limited district and even Ordain Presbyters and Deacons when expresly delegated thereto by the Diocesan that they refided in some Country Villages where their Ordinary and constant Work was no other than of Presbyters and so were look'd on as the Diocesans Presbyters which can by no means prejudice their Episcopal Character One may be a Bishop yet without a Diocess as one may be a Presbyter without a Title or Parish The Council of Laodicea thought fit to put an end unto this Order so did the Romans and Spanish Churches as also the English Haply the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Archdeacons might have the Title of Chorepiscopi for some while continued to them being substituted in their room but this is no proof that they were Presbyters at their first Institution when the real Episcopal Character was 〈◊〉 on them though no Diocess was yet actually allotted them This is what I thought needful and enough to be offered in Answer to the Difficulties started about the Chorepiscopi As for that Epistle to 〈◊〉 it shall suffice to note that 't is one of those which are accounted Spurious as may be Collected from Bellarmin himself whose Judgment is ejus scripta non extant exceptis paucis Epistolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suns inter Epistolds S. Hieronymi aliique in Hiftorid 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 22. l. 5. c. 10. 11. The rest therefore and this in particular are Apocryphal It was possibly counterfeited by some that lived after the Council of Hispalis there being a very great Agreement between this Epistle and that 7th Canon of the Council as who ever will read them must confess We shall not need therefore to be concerned at any thing brought against us out of this connterfeit Epistle CHAP. IX Of the Council of Nice MRO. as if all Antiquity were on his side omits not to argue even from the Council of Nice its self in favour of the Power of Presbyters Ordaining which is a discovery so new and surprizing that one would 〈◊〉 the Whole Chriftian Church had been blind above these 1300. Years last paft till he with the help of Mr. Baxter has been pleas'd to open all our Eyes at last and to assure us that the Council of Nice decree'd concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius at 〈◊〉 as follows Hi autem Qui Dei Gratia nostris lege vestris precibus adjuti ad 〈◊〉 Scbisma deflexisse compersi sunt sed se intra Catholica Apostolicae 〈◊〉 fines ab erroris Labe vacuos continuerint Authoritatem 〈◊〉 tum Ministros 〈◊〉 c Mr. O. has taken this Passage out of Mr. Baxter and he out of some Translator that did not or would not understand the Historian aright The Words are part of a Letter wrote by the Nicene Fathers to the Church of Alexandria wherein they gave an Account to that Church of what had been propounded and examined in the Synod and what had been decreed and confirmed therein as first That the Impiety of Arrius and his Accomplices had been brought into Question and condemned c. that as for Melitius it pleased the Synod to deal more gently with him than with Arrius viz. that he should remain in his own City but that he should have no Power to Ordain or to propose the names of the Candidates to the holy Function only he might retain the bare Title of his Honour that is of Bishop that those who had been constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him being first confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more solemn and Religious Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop of Alexandria might be allowed to joyn in matters properly belonging to them but that until they had obtained their Honour and Ministry again they should be second unto all those who in every Diocess and Church have been before proposed under the Authority of our most beloved Collegue Alexander And moreover should have no Power to propound the Names of those who are subject to Alexander nor in short to do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop of the Catholick Church of Alexandria This is all the Nicene Synod wrote concerning the Melitians or those who had been constituted and Ordained by Melitius Here 's not a Syllable of Presbyters or of Ordaining Ministers the passage may as well and is to be 〈◊〉 of Bishops and of Ordaining Bishops But for the more thorough understanding it we must remember that Melitius whilst Peter was Patriarch of Alexandria had been Bishop of Lycus a City in Egypt subject to the said Patriarch that during the Persecution under Maximinus Peter absconding Melitius had taken upon him to constitute or Ordain Bishops which belonged unto the Patriarch to do 'T is not indeed doubted but that he Ordained Presbyters and Deacons also nevertheless his first and Principal Crime as I believe was his Constituting or Ordaining Bishops which was a manifest invasion of the Patriarch's Right And that 〈◊〉 constituted and Ordained Bishops is proved by Valesius out of Epiphanius Nay the said Learned Annotator Evinces that Melitius constituted or Ordained Twenty Eight Bishops besides Five Presbyters and Three Deacons as he gathers from the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians from whence he makes no scruple to affirm that Socrates in this place speaks chiefly of Bishops constituted or Ordained by 〈◊〉 yet so as that Presbyters and Deacons also were 〈◊〉 by him 〈◊〉 says he if the Nicene Fathers hid herein decreed nothing against the Melitian 〈◊〉 they had left their work very lame and imperfect Besides 〈◊〉 became Schismatical not by Ordaining Presbyters but by Ordaining Bishops Hence Sozomen observes that Melitius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had usurp'd the Power of Ordaining which did not all belong unto him The Power of Ordaining whom Why not Bishops For till by this means he was fallen into 〈◊〉 he had certainly as Bishop Power to 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons but not of Ordaining or 〈◊〉 Bishops without the 〈◊〉 leave And this was I suppose if not his only fault yet his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore when the Nicene Fathers decreed that the 〈◊〉 who had been constituted and Ordained by 〈◊〉 might not intermeddle in the constituting or Ordaining others until themselves had been confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more Solemn imposition of Hands they must thereby mean that the Melitian Bishops being Ordained Schismatically were suspended from Ordaining until they had been confirmed by the Patriarch and some of the Egyptian Bishops subject to him And this is all that the Synod declar'd concerning the Melitians But neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Baxter for any thing I can see in the Plea have taken any Notice of this Passage 〈◊〉 whereof we are amus'd with something less Pertinent to the matter in Hand as I am now about to shew For the Nicene Fathers go on in that Epistle to speak of the Alexandrians that is such as had not withdrawn themselves from Alexander the
deceived us We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses but have brought no thing back worthy our pains but a Word and Empty Title Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry a Scene of Imposture and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides This must be confessed if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular as Mr. O. is pleased to say On the other Hand the History assures us that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles as they believ'd But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort But the mischief is the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation they will plead That they are Presbyters as well as others and have an Inherent Power to Ordain that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right which the Scripture gives them And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers which he has planted against our Bishops and with more Reason too For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination he had not respect to Age but to Ability 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young And Demas Bishop of Magnesia in Ignatius was a Young Man also 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself 't is all I ask I will suppose then that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters but limited it unto a few I will not say the Graver or Older sort but the Wiser and most Holy If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession Mr. O. adds and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed But this is what the Dissenters aim at that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised but the Whole Church consented unto and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God In short did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions I mean that of taking the Covenant But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter I shall therefore let it pass Of the Lollards 〈◊〉 has it is 〈◊〉 fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters and that every Priest or Presbyter has as good a Power to bind and loose and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give But to this it may be reply'd that 't is only the report of an Adversary and perhaps may be a Scandal It may again be answered that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised It may yet further be said that when People grope their way in a Dark Night it is no wonder if they now and then stumble They are to be both pittied and pardoned For lastly 't is manifest if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God It was one of their Maxims Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 566. that no Day is Holy not the Lord's-Day or Sabbath Day as People will call it but that on every Day Men may work eat and drink c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy Yea rather 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People and utterly Cancelled their Office at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution In short I think they were a well meaning but ignorant People who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel about Government and Discipline Finally note here that this Instance of the Lollards who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does especially not among the Protestants that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to at least under the Title of the Primitive Church But what all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion and the Primitive Church will never have an end so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline Concerning the Boiarians or Bavarians who as Mr. O. would have us believe were once Presbyterians I will only say thus much in short I find
