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
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
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.
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
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
was no Ordination but conferring the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit which Philip could not do Mr. O. forgot to take notice of the whole Argument but Answers it by halves I urg'd that Philip had the extraordinary and Miraculous Gift of the Spirit which was usually conferred by Imposition of hands that though he had this Gift yet he could not give it that therefore they who have a Gift yet may not have power to conferr that Gift and by consequence that those Persons who are ordain'd to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments it does not follow that they can Ordain which was the thing to be prov'd There is nothing that I perceive meriting any Reply until we come to that piece of Discipline 1 Cor. 5. where we read of the Incestuous Corinthian Excommunicated as I contend by the Authority and Command of St. Paul But Mr. O. insinuates that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians for not excommunicating the Sinner themselves 1 Cor. 5. 2. Ans. This verse proves it not The expression is in the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Offender might be taken away By whom Why not by the Apostle He may as well be thought to chide 'em for not informing him of the misdemeanour to the end the Offender might be delivered unto Satan by St. Paul himself The whole Story as we shall shew Countenances this Interpretation Ay but says the Minister the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to avoid disorderly walkers v. 13. Ans. But this is by the Apostles express commandment still Besides to put away from among themselves that wicked Person is not to deliver him to Satan or to expel him the Church but Not to eat with him v. 11. that is not to have any Familiarity with him in civil Conversation In this the Apostle does indeed declare v. 12. that the Corinthians had power to Judge with whom they might be Familiar and with whom not But it does not hence follow they had power to Excommunicate Now that it was St. Paul who judged and decreed and gave theSentence of Excommuncation against the Offender will appear plainly if we read the first part of the 3 d verse with the 5 th v. for all the rest is a Parenthesis Thus then let us put 'em close together v. 3. For I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have determined already then v. 5. to deliver such an one unto Satan For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Excommunication most certainly proceeded from the Apostle It is also worthy consideration that the Corinthians did not receive again into their Communion this Excommunicated Person until the Apostle had absolved him and then besought them to confirm their Love towards him 2 C. 28. 10. In the next place I am accused of altering and perverting the Text. 〈◊〉 heavy charge which ought not to be passed over lightly The Accusation is that v. 4. I have put the Words thus Of my Spirit whereas the Translators leaving out of render the place thus My Spirit not Of my Spirit Ans. Since the Grammatical construction will bear it there is no reason of accusing me of perverting the Text. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put absolute and into a Parenthesis Upon this supposition then thus the Words may be laid In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and my Spirit or of my Spirit which is the same thing when ye are gathered together c. So that Mr. O. could not have any just pretense for his Accusation whatever becomes of my Interpretation of the Text. This perhaps he may call into Question and my purpose now is to vindicate it I cannot reconcile my self unto that Opinion which Couples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus more plainly in English When ye and my Spirit are gathered together Paul was now at Ephesus both Body and Spirit I can form no Idea of his Spirit assembling with the Corinthians at so great a distance True he tells 'em that he is present with 'em in Spirit but Corrects himself immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though I were present So that the Sense is St. Paul was present with 'em in Heart and Affections studying their welfare wishing them well and praying that their Souls might be Saved and their Church Edified in Peace and Purity Or why not present among 'em by his Authority As we say the King is every where present in his Dominions by his Influence and Providence But that the Spirit of Paul should be gathered or assembled with the Corinthian Congregation is a too harsh and improper Expression at least in my Fancy and Opinion especially since so Commodious and agreeable Sense may be given of the Words Nor let any one suspect me to have advanced this Interpretation to serve a cause which stands in no need of it For if it shall still be thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be coupled then the latter Words must import the Apostles Authority as I formerly expounded it And least the Apostle should seem too assuming in thus insisting on his own ' Authority with great caution he adds With the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he had said my Authority but in Conjunction with and subordination to the Power of Christ. For so the Apostle was wont oftimes carefully to prevent mistakes left he should be thought to haveUsurpt his Power Thus he 2 Cor. 10. 8. speaking of his Authority adds Which the Lord hath given us c. And Chap. 2. 10. which comes nearer to our purpose when he had granted the Absolution of the Excommunicated Person I forgave it says he in the Person of Christ. Upon the whole matter thus much at least may be said of this Instance of Ecclesiastical Discipline that St. Paul directed and commanded it which is all I need to be concerned for For then it can be no president for a College of Presbyters much less for a particular Minister of one single Congregation to Excommunicate which was the thing I intended to Evince I proceed now to the Story of 〈◊〉 's Ordination briefly related 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. of which in the first place I delivered this as my own settled Opinion That Timothy underwent two Ordinations the one for Presbyter the other for 〈◊〉 or Supreme Ruler of the Church of 〈◊〉 One of my Reasons for this was because Paul himself seemed to me to have been twice Ordained once Act. 9. 15 〈◊〉 17. and again Chap. 13. the first unto the Ordinary Ministry of the Word the second unto the Apostle of the Gentiles Against this Mr. O. Argues 1. That Paul was more than an Ordinary Minister of the Word Gal. 1. 1. meaning before he received that Imposition of hands Act. 13. that is from the time of his Conversion Ans. He might as well say that Paul was an
and after also Chap. 16. 25 17 15 18 5. Lastly that if nothing of this will be allowed then it must be said that the Presbyters by Special Revelation and Prophecy appointed thereunto Ordained Timothy And I give Mr. O. his choice of any of these Expositions If he accepts the last as most likely he will it is however no precedent or warrant for Ordinary Presbyters by Virtue of their Ordinary Power and Office to Impose hands and Conferr Orders Mr. O. in reply to this 〈◊〉 not offer'd one Syllable but he has interposed some as he thinks witty descants upon the Rector's words and notions merely to evade the Argument and to perplex it which I account not worth my particular Notice But whereas he thus Paraphrases on my Words Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given by Prophets with the laying on of the Hands of Prophets intimating it to be Nonsense observe me once more and Remember that the Rector proposed two ways of Interpreting this Passage in Timothy First That by Prophecy may be meant Prophets in the Concrete distinct from the Presbyters spoken of in the same Period and then the sense must be Neglect not the Gift which was given thee by Prophets directed and determined unto that Action by some Extraordinary and Express Command of God with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters as assistants in the Solemnity Either this is sense or I have none and being admitted confirms my Point That Ordinary meer Presbyters Ordained not Timothy by their ownsole Power Secondly Or else the Passage may thus be understood That Prophecy is to be taken in the Abstract as it lies in the Text and the Presbyters were the Persons unto whom the Prophecy came appointing them to Ordain Timothy who therefore were Prophets and not Ordinary Presbyters in that particular Action On this supposition the Words must run Neglect not the Gift which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters unto whom the Prophecy came And this ought to pass with Mr. O. for sense if he is Master of any and shews that meer Ordinary Presbyters did not Ordain Timothy by Virtue of their Ordinary Power but by Special Commission from God But Mr. O. confounds these two different Interpretations putting them together which ought to be considered separately contrary to all Laws of Disputation and then pretends to have found out some Absurdity or Nonsense in the Rector's Gloss. Moreover the Gloss is not absurd even as Mr. O. has laid it For supposing that by Prophecy is meant Prophets and that the Presbyters were those Prophets 't is proper enough to say That Timothy was ordained by Prophets with the laying on of the Hands of the Prophets the former Clause donoting who ordained him the latter by what Ceremony or Solemnity it was performed Nor is it a degrading Paul when we make him a Prophet which is an order inferior to Apostle as Mr. O. weakly enough argues It s not unusual to give Persons an Inferior Title St. John and St. Peter are called Presbyters Saul and David Prophets Balaam a Prince was a Prophet so was Daniel and so was Caiaphas the High-Priest and so was Paul sometimes who had Visions and Revelations I say 〈◊〉 For sometimes also he spake and wrote with the Spirit of a Reasonable Man only though at the same time with Apostolical Authority For the Power of an Apostle was permanent and 〈◊〉 his Character indelible though that of a Prophet was not so See concerning this Jerom's Comment on Malachy and his Prooem to Comment on the Epistle to Philemon But Mr. O. questions whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Presbyteries in the Churches by them planted because then the Churches by them planted must have had two or more Heads Ans. If ever any Man lov'd to Trifle and Embroil matters with Trivial and Sensless Difficulties the Minister is He. For what if 〈◊〉 was inferior to Paul and as I may say a Subaltern Apostle then the Objection is gone And what if several Persons in equal Power mav make up not Heads but one Political Head in a Society Then the Wonder is over In Dioclesian's Days there were several Emperours Socii Imperii There were lately two Czars in Moscovy and two Princes in England 'T is indeed Monstrous when a Natural Body has two or more Heads But that a Political Body or Society should be governed by two or more Persons jointly in a Parity nothing is more Ordinary Casar indeed was of another Mind and his Maxim was Imperium non capit duos but 't was his Pride and Ambition which Prompted him to say so For matter of Fact and his Successors Practice has abundantly confuted him But if Mr. O. will not allow two or more Governours of a Body Politick to be called the Head of that Society then are the Presbyterian Churches and the Independent Congregations so many Bodies without an Head And I think a Body without any Head is altogether as Monstrous as a Body with two or more Mr. O. adds The Presbyters at Jerusalem had many Apostles to govern them besides Prophets and Evangelists unto whom they were Subject and not to any one in particular Ans. 1. All the Twelve Apostles were Instrumental in planting this Church which therefore was Subject to all for a good while as to one Head Secondly James afterwards was made the Ordinary Resident Church-Governour as is very probable Thirdly The Elders spoken of Acts 15. were not those of Jerusalem only as I conceive but such also as came thither from others parts Judea Syria c. and were Members of the Council and on that score not so much Subject but Assistants to the Apostles 〈◊〉 The Apostles and Elders now Assembled intermedled not in the Government of this Church at this time but met here it might have been in any other place if they had so pleased to determin a Question which concerned all Churches wherein there were any Jewish Converts as may be gathered from Acts 16. 4. But Paul the Apostle says the Minister had Power over all Churches why is he then made the Governour of Ephesus in particular though he planted it Ans. Why not I require a Reason It was his particular care for the Reason assigned A Colonel has Power over the whole Regiment but ' specially over his own Troop Every Apostle had a Transcendent Power over every Presbytery grant it yet he was the Ordinary Governour of those Churches which he had formed Camerarius Comments upon the 2 Cor. 10. 15. thus Disignat 〈◊〉 c. Paul means in this place that a District as it were a Plat of ground was given him whereon he might build a Church Still the care of all the Churches lay upon the Apostles as to right and Power although for the better Government of them they divided the 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 of Propagating the Gospel required
