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
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
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
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
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