one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England in Subordination to and by the Popes Authority not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate and that in Civil and Moral Matters only The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another if haply it be another Book entituled The Institution of a Christian Man drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII and the Parliament and commanded to be Preached Out of this Book afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess Mr. O. cites as follows in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum Which Words it must be confessed look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight Ans. In the first place I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this and some other Books of the same nature and written with the same design The Bishops Book otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man of which before came forth again two Years after sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man Printed also by Barthelet That this also was once more Published in Engglish and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book according to the Custom of those Times though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer but called The King's Book because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation added to it by way of Preface and assumed to himself the being the Author of it Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book Entituled The Bishops Book because framed by them I guess it the same with that I first spoke of and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book but Entituled The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book going under this Title Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit 1544. in the Preface whereof 't is said to have been at first writ in English and then Translated into Latin by whom or by what Authority I find not and whether this be the same with Mr. O's I know not but this is sure Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops not about the superiority or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church I am apt to fear some foul play But concerning the Testimony its self as allowed of I shall speak more by and by Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man If it shall be said that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book but the Bishops Book yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other Thus then I read in the King's Book That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church given of God to Christian Men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands That this Sacrament was conferred and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed or limited by the Word of God for the nomination election presentation or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region provided made or to be made c. He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries both of Priests and Bishops sc. Teaching Preaching Ministring the Sacraments Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar loosing and assoiling from Sin Excommunicating and finally Praying for the whole Church and their own Flock in special That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices but with such sort and such Limitations as the Laws permit and suffer That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only that is Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio which I have seen there is some disagreement to be found For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition c. seems to speak of two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons the Christiani hominis Institutio expresseth it thus de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum Diaconorum Scriptura expresse meminit c. meaning as I suppose not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry sc. of Presbyters and Deacons That is the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons is only expresly mentioned in Scripture and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive not of Persons but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day It is not then affirm'd in either that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices that is Priests and Deacons and not Bishops according to the Scripture But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense and to his purpose rather sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions in Ordinibus but of Deacons or Ministers and of Presbyters or Bishops How Ministers and Bishops crept in here I 'll not say But they are capable still of the same Sence sc. that
were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Quest. 11. Whether a Bishop has Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture or no And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest Cr. Ans. A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scripture so may Princes and Governours and the People also by Election The People did commonly elect their Bishops and Priests Quest. 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and a Priest or only appointing to the Office be sufficient Cr. Ans. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture For Election and appointing thereunto is sufficient I have somewhat contracted the Archbishops Answers but so as to preserve the Sense full and intire and somethings I have omitted not Material as I Judge here to be set down These Questions and Answers in the MS. were subscrib'd T. Cant. and this is mine Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but remit the Judgment wholly to your Majesty To all which I reply 1. That though these were the Opinions of 〈◊〉 yet other Bishops unto whom the same 〈◊〉 were put were otherwise perswaded Mr. Strype has furnished us with different Answers given by some others of the learned Doctors or Bishops of that time from another MS. out of Cotton's Library To the 9th Question The Calling Naming Appointment and preferment of one before another to be a Bishop or Priest had a necessity to be done in that sort a Prince being wanting The Ordering Ordination appeareth taught by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture per manuum Impositionem cum Oratione This I doubt not will be own'd a truer and more Scriptural Resolution of the Question then Cr's was To Question 10th Bishops were first or not after These learned Men spake here cautiously Cranmer rashly and roundly pronounces To Quest. 