or Observation in him he would rather have concluded that the Rector seems to derive the Word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as himself also believes For my writing Sanedrin without the Aspirate h in the middle might reasonably have been judged done in Conformity to the Greek Language which frequently casts away the Aspirat h in the middle of Compound words the Conjugates at least of many derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this especially Synedrium Wherefore since Mr. O. will needs have 〈◊〉 borrowed from the Greeks 't is more conformable to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to writ it Sanedrin not Sanhedrin with the Aspirat And to speak the very Truth in writing that Word my thoughts were ever upon the Greek Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 into the Orthography But when all is said concerning this Word Sanhedrin I must acknowledge I have some scruple and suspition about it 'T is very odd in my Thoughts that the Name of this great Council which began with Moses should descend from the Greek Tongue a long while unknown to the Jews And that it should have no other Title in the Hebrew Language that I ever heard of But 〈◊〉 or too much of this Trivial matter CHAP. III. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 3 d Chap. MR O. in this Chapter undertakes first to 〈◊〉 his own Hypothesis scil that Paul at his taking final leave of the Ephesian Elders Act. 20. appointed them the sole Governours of that Church in a Parity and that this Constitution was and was intended to be unchangeable I will briefly run through his Arguments and as I go along make my Answer to every one of 'em singly Mr. O. The Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter Supreme to preside over the rest For Timothy and Titus were not Ordinary Presbyters but extraordinary Officers that is Evangelists There is no hint in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. that they were Ordained to be the Apostles Successors in Ephesus and Crete Ans. I shall consider in the following Fifth Chapter this pretence of their being extraordinary Officers and Evangelists whereby Mr. O. would evade our Argument for Timothy's being made the Prefect or Ruler of Ephesus in the Apostles stead mean while granting there is no hint in the Epistle to Tim. that he was Ordained to be the Apostle's Successor in Ephesus though the second Epistle 1. 6. is a shrewd Intimation of it according to Jerom yet it follows not hence that he was not the Apostle's Successor The Reverend Dr. Stratford was not Ordained Presbyter with 〈◊〉 design to be afterward Bishop of Chester and yet for all that he is Bishop of this See Mr. O. The Apostle did and it was the proper Season and his Duty at his taking final leave to settle the Government of that Church But he then committed it to the Presbytery in a Parity and not to any single Person Act. 20. 28. Ans. 1. For any thing to be found in that Act. 20. 28. St. 〈◊〉 might have before this time appointed a single Person over the Ephesian Elders and so have left it These words Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the 〈◊〉 of God might and may properly enough at this day be spoken unto Presbyters subject to a President or Bishop set over them But 2. If the Supreme Power was here committed to the Elders however it s not proved nor can be that it was in a Parity the words might have been spoken to 'em divisim severally which divests one part of the Dissenters of their Presbyteries 3. However it was suppose the Government lodged in the Presbytery St. Paul might afterwards by Divine Authority intrust it with a single Person As to the matter of fact whether he did so is the present controversy the Issue whereof will depend on what follows Mr. O. We may with better reason affirm that Timothy's Power at Ephesus was temporary than that of the Elders Ans. Not so If Timothy's Supreme Power followed that of the Elders as shall be proved and if it cannot be proved that the 〈◊〉 of Government committed to Timothy was ever changed afterwards by any subsequent Act of the Apostles the Objection vanishes Mr. O. Paul gives not the least hint Act. 20. of any Ruler set or to be set over them That he must needs know what Government God would have setled in the Church c. Ans. What hint is there to be observed in the 1st Epistle to lim concerning Presbyterian Parity Or indeed of the Presbyters having the least share in the Church Government It was as necessary he should mention the Presbytery in his first Epistle to Timothy supposed by Mr. O. written before the farewel Sermon as to make mention of their Prelatical Bishop in his Farewel Sermon Nor did the Apostle know beforehand all the mind and Intentions of God concerning his Church He knew not so much as what would befal himself save what other Prophets told him v. 23. and yet still he was left in the dark as to many things v. 22. I see no reason for believing Paul must needs know at that time God's Intention of altering the Church Government afterwards If so 't is not to be wondred he did not acquaint the Presbyters with it Besides there 's good reason to think that Paul though he knew it would not acquaint 'em with it at that time Happy he saw they would not then brook nor endure to hear of the alteration and of being subject to any other single Person except the Apostle himself especially when no Occasion was as yet given for it But in process of time after some of themselves were risen and had spoke perverse things and turning Schismaticks 〈◊〉 drawn away Disciples after them v. 30. then was the time for changing the Government and charging Timothy to silence those that taught false Doctrine 1 Tim. 1. 3. and then it was that at least the Humble and Peaceable and Obedient and Holy Presbyters would readily submit to the Change Mr. O. Asks whether there were no Prophecy of Timothy's being the suture Bishop Ruler of Ephesus If there was why did Paul suppress it in Act. 20. Ans. I have given a reason of this already But further note that there was such a Prophecy as I believe 1 Tim. 1. 18. though it might not have been given till after Paul's farewel Sermon I add it is very probable also that he was Ordained unto it 2. Epist. 1. 6. So St. Jerom thought as I have already observ'd Mr. O. to overthrow the common reason given of the change of Church Government asserts That the establishment of the Presbytery at Ephesus was for a remedy against Schism therefore the Elders were admonished to Oversee the Flock v. 28. Ans. The Minister here is not at all fair in his reasoning for the Remedy which the Apostles prescribes against the Wolves
fundavit rexit Ecclesias which how to reconcile may deserve a few words That Paul founded the Asians Churches cannot be deny'd and settled their Government ought not to be Questioned That these Asian Churches were to decay by the time of John's Banishment into Patmos is manifest from the Epistles unto the Seven Churches in the Revelations That John after his Release returning into 〈◊〉 new form'd regulated and reformed 〈◊〉 Churches is most probable and therefore is said by Jerom to have founded and governed them Perhaps he removed some of the Angels or Bishops of those Churches who had misbehaved themselves in their Offices whether for a while he personally govern'd 'em all himself without continuing or placing over them Bishops or whether as a Metropolitan having a subordinate Bishop in every Church under him cannot with certainty be determined but 't is out of Question that he appointed Bishops in them before he dyed as appears from 〈◊〉 Epistles and from those remarkable words in Tertullian Ordo Episcoporum ad Originem recensus in Joannem stabit Authorem Mr. O. that he may shake off the Argument for Bishops drawn from the Angels in the Revelations Argues 1. That Angels Minister to the Heirs of Salvation Heb. 1. 14. which imports a Ministery not Superiority Ans. He abuses the Text 't is Ministring for not to the Heirs of Salvation They Minister to God for us So the King is the Minister of or to God Rom. 13. 4. for us Nevertheless he is our Superior even as the Angels are Briefly by this Argument neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles nor Bishops nor Presbyters nor Dissenting Ministers have any Authority for all these Minister for our Salvation or pretend it 2. That Angel singular is often taken Collectively for Angels plural as are Stars also Ans. Mr. O. has not produced one example hereof If any one is at leisure to examine the Text cited by him he 'll find this true For of Mal. 2. 7. I treat by and by 3. That the Epistles were directed to all the believers of the Asiatick Churches so I understand him and not to the Angels only Ans. Not so But to the Angles only for the use of the Believers 4. That 't is uncertain whether there is an Hierarchy among the Angels that the Pseudo-Dionysius makes them the lowest Order that therefore they cannot represent the highest Order in the Church Ans. 'T is meer jangling to alledge the Opinion of an Author confessedly spurious But 't is manifest that there is an Angelical Hierarchy from Scripture and that Angels are the Superior Order may be gathered from Rom. 3. 38. where they reckoned in the first place before Principalities and Powers Lastly the Superlative Excellency of Angels supposing them the lowest Order makes them a fit Representation of the Highest degree among Men. We may say of the meanest Angel He that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the mightyest Potentate of the Earth Even Jesus Christ himself is called an Angel Mal. 3. 1. 5. That the Holy Ghost in the Epistles alludes to the Minister of the Synagogue in Conformity to the Language of the Old Testament Job 33. 23. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 1 7. ch 3. 1. Ans. In these Texts there is no mention of Synagogues nor any where else in the Old Testament Nor do we meet with Angels of the Synagogue but Ruler in the New nor any where else but in the late Rabbins Job's Messenger was either a real Angel or extraordinary Prophet Interpreter and one of a Thousand v. 23. Hagga was a Prophet so was the Baptist not Ministers of Synagogues When Mr. O. appeals unto Malachy he is gone from the Synagogue to the Temple and so quitted his Argument Nor doth Priests Mal. 2. 1. signify all even the Secondary Priests in the Temple but the High Priests only in Succession who are therefore v. 7. exprest in the singular and indefinitely or if Mr. O. will have it so Priests here signfies Collectively all High Priests For it must be confest when the Subject of a Proposition is put indefinitely in the singular number and the Predicate belongs to the whole Species then the Subject may be taken Collectively and is equivalent to an Vniversal Proposition as when we say Man is a rational Creature we mean all Men are so But it will be said that the Predicate viz. his Lips should keep knowledge c. appertains to the whole Species of Priests even the Secondary I reply 1. Supposing this yet still there was an High Priest in the Temple And therefore agreeably hereunto though all the Elders were called Angels admitting this yet there was an Arch-Angel in every Church unto whom the Epistles were directed who was The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 2 Angel in the Epistles is not described by a Specifical but an individual Character ex gr the Angel of the Church of Ephesus If it be said this is a Specifical Character because all the Elders were Angels of that Church I return that cannot be For no body ever directed a Letter thus indefinitely to all and to every one or any one of the same Denomination The Title may haply belong to many Persons for different Reasons and yet the Letter is intended for some one more Eminently called so As if a Letter were directed To the Speaker of the House of Commons though every Member is Speaker if he pleases and though of the Topping and forward Commoners we usually say They are Speakers because they often Speak to matters in Debate yet every Foot-Boy will apprehend the Letter is sent to a particular determinate Person commonly called The Speaker Wherefore if all the Elders of Ephesus were in some sense Angels yet The Angel must mean some single Person known in Special manner stiled Angel who could be no other than the Prelatical Ruler of that Church A great deal is argued in defense of the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. against that of the Seventy But besides what has been elsewhere offered in the Vindication of the latter I here add That Clemens Romanus * that Origen * and Jerom * himself the fierce Stickler for the Hebrew reads the place according to the Seventy It may then with Reason be suspected that the proud conceited Jews corrupted this Scripture to magnify themselves and their Nation as if God in dividing the Nations had his Eye ' specially on the Sons of Israel modelling the World according to the number of them that went down with Jacob into Aegypt as the Rabbins imagine As for the precise number of Provinces and their Guardian Angels though the Rabbins and the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. seem to determine them by the number of Jacob's Children who went with him into Aegypt yet neither the Seventy nor I have adventured so punctually to define it but have left that point uncertain and indefinite It is not known into how many Provinces God cast the
