Mr. O's next proof taken from Luke is of the same Nature with his 5th Argument speaking of Tychicus The same Reply therefore that I made to the 5th will serve here 〈◊〉 mutandis 8. Mr. O. Argues from the Apostle's Cloak left at Troas 2 Tim. 4. 13. which hap'ned says the Minister at his going to Jerusalem just before his being sent Prisoner to Rome This Cloak was a Roman Habit which might have prejudiced the Jews against him therefore he left it at Troas but being arrived at Rome he sent for his Cloak his Roman Habit. Ans. Though some believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here mention'd was Paul's Cloak his Penula a Latin word made into Greek by the Transposition and Alteration of some Letters Yet 't is but very uncertain whether they are in the right For why may not Penula be made out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Penula Whatever it was suppose a Roman Habit which Paul had brought with him from Rome after his Enlargement from his first Bonds according to my Hypothesis why might he not leave it at Troas at that time that he sailed thence into Macedonia For soon after he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy as I contend wherein he shews that his Intentions were to return into 〈◊〉 parts once more 1 Ep. 3. 14. which was the Reason of his leaving his Cloak there behind him intending afterwards to call for it but haply being prevented and so making forward for Rome when there be sent for his Cloak This is a fair account of this Passage about the Apostle's Cloak without straining it to a Sense which no body ever thought of before and which has no Foundátion in Scripture But after all this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here rendered Cloak is a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and never to be met with again either in Scripture or in the Ancient Classical Greek Authors And therefore its signification is very uncertain it may denote a Cloak and it may denote any thing else an Hat ex gr or a Shirt it may signify some sort of Writings or Cover to carry Writings in 〈◊〉 to this last the best Criticks incline E. in the Synopsis Criticorum thinks it was a little Cheft Box or portable Cover to carry Books and papers in grounding himself on the Syriac Translation where 't is rendered domus Scriptorum Dr. Ham. gathers from Phavorinus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Parchments rolled up and was the very same which the Apostle 〈◊〉 calls the Parchments as is imply'd in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bring with thee the Parchments rolled up and the Books which I left at Troas but especially the former the Parchments fail not to bring 'em Others understand thereby an Hebrew Volume of the Old Testament deriving it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Liber or inward Rind of a Tree on which the Ancients used to write from whence they suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived Lastly I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outward Cover of Books In this uncertainty about the signification of this Word and the variety of Opinions concerning it how is it possible to form any Argumenr thence Or of what force can the Reasoning be which is grounded on it See more of this Word in Suicerus Lexic 9. Mr. O. argues to this purpose That such as were more severely dealt with were wont to be bound with two Chains Act. 12. 6. But Paul 2 Tim. 1. 16. was bound but with one that all agree Paul's first Imprisonment was more favourable than his second therefore he must have written this second Epistle in his first Imprisonment which was most favourable because he was then bound but with one Chain 2 Tim. 1. 16. Ans. Whether Peter was more severely dealt with than ordinary cannot be determined from Act. 12. 6. except we had an account of some other milder Treatment of him on some other Occasion Besides it may happen that one Chain may be as long and as heavy as two other Chains I have known one Rope as long as two other Ropes and a Prisoner may be as roughly handled and as securely preserv'd from escaping with one long Chain as with two short ones In the Apostle's first Imprisonment which was indeed favourable although St. Luke describes his sufferings in the singular Act. 28. 20. even as St. Paul himself does Eph. 6. 20. Yet elsewhere we have 'em exprest in the Plural Philip. 1. 7. Insomuch as in my Bonds v. 13. my Bonds in Christ. v. 14. By my Bonds v. 16. To my Bonds Colos. 4. 18. My Bonds Philem. 10. My Bonds and v. 13. In the Bonds of the Gospel So that Paul in his first Imprisonment was ty'd with many Bonds or Chains as also he was in his second as I reckon it 2 Tim. 2. 9. For which Gospel I suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto Bonds The difference then between his first and second Imprisonment was not as to the number of his Bonds and Chains but other hardships which he endured in his latter Imprisonment If any one will consider the difference between his Imprisonment as 't is described in the Acts and again as 't is very plainly set forth by several Intimations in the second Epistle to Timothy whereof I spoke particularly in the T. N. He will be forced to confess that that in the Acts was his first Imprisonment and that other referred to in the second Epistle to Timothy to have been his latter Imprisonment and that the singularity or plurality of his Bonds mentioned in both will not decide this Controversy Mr. O. Demas was with Paul at Rome in his first Imprisonment Colos. 