World at first nor can we tell into how many more he might afterwards multiply or into how few reduce it For even the Romans were wont sometimes to increase and sometimes to diminish their Provinces As therefore God might for any thing we know in the beginning have divided the Nations into Seventy times seven Provinces and constituted so many Guardian Angels over them and afterward altered the number of both by adding or diminishing as he saw good So might he have appointed and varied the Number of Bishops as the Condition of the Church requir'd into sometimes more and sometimes less I will conclude the whole Argument with two or three Observations which will confirm what is before pleaded That there is an Hierarchy among the Celestial Spirits and Angels as I said according to the current Opinion in former times presiding as Guardians over Kingdoms and Provinces is Witnessed by Jerom who thus delivers himself Angeli qui Regnis Nationibus praesidebant That Angels in the Revelations is an Allusion to these Guardian Angels is countenanc'd by that noted Passage in Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Progressions of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are I think imitations of the Angelical Glory and of that Ordination As also by that other of Origen Per singulas Ecclesias c. There are two Bishops in every Church one visible the Man Bishop the other invisible the Angel Bishop I think there may be found both an Angel and a Man good Bishops of the Church and as it were Partners in the Work Lastly Optatus Milevitanus Stiles Bishops Angels and plainly alludes unto the Apocalyptical Angels Nor have I met with that Conceit about the Angel of the Synagogue the Charan or Bishop in the Primitive Fathers who make no use of that Notion to explain the Order of Bishops For indeed it is the Invention of the later Rabbins But sometimes as I have just proved they allude unto the Angels and frequently unto the High Priests in the Temple Mr. O. whereas I argu'd that the Synagogue-Rulers were subject to the 〈◊〉 High Priests Ch says he so are Presbyters to Jesus Christ our High Priest Ans. But we are inquiring about subjection unto visible Rulers and if Mr. O. will needs have the Synagogue a Pattern of the Christian Congregations then the Presbyters must be subject unto some visible Superiour as were the Rulers of the Synagogues which he is obliged to Name Till then my Observation is of Moment but his Reply meerly Delusory and Evasive Mr. O. Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High-Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit Ans. First It is sufficient I suppose that the Bishops Charter is a clear one as to the Power they Claim and exercise tho' not as to the Title of Bishop It makes no great matter what becomes of that Secondly Let Mr. O. bring as clear a Proof of Presbyterian Parity or Independency or of Presbyters exercising the Supreme Acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as are to be produced from the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. in behalf of Prelacy that is for a single Persons presiding over Churches and governing them and there 's an end of the present Controversy Thirdly I ask Mr. 〈◊〉 between him and me whether he does not submit to some Religious usages for which there is not so clear a Charter in the New Testament as there is in the Old for some of the Jewish Rites Whether he has as clear and express Commandments for Infant Baptism for the Observation and Divine Institution of the Lord's-Day for days of Publick and general Fasts or Humiliation for Singing David's Psalms in Metre as the Jews had for Circumcision for Saturday-Sabbath for their Fasting-Days and for their Singing the Book of Psalms in their way It is not then for want of a clear Charter as I fear that he refuses to submit to Bishops but for want of a clear Understanding and a peaceable and humble mind He that can sit down with reasonable Deductions and be prevailed with to make no scruple of doing what is thereby recommended unto him if he were steady to his own Principle ought to be satisfyed with the like Reasonable Conclusions in all other matters of Religion I said in the T. N. that a great deal of the temple-Temple-Worship being Moral Religion it was as much the Pattern of the Christian as the Synagogue Worship was And on that account the Jewish Priesthood might be the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy Mr. O. says no because the Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial worship of the Temple though they performed the moral parts there also Ans. Though the Jewish Priesthood and the Temple worship were incumbred with Ceremonies yet they might be the Pattern of the Christian Priesthood and Worship An embroidered Garment may be the Pattern of a plain one They may both be like in shape and in substance though not in Ornament and their Trimming Besides though the Levitical Ceremonies were abolished yet some others were substituted by Jesus Christ in their room as Baptism and the Lord's-Supper But how could the Synagogue which had no Ceremony at all only the Moral parts of Religion