Rector have all along taken it for granted that whatever Powers were committed to 〈◊〉 were also given unto Titus and reciprocally what to Titus were committed to Timothy Besides I take it to be out of Controversy that he to whom any one Part of Supreme Power is given is to be understood as invested with all Consequently if Titus was to appoint where every Presbyter was to officiate he then had the Power of Ordination also As in like manner though Timothy had no express Commission to reject Hereticks after the second Admonition yet because Titus had that Power so had 〈◊〉 likewise In short Titus had Authority to receive Accusations and to rebuke openly as well as Timothy had 1 Epist. to Tim. 5. and Timothy to excommunicate the Contumacious as well as Titus had Ch. 3. 10. and both had power to ordain because one had CHAP. IV. Being An Answer to Mr. O's 4 th Chap. THE Question here is whereas St. Paul gave Timothy those ample Commissions and Instructions that we read of in his first Epistle concerning the Government of the Ephesian Church some time after he had besought him to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 1 Epist. 1. 3. What was that precise time of Paul's going into Macedonia and beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus In the Tent. Nov. following Bishop Pearson I resolved this Question thus That Paul's Journey here spoken of could not be meant of any of those mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles that therefore it must be some other after his bidding the Elders of Ephesus Farewel That coming to Jerusalem he was there made Prisoner and thence carried to Rome where he continued about 2 Years in Bonds That being at length released he returned into the Eastern Parts again visiting the Churches and then as he passed out of Asia into Macedonia besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus as the fixt Ruler or Bishop of that Church And shortly after dispatched the 1st Epistle to him That Paul himself some while after went back into Italy and unto the utmost parts of the West Preaching the Gospel and being at length once more got unto Rome was there Imprisoned a second time when he wrote the second Epistle to Tim. a little before he was Beheaded We are now to consider Mr. O's Objections against all this Mr. O. To abide still doth not imply a continued Residence But may signify a short stay Act. 17. 14 15. by Consequence he was not the fixt Bishop Ruler of Ephesus Ans. There is a great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 14 15. The former implies a continued stay at Ephesus the latter only signifies Silas and Timothy's halting that is tarrying behind Paul at Beraea Besides we have no account of Timothy's sudden remove from Ephesus But we have of Timothy's leaving Beraea soon after Act. 18. 5. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Lastly the Orders given unto Timothy at Ephesus were many and Important which also required time to be executed which does not appear to have been the Case of Timothy at Beraea Mr. O. Timothy's stay there at Ephesus was but short that is until the Apostle came to him 1 Tim. 3. 14. ch 4. 13. Ans. There is no Colour of Argument in this It is not said he must tarry no longer there than till Paul came to him Nor can that be the meaning For then it would follow that Timothy was to give attendance to Reading to Exhortation and to Doctrine but till the Apostle came to him Which I hope Mr. O. will not affirm Besides Paul was not certain of his going to Ephesus shortly Therefore he adds 1 Tim. 3. 15 If I tarry long c. from which Passages I gather That Paul at his first beseeching of Timothy to abide at Ephesus thought his Instructions not full enough and therefore intended to see Timothy shortly at Ephesus and to furnish him with further Orders how he ought to behave himself in the House of God the Church of Ephesus committed to him But because he suspected he might tarry long he therefore in the mean while sent him this Epistle All which shews that Timothy was designed for the fixt Ruler of Ephesus Although the Apostle resolved to visit him there shortly Not to remove him thence but to give him fuller Directions about the management of the Government of the Church Mr. O. He was not fixt as Resident at Ephesus because the Apostle afterward called him to Rome 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. Ans. I will take an Opportunity by and by to Discourse about Residence where the weakness of this Objection will fully appear In the Interim I 'll only acquaint the Reader that according to Mr. O's own Hypothesis it could not be less than between three and four Years after the writing of the first Epistle that Paul sent for 〈◊〉 unto Rome and according unto mine about six Years which is a considerable stay or Residence in one Place I say further that Paul's sending for Timothy to Rome is no Argument that Timothy for ever quitted that Post That he returned back to Ephesus must be made appear from Ecclefiastical History the Scripture going no further in the Account of Paul and Timothy than that in the second Epistle Sophronlus or Jerom Witness that he was Martyr'd at Ephesus and Photius acquaints us with the time and Occasion viz. At the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which Timothy would have had abrogated Lastly supposing Timothy never returned back to Ephesus it 's no consequence that he was not by Paul constituted resident Bishop Ruler of Ephesus as will afterwards in these Papers appear Mr. O. Objects against the time assign'd in T. N. of Paul's going into 〈◊〉 after his Release from his first Imprisonment at Rome that is after the History of the Acts of the Apostles wherein no mention is made of this Voyage as I assert against this I say Mr. O. Objects That nothing can be concluded from Luke's silence in this Point For 't is certain that he doth not mention all the Journies of Paul and Timothy Ans. I readily grant that bare silence is no good Proof without some other considerations to support it and I also grant that Luke mentions not all Paul and Timothy's Journeys But I contend that he Omits none of Paul's from the 13 th Chapter unto the end of the Acts of the Apostles as any impartial Man will believe if he carefully reads that part of the History And for proof of this I shall at present content my self with the acknowledgement and. Testimony of Beza himself who thus writes particularly as to Paul's Journeys into Macedonia Ter omnino vidit Macedoniam Paulus ut ex historiae filo apparet Quamvis enim non omnia perscripserit Lucas ita tamen contextam historiam esse apparet ut non plures profectiones in Macedoniam possint constitui Paul saw Macedonia but thrice as
old Hypothesis as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus constituted Timothy the Ruler Bishop of Ephesus yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that his Farewel-Sermon Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and that other to the Ephesians and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy takes no Notice of the Elders neither does John Peter or Jude in their Epistles nor lastly does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon but shall we thence conclude that those Churches had none of those Officers in them Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler Bishop of Ephesus might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government and one would think could not have forgot'em when he was discoursing on such an Argument Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself whose other Epistles so often and so fully remember Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in that to the Romans had not oneSyllable of any of 'em and yet he knew very well that Bishops as well as Presbyters were then established throughout the World as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians 'T is then no Proof that Timothy was not even at that time the established Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered and why let any one judge I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy Now whether as Mr. O. pleads Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution but Divine by the Power of the Holy Ghost v. 28. enough has been said of this already Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there or his Prelatical Power over them For it is not inconsistent to say that Timothy was appointed their Ruler Bishop and at the same time that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy We Presbyters of the Church of England do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock and that by Divine Authority too and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us by the same Divine Authority Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests viz. That we are Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord to teach premonish feed and provide for the Lord's Family and to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed abroad And at our Ordination the first Question is Do ye think in your Hearts that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God It follows not then from these words that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole intire and supreme Government of that Church They might even then be and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence as we are to our Diocesan Bishops If our Provincial Archbishop should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate exhort as ordinary Presbyters To take heed to our selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers to feed the Church of God not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering Before I conlude this Chapter there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis has suggested to me proving I am bold to say demonstrating that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome I will lay 'em as briefly and as plainly as I can before the Reader and so make an end 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment as Mr. O. affirms it must then have been written either before or at the same time or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy had sent Tychicus to Ephesus Chap. 4. 12 How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians if he was already gone to Ephesus before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians The second Epistle to Timothy therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians 2. Not at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written For Timothy who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 was sent for by Paul to Rome Chap. 4. 9. was even then with Paul at Rome and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon Chap. 1. 1. Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time as that to the Colossians was 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written For then Timothy who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul which 't is certain he did not Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome and once more gone back into Asia with him In like manner 〈◊〉 who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians from Paul and Timothy must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome and thence been sent back unto Ephesus 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment which is not in the least Probable 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase as no rational Man can admit Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy was not written after that to the Colossians If then it was written neither before nor at the same time nor after those to the Colossians and Philemon it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment therefore it must needs have been written in his Second 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to the Colossians and that other to Philemon I shall
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
yet every Pastor or Teacher is not an Evangelift or a Bishop Mr. O. engages me once more to enter the Lists with him in Philology a part of knowledge he values himself upon but without reason as will now appear as it has also before He Corrects me for writing Mark' s Successor at Alexandria Annianus which he says ought to be Anianus with a single n at the beginning Ans. I have the Paris Edition of Eusebius the best extant in the World as all agree I in my writing Annianus conformed my self to that Copy wherein I find him not once called Anianus And Valesius a Critick of the first Form vindicates himself for writing it with a double n from the Authority of the Mazarine and Medicean MSS. unto whom he adds Ruffinus and Jerom Subscribe For Annianus is a Latin Word deduced from Annius as Valerianus from Valerius and many other of the same Nature are obvious to any who read the Roman 〈◊〉 Particularly there was a Poet of good esteem in the Reign of Adrian the Emperor named Titus Annianus as I observed in Helvicus's Chronology accidentally when I was looking for another thing 'T is true other MSS. write him Anianus as Mr. O. does and 〈◊〉 has Hananias But what then When a Word is differently written may not one chuse to write it as he pleases Haply if I had chanced to have followed those who believe the right name to be Anianus Mr. O. could have amended it into Annianus But I do him too much credit by supposing he knew any thing of this different way of writing Annianus Mr. O. hopes the Rector will not make a settled Church Officer a Bishop of Priscilla a Woman This I suppose he intends for a little piece of Wit or a Jeer. Ans. Why not a Bishop as well as an Evangelist And why not a settled Church-Officer as well or rather than an 〈◊〉 one I am sure a 〈◊〉 and virtuous Woman is not very forward to gad abroad 't is her Character that she Loves home and not often appears in publick St. Chrysostom makes her an Evangelist Let Mr. O. look how well that suits with his professed Opinion of Evangelists being Extraordinary unfixt Officers Let Mr. O. acquit St. Chrysostom and his own dear self in the first place and the Rector will be safe I am confident But surely Mr. O. knows an Ancient Father of good credit with him tho' with no body else I mean Dorothaeus who among other of his Fables makes Priscilla a Bishop If his Authority be so good Mr. O. has the Mystery proved to him Mr. O. It is well observed by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon Four Hundred Years after Ans. By the Ministers good leave I must Question the Truth of what he here asserts though he backs it with never so good Authority Whoever shall tell me that The first who called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon must excuse me if I say he is grosly mistaken Eusebius who lived and Flourished above an Hundred Years before that Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must at least be understood of the Ecclesiastical History before Eusebius's Time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is recorded in History That Timothy first received the Episcopacy of the Diocess of Ephesus Jerom calls him Bishop of Ephesus and he was 60 Years before the said Council of Chalcedon Thus much I have adventured to say before I consult Mr. O's Testimony borrowed from the Irenicum But I am now going to consult the Learned Bishop of Worcester and examine whether he was guilty of this Oversight imputed to him by the Minister Well! I have deliberately as well as I can read the 〈◊〉 and 303 d pages of the Irenicum and I find Mr. O. has served that Reverend Author as he has done many a good one besides in downright Terms belying him Mr. 〈◊〉 so I will make bold to call him that Book being wrote in his Youth and before he had received the Honours which were afterward deservedly bestowed on him speaking there of the Succession of Bishops tells us That the Succession at Ephesus is pleaded for with greatest Confidence by Leontius Bishop of 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon Mr. 