4. 14. we read nothing of his being there in his second Imprisonment Ans. There is a manifest difference between Paul's Imprisonment described in the Acts and in the second Epistle to Timothy which clearly proves the second Epistle written in Paul's latter Imprisonment ex gr In the first Demas was with him and because there was then little or no Danger Demas stuck close to him but in the latter when all turned away from him Demas among the rest then also with the Apostle at Rome forsook him in the Extremity This account is very Natural Is it not possible Yea probable that Demas was with him in both Imprisonments Besides 't is an unsufferable Impertinence to urge such kind of Arguments as are reconcilable with both sides of the Question such is Demas's attendance upon Paul in his Bonds But whereas he adds that we read 〈◊〉 of Demas being with Paul at Rome in his second Imprisonment 't is so absurd an Observation upon his Principles that nothing could have been said more absurdly For on his Supposition that the second Epistle to Timothy was written in Paul's first Imprisonment where should we read in Scripture of Demas being with Paul in his second
yet every Pastor or Teacher is not an Evangelift or a Bishop Mr. O. engages me once more to enter the Lists with him in Philology a part of knowledge he values himself upon but without reason as will now appear as it has also before He Corrects me for writing Mark' s Successor at Alexandria Annianus which he says ought to be Anianus with a single n at the beginning Ans. I have the Paris Edition of Eusebius the best extant in the World as all agree I in my writing Annianus conformed my self to that Copy wherein I find him not once called Anianus And Valesius a Critick of the first Form vindicates himself for writing it with a double n from the Authority of the Mazarine and Medicean MSS. unto whom he adds Ruffinus and Jerom Subscribe For Annianus is a Latin Word deduced from Annius as Valerianus from Valerius and many other of the same Nature are obvious to any who read the Roman 〈◊〉 Particularly there was a Poet of good esteem in the Reign of Adrian the Emperor named Titus Annianus as I observed in Helvicus's Chronology accidentally when I was looking for another thing 'T is true other MSS. write him Anianus as Mr. O. does and 〈◊〉 has Hananias But what then When a Word is differently written may not one chuse to write it as he pleases Haply if I had chanced to have followed those who believe the right name to be Anianus Mr. O. could have amended it into Annianus But I do him too much credit by supposing he knew any thing of this different way of writing Annianus Mr. O. hopes the Rector will not make a settled Church Officer a Bishop of Priscilla a Woman This I suppose he intends for a little piece of Wit or a Jeer. Ans. Why not a Bishop as well as an Evangelist And why not a settled Church-Officer as well or rather than an 〈◊〉 one I am sure a 〈◊〉 and virtuous Woman is not very forward to gad abroad 't is her Character that she Loves home and not often appears in publick St. Chrysostom makes her an Evangelist Let Mr. O. look how well that suits with his professed Opinion of Evangelists being Extraordinary unfixt Officers Let Mr. O. acquit St. Chrysostom and his own dear self in the first place and the Rector will be safe I am confident But surely Mr. O. knows an Ancient Father of good credit with him tho' with no body else I mean Dorothaeus who among other of his Fables makes Priscilla a Bishop If his Authority be so good Mr. O. has the Mystery proved to him Mr. O. It is well observed by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon Four Hundred Years after Ans. By the Ministers good leave I must Question the Truth of what he here asserts though he backs it with never so good Authority Whoever shall tell me that The first who called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon must excuse me if I say he is grosly mistaken Eusebius who lived and Flourished above an Hundred Years before that Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must at least be understood of the Ecclesiastical History before Eusebius's Time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is recorded in History That Timothy first received the Episcopacy of the Diocess of Ephesus Jerom calls him Bishop of Ephesus and he was 60 Years before the said Council of Chalcedon Thus much I have adventured to say before I consult Mr. O's Testimony borrowed from the Irenicum But I am now going to consult the Learned Bishop of Worcester and examine whether he was guilty of this Oversight imputed to him by the Minister Well! I have deliberately as well as I can read the 〈◊〉 and 303 d pages of the Irenicum and I find Mr. O. has served that Reverend Author as he has done many a good one besides in downright Terms belying him Mr. 〈◊〉 so I will make bold to call him that Book being wrote in his Youth and before he had received the Honours which were afterward deservedly bestowed on him speaking there of the Succession of Bishops tells us That the Succession at Ephesus is pleaded for with greatest Confidence by Leontius Bishop of 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon Mr. 