performed in it according to Mr. O's reasoning be a pattern of the Christian Churches which have Ceremonies There is as much disagreement between a Synagogue which has no Ceremonies only Natural Religion exercised in it and a Christian Church which has Ceremonies besides the natural Religion as there is between the Temple which had Levitical Ceremonies and the Christian which has not Mr. O. argues that the Legal Priests and Altar and Priesthood were changed Ans. True as to the Levitical Ceremonies But not as to any thing which was Moral And Government I conceive is a part of Moral Religion though therefore a Levitical Ceremonial High-Priest was not ordained for the Christian Church yet in Imitation of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Government a Christian High Priest might be appointed the Ceremonies of the Law being laid aside Mr. O. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests Ans. And will Mr. O. therefore assert that any Man may in a Christian Publick Congregation perform the Moral parts of Worship This very Observation of Mr. O's shews that the Synagogues were not the Pattern of Christian Churches or Congregations because I take it for granted that none among us can perform even Moral Worship in Publick except Deacons Presbyters and Bishops It rather therefore imports that the Temple Worship is the Pattern of the Christian Because as none but the Priests and Levites could perform the Moral Worship in the Temple 2 Chron. 30. 27. Nehem. 9. 5. Joel 2. 17. Even so among us none can except Bishops Priests and Deacons I shall 〈◊〉 my Answer to Mr. O's Discourses about 〈◊〉 's Epistles to the Reply which I intend unto his Plea Judging that the most
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 among the Christians and believing it conduced to the furtherance of their Religion for
unto some certain place to Preach the Word But Philip had no extraordinary call unto the office of an Evangelist that I can meet with though he had Extraordinary Gifts in Preaching the Gospel For any thing I read Philip was yet but a Deacon 'T is then reasonable to believe that he was afterward appointed the Resident 〈◊〉 of Caesarea Mr. O. observes very truly and I freely acknowledge that I have no Testimony at hand out of the Father's proving Philip to have been the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea But whereas the Minister pretends that this Philip died at Hierapolis and by consequence was not the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea citing for this Eusebius E. H. l. 3. I am forc'd again to expose his unfaithful representing Authors making 'em write what is not to be found in them The Historian in l. 3. c. 31. first speaks of Philip the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One of the twelve who died at Hierapolis But he affirms it not of Philip the Deacon or Evangelist To the same purpose 〈◊〉 Philippus Apostolus in Phrygia praedicat Evangelium Domini Jesu Sepelitur Hierapoli cum 〈◊〉 bonorifice 'T is true Euseb. at the latter end of that Chapter speaks also of Philip the Evangelist and his Daughters says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who lived with their Father Philip in Caesarea But not a Syllable of Hierapolis Nay here is a tolerable proof that Eusebius thought Philip lived and resided in 〈◊〉 Here then we have another Instance of Mr. O's false dealing with Authors Mr. O. still contends that Timothy and Titus were not resident Bishops Evangelists the Apostle calling 'em both away Tit. 3. 12. To the Apostle Titus came at Nicopolis and after was sent by Paul to 〈◊〉 2 Tim 4. 20. and we hear no further of him It cannot be made appear that ever he returned more to Crete Ans. From Scripture it cannot because the Holy History there ends sc. at Titus going into Dalmatia But the Ecclesiastical History which Mr. O. rightly appeals to in the like cases tells us that Titus died in Crete What would any Man expect more The Question is whether Eusebius asserts the 〈◊〉 to have been Resident or unfixt Ministers in l. 3. c. 37 38 39. Mr. O. maintains this latter Opinion 〈◊〉 testifying That they Preach'd Christ to Infidels Ordained Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations That they went far 〈◊〉 their own Houses did the work of Evangelists and diligently Preached Christ to such as had not yet heard the Word of Faith delivered to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels Ordained other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations Ans. True all this Eusebius Witnesseth but it proves not Mr. O's Point This many Evangelists did for some time but were afterwards fixt in some certain place to govern particular Churches as appears from the Examples Eusebius produces sc. 