〈◊〉 't is confest afterward has these Words No wonder then if Leontius makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derives the Succession down from him He does not affirm that Leontius first called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus But that 't is no wonder if he made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and thence proved the Succession of Bishops by the Succession of the Ephesian Bishops down from Timothy He made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus but he was not the first that did so for many had done it before him I will not deny perhaps this Learned Author at that time Questioned whether Timothy was so or no. However he did not assert that Leontius was the first that called him Bishop of Ephesus Mr. O. then who seems to value himself for the Hundreds of his quotations would do well if he more carefully examined his Authors and more sincerely represented their Opinions But 't is no hard matter for any one if he will make it his business for some little time to Collect an innumerable number of Authorities upon this Subject of Episcopacy 'T is but taking into his hand Blondel and 〈◊〉 Forbes and Stillingfleet Saravia and some others particularly Mr. Baxter from whom Mr. O. has borrowed at least two of his Arguments in his Plea almost verbatim and many of the Testimonies wherewith he has confirmed 'em and he shall be thought by Ignorant Readers Helluo Librorum a Devourer of Books a Man of infinite Reading and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and Ancient Writers when perhaps he never read one of 'em no nor so much as consulted the particular Testimonies which he cites out of ' em But 't is one thing to dabble in Authors and another throughly to understand and truly to represent ' em CHAP. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 6 th Chap. THE Principal Matter whereof may be reduced unto Four Heads 1. What has already been argued between us in the former Chapters which I quite lay aside 2. What will fall in my way when I Reply farther unto the Plea which I reserve to a more convenient Place the second part of this Book 3. What is here de novo started against the Rector which I make the Subject of this last Chapter And 4. The Cavils wherewith he has furnished out this last part of his Defence which are considered apart in the Appendix In Vindicating the Politie of the Church of England I asserted in T. N. That the Parish Priests have a share of Power in the Ecclesiastical Government for as much as all the Canons or
who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly Brethren c. All that needs be answered hereunto is 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere that the Schism arose on the account of one or two Persons p. 62. 'T is says He a shame an arrant shame and unworthy a Christians Conversation that the ancient and most firmly established Church of Corinth should raise Sedition against the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one or two Persons that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop that Generous Person it must needs follow that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy and by Consequence that some of 'em were deserted and laid aside by those of the People who had an aversion to the Bishop that Generous Person so oft mentioned as well as to some of the Presbyters who stuck close to him 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of were the Bishop in Possession and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 In short if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning of the Epistle which to us at this distance is dark enough be of any moment it may then be allowed that Clement has intimated that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him but was forced himself to interpose in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters and People had conceived against their Bishop who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words or at least to mention two Orders only when yet they acknowledge a Third This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self The three Officers of the Jewish Church are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest who without controversy was a Third is included 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice That the Priests and Levites came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 meaning the High-Priest also as I presume will not be denyed For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham Clemens Alexand in his 〈◊〉 cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian Church and yet elsewhere he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two In the former place 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops at least they ought not to be excluded though the Author there omits them So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders yet once he contents himself to express 'em in two Words only Bishops and Deacons There are says he in the place cited on the Margin quatuor genera 〈◊〉 Four Orders of Men in the Church but he sums 'em up in three Words viz. Bishops Deacons and the Faithful It may deserve observation that at this time of the Day and with Optatus ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment because forsooth He here mentions 'em not distinctly It cannot be fairly Collected hence as every one 〈◊〉 This is manifest that Optatus in those two Words Bishops and Deacons must understand the three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church Besides saying here sicut supra dixi he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Wherefore the Premisses considered 't is reasonable to believe that Clemens Romanus likewise did in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons It ought not here to be forgot what St. Chrysostom has observed 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both They Minister like Deacons unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates and are subject unto him as the other are But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments as well as the Bishop does and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops But Blundel and his Followers I remember to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church asserts that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age At other times to their own Customs and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks Bishops and Priests and Deacons But this device will not do their Work and must be laid aside for the following Reasons 1. St. Cyprian against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed though He often falls into the Dichotomy yet asserts the Divine Right of Bishops Cum hoc igitur sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur divina lege fundatum sit The Government of the Church by Bishops is says He founded upon a Divine Law That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle He begins it thus Our Lord whose precepts we ought to Reverence and Observe establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs says c. And again he adds Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions so that the Church is established on Bishops and every Act of the Church is governed per eosdem Praepositos by the same Praepositi that is Bishops If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age where the Divine Right ends as well as his own when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi be understood of Presbyters for Cyp. whatever any may fancy of Praepositi never calls Presbyters Bishops Nor could he conformably to his own Writings He professes thus of himself and other Bishops Neq enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops But if the Presbyters were Bishops then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops 2. Optatus in the same Breath in one
present without one yet surely they had not lost all their Presbyters And if the Church of Syria retained yet her Presbyters as by the quiet that Church even then had must be thought they might easily have made to themselves a Chief Pastor or Moderator out of their remaining Number and not been destitute of a Shepherd as Ignatius bewails whole loss or absence at present could only be supply'd by the chief Shepherd and Bishop of their Souls Here by the way the conceit of a temporary Moderator must be thrown out of Doors Ignatius was Bishop of Syria for life nor could they have another whilst He was living tho' absent in Bonds This was the Reason he so Passionately resented the unhappiness of that Church of Syria that they were forced to be without a Bishop which they needed not to have been if another 〈◊〉 Pastor and Moderator might have been constituted in his absence and Life-time which by the Presbyterian Principles might easily have been done 6. Ignatius over and over prescribes that the Churches should do nothing without the Bishop and not only so in these General Terms which haply will be understood of his presiding in Presbyteries and moderating in their Debates for Order's sake but also in particular that Marriages should not be Celebrated the Lord's-Supper should not be administred nor Baptism given unto Believers without him without his appointment and approbation This shews that Ignatius his Bishop was not only the President in their Synods and Deliberations but the Supreme Director of the Execution of the Laws and Rules of the Church without whose leave the 〈◊〉 could not Marry nor Administer the Sacraments 'T is all we desire of the Dissenters if we might prevail with 'em that they would not presume to do any thing without the Bishop and particularly not to Ordain Presbyters Lastly Although he often calls the Presbytery the Council of God and College of the Apostles yet to keep up the Authority of the Bishop He then at the same time resembles him unto God himself or to the Lord Jesus Christ. If then God the Father was Superior to the Apostles and if Jesus Christ must be confest greater than the Council of the Apostles so was the Bishop than the Presbyters or Presbytery in the Opinion of this Father and according to the Analogy and Resemblance in this Author From the whole 't is I hope clear to a Demonstration that Ignatius his Bishops were more than what Mr. O. means by chief Pastor or Moderator in their Assembles pro tempore They were Prelatical and in the nature of their Office Superior to Presbyters It remains that we shew they were Diocesan Bishops that is had the oversight of more than one Congregation for this is another Objection Mr. O. has raised against our established Diocesan Episcopacy For Proof hereof let it be remembred 1. That if there were not in Ignatius his time de facto Diocesan Bishops they were at least formed and designed for such when ever the multitude of Believers should be encreased It has already been observed that Titus left by St. Paul in Crete to Govern that Church was particularly directed by the Apostle to Ordain Elders in every City in all or as many Cities as should afterward receive the Faith or in Order to convert more of ' em I gather hence that Titus was intended to be the Ruler of all these Congregations Let Mr. O. make him a Bishop or an Archbishop 't is all one to me he was constituted to be Ruler over many Cities and Congregations Thus at least it was I conceive in these Asiatick Churches to whom Ignatius wrote as will hence appear viz. that every of these Churches was furnished with a Prelatical Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons under him To what purpose else so many Presbyters and such distinct kinds of Orders One or two at most might have sufficed 'em at present especially if it be considered that the Christians at that time were not in so flourishing a condition as to be able to maintain so many Church-Officers for one Congregation nor was there business enough to employ 'em all in the service of that one Congregation 'T is then most rational to believe that so many Presbyters and Deacons were provided at least for carrying on the Conversion of the Infidels and multiplying them into several Congregations But if every Congregation must have had or was intended to have a Bishop we should doubtléss have read of Bishops ex gr at Ephesus as well as Presbyters in the Plural Let us then suppose what is most reasonable to admit that some at least of these Churches had been in Ignatius's time multiply'd into several Congregations yet still there was but one Bishop I do not remember that ever we read of two Bishops of any one City in all Antiquity excepting when the Christians of that City were harrassed and disturbed with Schisms and Divisions Now who can imagin that no one City in the World even in Ignatius's time ever had more Believers in and near it than did Assemble for Divine Worship in one place Especially in those times of Persecution when the Christians skulked and could not with safety meet in great numbers nor had Rooms capacious enough and therefore cantoned themselves into several Meetings Let any one put all these things together and impartially weigh them and he will not easily grant that Paradox that there was no more than one single Congregation in any City nor will he make any scruple to believe that Ignatius's Bishop was at least designed to preside over several Presbyters and Congregations Lastly the Negative that there was but one Congregation in any of 'em has not been proved neither can by any express Testimony I conćeive it behoves our Dissenters to make this out before they can throughly justifie their Congregational Churches But let us now come to particulars and therefore 2. Note that Ignatius stiles himself Bishop of Syria in his Epistle to the Romans Now how large a tract Syria contained I need not say neither will I affirm he was Bishop of all Syria taken in its utmost Latitude But seeing he calls himself and was Bishop of Syria 't was more than of the bare City Antioch as any one will confess His Episcopal Power must have extended unto some considerable compass of Ground in the adjacent parts of the Country else it had been foolish to have pretended himself to be the Bishop of Syria when he was only Bishop of Antioch and of one Congregation there Will any one then suffer himself to believe 〈◊〉 was Bishop but of one Congregation only It cannot enter into my head so much as to think it possible because it must be supposed there were Congregations in Syria as well as at Antioch in Country as 〈◊〉 as City 3. I reckon also that the Church of Ephesus consisted of more than one Congregation and my Reasons are 1. As I argued in T. N. p. 145.