was no Ordination but conferring the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit which Philip could not do Mr. O. forgot to take notice of the whole Argument but Answers it by halves I urg'd that Philip had the extraordinary and Miraculous Gift of the Spirit which was usually conferred by Imposition of hands that though he had this Gift yet he could not give it that therefore they who have a Gift yet may not have power to conferr that Gift and by consequence that those Persons who are ordain'd to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments it does not follow that they can Ordain which was the thing to be prov'd There is nothing that I perceive meriting any Reply until we come to that piece of Discipline 1 Cor. 5. where we read of the Incestuous Corinthian Excommunicated as I contend by the Authority and Command of St. Paul But Mr. O. insinuates that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians for not excommunicating the Sinner themselves 1 Cor. 5. 2. Ans. This verse proves it not The expression is in the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Offender might be taken away By whom Why not by the Apostle He may as well be thought to chide 'em for not informing him of the misdemeanour to the end the Offender might be delivered unto Satan by St. Paul himself The whole Story as we shall shew Countenances this Interpretation Ay but says the Minister the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to avoid disorderly walkers v. 13. Ans. But this is by the Apostles express commandment still Besides to put away from among themselves that wicked Person is not to deliver him to Satan or to expel him the Church but Not to eat with him v. 11. that is not to have any Familiarity with him in civil Conversation In this the Apostle does indeed declare v. 12. that the Corinthians had power to Judge with whom they might be Familiar and with whom not But it does not hence follow they had power to Excommunicate Now that it was St. Paul who judged and decreed and gave theSentence of Excommuncation against the Offender will appear plainly if we read the first part of the 3 d verse with the 5 th v. for all the rest is a Parenthesis Thus then let us put 'em close together v. 3. For I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have determined already then v. 5. to deliver such an one unto Satan For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Excommunication most certainly proceeded from the Apostle It is also worthy consideration that the Corinthians did not receive again into their Communion this Excommunicated Person until the Apostle had absolved him and then besought them to confirm their Love towards him 2 C. 28. 10. In the next place I am accused of altering and perverting the Text. 〈◊〉 heavy charge which ought not to be passed over lightly The Accusation is that v. 4. I have put the Words thus Of my Spirit whereas the Translators leaving out of render the place thus My Spirit not Of my Spirit Ans. Since the Grammatical construction will bear it there is no reason of accusing me of perverting the Text. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put absolute and into a Parenthesis Upon this supposition then thus the Words may be laid In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and my Spirit or of my Spirit which is the same thing when ye are gathered together c. So that Mr. O. could not have any just pretense for his Accusation whatever becomes of my Interpretation of the Text. This perhaps he may call into Question and my purpose now is to vindicate it I cannot reconcile my self unto that Opinion which Couples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus more plainly in English When ye and my Spirit are gathered together Paul was now at Ephesus both Body and Spirit I can form no Idea of his Spirit assembling with the Corinthians at so great a distance True he tells 'em that he is present with 'em in Spirit but Corrects himself immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though I were present So that the Sense is St. Paul was present with 'em in Heart and Affections studying their welfare wishing them well and praying that their Souls might be Saved and their Church Edified in Peace and Purity Or why not present among 'em by his Authority As we say the King is every where present in his Dominions by his Influence and Providence But that the Spirit of Paul should be gathered or assembled with the Corinthian Congregation is a too harsh and improper Expression at least in my Fancy and Opinion especially since so Commodious and agreeable Sense may be given of the Words Nor let any one suspect me to have advanced this Interpretation to serve a cause which stands in no need of it For if it shall still be thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be coupled then the latter Words must import the Apostles Authority as I formerly expounded it And least the Apostle should seem too assuming in thus insisting on his own ' Authority with great caution he adds With the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he had said my Authority but in Conjunction with and subordination to the Power of Christ. For so the Apostle was wont oftimes carefully to prevent mistakes left he should be thought to haveUsurpt his Power Thus he 2 Cor. 10. 8. speaking of his Authority adds Which the Lord hath given us c. And Chap. 2. 10. which comes nearer to our purpose when he had granted the Absolution of the Excommunicated Person I forgave it says he in the Person of Christ. Upon the whole matter thus much at least may be said of this Instance of Ecclesiastical Discipline that St. Paul directed and commanded it which is all I need to be concerned for For then it can be no president for a College of Presbyters much less for a particular Minister of one single Congregation to Excommunicate which was the thing I intended to Evince I proceed now to the Story of 〈◊〉 's Ordination briefly related 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. of which in the first place I delivered this as my own settled Opinion That Timothy underwent two Ordinations the one for Presbyter the other for 〈◊〉 or Supreme Ruler of the Church of 〈◊〉 One of my Reasons for this was because Paul himself seemed to me to have been twice Ordained once Act. 9. 15 〈◊〉 17. and again Chap. 13. the first unto the Ordinary Ministry of the Word the second unto the Apostle of the Gentiles Against this Mr. O. Argues 1. That Paul was more than an Ordinary Minister of the Word Gal. 1. 1. meaning before he received that Imposition of hands Act. 13. that is from the time of his Conversion Ans. He might as well say that Paul was an
old Hypothesis as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus constituted Timothy the Ruler Bishop of Ephesus yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that his Farewel-Sermon Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and that other to the Ephesians and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy takes no Notice of the Elders neither does John Peter or Jude in their Epistles nor lastly does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon but shall we thence conclude that those Churches had none of those Officers in them Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler Bishop of Ephesus might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government and one would think could not have forgot'em when he was discoursing on such an Argument Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself whose other Epistles so often and so fully remember Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in that to the Romans had not oneSyllable of any of 'em and yet he knew very well that Bishops as well as Presbyters were then established throughout the World as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians 'T is then no Proof that Timothy was not even at that time the established Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered and why let any one judge I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy Now whether as Mr. O. pleads Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution but Divine by the Power of the Holy Ghost v. 28. enough has been said of this already Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there or his Prelatical Power over them For it is not inconsistent to say that Timothy was appointed their Ruler Bishop and at the same time that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy We Presbyters of the Church of England