〈◊〉 Clemens Romanus Polycarp and Papias all which he assures us were the constant residing Bishops of particular Churches Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. though they had been sometime before unfixt Evangelists attending the Apostles uncertain Orders as the necessities of Religion occasionally required And this is what I insisted on in T. N. that Evangelists were both fixt and unfixt according as the Apostles Ordered them that therefore fixedness or unfixedness is not a proper Note nor distinguishing Character of an Evangelist he may be one or the other or both at different times as is manifest from Eusebius Though I delivered my self in T. N. to this effect Mr. O. takes no notice of it but urges again the old Argument avoiding what I observed out of Eusebius in proof that his unfixt Evangelists became afterwards the fixt Bishops of Churches It remains then that Evangelists many of 'em were according to Eusebius fixt Ministers which is all I am concerned for and by Consequence so might Timothy and Titus be Another Controversy is moved about St. Mark whether he being an Evangelist was the settled Governour of the Church of Alexandria Ans. I do readily grant that Mark was a great while an unsettled Minister waiting on the Apostle Peter and by him dispatched up and down upon the Service of the Church though afterward he went or was sent unto Alexandria where he planted a Church and Govern'd it After whom Annianus undertook the Administration and is by Eusebius called the first Bishop thereof which implies that Mark was the Evangelist of it the Administrator of that Church having not as yet perhaps received the Title of Bishop as particularly belonging to him But Mr. O. shakes me off by objecting I may as well make Peter a Resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome Ans. Supposing Peter was there so long as 't is reported of him I must profess I think he was the Resident Apostle of Rome for there are Men of Learning and Observation who will tell Mr. O. that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome that Apostles were wont to have the special care and oversight over some particular Church or Churches besides their general Power which extended unto all Places Of Peter Jerom testifies ibique Romae viginti quinque annos Cathedram Sacerdotalem tenuit Petrus And I hope this Father is of some credit and in esteem with the Minister They will tell him that the removing from place to place and from one City or Country to another was not of the Essence of an Apostle that they might if they thought fit remove or else continue and fix That if an Apostle upon some Emergent Occasion 〈◊〉 to another place this proves not that he was not before his removal the settled Minister of the former Church no more than when a Non-con Minister leaves his former Congregation and running into a remote Country adheres to a new one Will Mr. O. in this case deny that he was ever the settled Minister of the former They will tell him that an Apostle when he removed did still hold even in his Absence the Government of the Church which he left until he thought fit to fix his Successour or was by Death prevented taking any further care of it There want not Examples of this kind Thus 't is believed Euodius succeeded Peter at Antioch in the Apostles Life time and Linus at Rome after his Death And by the same Reason it 's Probable that Annianus succeeded Mark tho' not with the same Title and Character But Mr. O. has St. Chrysostom on his side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who went not about every where but only Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila c. He grants that the Evangelists did not go about Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did but yet they Travell'd up and down into divers places as the Apostles appointed them distinguishing forsooth between every where which belong'd to Apostles and divers places which
who they were nor what their Names were But setting aside this the Principal thing here to be remark'd is that Mr. O. according to his usual Custom has misrepresented Eusebius The Historians Words are as follows How many and who of the true Followers of the Apostles were reckoned sufficient to feed the Churches founded by them it is not easy to say Those only excepted which any one may gather out of Paul ' s Epistles For this Paul had innumerable Fellow Labourers and as he calls 'em Fellow-Soldiers very many of whom were by him thought worthy of immortal Fame he having in his Epistles given an everlasting Testimony of them and Luke also in the Acts reckoning them by their Names Among these Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reported to have receiv'd the Episcopacy of the Ephesian Diocess even as Titus also of the Churches in Crete But Mr. O. craftily transposes the Historians Words He begins at the latter end It was says he only reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus Then he adds from the beginning of this long Period That there was no certainty who succeeded the Apostles c. As if it were but a Report and not a certainty that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of their respective Churches Whereas Eusebius first says 't was uncertain how many and who governed the Churches that vast number of 〈◊〉 planted by the Apostles only he excepts those mentioned by name in the Acts and Paul's Epistles who certainly ruled the Churches planted by the Apostles and among them says he 't is reported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where