Apostolical Canon was in force before the Council of Nice then it was not the Nieene Council which altered the Alexandrian Custom as Eutychius and Selden suppose it having been a much more Ancient practise it seems for the Provincial Bishops to Ordain Bishops And so Eutychius is mistaken in this point also If ever there was such a Rule establish'd by Mark at Alexandria of Presbyters Ordaining Bishops or Presbyters it was changed before Alexander or the Nicene Council yea before St. Cyprian's time Eighthly Whereas Eutychius asserts there were no Bishops in Egypt till Demetrius it is proved to the contrary by that most Learned Prelate Bishop Pearson from several good Testimonies and particularly from the Vetus Vita Marci and Rabanus Maurus Abbot of Fulda of both which Mr. Selden likewise takes Notice The former writes thus Pentapolim pergit Marcus Ordinans Episcopos per Regiones illas Clericos iterum Alexandriam venit The latter thus Ordinaverat Marcus pro se Episcopum Annianum 〈◊〉 quoque longe lateque 〈◊〉 Episcopos Mr. Selden to avoid the force of these Testimonies has invented this Shift sc. that Mark made these Bishops in Pentapolis only and not in Egpyt If one ask'd why Mark should make Bishops in Pentapolis and not in 〈◊〉 also it would be hard for Mr. O. to give a satisfactory answer to it Besides 't is said that Mark made Bishops per Regiones illas doubtless the meaning is through all the Countries that he travelled between Alexandria and Pentapolis and surely Egypt was one of them And why should one Patriarch or Bishop suffice for Alexandria and all Egypt but not for Pentapolis Except Mr. O. would be so kind as to furnish us with so early an instance of a vast City and Province under the Government of one single Bishop It cannot then be questioned but that there were from the beginning Bishops in the Province of Egypt as well as one in the City of Alexandria Ninthly Whereas Eutychius says that Mark appointed the Twelve Presbyters to chuse their Patriarch and by Imposition of Hands and Prayers to Ordain him yet Bishop Pearson has produc'd several good Authorities to the contrary shewing they were not Ordained by the Presbyters as first the Apostolical Constitutions attest Of Abilius who succeeded Hananias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Jerom's Chronicle we read that Abilius was chosen ex Presbyteris 〈◊〉 Graecorum Traditionem a Sancto Luca Ordinatus est that is Abilius was chosen out of the Presbyters or from among them as Jerom has it not by 〈◊〉 and according to the Tradition of the Greek Church was Ordained by St. Luke Furthermore 〈◊〉 who wrote the Lives of the Alexandrian Patriarchs informs us that Cerdon who succeeded Abilius and Cerdon's Successors unto Demetrius were Ordained by the Bishops out of that Region that is Egypt I suppose By all which it appears that there were Bishops in Egypt before Demetrius who Ordained the Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria Tenthly It is not like that 〈◊〉 had any Authentick Records belonging to the Churches of Alexandria and Egypt the Saracens having destroy'd and burnt 'em all long before Eutychius was born so that where he wanders from the Truth or when he 〈◊〉 we must conclude he fram'd his Annals and Origines out of his own Brains or some uncertain Monkish Traditions and Legends then currant among them To conclude supposing the Alexandrian Presbyters by St. Mark' s appointment did Elect the Patriarch or Bishop yea and Ordain him too yet it must be confess'd that Bishops however chosen and Ordained are as early as he and by Divine Right St. Mark being a Person inspired and consequently having Authority from God at least from the Apostles to establish the Government of the Chuches which he founded with what Face then could Selden produce these Origines to justifie the Presbyterian design in the late Troubles I do not now say for altering the way of choosing and Ordaining them but for quite extirpating Episcopacy Or with what Colour of Reason can Mr. O. argue against Episcopacy and blame us for not observing the supposed Method of chusing and Ordaining our Bishops 〈◊〉 himself and his Partizans are undermining the Fabrick which St. Mark is confest to have built and levelling it to the very Foundation Let our Adversaries first conform themselves to this Rule of St. Mark let them in every City chuse and Ordain a Bishop for Life unto whom themselves and all the Faithful in the City and Country adjacent must be Subject and unto whose care and conduct the Administration of the Ecclesiastical Affairs may chiefly be committed and when they have done this then let them lay before us this special Author Eutychius It will be time enough then to consider farther of him Mean while it seems not fair nor honest to bring this Fabulous instance on the Stage against us which they themselves will not be guided by The 〈◊〉 is Eutychius of whom we have been speaking liv'd about 900 Years distance from the 〈◊〉 by him related without any intermediate Testimony to confirm his story He differs in many things from several good Authors of much more credit than himself He relates things against the Faith of all History he contradicts himself 〈◊〉 own story 〈◊〉 its self he intermixes many little Foolish and very improbable Remarks he is contradicted by more Ancient Writers yea and more unquestionable than himself Jerom whose design and Argument needed it makes no mention of that Constitution of St. Mark and lastly the Dissenters themselves observe it not By this instance therefore 〈◊〉 they do us harm they do themselves no good yea rather hereby they condemn themselves But Lastly against the Testimony of 〈◊〉 I lay that of 〈◊〉 Echellensis de Orig. Alexand. Ecl. which I borrow from the Bishop of Worcester Echellensis tells us out of Severns Alex. Bishop of the Asmonaeans and of the Sect of the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 that after the Death of the Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to Election The first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to chuse their Bishop and to the other Bishops in Egypt to consecrate him To which the Bishops then present assented only saying if he were worthy they would consecrate him whom they chose but not otherwise So then they had it seems a Negative Voice in the Election And Elmachinus makes this a Constitution of St. Mark in the first Foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the Nicene Council about which time it was ordered that the Bishop might be chosen from any place or Church whatever and this was all the Alteration in the Constitution of the Alexandrian Church at the Council of Nice whatever Selden or Eutycbius say to the contrary CHAP IV. Of the Syriac Translation of the New Testament MR. O. argues that the the Syriac 〈◊〉 which is so very Ancient that is comes nearest in time to the Original useth not two Words
one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
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
dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church as being Episcopal though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain they could not dislike the Orders of Hy because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy and doubtless were the same and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal as were the Romans and all the World beside Mr. O. adds if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy be intended as not disliked by the Romans yet says he the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which are allowed by that Church Decret Greg. Abbas si sit Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial nor the Diaconal Order but the Inferior Orders only such as the Sub-Deacons Acoluthists Exorcists Psalmists Lectors and Door-keepers But that the Episcopal Order is not meant is to me past dispute For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of Secondly If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter Abbots It was allowed to such of them only who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See But not unto those who refused subjection to it as did the Abbots of Hy Mr. O. knows very Well This Privilege then whatever it was could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders Thirdly The Decretals mentioned were made or put together by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome in the Thirteenth Century about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy almost as many after Austin the Monk and therefore not appositely here alledged Fourthly Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders by Popish 〈◊〉 and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height But I like them never the better for that The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters 'T was their Principle that all Church-Officers derive from and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will even to a Deacon But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant as I fancy But Secondly I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland over the Monks and Culdees if any such were yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves for all or many of them at least were Presbyters and lastly over the Bishop also if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland which himself had formerly erected and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note which sprang out of these two both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity unless Mr. O. will assert that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn pro Tempore What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings ruling over many Churches and Congregations exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters as he thinks and that for life too All this did Columba and his Successors who are pretended by Mr. Baxter to have restored the Culdees or Presbyters strength against the incroachments of Palladius But all this while the Tyrants only were changed not the Tyranny the name altered not the thing Instead of Palladius the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter Moreover I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters If not as I believe all will and must grant our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination I should here have concluded this Chapter but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy and asserted that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire had their Platform from the Heathen who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens and I know not what Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion subordinate to one another it will not follow the Christians took it from them Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion wherein the Patriarch Jews Gentiles all agree But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius which I do not find in the places directed to cries out Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs Whereas any one may know that will but read or understand that Epistle which Mr. O. never did I preceive that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men that do not or will not understand what they say who so they may cast dirt upon us care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it But to let this pass The Question here is whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles or the Gentiles from them This latter I undertake to make out First From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests Priests and Levites All the World knows this I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one but of this I have spoke before Secondly Although the Druids according to Caesar had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East where Episcopacy was first established the Gentiles had no such Government as appears from what Eusebius has noted of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor who observing the way of Church Government
because it was a Fundamental Law in the Church that there ought not to be two Bishops in one Diocess with plentitude of Power it being impossible to serve two Masters therefore these 〈◊〉 were intirely under the Jurisdiction of the City Bishops who were indeed the 〈◊〉 There is not any Monument of Antiquity that I am aware of from whence we may better understand the Nature of these Chorepiscopi than the Canon of the Council of Antioch which I will therefore transcribe at length into English They who reside in Villages and in the Country or are called Chorepiscopi although Ordained by Bishops it pleaseth the Holy Synod that they know their own Measures and govern the Churches subjected to them and rest content with that care and Administration that they constitute Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and be satisfy'd with this Power not daring to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon without the express consent of the Bishop of the City unto which both he the Chorepiscopus and the Country belong But let the Country Bishop be under the Bishop of the City to which he is Subject Now the main Question is whether these Chorepiscopi were real Bishops Superior to and distinguished from Presbyters and in whom was lodged the Episcopal Character and Power The Affirmative is proved by the following Arguments 1. I consider that the Title of Bishop and the Power of Ordaining Presbyters was then acknowledged to be in 'em which I can never be induced to believe would have been granted them at that time of Day if they were meer Presbyters They were under the same Bishop as the City Presbyters were How came they to have that Honourable Title bestowed on them which the City Presbyters had not Were the Country Presbyters such the Chorepiscopi were according to Mr. O. far more Honourable and better deserving the Title of Bishop then the City Presbyters were I can imagine no other reason of this but because they had received the true stamp and Character of Bishops had an inherent habitual Power to do whatever any Diocesan could and more than any meer Presbyter was able to do Only as yet they were not Diocesan Bishops having no Independent Diocesses of their own to Govern and by consequence were under some limitations which Diocesans were not 2. I remember that by the same Conncil of Antioch they were allowed to give Pacifick Letters to the Clergy to go into other Diocesses which in those Days the Bishops only could do and which was one of the Episcopal Prerogatives 3. Again the 10th Canon of Antioch decrees that the Chorepiscopi although they had received imposition of Hands by Bishops may not dare to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon the obvious meaning whereof is that although the Chorepiscopi were Ordained Bishops 〈◊〉 they might not Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without leave from the Diocesan If a Chorepiscopus received the real Character or Power of a Bishop he