do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock and that by Divine Authority too and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us by the same Divine Authority Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests viz. That we are Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord to teach premonish feed and provide for the Lord's Family and to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed abroad And at our Ordination the first Question is Do ye think in your Hearts that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God It follows not then from these words that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole intire and supreme Government of that Church They might even then be and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence as we are to our Diocesan Bishops If our Provincial Archbishop should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate exhort as ordinary Presbyters To take heed to our selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers to feed the Church of God not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering Before I conlude this Chapter there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis has suggested to me proving I am bold to say demonstrating that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome I will lay 'em as briefly and as plainly as I can before the Reader and so make an end 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment as Mr. O. affirms it must then have been written either before or at the same time or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy had sent Tychicus to Ephesus Chap. 4. 12 How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians if he was already gone to Ephesus before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians The second Epistle to Timothy therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians 2. Not at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written For Timothy who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 was sent for by Paul to Rome Chap. 4. 9. was even then with Paul at Rome and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon Chap. 1. 1. Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time as that to the Colossians was 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written For then Timothy who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul which 't is certain he did not Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome and once more gone back into Asia with him In like manner 〈◊〉 who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians from Paul and Timothy must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome and thence been sent back unto Ephesus 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment which is not in the least Probable 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase as no rational Man can admit Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy was not written after that to the Colossians If then it was written neither before nor at the same time nor after those to the Colossians and Philemon it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment therefore it must needs have been written in his Second 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to the Colossians and that other to Philemon I shall
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
viz. consisting of three distinct Orders of Ministers the Title only of the Supreme Governours haply excepted and so continued after him as I said unto the time of Ignatius And Lastly having answered all the Objections raised against our Episcopal Government by Mr. O. in his Book Entituled A Plea c. So many of 'em I mean as seemed to carry any weight in them and concerned the times within the Compass of which I have confin'd my self hitherto that 's to say the Apostolical Age. After all this it remains that I consider the Arguments which to the same purpose he was drawn from Ecclesiastical History beginning where the Scripture ends and so descending unto these last Ages before which time Episcopacy was never brought into Question for Fifteen Hundred Years save by one Arch-Heretick Aërius of whom more hereafter My Adversary indeed thinks he has found in Old Authors many Instances favouring the Presbyterian Identity and Parity and Ordination by Presbyters This is now to be Examined If my Answers shall be thought Old I have this excuse for my self that the Objections are old also and in such a Case it is pardonable if not necessary especially when an Adversary demands and even duns yea and reproaches one for not having already undertaken it I pretend not then to make new discoveries never heard of before in the Controversy now before us though haply some few things not observed before may be here offered to the Reader but to apply the proper Answers unto the Old Objections wherewith Mr. O. has endeavoured to embroil and perplex the Truth I will not tie my self unto his Method which is not so well fitted to my design it being my purpose to Manage the Dispute only 〈◊〉 Matters of Fact which being once cleared from countenancing the Presbyterian or Congregational Polities Mr. O's Syllogisms will and must fall to the Ground I will then digest and dispose all his Authorities and my Replies to 'em though not exactly for the controversy 〈◊〉 not on the Niceties of Chronology yet pretty near to the Order of Time to which they belong I begin with the Epistle of Clemens Romanus unto the Church of Corinth which is the best Colourable Argument the Dissenters do or can bring for themselves CHAP. I. Of the Testimony of Clemens Romanus THE substance of what Mr. O. argues from this Epistle against Prelatical Episcopacy and in favour of Presbyterian Parity is whereas I affirm in T. N. Clement seems to make the Jewish High-Priest the Inferior Priests and Levites a Precedent for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons That Clement no where saith there were those three distinct Officers in the Christian Church Or that the Jewish Government was a Pattern of the Christian That Clement mentions but two Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons That He calls these Bishops Presbyters That they governed the Church of Corinth in common That He mentions no chief Bishop there That he exhorts the Corinthians to be subject unto their Elders That Clement ought to be expounded by Scripture Philip. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. In both which places two only Orders are to be met with That Clement does not intend to affirm there were three kinds of Officers in the Christian Church as in the Mosaical but only that both the one and the other Church that is the Mosaical with three Orders and the Christian with two were both established by the same Divine Authority Unto all which it 's reply'd 1. I readily grant Clement no where expresly affirms there were three distinct Orders in the Christian Church or that the High-Priests Priests and Levites in the Jewish Church were the Pattern of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian. Thus much is granted Nevertheless what I cited him for may be true and is so sc. That He seems to make the Jewish Government the Pattern of the Christian as we are wont to argue from him comparing the one with the other One would think this joined with Jerom's Testimony cited with it in T. N. pag. 1. were sufficient to warrant me thus modestly to 〈◊〉 that Clement seems to 〈◊〉 the Jewish Government a Pattern of the Christian which others before me have done as Dr. H. in his Dissertations and Dr. 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. c. l. 2. e. 11. But Mr. Mede deserves particularly to be taken notice of who has more than once declared his Judgment in this matter Let us hear him teaching us that In things for which we find no rule given in the New Testament there we are referred and left to the Analogy of the Old He instances in St. Paul arguing for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 in Infant Baptism in hallowing the first Day of the Week in the three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons asserted by Jerom to be derived from 〈◊〉 his Sons and the Levites and Lastly in this Passage of St. Clement to the same purpose Once more He Expounds those Words in Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians We ought to do all things in Order as the Lord has commanded putting the Question to himself thus Where has the Lord commanded this and answering himself thus In the Analogy of the Old Testament Now Clement in the next following parts of his Epistle treats in general of the time when the Christian Ministrations were to be performed the place where and the Persons by whom If then the Analogy of the Law was a Divine Commission unto the Christians if the Temple of the Jews a Precedent of the Christian Churches if the Jewish Sabbath of the Christian Lord's-Day why not the Levitical three Orders of the Christian 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons But that which is of most moment is that many other Fathers following Clement as Jerom Synesius Cyprian and Firmilianus of whom I have spoken elsewhere did not forget to allude or appeal to the Law of Moses in confirmation of the three Orders of Church-Officers among the Christians St. Cyprian said He had a Divine Law to punish his rebellious Deacon Quoting Deut. 17. 12. Numb 16. 1. Here He thinks himself invested with the same Authority as Aaron was and through Aaron to have received it from God The like we meet with in several other Epistles And indeed the names Sacerdos Sacerdotium Altare Sacrificium Oblationes c. so familiarly used by the Ancients and by our Clement himself to express the Christian Officers and Offices imply as much It may then with Reason be supposed that Clement intended the same 2. As I acknowledge Clement did not totidem verbis assert the Orders so I observe that though He expresly mentions two only yet he affirms no where that there were two only kinds of Officers in the Church of 〈◊〉 and no more Or thus though he mentions two only yet he denies not expresly but that there might be a third 3. I join issue with Mr. O. that Clement ought to be