is this reported Why in St. Paul's Epistles 't is Witnessed that Timothy received the Bishoprick of Ephesns and Titus of Crete And I hope the Testimony drawn from the Historical part of the Apostles Epistles is not an uncertain Report With the help of that common distinction between Ordinary and Extraordinary Church-Officers the Dissenters 〈◊〉 off whatever is brought against them out of Scripture They will tell you that the Apostles and the Evangelists were Extraordinary Officers and cannot be drawn into Consequence nor made a President for Bishops these being but Ordinary Church-Officers Mr. O. I do believe serves himself of this subterfuge near an hundred times in this Defence of his and the Plea My design then here is to examine this Distinction that this short Chapter may rise to some degree of Proportion with the rest The Question then is what is an extraordinary-Officer And my Answer is 't is of two kinds 1. An Extraordinary Officer properly speaking is one whose very Office is Extraordinary and Temporary Such were the Dictators among the Romans so long as that People preserv'd their Liberty These Dictators were Created upon some occasion of extream danger threatning the Common-Wealth which being over there was an end of the Officer and Office both The Dictator returned back to the Plough and the Consuls again reassumed the Administration of the publick Affairs Of this kind is the High-Steward in England who is constituted the chief Manager at the Coronation of the King or Trial of a Peer But so soon as these Solemnities are over there 's an end of the High-Steward He breaks his Staff the Ensign of his Honour and Office and becomes a private Man as he was before Such I reckon Prophets in the Church to have been God raising them up by an extraordinary Commission for the necessary Service of Religion but it was not necessary that a Prophet should have a Successor or that the Office of a Prophet should be continued For in the Jewish Church Prophets ceas'd as well as in the Christian which every one knows and acknowledges 2. An Extraordinary Officer is one whose Office generally speaking at least several parts of his Office are Ordinary necessary and of perpetual use But who is endued with many Singular Personal and extraordinary qualifications and advantages for the Discharge of his Office Such was Aaron the High-Priest of the Jews Such were the Seventy taken in by Moses to bear with him part of the burden of the Government Such were the Apostles and Evangelists the Pastors and Teachers many of 'em in the Apostles days as I make account and am now about to explain The Ordinary necessary and permanent parts of the Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices were Preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments Ordaining Elders and managing the Government and Discipline of the Church With respect hereunto the Apostles and Evangelists were Ordinary Church Officers Though having received from God many extraordinary personal Gifts enabling them to discharge their Office more effectually on which Account they may be called extraordinary Officers also For so we are wont to call even Persons of very Eminent Natural Parts and mighty Improvements in knowledge extraordinary Men Much more then those who receive their divine Abilities immediately from God But still for all that their Office was but Ordinary and it was necessary and God appointed that there should be a Succession unto the Ordinary Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices though he did not continue the extraordinary Gifts So it appears from those Words of our Lord And lo I am with you alway to the end of the World Matt. 28. 20. This promise of Christ cannot be thought to belong to the Apostles personally for they were mortal how then could Jesus Christ be with them alway and to the end of the World Nor is the Promise to be understood of extraordinary Gifts and Assistances such as were given to the Apostles and Evangelists For we know that those ceased in the Church in an Age or two It remains therefore that in the fore-mentioned Passage Christ promised to be with his Church alway unto the end of the World in the Ordinary work of the Ministery Preaching the Word Discipling Nations Administring the Sacrament exercising Discipline and Governing the Church And from hence it follows that they in whose hands is lodged the Power of Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments of Ordaining and Governing the Church at this day are Successors unto the Apostles and Evangelists and invested with the same Powers that the Apostles and Evangelists were though not with such Extraordinary Gifts and by Consequence are the same Species of Church-Officers ex gr Was not Caiaphas as truly the High-Priest as Aaron and the Sanhedrim in the Apostles days the same that it was in Moses's only excepting the Eminent Gifts which were bestowed on the one and not on the other I conclude then that the Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices were if we will speak exactly Ordinary tho' the Apostles and Evangelists Abilities were Extraordinary And that the Apostles and Evangelists had and to this day have and will and ought to have unto the end of the World Successors in all the Ordinary parts of their Office But it will be Objected if the Apostolical or Evangelistical Office was succeeded to why was the name of the Office altered The discontinuance