〈◊〉 't is confest afterward has these Words No wonder then if Leontius makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derives the Succession down from him He does not affirm that Leontius first called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus But that 't is no wonder if he made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and thence proved the Succession of Bishops by the Succession of the Ephesian Bishops down from Timothy He made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus but he was not the first that did so for many had done it before him I will not deny perhaps this Learned Author at that time Questioned whether Timothy was so or no. However he did not assert that Leontius was the first that called him Bishop of Ephesus Mr. O. then who seems to value himself for the Hundreds of his quotations would do well if he more carefully examined his Authors and more sincerely represented their Opinions But 't is no hard matter for any one if he will make it his business for some little time to Collect an innumerable number of Authorities upon this Subject of Episcopacy 'T is but taking into his hand Blondel and 〈◊〉 Forbes and Stillingfleet Saravia and some others particularly Mr. Baxter from whom Mr. O. has borrowed at least two of his Arguments in his Plea almost verbatim and many of the Testimonies wherewith he has confirmed 'em and he shall be thought by Ignorant Readers Helluo Librorum a Devourer of Books a Man of infinite Reading and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and Ancient Writers when perhaps he never read one of 'em no nor so much as consulted the particular Testimonies which he cites out of ' em But 't is one thing to dabble in Authors and another throughly to understand and truly to represent ' em CHAP. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 6 th Chap. THE Principal Matter whereof may be reduced unto Four Heads 1. What has already been argued between us in the former Chapters which I quite lay aside 2. What will fall in my way when I Reply farther unto the Plea which I reserve to a more convenient Place the second part of this Book 3. What is here de novo started against the Rector which I make the Subject of this last Chapter And 4. The Cavils wherewith he has furnished out this last part of his Defence which are considered apart in the Appendix In Vindicating the Politie of the Church of England I asserted in T. N. That the Parish Priests have a share of Power in the Ecclesiastical Government for as much as all the Canons or
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
and besides were small and inconsiderable Conversions no Church being formed or established among them For so 〈◊〉 in the place cited mentions many other Countries where happly some few scattered Christians lived though no Church was regularly established Now though this is sufficient to convince me that the People of the remote North and North-West of Scotland now so called beyond Edenburgh were not meant by 〈◊〉 yet foreseeing it will not satisfie others whose Interest and Cause will not suffer them easily to be perswaded I will therefore take the Liberty to offer my own Thoughts unto the Readers Consideration My Conjecture then is that the Loca Britannorum Romanis inaccessa referred unto by 〈◊〉 were no other than Ireland Ptolomy reckons the Islands of the World thus First Taprobane the Greatest The next was GREAT Britain otherwise 〈◊〉 Albion and the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Island of the Britains called Ireland And Pliny says Albion was named Britany yet all the Neighbouring Island were called Britannies and that Ireland of Old time was inhabited by Britains Aristotle or whoever was the Author of that Book de mundo Witnesses that there were in the Ocean two the greatest Islands in the World called 〈◊〉 ' ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albion and Ireland Thus much I have gathered from Mr. Cambden I shall add one of my own Collection from Dionysius de situ Orbis who speaking of our Western Ocean says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who then can doubt but that Ireland was meant by 〈◊〉 's Britannorum loca as well as any other places of the Britains since 't is well known the Romans never carried their Arms nor extended their Conquests so far as unto that Island although they were not ignorant of the place be sure in Tertullian's Days no nor in Augustus's time when Dionysius the African wrote 〈◊〉 himself in the same Period adds and Multarum Insularum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Islands unknown to us where the Gospel had got footing But least the unwary Reader should think these very Words overthrow my Opinion and that the Island Ireland being unknown to 〈◊〉 cannot be meant by the Loca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inaccessa it must be noted that by 〈◊〉 he intends such Islands with whom they had no Commerce in Ordinary nor an exact account of 〈◊〉 that they were wholly ignorant of them cannot be for then 〈◊〉 must talk at Random and Nonsense How could He say that Christianity was propagated in these Islands if they were altogether 〈◊〉 There is a passage in Archbishop 〈◊〉 I must not 〈◊〉 over Neither did Celestine employ less care about freeing the Britains from the Pelagian Heresies a Bishop being Ordained 〈◊〉 the Scots while be studies to preserve the Roman Island Catholick 〈◊〉 also made the Barbarous Island Christian the former whereof was Great-Britain the latter Ireland