might be apt to think and conclude with himself that he might Ordain Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Diocesan being of the same Order with him No says the Canon And the Reason of this Prohibition is manifest because at present he acted only as a Comminister and Assistant in anothers Diocess where he might not exert his Episcopal Power without Licence from the Diocesan nor could do it without Breach of the Peace and Order of the Church We have something of this kind even among our selves at this day A Diocesan Bishop out of his own Diocess and whilst he abides in another Mans can't Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without 〈◊〉 from the proper Bishop and something of this Nature I find in the 18th Canon of Ancyra where a Presbyter being supposed to be Ordained Bishop for another Diocess but rejected is permitted to return to his former Post but still to as be a Presbyter though retaining his Episcopal Honour and Character One may then be a real Bishop and have the habitual Power and Intrinsick Character of a Bishop and yet can't put forth the Act and Ordain in anothers Diocess There is no reason he should it would breed Confusion 4. Chorepiscopi were real Bishops because they had an equal Right and Authority to assist vote decree and confirm Canons at Councils as Diocesan Bishops had Divers of them subscribed the Council of Nice It must be confess'd that meer Presbyters did so likewise but it was in the Name and stead of their Principals as their very subscriptions shew Thus Vito or Victor and Vincentius Presbyters and Pope Sylvester's Legates subscribed the Nicene Synod yet added to their common Names Romanus or Roma missus So in the Council of Carthage Anno 419. two Roman Presbyters and Legates of the Pope did Philippus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae Asellus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae But the Chorepiscopi subscribed in their own Names without mentioning any Delegation at all and therefore acted by their own proper inherent Authority and by consequence were real Bishops Having I presume proved that the Chorepiscopi had the True Episcopal Character impress'd on them I come to consider what advantage Mr. O. would make of ' em In the first place from the 10th Canon of Ant. A. D. 344 or 341 he lays it down that the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by that Canon I agree with Mr. O. so far that 't is very likely the Chorepiscopi presumed to Ordain Presbyters in another Bishop's Diocess until they were prohibted by this Canon It was necessary they should be restrained for the peace and good Order of the Church from having an uncontroulable Liberty of Ordaining in another Bishops Diocess and without his consent The rule is highly reasonable and observed to this Day However this be the Canon will do Mr. O. no service if the Chorepiscopi were real Bishops and more than Presbyters of which I have already produced sufficient proof Again Mr. O. gathers that if these Chorepiscopi were Bishops then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country villages This I grant also unto Mr. O. but it nothing concerns the Matter in Hand We must Distinguish between Diocesan Bishops whose seat and Principal Church was oft-times in Villages and the Chorepiscopi who were not Diocesans but the Comministri and Vicarii of the City Bishops Now how far the Delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus extended no one alive can tell at this Day 'T is nothing likely that it was confined to one Village only as Mr. O. contends though haply his Ordinary Residence and particular care might be in some Country-Town where he discharged the Ordinary Duty of a Presbyter and on that score may be accounted as a Country Presbyter under the City Bishop such at this day is even a Diocesan Bishop who is by Commendam possest of a Rectory in anothers Diocess He can Act there but as a Presbyter except he has leave from the proper Bishop For
Patriarch nor had ever adhered to Melitius They thus then farther write to the Church of Alexandria concerning these latter and Regular Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as for those who by the Grace of God and through your Prayers have been found in no Schism but have ever stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick Church it pleased the Holy Synod that they should have Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to point out and to give up the Names of 〈◊〉 as were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy to be of the Clergy and in short to do all things according to the Ecclesiastical Law and Constitution which is the passage misrepresented by Mr. O. and Mr. Baxter wherein the Synod confirms to 'em their Ancient Rights and Privileges Having given I hope an exact account of this latter part of that Epistle let us now see whether Mr. Baxter or Mr. O. have done so To which end I observe that here is not one Word of Presbyters at least not of Presbyters Ordaining and 〈◊〉 of all of Presbyters who had been Ordained by Melitius nor lastly which was the thing Mr. O. aimed at of Presbyters Ordaining Ministers 1. They speak not of Presbyters that is not in particular and expresly of them alone as is manifeft to any one that has his Eyes in his Head but only in General of such as had not been engaged in the Melitian Schism These surely must be Bishops as well as Presbyters or Deacons The truth is they include all the Three Orders and that 's the reason in this whole Epistle they Name no one of them expresly meaning to confirm them all as well Bishops as Presbyters that had stuck close to Alexander in their Ancient Respective Powers and 〈◊〉 2. Much more they speak not of the Ordaining Power of Presbyters Mr. O. at least ought not to say so for what then will become of the Authority of Father 〈◊〉 who asserts that Alexander or the Nicene Council first deprived them of it what did this Synod or Alexander both deprive 'em of it and confirm it to them that cannot be Either then Eutychius is out in his story or Mr. O. is a little mistaken about the Letter of the Nicene Fathers Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not 〈◊〉 to Ordain but the 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Word to put up the Names of the Candidates for Holy Orders and Sozomen in his account of this Fact uses that single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse Socrates expressing it in two Words as Valesius has observed Exegetical of one another it being usual for Authors to embellish their writings and give them a grateful Emphasis by a Variety and redundancy of Expression No body at this diftance of time can tell all the Customs of this Church and what Honorary 〈◊〉 the Presbyters might have at the publick 〈◊〉 However this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be expounded Ordaining And yet admitting that it signifies so 't is not necessary to understand the passage of Presbyters Ordaining it may as well be presumed to be intended of Bishops Ordaining there being no circumstance that limits the sense unto Presbyters and as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Words are spoken of those that were to be Ordained and not of the Ordainers and may as well be taken to mean such as were thought worthy to be Bishops as those who were 〈◊〉 worthy to 〈◊〉 made Presbyters For in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But least of all Thirdly do the Nicene Fathers speak here of the Melitian Presbyters because the Melitians had not according to the Character here given of these Persons stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick 〈◊〉 but had been engaged in the Melitian Schism Nor 4. does the Synod speak of Ordaining Ministers if by Ministers our Adversaries understand Presbyters which Title they seem at this day to affect and usurp to themselves though it generally denotes all the Three Orders These four mistakes has Mr. O. committed at the beginning of his Account of the Nicene Synod Before I proceed to consider what He farther advances on this Occasion I will only Note that the Patriarchs of Alexandria had power over the Bishops and Whole Church of Egypt with its Appendages long before the Synod of Nice That they had then power over these Churches appears plainly from this Epistle which in several places speaks of them as Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria that the Alexandrian Patriarchs had Power over them before the Patriarch Alexander is evident from the Melitian Schism which had not been a Sinful Schism if Peter and 〈◊〉 Alexander's Predecessors had not had Jurisdiction over them That this Power of the Patriarchs was very Ancient is also manifest from the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which begins thus Let the Ancient Customs obtain which are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these Provinces which shews lastly the extent of their Power through 〈◊〉 Libya and 〈◊〉 and that it had been an Ancient Custom that is long before Alexander and the Synod of Nice yea before Peter and Achillas Thus much being said for the right understanding of that Letter of the Nicence Fathers let us now proceed to examine what Mr. O. has inferred from the last mentioned passage according to Mr. Baxter's Lamentable Translation of it Mr. O. argues If any say the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and govern with Bishops but not with out them it is granted For the decree refers to the Ecclesiastica Instituta but this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently is no nullity tho' an irregularity as to the Canons when 't is done by them alone His meaning is as I take him that Presbyters have an Inherent and Intrinsick power to Ordain but that the Nicene Fathers had by their Ecclesiastical Constitution restrained that power so that it should not be exerted but with the Bishops that when the Presbyter did Ordain without Bishops 't was only an irregularity 〈◊〉 breach of the Ecclesiastical Constitution not a Nullity But to this I reply 1. That the Nicence Fathers as has already been observed speak not of Presbyter only but of all the Three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons who are hereby every one of them allowed to do what properly belong to their own Order according to the Ancient Custom and Constitution of that Church 2. That therefore supposing their meaning to be what Mr. O. would have it that Presbyters in particular according to the Ecclesiastical Constitution shall Ordain with the Bishops and not without them it will not follow that Ordination by Presbyters alone without Bishops is vallid and only an irregularity Because it may with as good Reason be hence concluded that the Presbyters power to Ordain with the Bishops belonged to
his Authority I meddle not with cited by Mr. O. in these Words Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void by the Rigor of the Canons in use then because Ordinations sine Titulo were Null Concil Chalced. Can. 6. it belongs not to the time we are now speaking of the Council of Chalcedon being Held an Hundred and twenty Years after that of Nice Nor was the Qualification of a Title required till long after that Council of Chalcedon wherein also I meet not with a Syllable of annulling Ordinations for want of a Title That 6th Can. makes void Clancular Ordinations not given visibly in the Face of the Church the Rule which required the Candidate to be offered unto the suffrage of the Clergy and People in the Churches and Congregation being neglected as Justellus has observed from the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The method of Requiring Titles indeed grew up afterwards which the Canonists in the following Ages gathered from this sixth Canon of Chalcedon as fancying some Analogy or Agreement between them in Reason as Calvin teaches me However let us take the Argument as 't is propounded Ordinations by Presbyters were accounted void not in themselves but by the Rigor of the Canons in use then How does this appear Why because Ordinations sine Titulo were null by the sixth Canon of Chalcedon which is just as if one should pretend to prove the Lord's-Day not Holy by Divine appointment but by the Ecclesiastical Constitution because the other Holy-Days are not Is it not possible the Lord's-Day may be Holy by Divine Institution though Good Friday is not Or that Ordinations by Presbyters may be Null in themselves and by Scripture though Ordinations sine Titulo be uncanonical only But if Mr. O. intended this only as the Judgment of so Learned a Person as Dr. Field I let it pass as such being no ways obliged to account for the Opinions of private Doctors The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth if I rightly apprehend Mr. O. for I lift not to look after the Book its self intends to prove by the Nicene Canon which forbids Bishops to Ordain in one anothers Diocesses that the Irregular Ordinations by Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations by Presbyters Now there is no strength in this Reasoning I can scarce allow it to be sense He ought first to make out that Presbyters have power to Ordain and then indeed the irregular Ordinations of the one would be Null as well as of the other and both alike But we deny Presbyters to have Power to Ordain be sure That Nicene Canon gives them none and therefore the Comparison here is foolish and frivolous 'T is as if one should lay down this grave Maxim the Irregular Sentence of a Judge is as Null as that of a private Man whereas a private Man can give no decretory Sentence at all I own Bishops in their Ordinations were under many Canonical Restraints and some of their irregular Ordinations were decreed Null at least so as that the Ordained were not allowed to exercise their Function But to talk of the Irregularities of Ordinations by Presbyters is to suppose it proved they have Power to Ordain which is to beg the Question I am sure their power is not intimated in the Nicene Canons as that of Bishops is nor in any other that I am yet acquainted with If a Canon were any where to be found restraining Ordinations made by Presbyters and limiting the manner and circumstances of 'em 't were reasonable thence to gather that Presbyters had Power to Ordain But the Canonical Restraints laid upon Bishops will not convince me that Presbyters had that Power Finally one may by the same Reasoning conclude that Deacons yea that every Ordinary believer had power to Ordain as well as Bishops Thus I proceed in the Argument By the Nicene Canons Bishops Ordinations in others Diocesses without consent are forbid and hence we see the irregular Ordinations of Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations of Ordinary believers and Deacons But this is no better than beating the Air out of nothing to gather something For all this while neither Deacons nor Believers have power at all to Ordain Haply Mr. O. has left the Reverend Authors Argument