11. Scripture warranteth a Bishop obeying the 〈◊〉 to Order a Priest per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione and so it hath been from the beginning They do not boldly define that Priest and Bishop were one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as Cranmer did To Quest. 12 Manuum Impositio cum Oratione is required unto the making of a Bishop or Priest So as only appointing it is not sufficient There is yet the Judgment of other Learned Men to be seen in Mr. Strype which I will add unto the former To Quest. 9th Making Bishops has two parts Appointment and Ordination Appointment which by necessity the Apostles made by Common Election and sometime by their own Assignment could not be done by Christian Princes because there were none yet now appertaineth to them But in Ordering wherein Grace is conferred the Apostles followed the Rule taught by the Holy Ghost per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione Jejunio A more solid and Judicious Answer then Cranmer's To Quest. 10 Christ made the Apostles first both Priests and Bishops but whether at one time some doubt After that the Apostles made both Bishops and Priests the names whereof in the Scripture be confounded They manifestly imply a real distinction between them in the beginning though they were one in Name or rather though both were called by both Names indifferently To Quest. 11 The Bishop having Authority from his Prince to give Orders may by his Ministry given to him of God in Scripture Ordain a Priest and we read not that any other not being a Bishop hath since the beginning of Christ's Church Ordained a Priest N. B. To Quest. 12 Only Appointment is not sufficient but Consecration that is to say Imposition of Hands with 〈◊〉 and prayer is also required For so the Apostles used to Order them that were appointed and so has been used continually and we have not read the contrary From the whole it appears that what ever was Cranmer's Opinion yet others were of a contrary Mind It cannot then be truly affirm'd that Cranmer's was the Judgment of the Church of England as farther may be confirmed by what Dr. Leighton reply'd at the same time unto the Queries 1. I suppose that a Bishop has according to the Scripture Power from God as being his Minister to create the Presbyter although he ought not to promote any one unto the Office of a Presbyter or admit him to any Ecclesiastical Ministry unless the Princes leave be first obtained in a Christian Common-Wealth But that any other Person has according to the Scripture Power to create the Presbyter I have not read nor learned from any Instance 2. I suppose Consecration by laying on of Hands is necessary For so we are taught by the Examples of the Apostles Thus much Dr. Durel who read the whole MS. by the permission of Mr. St. reports out of it in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Angli The Judgment then of Cranmer set forth in that MS. cannot with any Truth be ascribed to the Church of England it was the Opinion but of some Persons from which their Contemporaries we see differed much But 2. the Argument grounded on the MS. belongs not to the time when the Church of England was Protestant So that the Resolution of those Queries were rather of the Popish Church of England For the Questions were not put by Edw. VI. as was at first surmized but by Hen. VIII To make out which note 1. The Manuscript has no date nor any King named in it that called the Assembly at Windsor One may then ascribe it to the Father Henry as well as to the Son Edward 2. Cranmer submits himself and his Sentence unto the Judgment of the King But Edward VI. was a Child too young and unexperienced to ask these Questions or to have the final decision of them referred to him 3. Lee Archbishop of York who subscribed the Answers in the MS. died in the Year 1544. some Years before Edward was King by which Argument Dr. Durel says he convinced Mr. Still that the Convention was held at Windsor in the Reign of Hen. VIII not of Edward VI. 4. In Mr. Strype's Memor the King makes his Animadversions upon the Bishops Answers which cannot be thought the Work of Edw. VI. a Child but of Hen. VIII 5. The matter of the Questions and of the Answers of Cranmer sufficiently prove that Hen. VIII convened that Assembly at Windsor They both resemble the foresaid King's and Bishops Books and one Animadversion of the King in Mr. Strype which is since they confess appointing Bishops belongeth now to Princes how can you prove that Ordering is only committed unto you Bishops bewrays King Henry's aspiring to be invested with all the Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Power even of Ordination it self Of which see more in his Memorials P. 16 17. Append. N. 7. It. Mem. 141. Briefly as in his elder Brothers life time he was bred up in Learning that he might be Alterius Orbis Papa or
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
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
