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
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
therefore supposes Timothy now got to Rome according to Paul's Order 2 Tim. 4. 9. Ans. The Proper Answer hereunto is that Paul's Writing unto Timothy 2 Tim. 4. 9. to come to him at Rome agrees every whit as well with Mine as Mr. O's Hypothesis The Question then between us is not to be decided hereby but by other Circumstances which are to be spoken of anon And to cut off all unnecessary jangle the same I reply to his third Argument taken from Mark' s being with Paul in his first Bonds The same Circumstances may agree to the same Persons at different times 4. Mr. O. Phansies that Paul's sufferings mentioned 2 Tim. 3. 11. which happen'd at Iconium Lystra and Antioch Twenty Years before the Apostle's Second Imprisonment at Rome imply that that Second Epistle was written sooner than his second Imprisonment for the Apostle would not 't is likely mention Events so long since past when there were other later Sufferings of his that were much fresher in his Memory Ans. First if there be any force in such kind of weak Reasonings as these then I ask supposing with Mr. O. this second Epistle written in the Apostle's first Bonds why did he not rather mention his latter Sufferings at Jerusalem which Timothy being then in Asia according to Mr. O. knew little of and were the the last that had happen'd unto the Apostle except those inconsiderable ones at Rome But the plain account of this Passage is that St. Paul is now animating Timothy to undergo Afflictions as became a Minister of Jesus Christ To this end the Apostle lays before him his own Example v. 10 11. and instances in his own Sufferings at Iconium c. But 't was indifferent which of his Sufferings He offered unto Timothy's consideration one as well as another a former as well as a latter would set forth Paul's Faith Long-suffering Charity Patience and Demonstrate God's Goodness and Protection of such as endure Persecution for his name's sake because God had delivered Paul out of them all And might not Paul say all this unto Timothy in his second as well as in his first Imprisonment If Mr. O. has no better Arguments than such as these to prove the second Epistle written in the Apostle's first Imprisonment he had better keep 'em to himself they betray the want of good Evidence and the weakness of his Hypothesis rather than Establish it 5. Mr. O. advances another Argument viz. from Tychicus being at Rome in Paul's first Bonds carrying thence the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians and says Mr. O. that second to Timothy Ch. 4. 12. speaks of Tychicus's Journey to Ephesus therefore this second Epistle must be written about the same time as that to the Ephesians was sc. in his 〈◊〉 Bonds Ans. But what absurdity is it to believe and assert that Tychicus carry'd those Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians from Paul a Prisoner at Rome the first time and then in the Apostles second Bonds afterward to have once more been sent to Ephesus as is exprest 2 Tim. 4. 12. As if Tychicus might not have been with Paul at Rome in both Imprisonments These things were noted in T. N. but the Minister urges 'em afresh without pretending to reply unto the Solution I there offered of this small Difficulty Here let it be observed how Mr. 〈◊〉 proves that Tychicus went along with Paul to Rome in his 〈◊〉 Bonds viz. from Acts 20. 4. where he is reckoned among those that accompany'd Paul from Macedonia into Asia and then carrying Letters from Rome to the 〈◊〉 and Colossians This is plain beyond Contradiction Tychicus certainly went with Paul to Rome at the Apostles first Imprisonment Mr. O. has demonstrated it But is it not every whit as plain that Timothy also was one of those who accompany'd Paul from Macedonia into Asia Act. 20. 4. and do we not find that he was with Paul at Rome Philip 1. 1. Colos. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23 And does it not then follow according to Mr. O's own Argument when the Interest of his Cause is forgot or not concerned that Timothy went with Paul to Rome at his first Imprisonment If this be a good proof of Tychicus going along with Paul to Rome 't is as good for Timothy's Thus all Mr. O's petty Arguments and Sophisms for Paul's writing the second Epistle to Timothy in his first Bonds are overthrown by himself Great is Truth and sometimes breaks forth and shines through the thickest Mists of Prejudice and Prepossession The Conceit then of Timothy's being left behind Paul in Asia invented merely to support a Cause that of Paul's writing the second Epistle in his first Bonds is now out of Doors and henceforth forever to be laid aside 6. Mr. O. The second Epistle was written in his first Bonds because it mentions his being delivered from his Confinement which he was not delivered from in his second Bonds In the second Epistle 4. 