who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly Brethren c. All that needs be answered hereunto is 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere that the Schism arose on the account of one or two Persons p. 62. 'T is says He a shame an arrant shame and unworthy a Christians Conversation that the ancient and most firmly established Church of Corinth should raise Sedition against the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one or two Persons that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop that Generous Person it must needs follow that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy and by Consequence that some of 'em were deserted and laid aside by those of the People who had an aversion to the Bishop that Generous Person so oft mentioned as well as to some of the Presbyters who stuck close to him 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of were the Bishop in Possession and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 In short if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning of the Epistle which to us at this distance is dark enough be of any moment it may then be allowed that Clement has intimated that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him but was forced himself to interpose in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters and People had conceived against their Bishop who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words or at least to mention two Orders only when yet they acknowledge a Third This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self The three Officers of the Jewish Church are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest who without controversy was a Third is included 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice That the Priests and Levites came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 meaning the High-Priest also as I presume will not be denyed For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham Clemens Alexand in his 〈◊〉 cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian Church and yet elsewhere he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two In the former place 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops at least they ought not to be excluded though the Author there omits them So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders yet once he contents himself to express 'em in two Words only Bishops and Deacons There are says he in the place cited on the Margin quatuor genera 〈◊〉 Four Orders of Men in the Church but he sums 'em up in three Words viz. Bishops Deacons and the Faithful It may deserve observation that at this time of the Day and with Optatus ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment because forsooth He here mentions 'em not distinctly It cannot be fairly Collected hence as every one 〈◊〉 This is manifest that Optatus in those two Words Bishops and Deacons must understand the three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church Besides saying here sicut supra dixi he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Wherefore the Premisses considered 't is reasonable to believe that Clemens Romanus likewise did in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons It ought not here to be forgot what St. Chrysostom has observed 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both They Minister like Deacons unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates and are subject unto him as the other are But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments as well as the Bishop does and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops But Blundel and his Followers I remember to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church asserts that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age At other times to their own Customs and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks Bishops and Priests and Deacons But this device will not do their Work and must be laid aside for the following Reasons 1. St. Cyprian against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed though He often falls into the Dichotomy yet asserts the Divine Right of Bishops Cum hoc igitur sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur divina lege fundatum sit The Government of the Church by Bishops is says He founded upon a Divine Law That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle He begins it thus Our Lord whose precepts we ought to Reverence and Observe establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs says c. And again he adds Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions so that the Church is established on Bishops and every Act of the Church is governed per eosdem Praepositos by the same Praepositi that is Bishops If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age where the Divine Right ends as well as his own when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi be understood of Presbyters for Cyp. whatever any may fancy of Praepositi never calls Presbyters Bishops Nor could he conformably to his own Writings He professes thus of himself and other Bishops Neq enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops But if the Presbyters were Bishops then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops 2. Optatus in the same Breath in one
should have been the Companion of Paul or of Barnabas This last also is the Evangelist of whom the dispute is betwixt Mr. O. and me who is but once mentioned in Scripture and that at Babylon which being in Aegypt as many with reason hold he might be a Resident Evangelist at Alexandria though occasionally with Peter at the writing that Epistle at Babylon But 〈◊〉 any will contend St. Peter's Babylon was Rome be it so what absurdity is it to affirm with Eusebius that Peter sent him from Rome to Alexandria where he planted that Church and departing this life bequeathed the Government of it to Annianus Yet once more admitting Mark after he had formed and regulated that Church of Alexandria to have removed unto some other Cities and Countries for I am by no means obliged to maintain that he dy'd there nor does Eusebius expresly say so that I know of 't is enough for me to affirm with Eusebius that Annianus took the Administration of that Church of Alexandria after Mark left it To conclude if there was but one Mark who sometimes was with Peter at other times with Paul and Barnabas then with Barnabas alone after that with Paul again and lastly with Peter yet this hinders not but at last he settled at Alexandria Neither will his occasional removals thence at the Apostle's call destroy his Residence See part the First Chapter the Fifth whither I refer the Reader for Satisfaction 'T is high time now to consider Mr. O's Plea on this Argument I am referred to Page 126. St. Jerom is the only Ancient Author that has any thing of the particular manner of Church Government established by Mark 〈◊〉 Alexandria and on whose Authority the Presbyterians very much rely What he says is The Alexandrian Presbyters from Mark to Heraclas and Dionys. call'd one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree I say called him Bishop But he tells us not who chose him nor who Ordained him so that we are yet at a loss as to one main part of the Controversy for any thing Jerom has discovered to us Only one would have expected that if the Presbyters at any time had Ordained their Bishop this Father would not have failed to let us know it for the Honour of himself and those of his own Order He also informs us in the same Epistle that One Presbyter was set over the rest for a remedy against 〈◊〉 and this was done Postea that is after John's two last Epistles those of Paul to Timothy and Titus and the first of Peter were written for Bishop and Presbyter were all one till then as He supposes and we must be made to believe But 't is very hard to believe all this upon the credit of Jerom Nay Jerom himself did not believe it if we may believe him for he confesses that Paul made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus How then comes in this Postea after he had quoted St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy For if ever 〈◊〉 was made Bishop of Ephesus by Paul 't was before St. Paul wrote that Epistle And if so how comes Jerom to say that the devise was formed Postea c. that is after the Writing of that Epistle that is after Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus All that can be said the good Father writes somewhat confusedly and is inconsistent with himself But to let this pass at present One thing only is very observable that if St. Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus if James was Bishop of Jerusalem statim 〈◊〉 Apostolos and if Mark appointed a Bishop to be chosen and set over 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 at Alexandria then this Remedy against Schism was found out and establish'd in the Apostle's Days it being certain that Mark dy'd before Peter and Paul or 〈◊〉 I might argue to the same purpose from another Passage in Jerom who affirms that Mark himself was the first Bishop of Alexandria Therefore this Remedy against Schism was prescribed in the Apostle's Days and by the Apostles also and therefore Bishops must needs be of Divine Institution even in the Opinion of Jerom himself But still the difficulty remains who chose and Ordained the Bishop after Mark was gone Here Mr. O. thinks He has caught us having found an unquestionable Testimony that the Presbyters at Alexandria both chose their Bishop and Ordained him yea and Ordained one another So 't is testified by 〈◊〉 in his Origines 〈◊〉 set forth by Mr. Selden many Years ago His Words are Mark appointed Hananias or Annianus first Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria and Twelve Presbyters his constant Assistants to the end that when the Patriarchship was vacant they should chuse one of their own Number should lay hands on his Head and bless him and create him their Patriarch then after that they should elect some Eminent Person and make him 〈◊〉 in the Room of him who was made Patriarch that so there should be always Twelve 〈◊〉 c. This Mr. O. calls a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer also of Presbyters making Presbyters Before I give a direct reply I will try what can he gathered from this Narrative of Eutychius in favour of Episcopal Government First 'T is Natural hence to gather that Mark not so much as dreamed of a Parity between the Bishop and his Presbyters His conceit was there should be Twelve Presbyters answerable to the Apostles and a Bishop 〈◊〉 them like Christ over his 〈◊〉 Secondly By this Constitution of Mark' s at Alexandria Episcopacy must be acknowledged the first Government set up in that Church and because Mark was an inspired Evangelist it was Divine also Thirdly Note that according to Eutychius the Presbyters were to chuse their Bishop and not the People which the Dissenters will not very well like of Fourthly That the Presbyters Ordained new Presbyters which will scarce go down with the Dissenting Congregations now a Days Fifthly That excepting accidents the Patriarch or as Mr. O. the Moderator of the Class was chosen for Life which the Presbyterians will not allow of Sixthly That the Dissenters are every whit as much departed from the Observance of St. Mark' s model as they can pretend we are yea and much more too Thus much being premised that which I would reply to 〈◊〉 his story is that he is the first that told it that he is an Author of no Credit and that there are considerable exceptions to be made against him and his Tale. They are as follows First He is acknowledged by Selden himself to have lived but in the Tenth Century about 900 Years after the pretended constitution of St. Mark He alledges no Writer or Records known unto us from whence he received this account nor is it known that there were any such Besides Jerom who was several times in Egypt knew nothing of this which is very strange 〈◊〉 should 500 Years after and
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
dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church as being Episcopal though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain they could not dislike the Orders of Hy because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy and doubtless were the same and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal as were the Romans and all the World beside Mr. O. adds if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy be intended as not disliked by the Romans yet says he the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which are allowed by that Church Decret Greg. Abbas si sit Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial nor the Diaconal Order but the Inferior Orders only such as the Sub-Deacons Acoluthists Exorcists Psalmists Lectors and Door-keepers But that the Episcopal Order is not meant is to me past dispute For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of Secondly If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter Abbots It was allowed to such of them only who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See But not unto those who refused subjection to it as did the Abbots of Hy Mr. O. knows very Well This Privilege then whatever it was could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders Thirdly The Decretals mentioned were made or put together by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome in the Thirteenth Century about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy almost as many after Austin the Monk and therefore not appositely here alledged Fourthly Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders by Popish 〈◊〉 and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height But I like them never the better for that The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters 'T was their Principle that all Church-Officers derive from and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will even to a Deacon But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant as I fancy But Secondly I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland over the Monks and Culdees if any such were yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves for all or many of them at least were Presbyters and lastly over the Bishop also if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland which himself had formerly erected and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note which sprang out of these two both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity unless Mr. O. will assert that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn pro Tempore What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings ruling over many Churches and Congregations exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters as he thinks and that for life too All this did Columba and his Successors who are pretended by Mr. Baxter to have restored the Culdees or Presbyters strength against the incroachments of Palladius But all this while the Tyrants only were changed not the Tyranny the name altered not the thing Instead of Palladius the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter Moreover I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters If not as I believe all will and must grant our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination I should here have concluded this Chapter but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy and asserted that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire had their Platform from the Heathen who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens and I know not what Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion subordinate to one another it will not follow the Christians took it from them Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion wherein the Patriarch Jews Gentiles all agree But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius which I do not find in the places directed to cries out Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs Whereas any one may know that will but read or understand that Epistle which Mr. O. never did I preceive that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men that do not or will not understand what they say who so they may cast dirt upon us care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it But to let this pass The Question here is whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles or the Gentiles from them This latter I undertake to make out First From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests Priests and Levites All the World knows this I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one but of this I have spoke before Secondly Although the Druids according to Caesar had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East where Episcopacy was first established the Gentiles had no such Government as appears from what Eusebius has noted of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor who observing the way of Church Government
Patriarch nor had ever adhered to Melitius They thus then farther write to the Church of Alexandria concerning these latter and Regular Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as for those who by the Grace of God and through your Prayers have been found in no Schism but have ever stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick Church it pleased the Holy Synod that they should have Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to point out and to give up the Names of 〈◊〉 as were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy to be of the Clergy and in short to do all things according to the Ecclesiastical Law and Constitution which is the passage misrepresented by Mr. O. and Mr. Baxter wherein the Synod confirms to 'em their Ancient Rights and Privileges Having given I hope an exact account of this latter part of that Epistle let us now see whether Mr. Baxter or Mr. O. have done so To which end I observe that here is not one Word of Presbyters at least not of Presbyters Ordaining and 〈◊〉 of all of Presbyters who had been Ordained by Melitius nor lastly which was the thing Mr. O. aimed at of Presbyters Ordaining Ministers 1. They speak not of Presbyters that is not in particular and expresly of them alone as is manifeft to any one that has his Eyes in his Head but only in General of such as had not been engaged in the Melitian Schism These surely must be Bishops as well as Presbyters or Deacons The truth is they include all the Three Orders and that 's the reason in this whole Epistle they Name no one of them expresly meaning to confirm them all as well Bishops as