Men who are not I believe a fiftyeth part of the People of England And these latter in respect of the Body of the Nation I can scarce admit to be elected they may more fitly be said to come in by Privilege Of the one hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation about fifty two or a third part are chosen Proctors by the Parsons Vicars and Rectors who are two thirds of the Clergy about an hundred and fourteen come in by vertue of their Dignities as Deans and Arch-Deacons or by the Election of the Chapters only Let any one then judge whether the lower Houses of Convocation are near so much cramp'd with Members by Privilege as the House of Commons is four parts of the House of Commons being chosen by not a fiftieth part of the Pople and the fifth part of 'em by about an eighth part of the People But a third part of the Convocation is chosen by two thirds of the Clergy and the rest by privilege If then the House of Commons notwithstanding what has been observed are by all Wise Men look'd upon as a just Representative of the People with respect unto their choice as well as their number I would know a Reason why the Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Now least what has been said shall not be thought clear enough and sufficient to evince what it is intended for there being a great uncertainty in such Calculations I shall compare the Convocation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who if I am not much mistaken will be found on both the forementioned Accounts that is of Number and of Choice to have been not so just a Representative of the Clergy as the Convocation is This will be dispatched in a very few Words In the Year 1643. the Parliament called that Assembly consisting of one hundred twenty and two Persons Of whom let it be noted 1. That they fell short of the two Houses of Convocation forty four in number besides that there were some Scots among 'em 2. That not one of 'em was chosen by the Clergy but all Nominated by the Parliament Either then let Mr. O. give over taxing the Convocation as if it were not a just Representative of the Clergy or confess the Westminster Assembly to have been packed to serve a Turn contrary to all Law and Justice In short and to retort Mr. O's Reflections the Assemby of Divines were all of 'em except a few Nominated for a Colour the Parliaments Creatures chosen by them alone The rest if they had joined in the Westminster Deliberations had been meer 〈◊〉 there were enough to out-vote 'em besides those Lords and Commoners who were taken into the Assembly like so many Lay-Elders to Influence their Counsels and prevent any Decree that might be offered contrary to that Parliaments Inclinations or Designs Mr. O. If the Rector can find no proof in Scripture that Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all how dare they the Episcopal-Clergy do it for a Fortnight If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending Ans. We suspend not by virtue of our own sole inherent Power but in conjunction with our Diocesan with his knowledge and consent There is a great Difference between an Inherent Power for Presbyters to suspend a precedent for which I require out of Scripture and to suspend for a time according to the Constitutions of the Church and in Subordination to the Bishop unto whom the Party Suspended may appeal Mr. O. Whereas I affirmed that the Ordinary Elders had not Supreme Authority in the Churches at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East the Minister inferrs that herein is imply'd that Ordinary Presbyters had the Supreme Authority before that time and Challenges the Rector to prove they were ever deprived of it afterward Ans. There is no such thing imply'd by the Rector but only supposed at most to avoid all unnecessary Disputes with his Adversaries But if it were out of question that the Ordinary Elders had once the Supreme Authority yet the Apostle committing afterward the Supreme Authority unto single Persons ex gr unto Timothy and 〈◊〉 and making no mention at all of the Ordinary Presbyters must be understood to supersede the Power that was before in the Presbyters and to subject them unto those single Persons for the future But this is the Point in Controversy throughout these Papers and needs not here to be insisted on Mr. O. Here the Rector fairly confesses there were no Bishops when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds Ans. The Rector supposes it only as is said before but does not grant it Nay he is quite of another mind But it sufficeth to his Hypothesis that single Persons were afterward at least Constituted Rulers Bishops in the Churches Mr. O. 〈◊〉 could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ans. Here Mr. O. if I take him right grants that 〈◊〉 was Ordained by 〈◊〉 taking the 〈◊〉 into his Assistance This is as much as I desire and the exact Pattern of our Ordinations Presbyters therefore did not by their own sole Power Ordain but in Conjunction with the Apostle On the other hand if the Revelation concerning Timothy's Ordination came to the Presbyters as well as to St. Paul they then acted not as Ordinary 〈◊〉 but as Prophets and so cannot warrant Ordinary Presbyters Ordaining by Virtue of their Ordinary Power 〈◊〉 it no where appears that Paul joined the Presbyters in Commission with Timothy it may then be reasonable to conclude that Timothy received the sole Power though 't is sufficient for me to say He had the Supreme Mr. O. But Paul joined 〈◊〉 with him in the Ordinations Acts. 14. 23. Ans. Be it so yet still if Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul as is manifest from Acts 14. 4 14. Gal. 29. And if Barnabas was equal to Paul as many believe and Mr. O. will not deny then we are but where we were before This is nothing to Ordinary Elders Ordaining That Barnabas was tho' not equal to Paul yet independent on him may be probably hence gathered that in the sharp Contest between 'em Barnabas submitted not to Paul but separated from him Acts 15. 39. Besides Barnabas received the same Commission that St. Paul did and at the same time Acts 13. 1 2. However admitting Barnabas was but a Secondary Apostle which I rather believe or 〈◊〉 yet Mr. O. will not I hope deny he was more than an Ordinary Elder what then is this to Ordinary Elders Ordaining by their own sole Power and inherent Authority And how will it hence 〈◊〉 that because Paul admitted Barnabas an Apostle at least a Secondary Apostle to join in the Ordinations Acts 14. 23. that therefore Timothy joined the Ordinary Presbyters with him All this notwithstanding I give Mr. O. what he cannot prove sc.
