr. O. Whereas in proof of many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus I cited Acts 19. 10. All they which dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus And backed this with Ignatius's calling himself the Bishop of Syria not of Antioch only but of some considerable part of the adjacent Country The Minister Replies This is little to the purpose and that Men will talk any thing But Ans. Do not these Observations render it highly probable that the Ephesian Church was also composed of several Assembles in City and Country And is not this a good account why a Bishop and many Presbyters and Deacons were employ'd in the Church of Ephesus not serving one Congregation alone in the City but others also in the Country round about called Asia If there had been but one Congregation at Ephesus one Bishop or Presbyter might have sufficed The Christians at that time of day were not so wealthy as to multiply Church-Officers more than needed This is not I confess to Mr. O's Purpose but I hope 't will be thought to mine Mr. O. further pleads That the Rector understand in Order to prove there were many Congregations in that Church May as well say that the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia c. for all these heard the Word of the Lord Jesus Acts 2. 9 11. as well as those of Asia did Ans. That 's the thing which I do affirm The Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia here mentioned belonged unto the Church of Jerusalem so many of 'em as were converted For the Dwellers in Mesopotamia v. 9. are said to be Dwellers at Jerusalem v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
I find it His Plea would have had something in it surely relating to this New Chronology In fine that Mr. O. thought of the Bishop's Argument before the Rector's Book came forth is not material but that He thought of it before the Rector proposed it to him we have only his own Word for it which is not much worth in this case of Self-Testimony Yea granting this also I have good reason to believe he derived this part of his knowledge from Bishop Pearson for a Reason best known to my self Mr. O. has wonderfully demonstrated from 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. That Paul sent for Timothy to him at Rome what no Body ever deny'd and yet he has not hereby proved that Timothy was ever in the Apostle's Company after he was besought to abide at Ephesus 'T is not out of doubt to me that Timothy saw Paul at Rome though he sent for him For not to speak of other Obstacles Paul might have been Martyred by the Emperor 's Special and sudden Command before Timothy reached Rome This is very likely if we consider the State of Affairs at Rome about that time as we read 'em set forth in the Annals of Paul What I excepted against in Dr. Whitaker was not that which Mr. O. pretends to make Answer to but that he asserted Equals could receive Accusations as Timothy did This the Dr. proved if Mr Prinn wrongs him not from a Synod of Bishops who received an Accusation against one of their own Number and then Censured him for his Fault Now how far this is from a proof of what it was alledged for I shewed at large and Mr. O. who Taxes me for so doing overlooks it nor makes any Reply to it Indeed it is not to be Answered if it 〈◊〉 true as I think none will deny that one Bishop is not equal but Inferior and Subject to a Synod of Bishops Therefore a Synod's receiving an Accusation against a Bishop is no proof of the Doctor 's Assertion but an Instance of the contrary As for Mr. O's own examples out of St. Cyprian were they never so convincing which shall in its place be considered they will not however Vindicate Dr. Whitaker nor are a proper Answer to my Exceptions against him The proportion of Dioceses how large at most they ought to be is not my business to determine as I undertake not to define how big a Parish or Congregation ought to be I suppose the ultimum quod sic and the Limits quos ultra citraque nequit consistere Rectum are in both uncertain and are only to be adjusted prout viri prudentes definiverint as Superiors shall think fit to Order and not by the Caprice and humoursome phancy of every overweening Opinionanist and self conceited Reformer Mr. O. hears the Rectors Parish has four or five Chappels in it Ans. The Rectors Parish has neither five nor four Chappels in it Tho' the Ministers Ears be never so long yet is he mistaken herein If it had twenty 't is nothing to the purpose Mr. O. Because the Rector affirm'd it no more impossible for Timothy supposed then the Angel of the Chruch of Ephesus mentioned Rev. 2. To leave his first Love than for Judas to betray his Master is mightily disturbed and to confute it musters up many Commendations given of Timothy in Scripture Ans. In T. N. I declared my Opinion plainly that Timothy was not that Angel there spoken of yet supposing it 't was not impossible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection The Commendations alone render it not impossible Abstracting from Matter of Fact then that Judas an Apostle who had the Power of Casting out Devils should turn Apostate is as strange as that Timothy should leave his first Love Lastly when 't is for his turn Mr. O. can admit that Timothy might be overtaken with Youthful Lusts but when he wants an Occasion of Cavilling then 't is monstrous horrid to suppose it possible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection from the Truth If the one was possible why not the other But especially if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 22. Signifie the Lusts of the Mind its proneness to Paradoxes to New up-start Opinions curious Conceipts and Innovations in Religion of which kind we reckon Presbytery and Independency which are but of Yesterday and the product of Minds addicted unto Novelties I do not find Commentators Ordinarily Expounding the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Youthful i. e. Fleshly Lusts but to the Sense I have now given them In a Word whoever attentively reads Rev. 2. 