Presbyters that had stuck close to Alexander in their Ancient Respective Powers and 〈◊〉 2. Much more they speak not of the Ordaining Power of Presbyters Mr. O. at least ought not to say so for what then will become of the Authority of Father 〈◊〉 who asserts that Alexander or the Nicene Council first deprived them of it what did this Synod or Alexander both deprive 'em of it and confirm it to them that cannot be Either then Eutychius is out in his story or Mr. O. is a little mistaken about the Letter of the Nicene Fathers Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not 〈◊〉 to Ordain but the 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Word to put up the Names of the Candidates for Holy Orders and Sozomen in his account of this Fact uses that single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse Socrates expressing it in two Words as Valesius has observed Exegetical of one another it being usual for Authors to embellish their writings and give them a grateful Emphasis by a Variety and redundancy of Expression No body at this diftance of time can tell all the Customs of this Church and what Honorary 〈◊〉 the Presbyters might have at the publick 〈◊〉 However this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be expounded Ordaining And yet admitting that it signifies so 't is not necessary to understand the passage of Presbyters Ordaining it may as well be presumed to be intended of Bishops Ordaining there being no circumstance that limits the sense unto Presbyters and as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Words are spoken of those that were to be Ordained and not of the Ordainers and may as well be taken to mean such as were thought worthy to be Bishops as those who were 〈◊〉 worthy to 〈◊〉 made Presbyters For in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But least of all Thirdly do the Nicene Fathers speak here of the Melitian Presbyters because the Melitians had not according to the Character here given of these Persons stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick 〈◊〉 but had been engaged in the Melitian Schism Nor 4. does the Synod speak of Ordaining Ministers if by Ministers our Adversaries understand Presbyters which Title they seem at this day to affect and usurp to themselves though it generally denotes all the Three Orders These four mistakes has Mr. O. committed at the beginning of his Account of the Nicene Synod Before I proceed to consider what He farther advances on this Occasion I will only Note that the Patriarchs of Alexandria had power over the Bishops and Whole Church of Egypt with its Appendages long before the Synod of Nice That they had then power over these Churches appears plainly from this Epistle which in several places speaks of them as Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria that the Alexandrian Patriarchs had Power over them before the Patriarch Alexander is evident from the Melitian Schism which had not been a Sinful Schism if Peter and 〈◊〉 Alexander's Predecessors had not had Jurisdiction over them That this Power of the Patriarchs was very Ancient is also manifest from the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which begins thus Let the Ancient Customs obtain which are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these Provinces which shews lastly the extent of their Power through 〈◊〉 Libya and 〈◊〉 and that it had been an Ancient Custom that is long before Alexander and the Synod of Nice yea before Peter and Achillas Thus much being said for the right understanding of that Letter of the Nicence Fathers let us now proceed to examine what Mr. O. has inferred from the last mentioned passage according to Mr. Baxter's Lamentable Translation of it Mr. O. argues If any say the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and govern with Bishops but not with out them it is granted For the decree refers to the Ecclesiastica Instituta but this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently is no nullity tho' an irregularity as to the Canons when 't is done by them alone His meaning is as I take him that Presbyters have an Inherent and Intrinsick power to Ordain but that the Nicene Fathers had by their Ecclesiastical Constitution restrained that power so that it should not be exerted but with the Bishops that when the Presbyter did Ordain without Bishops 't was only an irregularity 〈◊〉 breach of the Ecclesiastical Constitution not a Nullity But to this I reply 1. That the Nicence Fathers as has already been observed speak not of Presbyter only but of all the Three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons who are hereby every one of them allowed to do what properly belong to their own Order according to the Ancient Custom and Constitution of that Church 2. That therefore supposing their meaning to be what Mr. O. would have it that Presbyters in particular according to the Ecclesiastical Constitution shall Ordain with the Bishops and not without them it will not follow that Ordination by Presbyters alone without Bishops is vallid and only an irregularity Because it may with as good Reason be hence concluded that the Presbyters power to Ordain with the Bishops belonged to
his Authority I meddle not with cited by Mr. O. in these Words Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void by the Rigor of the Canons in use then because Ordinations sine Titulo were Null Concil Chalced. Can. 6. it belongs not to the time we are now speaking of the Council of Chalcedon being Held an Hundred and twenty Years after that of Nice Nor was the Qualification of a Title required till long after that Council of Chalcedon wherein also I meet not with a Syllable of annulling Ordinations for want of a Title That 6th Can. makes void Clancular Ordinations not given visibly in the Face of the Church the Rule which required the Candidate to be offered unto the suffrage of the Clergy and People in the Churches and Congregation being neglected as Justellus has observed from the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The method of Requiring Titles indeed grew up afterwards which the Canonists in the following Ages gathered from this sixth Canon of Chalcedon as fancying some Analogy or Agreement between them in Reason as Calvin teaches me However let us take the Argument as 't is propounded Ordinations by Presbyters were accounted void not in themselves but by the Rigor of the Canons in use then How does this appear Why because Ordinations sine Titulo were null by the sixth Canon of Chalcedon which is just as if one should pretend to prove the Lord's-Day not Holy by Divine appointment but by the Ecclesiastical Constitution because the other Holy-Days are not Is it not possible the Lord's-Day may be Holy by Divine Institution though Good Friday is not Or that Ordinations by Presbyters may be Null in themselves and by Scripture though Ordinations sine Titulo be uncanonical only But if Mr. O. intended this only as the Judgment of so Learned a Person as Dr. Field I let it pass as such being no ways obliged to account for the Opinions of private Doctors The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth if I rightly apprehend Mr. O. for I lift not to look after the Book its self intends to prove by the Nicene Canon which forbids Bishops to Ordain in one anothers Diocesses that the Irregular Ordinations by Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations by Presbyters Now there is no strength in this Reasoning I can scarce allow it to be sense He ought first to make out that Presbyters have power to Ordain and then indeed the irregular Ordinations of the one would be Null as well as of the other and both alike But we deny Presbyters to have Power to Ordain be sure That Nicene Canon gives them none and therefore the Comparison here is foolish and frivolous 'T is as if one should lay down this grave Maxim the Irregular Sentence of a Judge is as Null as that of a private Man whereas a private Man can give no decretory Sentence at all I own Bishops in their Ordinations were under many Canonical Restraints and some of their irregular Ordinations were decreed Null at least so as that the Ordained were not allowed to exercise their Function But to talk of the Irregularities of Ordinations by Presbyters is to suppose it proved they have Power to Ordain which is to beg the Question I am sure their power is not intimated in the Nicene Canons as that of Bishops is nor in any other that I am yet acquainted with If a Canon were any where to be found restraining Ordinations made by Presbyters and limiting the manner and circumstances of 'em 't were reasonable thence to gather that Presbyters had Power to Ordain But the Canonical Restraints laid upon Bishops will not convince me that Presbyters had that Power Finally one may by the same Reasoning conclude that Deacons yea that every Ordinary believer had power to Ordain as well as Bishops Thus I proceed in the Argument By the Nicene Canons Bishops Ordinations in others Diocesses without consent are forbid and hence we see the irregular Ordinations of Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations of Ordinary believers and Deacons But this is no better than beating the Air out of nothing to gather something For all this while neither Deacons nor Believers have power at all to Ordain Haply Mr. O. has left the Reverend Authors Argument short So I dismiss it CHAP. X. Of Aerius THis was a Turbulent and Heretical Presbyterian the only one to be met with in all Antiquity It may not be amiss in few Words to present the Reader with his Character as 't is transmitted to us by St. Austin and Epiphanius The former tells us that