That Timothy did not Ordain alone 'T is enough to my purpose that he was constitued the Principal Judge and Director in Ordinations as in all other Acts of Jurisdiction Mr. O. The Rector having argued from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Timothy was intended the Resident Governour of the Church of 〈◊〉 the Minister denies it upon the Authority of Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these places produced against me is Limited by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes a great difference A Man may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reside or abide in a place one two or three Days or Months or Years and yet we know what 't is to reside when 't is spoken undeterminately As for those Words Till I come 1 Tim. 4. 13. 't is no Limitation of Timothy's Residence at 〈◊〉 nor does it imply that his Authority there must then cease If it were so then after Paul was come to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must have left off Giving attendance unto Reading to Exhortation to 〈◊〉 which yet I suppose were Duties perpetually incumbent upon him let the Apostle be at 〈◊〉 or not In a word St. Paul's going shortly to Timothy at Ephesus was not with intent to remove him thence but to Instruct him throughly how to behave himself in the House of God the Church committed to his Charge as is before observed and proved Nevertheless least the Apostle should be prevented of his intended Visit and should tarry long as he suspected might happen he sent him for the present this Epistle containing the sum of what afterward when he came to Ephesus he would more at large communicate unto him But these are Repetitions Mr. O. to prove that 〈◊〉 had been furnished with the same Powers at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica as he was afterwards at Ephesus Alledges the Rectors granting that unfixt Evangelists governed the Churches and Ordained Elders under the Apostles Ans. This Concession proves not that Timothy was furnished with the same powers in Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus For 1. It does not appear that Timothy was an Evangelist when sent to Corinth c. This is no where to be found in Scripture But in St. Paul's second Epistle to Timothy which was a great while after he had been sent to 〈◊〉 Philippi and Thessalonica then indeed 't is intimated he was an Evangelist and not before 2. It seems Evident unto me that Timothy was sent unto Greece and Macedonia for quite other purposes than to govern those Churches and Ordain 'em Elders His business at 〈◊〉 was To Establish and comfort the Christians there concerning their Faith 1 Thes. 3. 2. And afterward he went thither again to hasten their Contributions as I conceive His Business to 〈◊〉 was to carry the Apostles Letter concerning the 〈◊〉 Schisms and Contentions We read of no Commission given him to receive Accusations to reprove Offenders openly to examine the Qualification of the Candidates for Holy Orders or to Ordain Elders either at Corinth 〈◊〉 or Thessalonica as He had at Ephesus 3. Eusebius on whose Authority the Hypothesis of unfixt Evangelists depends describes them thus They went from place to place among those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith Or where no Churches were as yet established But Paul had already planted Churches at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica These then were not places proper for an unfixed Evangelist to be imploy'd in and therefore Timothy did not the work of an Evangelist in those Cities that is he had not the same Powers there as at Ephesus So that I still call upon Mr. O. to prove Timothy was furnished with the same Powers in Greece and Macedonia as he was after at Ephesus 4. If Timothy had been furnished with the same Powers at his going to Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus why should Paul resolve for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there to instruct 〈◊〉 in his Office And because he foresaw that Journey might possibly be put off for a longer time why did he dispatch a Letter to 〈◊〉 wherein in the mean while he gives him the necessary Orders for the better Ruling of the Church 〈◊〉 I suppose was not so forgetful as to need these Instructions if he had before been furnished with 'em when he was sent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Mr. O. A great part of T. N. is to prove That Presbyters were not Supreme Governours because the Apostles were above'em And yet that Timothy and Titus were Supreme Governours though the Apostles were above them also Either the Elders were Supreme Governours or Timothy and Titus were not Ans. I shew'd by Induction of Particulars that the Presbyters were subject unto the Apostles in every single Act of Government That either an Apostle or a Prophet was constantly at the Helm to guide and direct ' em The Elders had not a discretionary Power in any Case that we read of But Timothy and Titus though they also were subject to St. Paul whenever he thought fit to interpose yet generally speaking were left unto the Judgment of their own private Discretion as appears from the Rules of Government prescribed 'em by the Apostle There is a manifest difference between Timothy and Titus their subjection to the Apostle and that of the Ordinary Elders See the Preface Mr. O. Whereas in proof of many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus I cited Acts 19. 