short So I dismiss it CHAP. X. Of Aerius THis was a Turbulent and Heretical Presbyterian the only one to be met with in all Antiquity It may not be amiss in few Words to present the Reader with his Character as 't is transmitted to us by St. Austin and Epiphanius The former tells us that being a Presbyter he is reported to have been troubled because he could not be Ordained a Bishop that he fell into the Arrian Heresie adding to it some of his own Conceits as that stated Fasts ought not to be observed and that a Presbyter ought no ways to be distinguished from a Bishop that the Aerians his followers admitted to their Communion only the Continent or such as embraced a Celibate Life and who had so far renounced the World as to account nothing their own And did not abstain from Flesh in the appointed times as Epiphanius writes This Epiphanius among many other Errors and some of the aforesaid particularly remembers that he sought to be a Bishop but could not obtain it He calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hairbrained and mad Doctrine sc. that of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters When Epiphanius had reckoned up a great many of his Errors and Heresies he proceeds to refute 'em and in the first place takes him to task for that about the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters In short he sets him forth as a very Wicked and Impious Fellow It is not material in the Dispute whether Aerius was an Heretick or is called so by Epiphanius and St. Austin on the account of his teaching Bishops and Presbyters to be equal I am sure St. Austin places this Error of his in the front and before that of Arrianism And both condemn him for his Opinion about Bishops and Presbyters which is sufficient to my Purpose For I am not concerned about private Persons Opinions such as Bishop Jewel though an excellent Man and one of the greatest Ornaments of our Church and of the Reformation or others mentioned by Mr. O. Whatever their Sentiments were I shall hereafter shew that it was ever the publick Judgment of the Reformed Church of England that Bishops were Jure Divino and I hope 't is no breach of Modesty to confront theirs with the Churches Authority CHAP. XI Of Hilary the Deacon IT is not agreed among the Criticks who was the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which are in the Works of St. Ambrose Vol. 5. and 't is as uncertain unto whom belong the Quaestiones veter is novi Testamenti in St. Austin Tom. 4. There are some excellent passages found in them and cited by Austin in his Tracts against the Pelagians under the Titles of
the way of Consecration that is laying on of Hands as I apprehend Mr. O. Hence we must learn that before Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops were not consecrated by Imposition of Hands but barely elected c. that after 〈◊〉 and Dionysius the Custom was altered and then they were Consecrated by Neighbouring Bishops with Imposition of Hands Ans. Jerom teaches us no such thing He is here only falling upon a new Argument as I said before to advance the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons sc. that at Alexandria the Bishops were always chosen ex se out of the Presbyters says Eutychius not out of the Deacons though the Custom was afterwards changed about the time of Heraclas and Dionysius or not until Alexander as 〈◊〉 Nevertheless were Bishops from the beginning Consecrated by laying on of Hands for any thing Jerom intimates and which Eutychius has affirmed as may also be reasonably presumed and gathered from the practice of the Apostles recorded in the Epistles to Timothy yea and from Jerom himself in the following Period excepta Ordinatione Eutychius his Words are the Eleven Presbyters laid their Hands on the Bishop Elect and Blessed and Created him Patriarch This Rule was made by Mark himself Mr. O. after a long Quotation out of Eutychius thus Triumphs Here is a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer Ans. 1. And here is a full proof that Bishops were from the beginning and were Created also by Imposition of Hands which Mr. O. just before denyed upon the Authority of Jerom and was now to have proved if he had stuck close to his Argument But it must be confess'd Eutychius does assert the Alexandrian Presbyters chose and created their own Bishops by Imposition of Hands and Benediction Wherefore 2. not to insift any more on the incompetency of Eutychius his Authority a late obscure and false Historian I ask how Mr. O. will be able to reconcile Jerom with Eutychius the former affirming as Mr. O. understands him that the Presbyters chose and set up their Bishops unto Heraclas and Dionysius then it seems this Custom ceas'd the latter unto Alexander That is to say Eutychius will have this Custom to have continued 90 Years longer then Jerom assigned it Eutychius says the Presbyters all that while Ordained their Patriarchs by imposition of Hands Jerom no such matter but rather the Contrary They only as Mr. O. will have it chose placed and named him Bishop We must then dismiss them both as the Evangelist did the Witnesses against our Lord their Witness does not agree together I only add that the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council seems to overturn at least Eutychius his Testimony Let the Ancient Customs continue which I understand of all things established by this Synod and among the rest that of the Neighbouring Bishops in Egypt Ordaining the Patriarchs of Alexandria For if this Synod as Eutychius believed at the motion of Alexander the Patriarch had altered the Old Custom with what Face could they have laid down this Rule Let the Ancient Customs continue Or was it Wisdom to exasperate the Alexandrians with a New decree when they were already engaged in Schisms and Contentions about the Melitian Ordinations To shut up this Chapter whatever Jerom shall be made to say concerning the Alexandrian Presbyters chusing placing and nominating their Bishop he no where affirms they Ordained him by imposition of Hands and Prayer He acquaints us that the Apostles Ordained Bishops in their Time not the College of Presbyters If afterwards the Presbyters of Alexandria chose and created their Bishop by Imposition of Hands it was at best but an Ecclesiastical Indulgence for which there is no Rule or Precedent to be found in Scripture or in the Apostles Days But I am well satisfy'd that in truth there could be no such Liberty allowed them Neque 〈◊〉 aliquid cuiquam largiri potest Humana 〈◊〉 ubi intercedit Legem tribuit divina proescriptio This Principle of St. Cyprians who flourished about 250 shews also that in the Days of Heraclas and Dionysius that is Anno 222 the Bishops had not yet taken upon them to dispense with any Divine Precept and therefore could not have given or decreed unto Bishops the sole Inherent Power of Ordination or restrain'd the Presbyters if they had any Title to it from the Apostles CHAP. XIII Of the Carthaginian Councils IT were to be wish'd that when Men built an Argument upon the Testimony of an Author they would 〈◊〉 read and weigh him and be sure to understand him too before they pretend to bring him forth as a Witness unto the matter in Controversy And also that they would let him speak the Whole Truth But in the next instance Mr. O. seems to have overlook'd both these necessary Precautions and has at Adventures produc'd a Scrap of a Testimony in favour of himself as he thinks but which in the end will prove fatal to his Cause and will confirm the World in the Belief that he is either very rash and ignorant in his own Quotations or that he will stick at nothing so he may seem to support his own Opinion The Fathers says He in the second Council of Carthage Anno 428 did observe That until that time some Diocesses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Jure Divino I agree with Mr. O. in the Deduction he has made provided the Premises were true To make these good therefore he quotes that Canon aforesaid thus placet ut Dioceses quae 〈◊〉 Episcopos acceperunt non habeant Whoever first formed this Argument against Episcopacy has grosly abused his Reader and the the Council too Mr. O. perhaps borrowed it of Mr. Baxter or some such kind of Author whose Interest and Partiality will not suffer them to let the Reader see the whole Period least at the same time he should discern the Truth and themselves be found Guilty of Falsification which I doubt not to make out in a few Words To which end I will take the Liberty to lay the Canon before the Reader in its own Language For though the African Fathers used the Latin Tongue yet all the Latin Copies among us at this Day were derived from the Greek Version as Justellus tells us which is therefore the most Authentick and ought to be accounted of greatest Authority The said Canon therefore runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English thus It was determined that the People in the Diocesses not the Diocesses having formerly belong'd to Bishops but never having had a proper Bishop of their own should not have now for the Future their own proper Rectors that 's to say Bishops except by the Consent of that Bishop under whose Jurisdiction at present they are From whence it appears
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
Anglorum Ecclesia in qua solus tu Episcopus inveniris Ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi sine Episcopis potes Doubtless then the meaning of the Canons must be that in Ordinary and when it may be with convenience three Bishops are requir'd to the Consecration of a Bishop though even one in the case of Necessity be sufficient I will not affirm there was a necessity in the case of Pelagius because there was no necessity he should be Bishop of Rome yet after his Consecration the wise Italians might judge it necessary to overlook the later Canons and confirm his Consecration rather than create an Anti-Pope and a Schism in the Church Pelagius then was a Canonical Bishop according to the Apostolical Canon though not Canonically Ordained according to the strictness of the Nicene Canon But it will be demanded why did not Pelagius content himself with two Bishops but took in a Presbyter to assist in the Ordination The reason is plain because Pelagius being a wise Man as is to be presumed though not so good as were to be wished would give his Adversaries as little occasion as was possible to quarrel at his 〈◊〉 If therefore he could not get three Bishops he at least procured two and a third Person and so came as near to the Nicene Canon as he could He observed the number though not the exact Qualification of the Ordainers and so vary'd as little from the Rule as might be Hereby he made account to impose upon the ignorant Multitude who 't is likely were the principal Spectators of the Solemnity of his Ordination For the Clergy would not be present to countenance his Ordination whom they hated CHAP. XVIII Of the Waldenses the Boyarians the Lollards and some other People who separated themselves from the Roman Communion OF the Waldenses Mr. O. speaks in his Preface page 1. c. and in the Plea p. 156 to the effect following That the Vaudois or Waldenses have had no other Ministers for near 500 Years past than Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops that they maintain all Ministers to be in a state of Parity that their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination that the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers from these Waldenses And for the truth of all this he quotes Perrin's History of the Waldenses Of what Authority Perrin is may be hence guessed that the Synod which set him on work disapproved it as I am told or whether Mr. O. has given us an honest and fair Account of him I know not I am a Stranger to that Author nor can I hereabouts light on him neither am I very much concerned about any thing he says which is so late sc. according to Mr. O's Computation near 1200 Years after Christ and so obscure that no weight can be laid upon the Argument drawn from the Practice of these Waldenses I say obscure For they being a poor and illiterate thin scatter'd and harassed People and almost always under Persecution it is Morally impossible they should have an exact History of themselves transmitted unto these last Ages especially considering that their Enemies the Papists made it their business to destroy the most ancient Records of that People and as Sir S. Morland testifies the most that is known of them is supposed generally to be taken out of their Adversaries Writings who will sometimes make bold to load those who separate from them with Calumnies and fasten on them odd Opinions meerly to expose and render them the more odious Lastly although I do not delight to detract from their Merits yet I see no great reason for those excessive Commendations some think 〈◊〉 to bestow on them when I call to mind that at the time when the Fratres Bohemi became 〈◊〉 acquainted with them they found the Waldenses taking the Liberty of going to Mass and joyning with the Papists in their Idolatrous Worship Nevertheless these Exceptions set apart what I find in such Authors as are at hand shall here be produced to confront the others cited by Mr. O. to the end the Reader may judge whether Mr. O. and his Author Perrin have made a faithful Report of the Waldensian Churches at least whether it may not truly be affirmed that the History of that People is so uncertain that no Argument can thence be drawn to countenance the Presbyterian Government and Ordination by meer Presbyters Sir Sam. Morland in his History of the Waldenses shews that Claudius Archbishop of Turin was a great Promoter of true Doctrine against Roman Idolatry in his Diocess that the Waldenses succeeded this Archbishop that the said Archbishop delivered his Doctrine to his Disciples and these unto their Successors unto the ninth and tenth Centuries In the Year 1059. the Waldenses again separated from Rome In the Year 1223. the Albigenses in Bulgaria Croatia and Dalmatia had one Bartholomew whom they stiled their Pope The Pope's Legate called him Bishop Mat. Paris Anti-Pope adding that he drew over to him Bishops and others and that he Ordained Bishops In the Year 1254. Reinerius makes mention of their Bishops in Lombardy In the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Moravia and Austria had Bishops They asserted that they had Lawfully Ordained Bishops among them and an uninterrupted Sucession of that Order even from the Apostles although out of hatred to the Papists they chose to call them Seniores and Antistites In their Responsio Excusatoria Anno 1500. they declare Nec summum 〈◊〉 Romanum nec nostrum nec quempiam alium caput esse 〈◊〉 plainly intimating that they had Bishops among them as well as the Romanists Anno 1655. Leger was Moderator of the Churches of the Valleys which Office was for Life with power to call Synods to preside in them and to lay on Hands Thus much is delivered as Matter of Fact let us now see what were their Principles concerning Church-Government Wolfius saith They held there were but three Degrees of Church-Officers sc. Bishops Priests Sacerdotes and Deacons the same is delivered by Guido But Aeneas Sylvius that a Bishop is not Superior to a Presbyter either in Dignity or in Power as Alphonsus de Castro also observed and most of the Popish Writers charge them with that Opinion But one of them viz. Reinerius does set forth their Doctrine and Practice to the effect following The Cathari or Puritans meaning the Waldenses have four Ecclesiastical Orders viz. the Bishop the elder Son the younger Son something like the Chorepiscopus or Suffragan Bishop and the Deacon The Office of the Bishop is always tenere Prioratum to possess the Supremacy in every thing done in the Imposition 〈◊〉 Hands in Celebrating the Lord's-Supper and in beginning the Prayers as does the elder Son in the Bishop's absence The said Orders are created by the Bishop or by the Sons with the Bishops 〈◊〉 When the Bishop is dead the younger Son Ordains the elder a