being a Presbyter he is reported to have been troubled because he could not be Ordained a Bishop that he fell into the Arrian Heresie adding to it some of his own Conceits as that stated Fasts ought not to be observed and that a Presbyter ought no ways to be distinguished from a Bishop that the Aerians his followers admitted to their Communion only the Continent or such as embraced a Celibate Life and who had so far renounced the World as to account nothing their own And did not abstain from Flesh in the appointed times as Epiphanius writes This Epiphanius among many other Errors and some of the aforesaid particularly remembers that he sought to be a Bishop but could not obtain it He calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hairbrained and mad Doctrine sc. that of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters When Epiphanius had reckoned up a great many of his Errors and Heresies he proceeds to refute 'em and in the first place takes him to task for that about the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters In short he sets him forth as a very Wicked and Impious Fellow It is not material in the Dispute whether Aerius was an Heretick or is called so by Epiphanius and St. Austin on the account of his teaching Bishops and Presbyters to be equal I am sure St. Austin places this Error of his in the front and before that of Arrianism And both condemn him for his Opinion about Bishops and Presbyters which is sufficient to my Purpose For I am not concerned about private Persons Opinions such as Bishop Jewel though an excellent Man and one of the greatest Ornaments of our Church and of the Reformation or others mentioned by Mr. O. Whatever their Sentiments were I shall hereafter shew that it was ever the publick Judgment of the Reformed Church of England that Bishops were Jure Divino and I hope 't is no breach of Modesty to confront theirs with the Churches Authority CHAP. XI Of Hilary the Deacon IT is not agreed among the Criticks who was the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which are in the Works of St. Ambrose Vol. 5. and 't is as uncertain unto whom belong the Quaestiones veter is novi Testamenti in St. Austin Tom. 4. There are some excellent passages found in them and cited by Austin in his Tracts against the Pelagians under the Titles of
Anglorum Ecclesia in qua solus tu Episcopus inveniris Ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi sine Episcopis potes Doubtless then the meaning of the Canons must be that in Ordinary and when it may be with convenience three Bishops are requir'd to the Consecration of a Bishop though even one in the case of Necessity be sufficient I will not affirm there was a necessity in the case of Pelagius because there was no necessity he should be Bishop of Rome yet after his Consecration the wise Italians might judge it necessary to overlook the later Canons and confirm his Consecration rather than create an Anti-Pope and a Schism in the Church Pelagius then was a Canonical Bishop according to the Apostolical Canon though not Canonically Ordained according to the strictness of the Nicene Canon But it will be demanded why did not Pelagius content himself with two Bishops but took in a Presbyter to assist in the Ordination The reason is plain because Pelagius being a wise Man as is to be presumed though not so good as were to be wished would give his Adversaries as little occasion as was possible to quarrel at his 〈◊〉 If therefore he could not get three Bishops he at least procured two and a third Person and so came as near to the Nicene Canon as he could He observed the number though not the exact Qualification of the Ordainers and so vary'd as little from the Rule as might be Hereby he made account to impose upon the ignorant Multitude who 't is likely were the principal Spectators of the Solemnity of his Ordination For the Clergy would not be present to countenance his Ordination whom they hated CHAP. XVIII Of the Waldenses the Boyarians the Lollards and some other People who separated themselves from the Roman Communion OF the Waldenses Mr. O. speaks in his Preface page 1. c. and in the Plea p. 156 to the effect following That the Vaudois or Waldenses have had no other Ministers for near 500 Years past than Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops that they maintain all Ministers to be in a state of Parity that their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination that the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers from these Waldenses And for the truth of all this he quotes Perrin's History of the Waldenses Of what Authority Perrin is may be hence guessed that the Synod which set him on work disapproved it as I am told or whether Mr. O. has given us an honest and fair Account of him I know not I am a Stranger to that Author nor can I hereabouts light on him neither am I very much concerned about any thing he says which is so late sc. according to Mr. O's Computation near 1200 Years after Christ and so obscure that no weight can be laid upon the Argument drawn from the Practice of these Waldenses I say obscure For they being a poor and illiterate thin scatter'd and harassed People and almost always under Persecution it is Morally impossible they should have an exact History of themselves transmitted unto these last Ages especially considering that their Enemies the Papists made it their business to destroy the most ancient Records of that People and as Sir S. Morland testifies the most that is known of them is supposed generally to be taken out of their Adversaries Writings who will sometimes make bold to load those who separate from them with Calumnies and fasten on them odd Opinions meerly to expose and render them the more odious Lastly although I do not delight to detract from their Merits yet I see no great reason for those excessive Commendations some think 〈◊〉 to bestow on them when I call to mind that at the time when the Fratres Bohemi became 〈◊〉 acquainted with them they found the Waldenses taking the Liberty of going to Mass and joyning with the Papists in their Idolatrous Worship Nevertheless these Exceptions set apart what I find in such Authors as are at hand shall here be produced to confront the others cited by Mr. O. to the end the Reader may judge whether Mr. O. and his Author Perrin have made a faithful Report of the Waldensian Churches at least whether it may not truly be affirmed that the History of that People is so uncertain that no Argument can thence be drawn to countenance the Presbyterian Government and Ordination by meer Presbyters Sir Sam. Morland in his History of the Waldenses shews that Claudius Archbishop of Turin was a great Promoter of true Doctrine against Roman Idolatry in his Diocess that the Waldenses succeeded this Archbishop that the said Archbishop delivered his Doctrine to his Disciples and these unto their Successors unto the ninth and tenth Centuries In the Year 1059. the Waldenses again separated from Rome In the Year 1223. the Albigenses in Bulgaria Croatia and Dalmatia had one Bartholomew whom they stiled their Pope The Pope's Legate called him Bishop Mat. Paris Anti-Pope adding that he drew over to him Bishops and others and that he Ordained Bishops In the Year 1254. Reinerius makes mention of their Bishops in Lombardy In the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Moravia and Austria had Bishops They asserted that they had Lawfully Ordained Bishops among them and an uninterrupted Sucession of that Order even from the Apostles although out of hatred to the Papists they chose to call them Seniores and Antistites In their Responsio Excusatoria Anno 1500. they declare Nec summum 〈◊〉 Romanum nec nostrum nec quempiam alium caput esse 〈◊〉 plainly intimating that they had Bishops among them as well as the Romanists Anno 1655. Leger was Moderator of the Churches of the Valleys which Office was for Life with power to call Synods to preside in them and to lay on Hands Thus much is delivered as Matter of Fact let us now see what were their Principles concerning Church-Government Wolfius saith They held there were but three Degrees of Church-Officers sc. Bishops Priests Sacerdotes and Deacons the same is delivered by Guido But Aeneas Sylvius that a Bishop is not Superior to a Presbyter either in Dignity or in Power as Alphonsus de Castro also observed and most of the Popish Writers charge them with that Opinion But one of them viz. Reinerius does set forth their Doctrine and Practice to the effect following The Cathari or Puritans meaning the Waldenses have four Ecclesiastical Orders viz. the Bishop the elder Son the younger Son something like the Chorepiscopus or Suffragan Bishop and the Deacon The Office of the Bishop is always tenere Prioratum to possess the Supremacy in every thing done in the Imposition 〈◊〉 Hands in Celebrating the Lord's-Supper and in beginning the Prayers as does the elder Son in the Bishop's absence The said Orders are created by the Bishop or by the Sons with the Bishops 〈◊〉 When the Bishop is dead the younger Son Ordains the elder a