Faith that City being so furiously zealous in their Superstition and Idolatry So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19. 19 20. Paul testifies sixthly that at Ephesus a great Door and Effectual was opened unto Him viz. a most advantagious opportunity of bringing in a mighty Harvest of Souls to Christ. 1 Cor. 16. 8 9. Put all these together how is it possible to imagine upon any solid 〈◊〉 that there were no more than one single Congregation in the Church of Ephesus These are the Assemblies and London Ministers Arguments which Mr. O. may do well at his leisure to confute if He can If He can't and as I am apt to suspect will not endeavour then my point is gained For if even in Paul's days there were many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus then much more in the times of Ignatius the Christian Religion doubtless getting ground continually in those parts upon the Gentile Superstition as is manifest afterwards from the Churches hereabouts planted and mentioned in the Revelations to which may be added Magnesia and Trallis out of Ignatius's Epistles none of which are to be found in the story of St. Paul except Laodicea that I can remember Now I will not contend that every of the Churches spoken of in Ignatius was 〈◊〉 Diocesan not knowing how early they were planted But thus much I repeat again they were intended to be cast into the same Model as Ephefus was as many be gathered from the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons fixt in them which was as I may say the Foundation of larger Churches to consist of many Congregations after more believers should by the Grace of God be added unto the Churches By this time I am in some Hopes 't is undeniably proved 1. That the Bishops of those Churches to whom Ignatius wrote were Prelatical that is were of a Distinct species of Church-Officers and Superior to the Presbyters who were subject to them 2. That they were likewise Diocesan that is Rulers over several Congregations and over the Presbyters and Deacons who Ordinarily Ministred in them from whence it must be concluded that the several Passages of whose Sense Mr. O. and I have disputed must be so expounded as to be made agreeable to Prelatical and Diocesan Episcopacy Whether I have done it is left to the Judgment of the Reader if He please to consult the T. N. To speak only of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar very briefly because He alledges the Testimony of no less a Man than the Famous Mr. Mede for one Numerical Altar and not a Specifical one as I expounded it Those Words in Ignatius's Epistle ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thought to favour one Numerical Altar which Mr. O. contends for of which thus Mr. Mede delivers Himself Here is a Temple with an Altar in it For in these Primitive Times they had but one Altar in a Church Ans. No more have we at this day Though we have many Churches in a Diocess yet every Church has an Altar and but one and so it might be at Magnesia for any thing that is yet said to the contrary But Mr. Mede goes on It should seem they had but one Altar to a Church taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful United under one Bishop in the City or place where the Bishop had his See or Residence as the Jews had one Temple and one Altar for the Whole Nation United under one High-Priest The Author endeavours to confirm this as Mr. O. truly says out of Justin Martyr and St. Cyprian Ans. But still Mr. O. misrepresents Mr. Mede as if He were positive herein which is not so For 1. Mr. Mede lays down his position very cautiously it should seem intimating it was not very clear from those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Words many imply only that every Temple had but one Altar as it is with us and yet there might be more Temples than one in the Bishop's Churches and therefore more Altars 2. Mr. Mede at the same time thinketh the Bishop's Churches to have been Diocesan For though they had not several Altars yet they had several Oratories or lesser Temples says He as the Jews had their Synagogues So that the one Numerical Altar in the Bishop's Church does not prove his Church to consist of one Congregation only in this Learned Gentleman's Opinion no more than the one Altar in the Temple of the Jews proves there were no Synagogues 3. Mr. Mede to back his Conjecture grounded on Ignatius produces two Testimonies the one out of Justin the other out of Cyprian and because he is not positive or certain of the Conclusion he draws from them it will be no breach of Modesty if I examine whether Mr. Mede has well grounded his Conjecture on those two Fathers Justin Martyr in his second Apology thus writes All that live in Cities or Countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plural meet togeher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place