17. He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion that all the Gentiles might hear the Gospel that is that he might go about and Preach the Gospel to many Nations Ans. Mr. O. has unworthily inverted the Order of the Words and so drawn 'em to a wrong sense Thus the Apostle writes The Lord stood with me and Strengthen'd me that by me the Preaching might be fully known and that all the Gentiles might hear and I was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion The sense of which Words is plainly this that Paul by some Special Assistance from God so well pleaded his own and the Cause of the Gospel at the Tribunal of Caesar where all the Gentiles a great number of the Principal Courtiers and others being Present heard him That he escaped Condemnation at that time He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion his deliverance was the Effect of the good management of this Cause or vindicating the Truth of the Gospel before the Roman Gentiles But as for the Gentiles in other Nations hearing the Gospel it was not the effect of his Deliverance at this time as Mr. O. by misplacing the parts of the Text would have it understood Besides when 't is said I was delivered it is not said from his Confinement as if he had been immediately set at Liberty for then he would not have sent for Timothy but rather have gone to him according to his Intentions as is supposed by Mr. O. But because he sent for Timothy after the deliverance here spoken of it follows that he was still a Prisoner though he had for once escaped with Life Lastly if this was his Deliverance from his first Imprisonment then he could not write to Timothy to come unto him because Timothy was with him already That is before his Enlargement from his first Bonds Philip. 1. 1. Colos. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23. Upon the whole Matter this Passage shews the Epistle was writ not in the Apostle's first but second Bonds 7.
Mr. O's next proof taken from Luke is of the same Nature with his 5th Argument speaking of Tychicus The same Reply therefore that I made to the 5th will serve here 〈◊〉 mutandis 8. Mr. O. Argues from the Apostle's Cloak left at Troas 2 Tim. 4. 13. which hap'ned says the Minister at his going to Jerusalem just before his being sent Prisoner to Rome This Cloak was a Roman Habit which might have prejudiced the Jews against him therefore he left it at Troas but being arrived at Rome he sent for his Cloak his Roman Habit. Ans. Though some believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here mention'd was Paul's Cloak his Penula a Latin word made into Greek by the Transposition and Alteration of some Letters Yet 't is but very uncertain whether they are in the right For why may not Penula be made out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Penula Whatever it was suppose a Roman Habit which Paul had brought with him from Rome after his Enlargement from his first Bonds according to my Hypothesis why might he not leave it at Troas at that time that he sailed thence into Macedonia For soon after he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy as I contend wherein he shews that his Intentions were to return into 〈◊〉 parts once more 1 Ep. 3. 14. which was the Reason of his leaving his Cloak there behind him intending afterwards to call for it but haply being prevented and so making forward for Rome when there be sent for his Cloak This is a fair account of this Passage about the Apostle's Cloak without straining it to a Sense which no body ever thought of before and which has no Foundátion in Scripture But after all this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here rendered Cloak is a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and never to be met with again either in Scripture or in the Ancient Classical Greek Authors And therefore its signification is very uncertain it may denote a Cloak and it may denote any thing else an Hat ex gr or a Shirt it may signify some sort of Writings or Cover to carry Writings in 〈◊〉 to this last the best Criticks incline E. in the Synopsis Criticorum thinks it was a little Cheft Box or portable Cover to carry Books and papers in grounding himself on the Syriac Translation where 't is rendered domus Scriptorum Dr. Ham. gathers from Phavorinus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Parchments rolled up and was the very same which the Apostle 〈◊〉 calls the Parchments as is imply'd in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bring with thee the Parchments rolled up and the Books which I left at Troas but especially the former the Parchments fail not to bring 'em Others understand thereby an Hebrew Volume of the Old Testament deriving it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Liber or inward Rind of a Tree on which the Ancients used to write from whence they suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived Lastly I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outward Cover of Books In this uncertainty about the signification of this Word and the variety of Opinions concerning it how is it possible to form any Argumenr thence Or of what force can the Reasoning be which is grounded on it See more of this Word in Suicerus Lexic 9. Mr. O. argues to this purpose That such as were more severely dealt with were wont to be bound with two Chains Act. 12. 6. But Paul 2 Tim. 1. 16. was bound but with one that all agree Paul's first Imprisonment was more favourable than his second therefore he must have written this second Epistle in his first Imprisonment which was most favourable because he was then bound but with one Chain 2 Tim. 1. 16. Ans. Whether Peter was more severely dealt with than ordinary cannot be determined from Act. 12. 