2 3 6. will find considerable Commendations of the Angel of Ephesus perhaps not much Inferior to those of Timothy in other places of Scripture And yet this Angel left his first Love 'T was not impossible then but Timothy might do so likewise I have now done with Mr. O's Defence If I have left any thing of Moment unanswered Or if I have failed giving full satisfaction to any Material Difficulty Objected against me I do promise either to supply these Defects or fairly to confess my self unable Only I could wish all personal Reflections and unnecessary Digressions might be laid aside that Arguments be plainly proposed and 〈◊〉 as few words as may be that no trickish and evasive Answers be made when we have nothing else to reply And finally that we would not take to task a piece of an Argument and the weakest part of it too and then make the Reader believe we have fully accounted for the Difficulty when in Truth we kept our selves all the while at a distance and never came near the Merits of the Cause THE SECOND PART Wherein All Mr Owen's Authorities for Presbyterian Parity and Ordination by Presbyters are overthrown and particularly is prov'd THAT The Church of ENGLAND Ever since the Reformation HELD The Divine Apostolical Right of EPISCOPACY 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. One ought to endure to the utmost rather than divide the Church of God and dying rather than rend it in pieces is a no less glorious Martyrdom and in my Opinion greater than being a Martyr for not Sacrificing unto Idols In this latter Case a Man suffers for his own sake only in the former for the whole Church Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. LONDON Printed in the Year 1699. THE INTRODUCTION HAving spoken of the Government of the Christian Church in General and as far as the Holy Scriptures afford us any Light Having thence shewn that meer Presbyters alone did never exercise any Supreme Act of Jurisdiction of any kind that can be there discovered except in Conjunction with and subordination to some extraordinary Officers as Apostles or Prophets Having in particular traced the manner of Government at Ephesus unto the Death of St. John the Apostle and the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius and found it cast by St. Paul into the same Form as the Church of England is at this Day
that was made Bishop by the Pope among the Scots whereas in former times Bishops were taken out of the Culdees and Monks the People chusing them Here then the Witnesses do not agree among themselves For Fordon says without Bishops and Major Presbyters only but Boethius plainly intimates the Scots had Bishops in former times though not of the Roman Stamp nor thence sent unto the Scots Palladius was the first of the Roman Bishops not the first Bishop Whoever chose'em is nothing to our purpose The Scots had Bishops before Palladius according to Boethius who were pickt out of the Monks and Culdees But he says not Ordained by them It may as well be affirmed that because our Bishops at this Day are taken out of the Presbyters that therefore they are Ordained by them Lastly The said Archbishop Usher there produces another Testimony out of John Baly who Writes Palladius was sent among the Scots that he might establish the Episcopal Order among them after the Roman Fashion for He adds the Scots had before that time their Bishops and other Ministers as it was among the Britains after the Asiatick Manner But it pleased not the Romans the Popes who affected Ceremonies and hated the Asiaticks But though the Scots were Anciently the Inhabitans of Ireland yet says Mr. O. these Authors call the Ancient Inhabitants of the now Scotland by the Name they were known in their own days and to them Palladius is thought to have been sent True But 't was their ignorance or worse nothing being more clear than that the Ancient Inhabitants of the now Scotland were Britains and Picts not Scots This is fully made out in the Historical Account of the Church-Government c. as well as by Archbishop Usher's Authorities to whom I refer the Reader Whereas Bede l. 5. c. 10. relates how that Columba was the first Teacher of the Christian Faith among the Tramontane Picts to the North Mr. O. thus glosses on that Passage He was the first Bede knew of implying there were others before that Bede knew not of Ans. At this rate all Authorities may be eluded And all the Testimonies produced by Mr. O. in favour of his Cause may easily be laid aside Bede 〈◊〉 no other yet the contrary is true thus I may say Fordon and Major talk of Presbyters and Monks among the Scots without Bishops That is that they knew of but however there were Bishops among them Bede himself gives not the 〈◊〉 occasion for this gloss but is as positive herein as any Writer can be And he is a better Witness in these Matters than Fordon Major and Boethius These talk of matter before their time a 1000 Years without any Authority to back their Relations Bede of things which happened but about 140 Years only before his time For 〈◊〉 flourished Anno 560. and Bede was born Anno 707. and flourish'd 735. In short then Bede might well understand what happened at 〈◊〉 and among the Northern Picts the English Saxons having so lately received Christianity from the Bishops sent