so Mr. Mede to Celebrate the Holy Eucharist This Passage does not evince that the Bishop's Church taken for the whole Company of Believers united under him had but one Altar for which I offer the following Reasons First Because Justin here intends not to give the Gentiles an Account of the Politie and Government of the Christian Churches nor how many sort of Church-Officers there were among them nor how many Congregations under one Bishop but of the manner of their Divine Worship and that not in one single Congregation but in all His meaning is that in all Towns and Countries throughout the World the Christians belonging to any one Congregation or certain district met together c. For all this there might be several Congregations under One Bishop If I for example should write to a Foreigner concerning the manner of our Worship here in England not intermedling with the Nature of our Government might I not ought I not to say All that live in Towns or Countries or where-ever there is a Congregation meet together in one place though at the same time there be many Churches and many Congregations united under one Bishop of the Diocess which thus meet together for Divine Worship Secondly Whereas Justin mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President who Celebrates the Divine Worship in these single Congregations there is no necessity of Understanding Him speaking of the Bishop only He may using one common Title for both speak of the Presbyters who preside over the Divine Worship in their particular Congregations So Mr. Mede expounds Antistes afterward not the Bishop only but the Bishop or Presbyter that is He who Ministers in the Congregation at that time Thirdly Supposing He means the Bishop He does but instance in and exemplify the Christian Worship by the most Honourable Assembly sc. that wherein the Bishop himself Ordinarily Presided in Person not excluding others wherein the Presbyters Ministred Fourthly Justin because he
Archbishop of Canterbury so after he was King the Ambition still prevailed in him and was not we see easily removed 6. Early in the Reign of Edw. VI. and when the Reformation was going on prosperously Cranmer and the Protestant Bishops understanding matters better and having freedom to speak their Minds delivered themselves more clearly in the point as may be inferred from sundry Observations belonging to that Time and upon Record As 1. It is declared in the Preface before the Form of Ordination drawn up and agreed upon in Edw. VI's Reign That it is 〈◊〉 unto all Men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons by publick Prayer and with Imposition of Hands approved and admitted thereunto Cranmer it seems was now come over to Dr. Leighton's Opinion declared in the days of Hen. VIII 2. Cranmer set forth a Catechism in the first Year of Edw. VI. Anno 1548. wherein the three Orders are taught as of Divine Right from whence says the Historian It appears that he had changed the Opinion he formerly held against the Divine Institution of those Ecclesiastical Orders 3 In the Days of Edward VI. Cranmer suspended Heath Bishop of Worcester for refusing to subscribe the fore-mentioned Form of Ordination 4. In the same Reign John Alasco a Noble Polonian was by Cranmer's means made a Superintendant over all the Churches of the Foreigners yet newly planted in and about London the Germans Italians and the French And Superintendant is but another Word for Bishop Whoever therefore will impartially weigh the darkness of the times in Henry VIII's Reign where the above mentioned King's and Bishop's Books were written and the Answers made unto the King's Questions by Cranmer and some others the stifness of that Prince his fondness of being Head of the Church and the awe which the Archbishop and his Associates in the Reformation stood in towards him the earnest desire they had at any Rate and on any Terms to be rid of the Pope's Tyranny the falseness uncertainty and absurdity of many Opinions delivered by the Bishops and their repugnancy to each other he will be forc'd to confess that no stress can be laid upon any of their Conclusions much less that they were the first and steady Sentiments of the Protestant Church of England For even the Popish Clergy also generally subscribed them But the sudden alteration of the Bishops minds as to this present Point in debate in Edward VI's days puts it out of all question that the MS. of my late Lord of Worcester belongs to King Henry VIII's days and that our first Reformers their mature and setled Judgment was that there were from the beginning of the Christian Church three Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers by Divine Right Bishops Priests and Deacons Let us hear the Reflections of the Learned Prelate the now Lord Bishop of Salisbury In Cranmer's Papers some singular Opinions of his about the nature of 〈◊〉 Offices will be found but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty so they were not established as the Doctrine of the Church but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own And it seems that afterwards he changed his Opinion