6. except we had an account of some other milder Treatment of him on some other Occasion Besides it may happen that one Chain may be as long and as heavy as two other Chains I have known one Rope as long as two other Ropes and a Prisoner may be as roughly handled and as securely preserv'd from escaping with one long Chain as with two short ones In the Apostle's first Imprisonment which was indeed favourable although St. Luke describes his sufferings in the singular Act. 28. 20. even as St. Paul himself does Eph. 6. 20. Yet elsewhere we have 'em exprest in the Plural Philip. 1. 7. Insomuch as in my Bonds v. 13. my Bonds in Christ. v. 14. By my Bonds v. 16. To my Bonds Colos. 4. 18. My Bonds Philem. 10. My Bonds and v. 13. In the Bonds of the Gospel So that Paul in his first Imprisonment was ty'd with many Bonds or Chains as also he was in his second as I reckon it 2 Tim. 2. 9. For which Gospel I suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto Bonds The difference then between his first and second Imprisonment was not as to the number of his Bonds and Chains but other hardships which he endured in his latter Imprisonment If any one will consider the difference between his Imprisonment as 't is described in the Acts and again as 't is very plainly set forth by several Intimations in the second Epistle to Timothy whereof I spoke particularly in the T. N. He will be forced to confess that that in the Acts was his first Imprisonment and that other referred to in the second Epistle to Timothy to have been his latter Imprisonment and that the singularity or plurality of his Bonds mentioned in both will not decide this Controversy Mr. O. Demas was with Paul at Rome in his first Imprisonment Colos. 4. 14. we read nothing of his being there in his second Imprisonment Ans. There is a manifest difference between Paul's Imprisonment described in the Acts and in the second Epistle to Timothy which clearly proves the second Epistle written in Paul's latter Imprisonment ex gr In the first Demas was with him and because there was then little or no Danger Demas stuck close to him but in the latter when all turned away from him Demas among the rest then also with the Apostle at Rome forsook him in the Extremity This account is very Natural Is it not possible Yea probable that Demas was with him in both Imprisonments Besides 't is an unsufferable Impertinence to urge such kind of Arguments as are reconcilable with both sides of the Question such is Demas's attendance upon Paul in his Bonds But whereas he adds that we read 〈◊〉 of Demas being with Paul at Rome in his second Imprisonment 't is so absurd an Observation upon his Principles that nothing could have been said more absurdly For on his Supposition that the second Epistle to Timothy was written in Paul's first Imprisonment where should we read in Scripture of Demas being with Paul in his second
I find it His Plea would have had something in it surely relating to this New Chronology In fine that Mr. O. thought of the Bishop's Argument before the Rector's Book came forth is not material but that He thought of it before the Rector proposed it to him we have only his own Word for it which is not much worth in this case of Self-Testimony Yea granting this also I have good reason to believe he derived this part of his knowledge from Bishop Pearson for a Reason best known to my self Mr. O. has wonderfully demonstrated from 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. That Paul sent for Timothy to him at Rome what no Body ever deny'd and yet he has not hereby proved that Timothy was ever in the Apostle's Company after he was besought to abide at Ephesus 'T is not out of doubt to me that Timothy saw Paul at Rome though he sent for him For not to speak of other Obstacles Paul might have been Martyred by the Emperor 's Special and sudden Command before Timothy reached Rome This is very likely if we consider the State of Affairs at Rome about that time as we read 'em set forth in the Annals of Paul What I excepted against in Dr. Whitaker was not that which Mr. O. pretends to make Answer to but that he asserted Equals could receive Accusations as Timothy did This the Dr. proved if Mr Prinn wrongs him not from a Synod of Bishops who received an Accusation against one of their own Number and then Censured him for his Fault Now how far this is from a proof of what it was alledged for I shewed at large and Mr. O. who Taxes me for so doing overlooks it nor makes any Reply to it Indeed it is not to be Answered if it 〈◊〉 true as I think none will deny that one Bishop is not equal but Inferior and Subject to a Synod of Bishops Therefore a Synod's receiving an Accusation against a Bishop is no proof of the Doctor 's Assertion but an Instance of the contrary As for Mr. O's own examples out of St. Cyprian were they never so convincing which shall in its place be considered they will not however Vindicate Dr. Whitaker nor are a proper Answer to my Exceptions against him The proportion of Dioceses how large at most they ought to be is not my business to determine as I undertake not to define how big a Parish or Congregation ought to be I suppose the ultimum quod sic and the Limits quos ultra citraque nequit consistere Rectum are in both uncertain and are only to be adjusted prout viri prudentes definiverint as Superiors shall think fit to Order and not by the Caprice and humoursome phancy of every overweening Opinionanist and self conceited Reformer Mr. O. hears the Rectors Parish has four or five Chappels in it Ans. The Rectors Parish has neither five nor four Chappels in it