hither by Columba and his Successors Mr. O. goes on to acquaint us Christianity was much more Ancient in the North of the now Scotland and that 't is proved by Bishop Cowper Ans. Bishop Cowper laboured under the common Disease of easily believing and advancing the Antiquity and Honour as he thought of his own Nation He brought no Testimony of Credit but that out of Theodoret which belongs unto the Southern Britains for of Tertullian's we have before Treated But Mr. O. would be resolved in some Queries First When the Fathers mention Joseph of Arimathea Simon Zelotes c. to have Preached the Gospel in Britain what reason have we to exclude North Britain The zeal of those Apostles and Apostolical Men and their Charity would Prompt them to endeavour the Propagation of the Gospel throughout Britain and part of the now Scotland belonged then to the British Kings Ans. I know no Father that mentions Joseph of Arimathea and Simon Zelotes except haply Dorotheus who is the Father of a Thousand Lyes or Fordon Major Boethius Fleming Balaeus and such other later and Legendary Writers I can give several good reasons against the North Britains being so early converted and good ones too as I think Britain Anciently was divided into very many petty Kingdoms None of the Princes received the Faith very early that we know of save Lucius perhaps The Romans never penetrated into the now Scotland till a good while after and it was by their means in part that Christianity spread its self The Picts in North Scotland never stoop't to their Yoke which rendred their Conversion more difficult And something I hope in this point may be ascribed unto the Secret Will and Providence of God Can Mr. O. give me any other Reasons than such as these that the Saxons and Angli in Germany who over-run Britain were no sooner converted tho' Tertullian reckons the Germans in General to have been Christians in his time Nor were the Apostles themselves nor the Apostolical Men always Successful in their endeavours St. Paul was forbid to Preach in Asia Acts 16. 6. 'T is a wretched way of proving a matter of Fact in Question from such slender Probabilities By the like Arguments one might prove that all Europe Asia and Africa embraced the Gospel a Thousand Years since even the most Northern Scythians the most Eastern Indians and Seres and the Africans about the Cape of Good-Hope In short though Paul plants and Apollos Waters yet 't is God who gives the Increase 'T is certain the Apostles themselves did not always take Fish where-ever they cast their Net Our Lord foretold them as much directing them therefore to shake off the dust of their Feet as a Testimony against them that rejected their Doctrine But enough of Mr. O's first Query Secondly He asks if the North Britains received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome as seems from Bede E. H. l. 3. c. 4 How came they to keep their Easter after the Eastern Manner Ans. This is accounted for by the Bishop of St. Asaph and Mr. O. ought to have acquiess'd or else refuted the Bishop and not thus frivolously repeated the bare Objection about Easter without Vindicating it against the Bishop But he seems to read Books on purpose to furnish himself with little Objections not with a disposition to hearken unto Reason but to Spin out and continue disputes for Ever Besides the North Britain here so called by Mr. O. is by Bede in his History described to be the most Southern part of the now Scotland adjoyning vnto England and called Galloway or Annandale on this side Edenburgh But what is this to the Northern Tramontaene 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh whither we say the Romans neither Gentiles nor Christians nor the Christian Religion ever reached before Columba settled at Hy who also came thither not from Rome but Ireland Mr. O. farther pleads these words of Bede
ought any thing then that Mr. O. says or pretends to prove the delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus reach'd to more than one or half a dozen Villages Well! Mr. O. goes on and tells us that The Country Villages where the Chorepiscopi were fixt were but thinly Peopled with Christians the Majority or at least great Numbers of the People being Heathens by which he adds we may guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Here are divers things supposed and asserted but none proved 1. 'T is supposed that the Chorepiscopus's Power was confined to one Village or Country Parish only this ought to be made out by Mr. O. 2. 'T is asserted that these Country Villages were thinly Peopled with Christians but that is more then Mr. O. knows and the contrary is more probable so that they abounded with Christians now in the Reign of Constantius Son of Constantine the Great when that Council of Antioch was held and from whence Mr. O. makes the Deduction Besides 't is likely that a Chorepiscopus was never made but where the Christians were Numerous In short how thin soever particular Villages were of Christians yet there being many very many Villages all of them having some Christians and a Power over them being committed to the Chorepiscopi this note of Mr. O's is not very much to the purpose But however from the Premises he Collects 4. That we may thence guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Something of this Nature might perhaps be conjectured if all Mr. O. has asserted without proof and overlook'd without Examination were true But I ask whether this be not an intolerable piece of Confidence to intimate at this rate that these Country Villages were seperate and independent Diocesses when as 't is manifest from the very Canon that they were