for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set forth which is directly contrary to those Opinions set down in this Paper viz. Mr. Stillingfleet's MS. In the next Reign 't is no matter to us what became of the Divine Right of Episcopacy The Protestant Church of England suffered an Eclipse in Queen Mary's days but soon recovering it self under the Auspicious Government of Queen Elizabeth shin'd so much the brighter and in a short time came to that Settlement which it enjoys to this day without any considerable Alteration And to our present point 〈◊〉 1. That the Form of Ordination of Deacons Priests and Bishops with the Preface before spoken of were confirmed in the 4th of Eliz. 1562. and again in her 13th Year Anno 1571. and which to make short work of it continues in force unto this Day 2. In the general Apology of the Protestants the 5th Article of the English Confession is inserted and was drawn up in that Queen's time Anno 1562. and runs in the words following Farthermore we believe that there be divers Degrees of Ministers in the Church Deacons Priests and Bishops to whom is committed the Office to instruct the People and setting forth of Religion But Mr. O. Objects unto us the 13th of Eliz. c. 12. pretending to prove thereby that Ordination by Presbyters was then allowed here in England The Clause he refers to is more at length thus All Persons under Bishops who pretend to be Priests or Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other Form of Institution or Consecration or Ordering than the Form set forth by Parliament in Edw. VI. or now used shall in the presence of the Bishop declare their Assent and subscribe to all the 〈◊〉 of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprized in a Book Entituled Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions c and 〈◊〉 c. From hence Mr. O. infers That the Statute respects not Popish Ordinations only if at all but gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to subscribe all the Articles absolutely among which was the Book of Consecration and that the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of true Christian Faith and of the Sacraments which he would prove in that the Statute speaks of Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments and the Title of Ministers is rarely used among the Papists and is common among the Reformed Churches the Ministry among the Papists being a real Priest-hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests Ans. The Statute doubtless speaks of all Priests and Ministers whether Papists or Dissenters All were to Assent and Subscribe in case they would continue in or be let into any Ecclesiastical Promotion But chiefly the Papists 〈◊〉 first I assert this upon Mr. O's own words The Ministry of the Papists says he was a real Priest hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests On the contrary I do not remember that Dissenting Ministers have ever been stiled Priests in any publick Instrument of Church or State Now as for the word Ministers even that also it may be points at the Popish Priests for it had lately been used among the Papists I meet with it in Smith's Recantation in the necessary Doctrine and other publick Records But chiefly I consider that at the time of this Act of Parliament the Popish Priests herded themselves among the 〈◊〉 and went by the name and under the disguise of Dissenting Ministers For the more effectual discovery
of these Foxes and to unkennel them for the security of the Flock as well as to curb the Dissenters themselves Ministers was thought a fit Word to be added unto the Act to the end none might escape subscribing Mr. O's 〈◊〉 here turns upon himself whilst he distinguishes where the Law does not contrary to that wise rule of Interpreting Laws Besides these Words in the Statute Who pretend to be Priests or Ministers by reason of any other form of Institution or Consecration or ordering than the English then in force do in my Opinion plainly and more openly strike at the Popish Ordinations the Great Design of that Reign especially in the beginning being to extirpate the Romish Priests It may be urg'd That the Dissenting Ministers by subscribing those Articles which only belong unto the Confession of the true Christian Faith were to be admited or continued in their Benefices and by consequence their Ordinations allowed though they did not declare their Assent unto the Ceremonies and Traditions nor to the 20th and 36th Article of Religion Ans. This cannot be For I shall shew anon that they were oblig'd to subscribe those two Articles which if they did ex animo they must of necessity forth with enter into Episcopal Orders and approve of and use Church Ceremonies which was what the Statute aim'd at Nor as Mr. O. argues does the subscription seem to intend those only who scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies and not the other Doctrines in the 39 Articles which was the case of the Dissenters alone For the Papists scruple many other of the 39 Articles which also were to be assented unto but were not scrupled by the Presbyterian Dissenters though other Dissenting Ministers haply