The forecited Words are 〈◊〉 's which Vitus Basinstochius thus expounds and thereby illustrates Tertullian When Prosper said Britannies doubtless 〈◊〉 called the Roman Island Britain and the other Island called Barbarous he understood to be Ireland whither the Power of the Roman 〈◊〉 't is believed never came It will be Objected hence that therefore because the Pope is here said to have sent a Bishop 〈◊〉 is meant and by him made Ireland Christian Ireland embraced not the Faith till that time 〈◊〉 about 430. by consequence 〈◊〉 is not to be understood of Ireland But I reply First That Prosper and 〈◊〉 must be supposed to speak a 〈◊〉 de Rome as believing none were good Christians but who depended on the Pope Besides Ireland was Christian long before this as the story of 〈◊〉 proves But Secondly It may with Reason 〈◊〉 supposed that a great part of Ireland was yet unconverted Or Thirdly The Scots a Foreign People 〈◊〉 and Barbarous had more 〈◊〉 invaded and Conquered them and withal very much impaired the Christian Religion as the 〈◊〉 once did here in England nevertheless that about the Year 430. the Christian Religion by the Preaching of 〈◊〉 or rather St. Patrick was restored again If it be demanded of me how I prove that Ireland became Christian before 〈◊〉 I reply 't is proved by the same 〈◊〉 others would prove that the North and North West of the now Scotland was so early converted that is by 〈◊〉 's Testimony and which 〈◊〉 the must likely conjecture must now be left to the Reader The summ is if 〈◊〉 may as well speak of Ireland as of any other place here is then no proof of so early a Conversion in the utmost North of Great Britain But let us hear what Mr. O. has advanc'd in this Controversy For indeed my business is with him He begins then and Acquaints us The Histories of Scotland tell 〈◊〉 their Churches were Governed by 〈◊〉 without Bishops for above 200 Years and therefore had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 In confirmation hereof Mr. O. cites Hector 〈◊〉 John Major and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed these are the best and the most Ancient and only Witnesses that can be produced in that Cause except the invisible 〈◊〉 who at best was but in the Eleventh Century But these were the most Errand 〈◊〉 of Legends as ever appeared in publick having no Author no Records before them to support what they affirm concerning their Country and its affairs Thus much my Lord of St. 〈◊〉 in his Historical Account has objected against these and other such Fabulous Historians And Mr. O. who has read this Learned Bishop ought not to have urged these 〈◊〉 unless 〈◊〉 had taken off the Bishops Exceptions against them True he tells us Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Approbation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E. 〈◊〉 p. 〈◊〉 799. 800. But when I consult Archbishop 〈◊〉 I find him indeed citing these Authors page 800. but not no not 〈◊〉 Himself with Approbation unless his very citing them must 〈◊〉 taken as an Approbation of them which I must 〈◊〉 Mr. O. is his 〈◊〉 For the said Archbishop in his Preface to that Book 〈◊〉 the Reader would object against him the Obscurity and little Credit of many of his Authors ingenuously Confesses that he had gathered together a 〈◊〉 of all manner of Authors good and bad new and old to the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historian might from thence pick what seemed to his purpose and probable But that otherwise he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not so void of sense 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Monmouth or Hector Boethius or any other of the lower Form as 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 thing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence it follows that Archbishop 〈◊〉 cites them not with Approbation especially not 〈◊〉 and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the vir gregis the 〈◊〉 and Leader in all the Romantick Stories of the Antiquity of the Scotch Nation and Church It is to be observed Hector Boethius the last of the three takes upon him to mend the former Fordon and Major saying what Mr. O. leaves out Palladius was the first
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
Archbishop of Canterbury so after he was King the Ambition still prevailed in him and was not we see easily removed 6. Early in the Reign of Edw. VI. and when the Reformation was going on prosperously Cranmer and the Protestant Bishops understanding matters better and having freedom to speak their Minds delivered themselves more clearly in the point as may be inferred from sundry Observations belonging to that Time and upon Record As 1. It is declared in the Preface before the Form of Ordination drawn up and agreed upon in Edw. VI's Reign That it is 〈◊〉 unto all Men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons by publick Prayer and with Imposition of Hands approved and admitted thereunto Cranmer it seems was now come over to Dr. Leighton's Opinion declared in the days of Hen. VIII 2. Cranmer set forth a Catechism in the first Year of Edw. VI. Anno 1548. wherein the three Orders are taught as of Divine Right from whence says the Historian It appears that he had changed the Opinion he formerly held against the Divine Institution of those Ecclesiastical Orders 3 In the Days of Edward VI. Cranmer suspended Heath Bishop of Worcester for refusing to subscribe