Appendages of the City Diocess and subject to the City Bishop Here then instead of a small Parish Bishoprick we have found as large a Diocess haply as ours are at this Day Mr. O. proceeds and affirms That the Chorepiscopi are an instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters they were but Parish Bishops under City Bishops Say then a Chorepiscopus had the charge of one only single Village or particular Congregation specially allotted to him which at this day we call a Parish admitting this yet it follows not that he was a Bishop without subject Presbyters probably he had some district of the Diocess committed to his particular care and inspection The Canon of Antioch seems to intimate thus much It seemed good to the Synod that the Chorepiscopi govern the Churches in the plural subject to them and to content themselves with this care and sollicitude of constituting Readers But granting they had no subject Presbyters but acted Ordinarily as Parish Presbyters yet they were real Bishops and ready upon occasion to discharge the Diocesans Office when required which Prebyters could not Morever if these Chorepiscopi were only Presbyters and Bishops of a small Congregation as Mr. O. has before concluded why was the caution given them against Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons except it was for other Parishes or Churches For surely they did not Ordain Presbyters and Deacons for themselves If they did even so they must have had Presbyters subject to them In short they had doubtless a delegated Power from the City or Diocesan Bishop to Ordain Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where and when ever occasion required But in the last place Mr. O. urges the second Council of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7th which makes the Chorepiscopi to be one and the same with 〈◊〉 This Council was Provincial aud held in Spain Anno 620. which is therefore of no great Authority with me especially since the Argument it insists on is chiefly drawn from the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Roman Church For so the Canon concludes quoe 〈◊〉 eis a sede Apostolica prohibita esse noscuntur Nevertheless that I may not be thought to decline any thing said on this subject that has the appearance of an Argument against me I answer that although by the first design and institution of the Chorepiscopi they were real Bishops so it was before and after the Councils of Ancyra and Antioch for sometime yet not long afterwards an end was put to these Chorepiscopi So I read in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. held Anno 364. There and then it was decreed that Bishops were not to be made any more in Villages and in the Countries understand within anothers Diocess but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their steads which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were but Presbyters intrufted with the Administration of some part of the Episcopal Power But 't is observable what is after added as for those Chorepiscopi who have been already made the former Canons of Ancyra and Antioch must be observed by them that they do nothing without the Consent of the City Bishop Where we see plainly a Supersedeas is given unto that Order of the Chorepiscopi for the future Nor is this alteration to be wondered at For the making the Chorepiscopi or Vicarious Bishops in the Country belonging to anothers Diocess was meerly an Ecclesiastical Constitution and by the same Power that it was introduced it might again be annulled I observe moreover that the 2d clause above mentioned which still reserves to the former Chorepiscopi their Power which had been committed to them by the City Bishops shews that they had received some Character which a Council could not deprive them of For otherwise the Power of the former Chorepiscopi might have been Abrogated as well as the Order its self intirely dissolved for the future The occasion of this change made by the Laodicean Fathers doubtless was that they had by experience found some inconveniences and disorders happening through these Chorepiscopi who it may be could never be hindred from Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons in other Bishops Diocefses contrary to all Order and good Rule Therefore an end was put to them and in their place were substituted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who I imagaine were like our Archdeacons at this Day and were instituted for the Diocesan's ease in matters of less moment but upon no account were to have the Episcopal Character impress'd on them with Power to Ordain no not with the Bishops Licence Accordingly the late Learned Bishop of Worcester observes That Lanfranc 〈◊〉 made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See that Thomas Archbishop of York first divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries and Remigius Bishop of Lincoln his into seven Archdeaconries says Harry of Huntingdon One occasion hereof was the laying aside the Chorepiscopi as too much assuming unto themselves The sum of what has been said is that the 〈◊〉 were at first real Bishops but in anothers Diocess where they might put forth such Episcopal Acts as were permitted them within some certain