About 1556. a Synod was held in the middle of Moravia where were present more than 200 of the Clergy Then were fifteen Ministers Ordain'd two Bishops and six Conseniors The two Bishops were George Israel for the Polonian Churches and Johannes Blaboslaus for the Moravian At the same time Joannes Nigranus was Bishop in Bohemia Now it was that the Arrians afterwards called Socinians disturbed the Peace Order and Unity of the 〈◊〉 Bohemi asserting that the Pastors alias the Ministers or Presbyters had power to do all things in the Church And this Paradox they pretended to advance left any thing that smelt of Popery should remain among them who had renounced that Communion Therefore they were so true to their Principle as not only to disallow of Bishops called Seniors or Superintendants but to deny even the Godhead of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 forsooth the Papists maintain'd that Doctrine But for the same reason they might as well have denyed the Being of God himself At the same time in 〈◊〉 Polonia the Fratres Bohemi had five Bishops for so many Diocesses vix the Crasovian the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 the Russian and the Belsensis Diocess Anno 1571. Joannes Calephus was their Bishop in Bohemia Joannes Laurentius in Poland Stanislaus and Andreas Stephanus Bishop of the Fratres in Bohemia And lastly Johannes Adam Comenius a Moravian and another a Polonian their Elect Bishops Annno 1632. Comenius after this History of which I have given a Summary Account so far as belongs to the present Argument has furnished us with another Tractate which he stiles Ratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Unitate fratrum Bohemorum The Pontifical of the Bohemian Brethren as I may call it the substance whereof is as follows He tells us That in their Church whereof himself was a Bishop Elect there were four Orders of Ministers sc. the 〈◊〉 sen Antistites or the Prepositi Ministrorum sometimes called Vigiles or Speculatores Superintendentes or Superattendentes that is as he explains himself in our Language Bishops 2 Conseniores which he expounds Coepiscopi or Chorepiscopi or the Bishops Fellows 3. Pastors who were also Ordinarily called Ministers the same as with us are stiled Presbyters Priests or Elders 4. Deacons called 〈◊〉 Administratores or Adjutores Among the Bishops there were besides a Praeses or Primate or the first Bishop The President 's or Primate's Office among other things was to appoint and call Synods The Office of the Bishops besides other things was to Ordain all Ecclesiastical Degrees as Deacons Pastors Conseniors and Seniors or Bishops All other Degrees were obedient and subject to the Bishops The Conseniors were Coadjutors to the Seniors or Bishops had power with the Seniors or without them but by their Direction and Command to be Members of the Ecclesiastical Senate and were above the Pastors or Deacons Their business was to provide for good Order to acquaint the Seniors with Misdemeanors to admonish the Ministers to observe the Ecclesiastical Statutes and Customes to provide fit Persons for the Ministry to exercise Discipline over the Ministers together with the Bishops or without them yet by their Direction to examine the Candidates for Holy Orders and to present them to the Bishops diligently to observe how the Pastors discharged themselves in their Office to reprove their smaller Offences and to acquaint the Bishop with their more Scandalous ones I do not find they had power to Ordain and 〈◊〉 in his Annotations says That in minoribus negotiis Episcopi vices obirent as the ancient Chorepiscopi did If they be chosen Seniors they are new Ordained with Imposition of Hands as Pastors or Ministers are The Seniors Ordain all Orders The Seniors are chosen by the Seniors Conseniors and Pastors and are Ordained in a General Assembly with Imposition of Hands At the Solemnity is sung that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The former or the Ordaining Seniors offer the new created Bishop their right Hands in token of Fellowship The Conseniors theirs in token of Obedience The Conseniors being Ordained with Imposition of Hands give their right Hands to the Seniors in token of Obedience to the former Conseniors in token of Fellowship The Ministers offer theirs to the new created Conseniors in token of Obedience Ministers are Ordained by the Seniors with laying on of Hands of the Seniors so many as are present At the Solemnity they sing that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The new Ordained Ministers give their right Hands unto the Seniors and Conseniors in token of Obedience to the Pastors in token of Fellowship and the Deacons offer their Hands to them in token of Observance To conclude it most be confessed that Comenius says Bishop and Presbyter are one I suppose he means have the same Power and Authority to Minister in the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and this is out of all doubt but withal he intimates that a Bishop is one who is moreover an Inspector or Superintendent and for this cites Acts 20. 28. His mind is I suppose that St. Paul in the 17th verse addressed himself generally to all Presbyters whether meer Elders or those who moreover had the oversight of the rest But in the 28th 〈◊〉 he turns his Speech unto those especially who had been made Bishops And this is but what the Syriac Version seems to imply wherein as has already been noted verse the 17th Elders is rendered by Kashishaa which properly and only signifies Elders but verse the 28th Episkupea is used which denotes Overseers However this be if any one carefully observes what has been before related concerning the Government of the Church of the Bohemians it is impossible to conceive but that Bishops or Seniors were somewhat more than meer Presbyters The Division of Ecclesiastical Officers into three or four Orders the Power of Ordaining appropriated to Bishops the great care they had about getting a right Succession of Orders 〈◊〉 Bishops and many other remarkable passages before mentioned render this point uncontestable From the whole I think it follows that the Waldenses and the Fratres Bohemi were governed by Bishops superior to Ministers or Pastors long after they were separated from the Roman Idolatrous Communion yea that the Waldenses had Bishops within 150 Years and less the Fratres Bohemi within 160. that therefore Mr. O. is utterly mistaken who avers that the Waldenses had no other Ministers than Presbyters for near 500 Years last past and that Presbyters Ordained Presbyters without Bishops The contrary is most certain if my Authors have not deceived me Mr. O. was not insensible of this Matter of Fact of the Bohemians deriving their Bishops from the Waldenses but he shuffles us off with saying That the Waldensian Bishops were only Titular Bishops That is indeed meer Presbyters honoured with the bare Title of Bishops If Mr. O. had not known that remarkable Story about Zambergius and two others being Ordained Bishops by Stephen and another Waldensian Bishop he might possible have been pardonable
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
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
that the Prince may make a Priest He that will infer hence that according to the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time Bishops were not Jure Divino but by the Law of the Land must be also forced to conclude that Priests and Ministers hold by the same Tenure and no other And from the whole it will follow that Mr. Hobbs was in the right when he affirms the Will and Laws of the Prince to be the Standard of the Peoples Religion Furthermore we are often confronted with the Doctrine and Practice of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Churches and called upon to have a more favourable charitable and just Opinion of them and their Ministry Hereunto it will suffice me only to answer with St. Paul What have I to do to judge them that are without But I farther consider with what Difficulties they at first struggled and still labour under and am apt to think that the same good God that would have Mercy and not Sacrifice and so dispensed with his own appointed Sabbath may and I hope will accept their Sacrifices though they be not prepared according to the purification of the sanctuary I also consider that the Foreign Protestants are by this time many of them even the most Learned quite Captivated by a long Prejudice which the continuance of the Presbyterian Government among them for so many Years since the Reformation has now perhaps rendred unconquerable and that therefore God may and I hope does wink at this Ignorance for such I reckon an inveterate Prejudice to be Besides though many of the Foreign Protestant Ministers have Zealously defended the Presbyterian Government and seem not at all willing or inclined to Model themselves into the Episcopal Platform though it were in their power and opportunity served yet others of them have been contrary minded and even in the 〈◊〉 of that darkness wherein they lay have been able do discover the Truth which shined through the Clouds of their Hardships and Prepossessions I will not here mention the French Letters written unto the present Honourable and Right Reverend Bishop of London Mr. O. has most maliciously Suggested as if the Authors were Brib'd or by some indirect means induc'd to write as they did I do not know upon what Authority he has published this scandalous surmize and if it had been fit to take up Reports by Conjecture or uncertain Fame meerly to blast the Credit of a Writer I could have told him 〈◊〉 now what I have heard from one who was no stranger to the Presbyterian Intregues in 1640. and so on and may be presumed to speak what he had 〈◊〉 to know sc. that Mounsieur Blondel came into England with hopes to be preferred in our Church by Archbishop 〈◊〉 but it seems mist his aim That he was afterwards hired by the Presbyterians to write for them against Episcopacy Thus Revenge and the Love of Money were the Parents of that Celebrated Book entituled Apologia pro Hieronymi Sententia And Lastly that even in the Apology its self some things were intermixed which undid and overthrew all he seemed to have advanced in defence of Presbytery Which therefore he was forced to expunge before he recovered the Promised Reward of his Labour But after this let us now hear what a Learned Protestant a Foreign Divine has written upon this Subject I mean Peter Du Moulin in a Letter to a Scotch Man Anno 1640. He says That the French Protestant Church never put down Bishops p. 6. nor encouraged others to do it That necessity not Choice keeps 'em from setting up Episcopal Order That at Geneva where Episcopacy was changed into the Presbyterian Form necessity bore more sway than Council and Policie than Divinity That the Reformation in France began among the People in Scotland and England at Court No wonder then that due Regard was not had unto the Primitive Government in the one as well as the other that the French Protestants have much ado to maintain their Ministers by reason of their Poverty That if they should establish Bishops it would provoke their Adversaries and raise them to Jealousy and 〈◊〉 would look more like direct Schism two Bishops being at the same time in oneSee That they are a Body prepar'd for Bishops when Bishops will reform He gives an Instance that somewhere the Bishop in his Cathedral preach'd the pure Word of God and the Protestants submitted to him He farther Apologizes that their King will not suffer them to have Bishops I only add hereunto Bishop Hall's Observation how that when our Bishop of Landaff at the Synod of Dort charg'd the Divisions there in Holland upon their want of Episcopacy he received this only in Answer Domine nos non sumus adeo faelices Whether this was spoken by way of Modest excuse and a tacit approbation of Bishops I know not of certaitny but believe so at least I look upon it as a shifting off the Question about Episcopacy the President not caring to enter into the Lists with the Bishop upon that Argument But if he intended it as perhaps Mr. O. will think for a Scoff I will take the Liberty to say that as the High-Priest prophesied a great Truth but intended it not neither understood it so might the President too stumble upon a great Truth and intimate Episcopacy to be the Happiness of a Church tho' at the same time he was otherwise perswaded or did not discern it For there are a sort of Creatures which cannot endure the Light and by how much clearer the Sun shines see so much the worse Like Saul going to Damascus before his Conversion are struck blind with the Glory and Lustre of Truth which surrounds them This we are assured of by manifold and woful Experience and therefore need not wonder at it The Eyes of the Understanding labour under the same natural Weakness as those of the Body do When we have continued long in the dark or have shut our Eyes for somewhile we are not able to behold the Objects of Sense though placed at their proper distance and in a Medium duly fitted for their Reception Thus when Pride 〈◊〉 and Prepossession when Passion Sturdiness and Secular Interest when contentiousness Opposition and Hatred have for some time drawn a veil over the Understanding it is not easy for these Men to admit any Notions that thwart and contradict those which they have for a long time before entertained let the Evidence brought for their Conviction be never so bright and clear For instance Mr. O. as has been noted in the former Chapter has frankly acknowledged it as fit and warrantable that some Grave Divines be set over the Churches for Peace and Order sake whilst the Younger sort are for the present to be excluded or suspended from the exercise of their Inherent Power Now Mr. O. is not able I perceive to see that this very reasonable Concession of his if rightly pursu'd and improved as it ought puts an end unto