did and though the Papists scruple not Ceremonies and Traditions in General yet they scruple ours in particular By consequence were intended in the Act as much and more then the Dissenters Mr. O. Because the Assent and Subscription was only to the Articles of Religion concerning the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments therefore an Indulgence was intended the Dissenting Ministers who scrupled nothing else but Ceremonies and the Book of Consecration which belonging not to the Christian Faith are not required to be subscribed and assented to and by consequence Ordination by Presbyters was here allowed Ans. All I have to do is to prove that the 20th and 36th Articles among the 39 were by this Statute required to be subscribed and assented to And thus I prove it 'T is manifest that the 39 Articles are meant in this Statute viz. from these Words in the Act Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and 〈◊〉 of both Provinces and the Whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions in Religion Oh! but cries Mr. O. 't is meant of such Articles only as concerned the Confession of the true Christian Faith which the two aforesaid Articles did not all the rest being opposed it seems unto the 20th and 36th Articles Ans. It is very absur'd in my Judgment to Interpret Acts of Parliament in so loose a manner which are wont to speak more correctly and with greater exactness and if this had been intended the Statute would certainly have excepted the two Articles I rather believe the Articles of Religion here mentioned are opposed to other Articles of the Queen's setting forth in the 6th of her Raign Anno 1564. and to be seen in the Collection of Dr. Sparrow called Articles 〈◊〉 Doctrine and Preaching for Administration of Prayer and 〈◊〉 for certain Orders in Ecclesiastical Politie Apparel or Persons Ecclesiastical and Sundry other Protestations All which were injoined by the Queens Letters and Authority only unto which this Statute did not direct an Assent and Subscription but to the 39 only which for Distinctions sake are entituled Articles of Religion and in Allusion thereto are so called in the Statute To all these 39 Articles called 〈◊〉 of Religion all Priests and Ministers were to subscribe And this was enacted as well for the avoiding diversity of Opinions as establishing of Consent touching true Religion Moreover by Ceremonies we commonly understand things of meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution These indeed considered every one singly by it self belong not to the true Christian Faith Right But the 20th Article which in general defines and declares it to be in the Power of the Church to appoint some decent Ceremonies 〈◊〉 a Principle or Proposition which belongs unto the true Christian Faith as being founded on the Word of God and therefore with the rest was to be subscrib'd The Book of Consecration confirmed in the 36th Article contains the Scripture Rule of Ordination by Bishops and so concerns the true Christian Faith It was then to be assented unto Finally that I have not mistaken the Sense of the Statute or the Lawgivers Intendment I will support my Interpretation by the Judgment of the great Oracle of the Law and other Reverend Judges before him Subscription required of the Clergy is twofold One by force of an Act of Parliament confirming and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. c. 12. referring to Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation holden at London 1562. containing 39 Articles of Religion and ratify'd as aforesaid He adds that in Smith's Case who subscribed the 39 Articles of Religion with this Addition So far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God it was resolved by Wray Chief Justice and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of the 13 Eliz. because the Statute required an absolute subscription that this Statute was made for avoiding Diversity of Opinions which was the scope of the Act but by this Addition the Party might by his own private Opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God Contrary to the design of the Statute and the 39 Articles themselves Belike Smith intended to decline subscribing unto the 20th and 36th Articles Hereby then 't is apparent that this Act intended no indulgence unto the Dissenters nor allowance of Presbyterian Orders In King James the first 's Reign was publish'd a Book entituled Tractatus de Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae by Dr. Mocket the then Archbishop's Chaplain whereunto the Author annex'd Jewels Apology the greater and less Catechisms the Publick Liturgy the 39 Articles of Religion and the Homilies Now because Blondel builds upon these I ought at least to examine the Treatise and the Catechisms The latter I cannot get a sight of and shall at present only look into the former from whence it may be Collected That the Office of a Bishop is twofold The first has respect unto all the Faithful of the Whole Flock The second unto the Ministers of the Church As to the former it is acknowledged that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Degree of Office or