10. All they which dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus And backed this with Ignatius's calling himself the Bishop of Syria not of Antioch only but of some considerable part of the adjacent Country The Minister Replies This is little to the purpose and that Men will talk any thing But Ans. Do not these Observations render it highly probable that the Ephesian Church was also composed of several Assembles in City and Country And is not this a good account why a Bishop and many Presbyters and Deacons were employ'd in the Church of Ephesus not serving one Congregation alone in the City but others also in the Country round about called Asia If there had been but one Congregation at Ephesus one Bishop or Presbyter might have sufficed The Christians at that time of day were not so wealthy as to multiply Church-Officers more than needed This is not I confess to Mr. O's Purpose but I hope 't will be thought to mine Mr. O. further pleads That the Rector understand in Order to prove there were many Congregations in that Church May as well say that the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia c. for all these heard the Word of the Lord Jesus Acts 2. 9 11. as well as those of Asia did Ans. That 's the thing which I do affirm The Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia here mentioned belonged unto the Church of Jerusalem so many of 'em as were converted For the Dwellers in Mesopotamia v. 9. are said to be Dwellers at Jerusalem v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
present without one yet surely they had not lost all their Presbyters And if the Church of Syria retained yet her Presbyters as by the quiet that Church even then had must be thought they might easily have made to themselves a Chief Pastor or Moderator out of their remaining Number and not been destitute of a Shepherd as Ignatius bewails whole loss or absence at present could only be supply'd by the chief Shepherd and Bishop of their Souls Here by the way the conceit of a temporary Moderator must be thrown out of Doors Ignatius was Bishop of Syria for life nor could they have another whilst He was living tho' absent in Bonds This was the Reason he so Passionately resented the unhappiness of that Church of Syria that they were forced to be without a Bishop which they needed not to have been if another 〈◊〉 Pastor and Moderator might have been constituted in his absence and Life-time which by the Presbyterian Principles might easily have been done 6. Ignatius over and over prescribes that the Churches should do nothing without the Bishop and not only so in these General Terms which haply will be understood of his presiding in Presbyteries and moderating in their Debates for Order's sake but also in particular that Marriages should not be Celebrated the Lord's-Supper should not be administred nor Baptism given unto Believers without him without his appointment and approbation This shews that Ignatius his Bishop was not only the President in their Synods and Deliberations but the Supreme Director of the Execution of the Laws and Rules of the Church without whose leave the 〈◊〉 could not Marry nor Administer the Sacraments 'T is all we desire of the Dissenters if we might prevail with 'em that they would not presume to do any thing without the Bishop and particularly not to Ordain Presbyters Lastly Although he often calls the Presbytery the Council of God and College of the Apostles yet to keep up the Authority of the Bishop He then at the same time resembles him unto God himself or to the Lord Jesus Christ. If then God the Father was Superior to the Apostles and if Jesus Christ must be confest greater than the Council of the Apostles so was the Bishop than the Presbyters or Presbytery in the Opinion of this Father and according to the Analogy and Resemblance in this Author From the whole 't is I hope clear to a Demonstration that Ignatius his Bishops were more than what Mr. O. means by chief Pastor or Moderator in their Assembles pro tempore They were Prelatical and in the nature of their Office Superior to Presbyters It remains that we shew they were Diocesan Bishops that is had the oversight of more than one Congregation for this is another Objection Mr. O. has raised against our established Diocesan Episcopacy For Proof hereof let it be remembred 1. That if there were not in Ignatius his time de facto Diocesan Bishops they were at least formed and designed for such when ever the multitude of Believers should be encreased It has already been observed that Titus left by St. Paul in Crete to Govern that Church was particularly directed by the Apostle to Ordain Elders in every City in all or as many Cities as should afterward receive the Faith or in Order to convert more of ' em I gather hence that Titus was intended to be the Ruler of all these Congregations Let Mr. O. make him a Bishop or an Archbishop 't is all one to me he was constituted to be Ruler over many Cities and Congregations Thus at least it was I conceive in these Asiatick Churches to whom Ignatius wrote as will hence appear viz. that every of these Churches was furnished with a Prelatical Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons under him To what purpose else so many Presbyters and such distinct kinds of Orders One or two at most might have sufficed 'em at present especially if it be considered that the Christians at that time were not in so flourishing a condition as to be able to maintain so many Church-Officers for one Congregation