1. That the People here spoken of were aforetime Subject to Bishops which Mr. O. has miserably perverted by saying that till that time the Diocesses never had any Bishops at all contrary to the apparent sense of that Canon which affirms it and describes those People thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the People here spoken of were even in the possession and under the Jurisdiction of Bishops Ex. gra To make the matter plainer to Mr. O. The People of Lancashire cannot be said never to have had any Bishops at all it being well known that the Bishop of Chester is their Diocesan 2. The People mentioned in the Canon had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper Bishop peculiar to themselves Thus it is true that the County of Lancaster never had to this Day a proper Bishop of their own 3. The African Fathers did not Peremptorily resolve that those People should have no Bishop for the future though Mr. O. has very falsly affirmed it But two things they define either first that they should continue in subjection to their former Bishop that is to keep to my Example that the County of Lancaster should continue as a Member of the Diocess of Chester Or else secondly that they should be erected into a Distinct Bishoprick and have their own proper Bishop provided nevertheless that it be with the Consent of their former Bishop or thus in the Example that the County of Lancaster should be made a Bishoprick by its self and have a proper Bishop of its own provided my Lord of Chester would consent thereunto There is another Canon in the African Code which is more full to my purpose It pleased the Synod that the People who never had proper Bishops of their own should not have them Except it be so decreed in a full Provincial Synod and particularly by the Primate and with the Consent of that Bishop unto whose Government that Church or the aforesaid People formerly belonged Mr. O. then 〈◊〉 he had dealt honestly and faithfully with the African Fathers and with us should have cited the whole Period at length and not abused them and endeavoured to cozen the present Age with such Counterfeit Stuff I have this only farther to remark upon these Canons of the Carthaginian Councils and so shall conclude that the Occasion of making the former and of the latter too as is probable was the Ambitious and Haughty and Aspiring Stubborn and Foolish for all these Epithets are there bestowed on them Disposition of some Presbyters who raising their Crests against their own Bishops and Wheedling the People by some indirect means would needs in a Disorderly manner make themselves their Rectors i. e. Bishops This immediately follows in the aforesaid Canon as any one that pleases may see at his Leisure To prove that Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination Mr. O. alledges the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 3. Omnes Presbyteri qui Praesentes sunt Manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius Ordinandi Presbyteri teneant Ans. 1. He has not given us the Canon intire having left out something which perhaps will go a great way to the overthrowing his Argument as will be seen anon Thus the Canon runs Episcopo eum sc. Presbyterum benedicente Omnes c. But it is not unusual for Mr. O. to quote his Authors by Halves and to suppress what seems to make against him At this rate he may soon get the Christian World on his side so many of 'em at least as will not be at the pains or are unable to examine his Authorities 2. This Canon though Caranza and other Authors mention it is not to be found in the African Code set forth by Justellus which makes me suspect that the Fathers who in the Council of Trull took the African into the Code of the Universal Church look'd upon it either as Spurious or rejected it as to the matter therein decreed But I will not insist on this 3. It is most reasonable to interpret one Canon by another The said Council decreed Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet From 〈◊〉 one would guess that the Imposition of the Presbyters Hands was designed only 〈◊〉 a Testimony that the Bishop Ordained with the advice and consent of the Presbyters at least not without them 4. If Presbyters laid on Hands as proper Ordainers how comes it to pass that in other Councils and Canons of the Church it s declared that the Bishop only Ordains and not the Presbyters In the 2. Council of Hisp. Can. 6. Episcopus enim sacerdotibus Ministris solus Honorem dare potest Can. 7. Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Presbyteris Mysteriorum Communis sit Dispensatio quaedam tamen sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum Diaconorum Consecratio But the fifth Canon is remarkable The Occasion of it was this A certain Bishop being Blind laid on his Hands at the Ordination of some Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of his Presbyters Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum Ordinem benedictionem dedisse fertur For which 't is added that the Presbyter deserved to be condemned but that he was in the mean time dead From whence I think 't is plain 1. That Ordination was not effectually given by Imposition of Hands but by Benediction the Charge or Commission wherein properly consifted the Ordination which was given to the Ordained 2. All the Irregularity here committed was that the Presbyter presum'd Benedicere and there with it may be to give the Commission that is to Ordain which if Imposition of Hands was Ordination had been no Irregularity at least no Essential defect as it is declared to be 3. For if Imposition of Hands be the Ordination then there was no Irregularity in these Ordinations the Bishop having laid his Hands on the Ordained as 't is testifyed in the Canon as well as that Presbyter who blest him 4. The Orders thus conferred were declared Null by the Council Hi Presbyteri Diaconi gradum sacerdotii Levitici Ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt amittant So that 〈◊〉 the whole it appears that in the Judgment of these Fathers and of the Church at that Time laying on of Hands was not properly Ordination and by 〈◊〉 though Presbyters impose Hands yet they do not Ordain which 〈◊〉 overthrows Mr. O's Major Proposition But let us see how Mr. O. confirms his Major He endeavours it by this Medium That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power But Imposition of Hands is an Ordaining Act. Therefore c. To the Minor I answer by denying Imposition of Hands to be an Ordaining Act 't is only an outward and Solemn Concomitant of it as is before Evinc'd though Warranted by Holy Scripture By the Imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters Hands is signifyed to the Congregation present that