in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian but will not trouble my self or Reader with them He that is curious and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People may take Aventinus into his Hands and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops and governed by Presbyters only It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly but however as he goes along he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops even before they were brought into subjection to Rome CHAP. XIX Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors and continued down to our own Times This Doctrine says Mr. O. meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop hath been maintained also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors both of the Roman and Protestant Communion both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us All I am concerned for is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records at or since the Reformation For 't is nothing to me if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer much less of the Dissenters whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea My design is upon Mr. O. himself and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government Mr. O. has alledged three against us the little Treatise commonly called The Bishops Book another called The Institution of a Christian Man and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet the late Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Irenicum all which as I shall prove belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII and whatever Opinions are there to be met with are not to be imputed to our first Reformers at least not as their fixed and settled Judgment for I reckon that in Hen. VIII's Days the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb newly conceived not brought forth that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born and in its Swadling Cloths and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity that it has yet been able to attain unto during which Queens Government something also is objected to us which shall be examined in its Order The Bishop's Book was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments the Creed and the Grounds of Religion fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction 'T was composed by sundry Bishops of whom Cranmer was chief by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII in the Year 1537. established by Parliament and Printed by Tho. Barthelet with this Title The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man Out of this Book Fox has furnished us with this following Passage That there is no mention made neither in the Scripture nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor or Author of the Church being within the Times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or constitute any Distinction or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves and the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power c. and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church From hence Mr. O. has gathered for he refers to Fox's Martyrology that these Bishops the Authors of that Book affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Ans. This Deduction is downright false and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words The design of that Prince at that time was to throw off the Pope and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed that as the Apostles were equal among themselves so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times or according to Jerom that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Archbishops and particularly the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops particularly not over the English only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake But from the beginning it was not so Here is not one word of Presbyters or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops Now that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book I appeal to what I find elsewhere taken thence by Mr. Strype How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope but to the King's Laws That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel in matters Civil and Moral but by Grant and Gift of Princes that it was always and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes with the Consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call again into their Hands or otherwise to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given and permitted by their Authority and Assent and Sufferance without which if the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop whatsoever should take upon them any Authority or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil that Bishop is not worthy the Name is an Usurper and Subverter of the Kingdom That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church as well as that of Rome That there is no difference in Superiority Preeminence or Authority of one Bishop over another But they be all of equal Power and Dignity and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome The Equality here spoken of in the beginning and in the latter end of this Period is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church but between Bishop and Bishop Church and Church and particularly that no Church that of England especially is subject to Rome And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops such Priests
haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England in Subordination to and by the Popes Authority not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate and that in Civil and Moral Matters only The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another if haply it be another Book entituled The Institution of a Christian Man drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII and the Parliament and commanded to be Preached Out of this Book afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess Mr. O. cites as follows in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum Which Words it must be confessed look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight Ans. In the first place I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this and some other Books of the same nature and written with the same design The Bishops Book otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man of which before came forth again two Years after sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man Printed also by Barthelet That this also was once more Published in Engglish and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book according to the Custom of those Times though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer but called The King's Book because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation added to it by way of Preface and assumed to himself the being the Author of it Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book Entituled The Bishops Book because framed by them I guess it the same with that I first spoke of and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book but Entituled The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book going under this Title Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit 1544. in the Preface whereof 't is said to have been at first writ in English and then Translated into Latin by whom or by what Authority I find not and whether this be the same with Mr. O's I know not but this is sure Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops not about the superiority or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church I am apt to fear some foul play But concerning the Testimony its self as allowed of I shall speak more by and by Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man If it shall be said that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book but the Bishops Book yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other Thus then I read in the King's Book That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church given of God to Christian Men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands That this Sacrament was conferred and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed or limited by the Word of God for the nomination election presentation or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region provided made or to be made c. He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries both of Priests and Bishops sc. Teaching Preaching Ministring the Sacraments Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar loosing and assoiling from Sin Excommunicating and finally Praying for the whole Church and their own Flock in special That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices but with such sort and such Limitations as the Laws permit and suffer That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only that is Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio which I have seen there is some disagreement to be found For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition c. seems to speak of two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons the Christiani hominis Institutio expresseth it thus de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum Diaconorum Scriptura expresse meminit c. meaning as I suppose not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry sc. of Presbyters and Deacons That is the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons is only expresly mentioned in Scripture and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive not of Persons but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day It is not then affirm'd in either that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices that is Priests and Deacons and not Bishops according to the Scripture But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense and to his purpose rather sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions in Ordinibus but of Deacons or Ministers and of Presbyters or Bishops How Ministers and Bishops crept in here I 'll not say But they are capable still of the same Sence sc. that