nor was there business enough to employ 'em all in the service of that one Congregation 'T is then most rational to believe that so many Presbyters and Deacons were provided at least for carrying on the Conversion of the Infidels and multiplying them into several Congregations But if every Congregation must have had or was intended to have a Bishop we should doubtléss have read of Bishops ex gr at Ephesus as well as Presbyters in the Plural Let us then suppose what is most reasonable to admit that some at least of these Churches had been in Ignatius's time multiply'd into several Congregations yet still there was but one Bishop I do not remember that ever we read of two Bishops of any one City in all Antiquity excepting when the Christians of that City were harrassed and disturbed with Schisms and Divisions Now who can imagin that no one City in the World even in Ignatius's time ever had more Believers in and near it than did Assemble for Divine Worship in one place Especially in those times of Persecution when the Christians skulked and could not with safety meet in great numbers nor had Rooms capacious enough and therefore cantoned themselves into several Meetings Let any one put all these things together and impartially weigh them and he will not easily grant that Paradox that there was no more than one single Congregation in any City nor will he make any scruple to believe that Ignatius's Bishop was at least designed to preside over several Presbyters and Congregations Lastly the Negative that there was but one Congregation in any of 'em has not been proved neither can by any express Testimony I conćeive it behoves our Dissenters to make this out before they can throughly justifie their Congregational Churches But let us now come to particulars and therefore 2. Note that Ignatius stiles himself Bishop of Syria in his Epistle to the Romans Now how large a tract Syria contained I need not say neither will I affirm he was Bishop of all Syria taken in its utmost Latitude But seeing he calls himself and was Bishop of Syria 't was more than of the bare City Antioch as any one will confess His Episcopal Power must have extended unto some considerable compass of Ground in the adjacent parts of the Country else it had been foolish to have pretended himself to be the Bishop of Syria when he was only Bishop of Antioch and of one Congregation there Will any one then suffer himself to believe 〈◊〉 was Bishop but of one Congregation only It cannot enter into my head so much as to think it possible because it must be supposed there were Congregations in Syria as well as at Antioch in Country as 〈◊〉 as City 3. I reckon also that the Church of Ephesus consisted of more than one Congregation and my Reasons are 1. As I argued in T. N. p. 145.
Christiana Quod Aaron filios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyterum noverimus 7. Jerom not 〈◊〉 and more than once insinuates that Bishops succeeded the Apostles Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi Bishops hold the place of the Apostles Habes pro Apostolis Episcopos filios Apostolorum you have instead of the Apostles Bishops the Sons of the Apostles Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 in Exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur Meritum and let Bishops and Presbyters take for their Pattern the Apostles and Apostolical Men whose honour they possess and therefore should endeavour to have their Merit Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri 'T is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul to possess the degree of Peter Omnes so Episcopi sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanais I may add from Jerom sive Divites sive Pauperes sive Sublimes 〈◊〉 Inferiores Apostolorum sunt Successores All Bishops whatever are the Apostles Successors And whereas in this very Epistle He is exalting his fellow Presbyters as high as with any colour of Pretence he was able yet no such thing as this drops from him sc. that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors If then Bishops are the Apostles Successors as if Jerom may be Judge they were then also the Office of a Bishop must needs be by Apostolical Institution For none could appoint Successors unto the Apostles but the Apostles themselves 8. The early establishment of Bishops in the very days of the Apostles or at least immediately after them will force any Ingenious Man to confess Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution This also Jerom has witnessed telling us that Clement of whom we read Phil. 4. was the 4th some said the 2d Bishop of Rome after Peter That Ignatius was the 3d Bishop of 〈◊〉 after Peter That Papias a Disciple of St. John the Apostle was Bishop of Hierapolis and Quadratus a Disciple of the Apostles Bishop of Athens To these add the Asiatick Bishops of whom we read in Ignatius's Epistles For because Jerom believed the Epistles genuine and approves of the subject Matter of them he has hereby given in his Testimony that there were Bishops in all those Churches Is it then possible to imagine Jerom beleived that Decree to be any other than Apostolical or that Episcopacy received its Date from a meer Ecclesiastical Canon sometime after It can never enter into my Head that the Church Government which some say was Presbyterian that is Administred by a College of Presbyters acting in a Parity when the Apostles were living should be thus quickly altered by a meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Decree upon a pretence of preventing Schisms whereas the Apostles themselves did not as the Presbyterians believe think this Reason sufficient to change the Church-Government in their time that is 't is most improbable and absurd to say so many Holy Men and Martyrs of Christ familiar with and Disciples of the Apostles sc. St. Clement Ignatius Papias Quadratus and an innumerable Company whose Names and whose particular Diocesses are not Transmitted unto us says Eusebius should dare not only to decree and consent to the Alteration of Church-Government but themselves to Usurp and Exercise an Authority over their Equals contrary to the Apostolical Rule and Practice From the whole then that has been said I may reasonably conclude 1. That Episcopacy which is by Jerom called The Remedy against Schism was Set up and Decreed 〈◊〉 the Apostles in their own days 2. That though he terms it an Ecclesiastical Custom and Constitution he is to be taken to mean in opposition to 〈◊〉 Veritati our Lord 's own Personal Appointment and not unto Apostolical Tradition or Institution 3. That what I have offer'd in this Chapter towards the reconciling Jerom with himself is most reasonable to be admitted And lastly That the Power and Authority allowed by Jerom unto Bishops particularly that of Ordination and the other of Confirmation belong'd to them by virtue of the Apostles Commission and were not Restraints laid upon the Presbyters by Ecclesiastical Canons That of Confirmation he deduces from Scripture in his Dialogue against the Luciferians But Mr. O. will perhaps say that all this is nothing to him and to the Objections he has laid in our way I am then obliged now to consider in particular what Observations he has mustred up out of Jerom and levelled against Episcopacy in favour of the Presbyterians Claim Mr. O. then Pleads that Jerom has shew'd the Presbyters of Alexandria 〈◊〉 their Bishops for almost 200 Years and that he would leave nothing out that was Material in Constituting them Ans. Jerom has not shew'd nor so much as directly asserted that the Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops But he has omitted several Circumstances not only Material but Advantagious to his main Design if they had been true Jerom both in his Commentaries on Titus and in his Epistle to Evagrius speaks constantly in the Passive Voice how that one was chosen and set over the rest but by whom he says not Why not by the Neighbouring Bishops Why not by the Predecessor as well as by the Presbyters Jerom has not expresly told us that the Bishop of Alexandria chosen out of the Presbyters received another and a new Consecration nor that the Presbyters Ordained him all which would have tended much to the Honour of himself and his Fellow-Presbyters True he expresly says the Presbyters nam'd him Bishop at his Instalment bnt this does not necessarily imply either that they Chose or Ordained him He ought and doubtless would have spoken out if either or both these things had been true Whereas then Mr. O. adds Jerom mentions no other way of Constituting them but by Presbyters it is certain he mentions no way at all This is manifest ' beyond all exception Jerom has assur'd us of it that the Apostles not the Presbyters Made and Ordain'd Bishops in most parts of the Christian World at Ephesus at Coloss at Philippi at Athens in Crete at Jerusalem and if Mark did not so at Alexandria it were very strange However Orbis Major est Urbe It should indeed seem by the Allusions wherewith Jerom explains himself that the Presbyters chose one of their own Number and set him over the rest So says he the Army chooses their General the Deacons their Arch-Deacons Admitting then this at present I reply 1. 'T is no where so much as hinted in Jerom that the Alexandrian Presbyters Ordain'd their Patriarchs But rather the contrary that the neighbouring Bishops impos'd Hands on him Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter In which words he must have an Eye unto the Custom of the Alexandrian Church from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius implying that Bishops not Presbyters Ordain'd all that while Well! But I
have admitted that the Presbyters of Alexandria chose their Patriarch and then Mr. O. argues That Jerom makes this an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Ans. Whatever may be inferred from Jerom I am very sure this is no good Argument for the Identity and Equality of Bishops and Presbyters For it is plain that Ordinary Deacons were not the same nor equal to Arch-deacons nor the Army to the Emperor as I have occasionally observ'd elsewhere although the Deacons chose their Arch-deacons and the Army set up the Emperor For to what purpose is an Arch-Deacon chosen or a General if they be but still equal to the Army and to the Deacons if they have no power over them There is a memorable Story to our purpose of the Emperor Valentinian He had been chosen Emperor by the Army The Soldiers afterwards demanded of him to chuse and receive a Partner in the Government to which he reply'd It was in your choice fellow Soldiers whether you would chuse me Emperor or not but since you have chosen me what you require is in my power not yours and ye ought to rest contented as good Subjects But to return unto Jerom. I have shew'd before out of him that the Apostles made Bishops what then is become of this Argument for Parity in all the Churches of the World except Alexandria But if Jerom