Order of the Catholick Church and particularly of the Alexandrian whereof he is supposed to have been a part The Desert of Scetis where he usually resided adjoining to the Lake Maria or Maeris which borders on Egypt 2. Whereas 't is urged that Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce this Ordination void and null that we read of there is no great matter in this For it may with as great reason be argued that Theophilus would have Censured it if it had come to his knowledge there being no probability that Theophilus would have past by such a Disorder and Affront done to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions seeing Peter and Alexander of Alexandria his Predecessors would not bear with the Melitians 3. 'T is wonderful that Mr. O. should Insinuate that it was neither irregular nor unusual which in former Cases he has granted over and over again 4. Valesius tells me that Paphnutius was engaged in the Melitian Schism as Ephiphanius testisies de Haeresi Melitianorum He also observes that the Schism was then improv'd unto Heresie 'T is no wonder then that an Heretical Schismatick should presume to break through the Rules and Orders of that Church from which he divided and usurp a Power that nothing belonged to him And hence also may be drawn the reason why Theophilus took no notice of what Paphnutius did he being a Schismatick if not an Heretick and out of the Communion of the Church and what had the Patriarch to do to judge them that were without already As St. Paul speaks in somewhat a like Case But 5. I will not content my self with these Answers though I reckon them sufficient But add 't is no where affirmed by Cassianus that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel a Deacon or Presbyter but only Cum Daniel multis junior esset aetate ad Diaconii praelatus est Officium and then Festinavit coaequare made baste to equal Daniel with himself in the Honour of the Priest-hood And Lastly desiring to provide a most worthy Successor to himself whilst he was alive Provexit promoted him to the Honour of the Presbytership The Question is whether these Words signifie that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel That he did so can no ways be concluded from this Testimony of Cassianus For 1. It has been ordinary to attribute that unto a Person which indeed he only commanded or directed devised or procured to be done Thus Parents are commonly said to make their Sons Ministers but Ordain them not themselves Thus Patrons among us make and prefer Vicars and Rectors of Churches and the King Bishops though Bishops Ordain and Institute them Thus Joshua made him sharp Knives and Circumcised the Children of Israel Joshua 5. 3. Now I hope Mr. O. will not affirm that Joshua himself made the sharp Knives or Circumcised all these Israelites with his own hands But to come yet nearer to our purpose I read in St. Cyprian Novatus Felicissimum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione ambitione Diaconum constituit The enquiry is whether Novatus a Presbyter imposed hands and Ordained Felicissimus a Deacon and whether St. Cyprian is thus to be understood This doubt is to be 〈◊〉 from another passage of St. Cyprian in the same 〈◊〉 Qui Novatus isthic Carthagine Diaconum fecerat sc. Felicissimum illic Romae Episcopum fecit sc. Novatianum Novatus made Felicissimus a Deacon at 〈◊〉 and Novatianus a Bishop at Rome But how Not Ordaining him himself but procuring or encouraging him to be Ordained by Bishops as we read in Eusebius Novatianus a Presbyter of Rome by Eus. called Novatus also having from some remote parts of Italy invited three Bishops unto Rome forced them to Ordain him Novatianus Bishop This was the Contrivance of the African Novatus as we learn from Cyprian As then Novatus did not Ordain Novatianus but three Bishops procured for the purpose so neither can it be thought he Ordained Foelicissimus Deacon but by his Policy and Interest got him to be Ordained And yet Cyprian witnesseth that he made fecit constituit the one a Deacon and made fecit the other a Bishop In like manner 〈◊〉 made Daniel a Deacon and a Presbyter that is appointed and commanded him to take Orders For being the Abbot he had the Authority to determine his own Monk unto the Orders of Deacon and Presbyter But It may not be amiss to consider what Blondel has from this Testimony of Cassianus advanced for the establishment of Presbyterian Ordination He places this fact in the Year 390. when the Egyptian Church enjoyed a profound Peace and Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria and the Government of this Church was improved in a manner into a Secular Dominion If in these Circumstances He argues a Presbyter might Ordain Presbyters how much more before the ancient simplicity of the Gospel was shackled with Novel Constitutions Ans. It is is some prejudice against this Story of Cassianus that neither 〈◊〉 Sozomen Theodoret nor any of those Ecclesiastical Historians though they mention Paphnutius