Tho' the Ministers Ears be never so long yet is he mistaken herein If it had twenty 't is nothing to the purpose Mr. O. Because the Rector affirm'd it no more impossible for Timothy supposed then the Angel of the Chruch of Ephesus mentioned Rev. 2. To leave his first Love than for Judas to betray his Master is mightily disturbed and to confute it musters up many Commendations given of Timothy in Scripture Ans. In T. N. I declared my Opinion plainly that Timothy was not that Angel there spoken of yet supposing it 't was not impossible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection The Commendations alone render it not impossible Abstracting from Matter of Fact then that Judas an Apostle who had the Power of Casting out Devils should turn Apostate is as strange as that Timothy should leave his first Love Lastly when 't is for his turn Mr. O. can admit that Timothy might be overtaken with Youthful Lusts but when he wants an Occasion of Cavilling then 't is monstrous horrid to suppose it possible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection from the Truth If the one was possible why not the other But especially if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 22. Signifie the Lusts of the Mind its proneness to Paradoxes to New up-start Opinions curious Conceipts and Innovations in Religion of which kind we reckon Presbytery and Independency which are but of Yesterday and the product of Minds addicted unto Novelties I do not find Commentators Ordinarily Expounding the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Youthful i. e. Fleshly Lusts but to the Sense I have now given them In a Word whoever attentively reads Rev. 2. 2 3 6. will find considerable Commendations of the Angel of Ephesus perhaps not much Inferior to those of Timothy in other places of Scripture And yet this Angel left his first Love 'T was not impossible then but Timothy might do so likewise I have now done with Mr. O's Defence If I have left any thing of Moment unanswered Or if I have failed giving full satisfaction to any Material Difficulty Objected against me I do promise either to supply these Defects or fairly to confess my self unable Only I could wish all personal Reflections and unnecessary Digressions might be laid aside that Arguments be plainly proposed and 〈◊〉 as few words as may be that no trickish and evasive Answers be made when we have nothing else to reply And finally that we would not take to task a piece of an Argument and the weakest part of it too and then make the Reader believe we have fully accounted for the Difficulty when in Truth we kept our selves all the while at a distance and never came near the Merits of the Cause THE SECOND PART Wherein All Mr Owen's Authorities for Presbyterian Parity and Ordination by Presbyters are overthrown and particularly is prov'd THAT The Church of ENGLAND Ever since the Reformation HELD The Divine Apostolical Right of EPISCOPACY 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. One ought to endure to the utmost rather than divide the Church of God and dying rather than rend it in pieces is a no less glorious Martyrdom and in my Opinion greater than being a Martyr for not Sacrificing unto Idols In this latter Case a Man suffers for his own sake only in the former for the whole Church Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. LONDON Printed in the Year 1699. THE INTRODUCTION HAving spoken of the Government of the Christian Church in General and as far as the Holy Scriptures afford us any Light Having thence shewn that meer Presbyters alone did never exercise any Supreme Act of Jurisdiction of any kind that can be there discovered except in Conjunction with and subordination to some extraordinary Officers as Apostles or Prophets Having in particular traced the manner of Government at Ephesus unto the Death of St. John the Apostle and the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius and found it cast by St. Paul into the same Form as the Church of England is at this Day
Patriarch nor had ever adhered to Melitius They thus then farther write to the Church of Alexandria concerning these latter and Regular Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as for those who by the Grace of God and through your Prayers have been found in no Schism but have ever stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick Church it pleased the Holy Synod that they should have Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to point out and to give up the Names of 〈◊〉 as were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy to be of the Clergy and in short to do all things according to the Ecclesiastical Law and Constitution which is the passage misrepresented by Mr. O. and Mr. Baxter wherein the Synod confirms to 'em their Ancient Rights and Privileges Having given I hope an exact account of this latter part of that Epistle let us now see whether Mr. Baxter or Mr. O. have done so To which end I observe that here is not one Word of Presbyters at least not of Presbyters Ordaining and 〈◊〉 of all of Presbyters who had been Ordained by Melitius nor lastly which was the thing Mr. O. aimed at of Presbyters Ordaining Ministers 1. They speak not of Presbyters that is not in particular and expresly of them alone as is manifeft to any one that has his Eyes in his Head but only in General of such as had not been engaged in the Melitian Schism These surely