contradicts himself past all relief I cannot help it Yet again Why may not one imagine that Jerom's principal aim being to maintain the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons he noted that at Alexandria the Bishop was chosen not out of the Deacons but unum ex se viz. out of the Presbyters Ay but 't will be reply'd that Jerom in this Epistle design'd to prove that Bishops and Presbyters were at first the same and that to other Arguments for their Identity he subjoyns this Story of the Church of Alexandria I reply not so if Mr. O. will allow me to reconcile Jerom with himself I am not indeed able to account for Jerom when he proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters from sundry places of Scripture the Epistles of Peter and Paul and St. John and yet gives us a Catalogue of several Bishops in that time But this I say Jerom after he had advanc'd the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons in that Epistle to Evagrius telling us there was a time when Bishops and Presbyters were the same He proceeds to argue from the Church of Alexandria that there even to Heraclas and Dionysius for 200 Years the Bishops were chosen out of the Presbyters not out of the Deacons which Observation was not designed to prove the Presbyterian Identity nor the Parity but the Honour given to the Presbyters above Deacons because the Patriarch was for a long while chosen out of their Number only Lastly Let what will become of Jerom and his Arguments this is sure and confessed on all Hands there were always Bishops of Alexandria from the beginning of their Conversion by Mark. It no manner of way belongs to the present Controversy how or by whom chosen and set up If the Scripture shall be thought not to have determin'd this point I mean what way and bywhom the Bishops shall be Constituted it is then in the Church to determine but not utterly to lay them aside But Mr. O. goes on We read not of any other Consecration of the Bishops of Alexandria than the Presbyters Election and their placing him in an higher Degree and naming him Bishop No has Mr. O. forgot or did he not know till aster he had thus shot his Bolt that according to Eutychius cited this very 128th p. that by the Institution of Mark The Presbyters when the Patriarchship was vacant chose one of their Number on whose Head they laid their Hands and blessed him and created him Patriarch And if this be true Jerom forgot a very material thing that would have made for the Honour of Presbyters and their Identity with Bishops and Mr. O. forgot another that of the Presbyters imposing Hands on their new Patriarch which I take to be somewhat more than Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop Mr. O. proves there was anciently no other Consecration but Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop from the Testimony of Polydor Virgil who in his Book de Invent. rerum l. 4. c. 6. 〈◊〉 says Mr. O. that anciently in making Bishops there were no Ceremonies used c. Ans. Mr. O. has a Knack above all other Men to misrepresent Authors And though I resolved not to concern my self with late Writers Yet being Polydor was in his time a Learned Man and of no small Reputation in the Roman Church of Engl. I will with Mr. O. pay some deference to his Testimony and Character Let us then hear what Polydor has delivered in the place cited He tells That Jesus Christ created twelve Pontiffs whom he called Apostles also Seventy Disciples whom he made Sacerdotes Priests that from these latter the Order of Presbyters arose that the Apostles and Disciples were not admitted into their Office by any other Rites save only the Election or Institution of Christ. Which Polydor proves immediately after from the practice of the Apostles in taking Matthias into their Number and instituting the Seven Deacons Let us run through Polydor's Argument backward and see what it says The Apostles imposed Hands on the Seven Deacons therefore on Matthias and by consequence according to Virgil so did Christ lay Hands on the Apostles and Seventy Disciples So that this Authority out of Polydor recoils upon himself Indeed Mr. O. owns as much But then thereby he destroys his own propositition which is We know no other Ceremony but Election c. But is not Impositiof Hands a Ceremony and more than Electing placing and nominating him Bishop I am perswaded it is a Ceremony Thus Mr. O. confutes himself when he pretends to confirm his Opinion I cannot pass by one thing which Polydor very falsly tacks to his Discourse here concerning the Original of Imposition of Hands which he derives from our Lord and his Apostles but adds atque hinc olim factum c. hence it came about that 〈◊〉 it was an Old Ecclesiastical Practice in Consecrating a Bishop the Presbyters imposed Hands and for this cites Cyprian's fourth Epistle to Felix in the Oxford Ed. the 67. 'T is pity Mr. O. stumbled not upon this Hint of Virgils In appearance 't is better then any He has produced in his Plea But the comfort is there is nothing like this to be found in that Epistle and this I thought proper to Note to the End no new trouble should be created me upon Virgil's Authority Mr. O. Jerom saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius What Custom Not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People For that continued long after therefore it must be be the 〈◊〉 of Bishops which afterwards was done by Neighbouring Bishops in
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