should have one Syllable of this Action nor so much as mention Daniel Besides the Egytian Churches were not in so perfect Tranquility as Mr. Blondel imagines and represents them The Melitian Schism still remained among them and this Paphnutius was one of them as I have before observ'd so that it is not be wondered at that Paphnutius presumed to Ordain and Theophilus overlook'd and neglected it For what had he to do with them that were already out of the Church and Excommunicated as the Melitians must needs be supposed This premised I frame an Argument against Blondel and as I conceit every whit as good as his 'T is this If in the most Turbulent State of the Egyptian Church when Alexander was Bishop of Alexandria the Ordinations of Melitius and Colluthus were declared invalid it is Morally impossible that the Ordination of Daniel by Paphnutius should be approved or connived at when Theophilus being Bishop of Alexandria the Episcopacy was raised to a higher degree of Grandeur and the Peace of the Church better established To conclude this Chapter let it be remembred what I have already noted out of Theodoret how that Bishops were wont to reside among the Monks in the Wilderness of Egypt and that seven of them are said to have done so from their Youth up to their extreme Old Age even when they were Bishops and a little Sense will perswade one to believe that Daniel was Ordained by a Bishop Paphnutius the Abbot commanding and directing his Monk to receive Holy Orders CHAP. XV. Of Pope Leo ' s Decree THE case was this There were was in the Diocess of Rusticus Bishop of Narbona as may be conjectured from Pope Leo's Epistle some Persons who toook upon 'em to Ordain and who are called by that Pope Pseudo Episcopi Rusticus complains thereof in a Letter to Leo which is not extant that I know of Leo's Answer is There is no reason they should
deceived us We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses but have brought no thing back worthy our pains but a Word and Empty Title Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry a Scene of Imposture and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides This must be confessed if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular as Mr. O. is pleased to say On the other Hand the History assures us that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles as they believ'd But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort But the mischief is the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation they will plead That they are Presbyters as well as others and have an Inherent Power to Ordain that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right which the Scripture gives them And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers which he has planted against our Bishops and with more Reason too For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination he had not respect to Age but to Ability 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young And Demas Bishop of Magnesia in Ignatius was a Young Man also 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself 't is all I ask I will suppose then that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters but limited it unto a few I will not say the Graver or Older sort but the Wiser and most Holy If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession Mr. O. adds and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed But this is what the Dissenters aim at that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised but the Whole Church consented unto and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God In short did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions I mean that of taking the Covenant But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter I shall therefore let it pass Of the Lollards 〈◊〉 has it is 〈◊〉 fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters and that every Priest or Presbyter has as good a Power to bind and loose and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give But to this it may be reply'd that 't is only the report of an Adversary and perhaps may be a Scandal It may again be answered that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised It may yet further be said that when People grope their way in a Dark Night it is no wonder if they now and then stumble They are to be both pittied and pardoned For lastly 't is manifest if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God It was one of their Maxims Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 566. that no Day is Holy not the Lord's-Day or Sabbath Day as People will call it but that on every Day Men may work eat and drink c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy Yea rather 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People and utterly Cancelled their Office at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution In short I think they were a well meaning but ignorant People who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel about Government and Discipline Finally note here that this Instance of the Lollards who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does especially not among the Protestants that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to at least under the Title of the Primitive Church But what all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion and the Primitive Church will never have an end so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline Concerning the Boiarians or Bavarians who as Mr. O. would have us believe were once Presbyterians I will only say thus much in short I find