must be Bishops as well as Presbyters or Deacons The truth is they include all the Three Orders and that 's the reason in this whole Epistle they Name no one of them expresly meaning to confirm them all as well Bishops as Presbyters that had stuck close to Alexander in their Ancient Respective Powers and 〈◊〉 2. Much more they speak not of the Ordaining Power of Presbyters Mr. O. at least ought not to say so for what then will become of the Authority of Father 〈◊〉 who asserts that Alexander or the Nicene Council first deprived them of it what did this Synod or Alexander both deprive 'em of it and confirm it to them that cannot be Either then Eutychius is out in his story or Mr. O. is a little mistaken about the Letter of the Nicene Fathers Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not 〈◊〉 to Ordain but the 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Word to put up the Names of the Candidates for Holy Orders and Sozomen in his account of this Fact uses that single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse Socrates expressing it in two Words as Valesius has observed Exegetical of one another it being usual for Authors to embellish their writings and give them a grateful Emphasis by a Variety and redundancy of Expression No body at this diftance of time can tell all the Customs of this Church and what Honorary 〈◊〉 the Presbyters might have at the publick 〈◊〉 However this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be expounded Ordaining And yet admitting that it signifies so 't is not necessary to understand the passage of Presbyters Ordaining it may as well be presumed to be intended of Bishops Ordaining there being no circumstance that limits the sense unto Presbyters and as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Words are spoken of those that were to be Ordained and not of the Ordainers and may as well be taken to mean such as were thought worthy to be Bishops as those who were 〈◊〉 worthy to 〈◊〉 made Presbyters For in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But least of all Thirdly do the Nicene Fathers speak here of the Melitian Presbyters because the Melitians had not according to the Character here given of these Persons stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick 〈◊〉 but had been engaged in the Melitian Schism Nor 4. does the Synod speak of Ordaining Ministers if by Ministers our Adversaries understand Presbyters which Title they seem at this day to affect and usurp to themselves though it generally denotes all the Three Orders These four mistakes has Mr. O. committed at the beginning of his Account of the Nicene Synod Before I proceed to consider what He farther advances on this Occasion I will only Note that the Patriarchs of Alexandria had power over the Bishops and Whole Church of Egypt with its Appendages long before the Synod of Nice That they had then power over these Churches appears plainly from this Epistle which in several places speaks of them as Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria that the Alexandrian Patriarchs had Power over them before the Patriarch Alexander is evident from the Melitian Schism which had not been a Sinful Schism if Peter and 〈◊〉 Alexander's Predecessors had not had Jurisdiction over them That this Power of the Patriarchs was very Ancient is also manifest from the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which begins thus Let the Ancient Customs obtain which are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these Provinces which shews lastly the extent of their Power through 〈◊〉 Libya and 〈◊〉 and that it had been an Ancient Custom that is long before Alexander and the Synod of Nice yea before Peter and Achillas Thus much being said for the right understanding of that Letter of the Nicence Fathers let us now proceed to examine what Mr. O. has inferred from the last mentioned passage according to Mr. Baxter's Lamentable Translation of it Mr. O. argues If any say the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and govern with Bishops but not with out them it is granted For the decree refers to the Ecclesiastica Instituta but this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently is no nullity tho' an irregularity as to the Canons when 't is done by them alone His meaning is as I take him that Presbyters have an Inherent and Intrinsick power to Ordain but that the Nicene Fathers had by their Ecclesiastical Constitution restrained that power so that it should not be exerted but with the Bishops that when the Presbyter did Ordain without Bishops 't was only an irregularity 〈◊〉 breach of the Ecclesiastical Constitution not a Nullity But to this I reply 1. That the Nicence Fathers as has already been observed speak not of Presbyter only but of all the Three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons who are hereby every one of them allowed to do what properly belong to their own Order according to the Ancient Custom and Constitution of that Church 2. That therefore supposing their meaning to be what Mr. O. would have it that Presbyters in particular according to the Ecclesiastical Constitution shall Ordain with the Bishops and not without them it will not follow that Ordination by Presbyters alone without Bishops is vallid and only an irregularity Because it may with as good Reason be hence concluded that the Presbyters power to Ordain with the Bishops belonged to