the fore-mentioned Form of Ordination 4. In the same Reign John Alasco a Noble Polonian was by Cranmer's means made a Superintendant over all the Churches of the Foreigners yet newly planted in and about London the Germans Italians and the French And Superintendant is but another Word for Bishop Whoever therefore will impartially weigh the darkness of the times in Henry VIII's Reign where the above mentioned King's and Bishop's Books were written and the Answers made unto the King's Questions by Cranmer and some others the stifness of that Prince his fondness of being Head of the Church and the awe which the Archbishop and his Associates in the Reformation stood in towards him the earnest desire they had at any Rate and on any Terms to be rid of the Pope's Tyranny the falseness uncertainty and absurdity of many Opinions delivered by the Bishops and their repugnancy to each other he will be forc'd to confess that no stress can be laid upon any of their Conclusions much less that they were the first and steady Sentiments of the Protestant Church of England For even the Popish Clergy also generally subscribed them But the sudden alteration of the Bishops minds as to this present Point in debate in Edward VI's days puts it out of all question that the MS. of my late Lord of Worcester belongs to King Henry VIII's days and that our first Reformers their mature and setled Judgment was that there were from the beginning of the Christian Church three Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers by Divine Right Bishops Priests and Deacons Let us hear the Reflections of the Learned Prelate the now Lord Bishop of Salisbury In Cranmer's Papers some singular Opinions of his about the nature of 〈◊〉 Offices will be found but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty so they were not established as the Doctrine of the Church but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own And it seems that afterwards he changed his Opinion for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set forth which is directly contrary to those Opinions set down in this Paper viz. Mr. Stillingfleet's MS. In the next Reign 't is no matter to us what became of the Divine Right of Episcopacy The Protestant Church of England suffered an Eclipse in Queen Mary's days but soon recovering it self under the Auspicious Government of Queen Elizabeth shin'd so much the brighter and in a short time came to that Settlement which it enjoys to this day without any considerable Alteration And to our present point 〈◊〉 1. That the Form of Ordination of Deacons Priests and Bishops with the Preface before spoken of were confirmed in the 4th of Eliz. 1562. and again in her 13th Year Anno 1571. and which to make short work of it continues in force unto this Day 2. In the general Apology of the Protestants the 5th Article of the English Confession is inserted and was drawn up in that Queen's time Anno 1562. and runs in the words following Farthermore we believe that there be divers Degrees of Ministers in the Church Deacons Priests and Bishops to whom is committed the Office to instruct the People and setting forth of Religion But Mr. O. Objects unto us the 13th of Eliz. c. 12. pretending to prove thereby that Ordination by Presbyters was then allowed here in England The Clause he refers to is more at length thus All Persons under Bishops who pretend to be Priests or Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other Form of Institution or Consecration or Ordering than the Form set forth by Parliament in Edw. VI. or now used shall in the presence of the Bishop declare their Assent and subscribe to all the 〈◊〉 of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprized in a Book Entituled Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions c and 〈◊〉 c. From hence Mr. O. infers That the Statute respects not Popish Ordinations only if at all but gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to subscribe all the Articles absolutely among which was the Book of Consecration and that the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of true Christian Faith and of the Sacraments which he would prove in that the Statute speaks of Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments and the Title of Ministers is rarely used among the Papists and is common among the Reformed Churches the Ministry among the Papists being a real Priest-hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests Ans. The Statute doubtless speaks of all Priests and Ministers whether Papists or Dissenters All were to Assent and Subscribe in case they would continue in or be let into any Ecclesiastical Promotion But chiefly the Papists 〈◊〉 first I assert this upon Mr. O's own words The Ministry of the Papists says he was a real Priest hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests On the contrary I do not remember that Dissenting Ministers have ever been stiled Priests in any publick Instrument of Church or State Now as for the word Ministers even that also it may be points at the Popish Priests for it had lately been used among the Papists I meet with it in Smith's Recantation in the necessary Doctrine and other publick Records But chiefly I consider that at the time of this Act of Parliament the Popish Priests herded themselves among the 〈◊〉 and went by the name and under the disguise of Dissenting Ministers For the more effectual discovery