the Bishop Ordains the Person with the advice Consent and Council of his Presbyters But Mr. O. adds I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles days of Persons laying on of Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If I should affirm that those mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. imposed Hands but had no Ordaining Power I am very sure he can't disprove me And if I should demand one Instance in the Apostles times of meer Presbyters laying on of hands or Ordaining without a Bishop I am sure Mr. O. cannot produce it But Mr. O. pleads How then comes the Bishops to urge the Scripture 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no Man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer that he was Bishop of Ephesus since he might lay on Hands and yet have no Ordaining Power nor be Bishop This difficulty is easily resolved If there were no other Argument for Timothy's Episcopal Power in the Church of Ephesus but that Text only it might thence be fairly inferred that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and had the Power of Ordaining because no other are joyn'd in Commission with him nevertheless though this prov'd it not it may be evinc'd from other pregnant Passages in those Epistles to Timothy which I need not repeat Nor do we acknowledge Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination That of Benediction belongs not to them at all But says he What does the Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie if not an Ordaining Power I have told him already it denotes their Approbation and that the Bishop 〈◊〉 with their Advice and Consent No he replys they could signifie their Approbation some other way without imposition of Hands as by saying Amen to the Ordination Prayers But this is to be wiser than God and his Apostles who have as I often have supposed though I need not grant it recommended this way which adds an agreeable Solemnity unto the Action at least the Church has thought fit to admit the Presbyters to lay on Hands and thereby to signify their Approbation of such as are taken into their own proper Ministry in a particular way and different from the Peoples testifying their Assent And this is the reason why at the Ordination of a Deacon Presbyters were not to impose Hands sc. Quia non ad Sacerdotium sed ad Ministerium Consecratur as the African Fathers declared In short this Canon 〈◊〉 with others which appropriate the Power of Ordaining Presbyters unto Bishops only as is above observ'd seems to me to shew that in the judgment of the Ancients Presbyters had no Inherent Original Power of laying on Hands but that 't was granted to them by Ecclesiastical Constitution only Otherwise probably they would have had Power of Imposition of Hands at the Ordination of Deacons also Briefly because in the Prosecution of this Argument Mr. O. appeals to the Scripture so oft for proof of certain things that fell in his way whilst he was managing this Point I do once more here desire what I have often call'd for one single probable proof or Example from Scripture of bare ordinary Presbyters Ordaining or laying on of Hands without some Superior presiding in the Action 5. And to conclude this Discourse about the Councils of Carthage I that am not much concern'd about Men's Opinions nor whether the Presbyters impose Hands tanquam Ordinantes or tanquam Approbantes only am very well content every one should abound in his own sense provided there be an Agreement in Practice and an occasion be not thereby taken to raise Schisms and Emulations in the Church Let this matter be bang'd in the Schools so long as Criticks shall please yet seeing there is no colour for asserting Presbyters to be Ordainers without the Bishop whatever they be with him I make no difficulty to affirm that their Ordinations without the Bishop are without Precedent either in Scripture or Antiquity and by consequence in themselves Null and Invalid A partial Cause can never produce the 〈◊〉 Effect Mr. O. being about to establish the Ordaining Power of the Presbyters instances in the 22d Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage wherein it is Decreed That Bishops must not Ordain without their Presbyters as Presbyters not without Bishops that therefore he may as well say Bishops have no Power to Ordain because they could not Ordinarily do it without their Presbyters As we affirm Presbyters have no Power to Ordain because they can't Ordain without Bishops Ans. Let us see the Canon at length Ut Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet ita ut c. It is hence apparent that the Bishop Ordain'd and not the Presbyters though he was to take along with him the Counsel and Advice of his Prebyters Let Mr. O. produce me a Canon to this Effect Presbyteri sine Concilio Episcopi sui Clericos non Ordinent and then it will be time for us to think of a further Answer unto this Cavil Mr. O. urges farther the following Canon The Bishop may hear no Man's Cause without the Presence of his Clergy Otherwise the Bishop's Sentence shall be void unless it be confirm'd in their Presence This we can assent unto without Prejudice to our main Cause But I read no where that the Presbyter's Sentence shall be void without the Presence of the Bishop The reason is because the Presbyters gave no Sentence at all Mr. O. to confirm his Maxim that Lay-Men were allow'd to Preach at the Request of the Clergy cites the Carthaginian Canon A Lay-Man may not dare to Preach whilst the Clergy are present unless they ask him Ans. I have given my Opinion of this Matter before It affects the Presbyters as well as the Bishops and is of as much force against Mr. O. unless he 'll turn Quaker as against the Rector But over and above I note this Canon is not taken into the universal Code and therefore was rejected in the Council of Trull CHAP. XIV Of Paphnutius and Daniel THE next thing Mr. O. urges in behalf of Presbyters Ordaining is the Story which Joannes Cassianus tells of one Paphnutius a Presbyter Abbot who made Daniel his design'd Successor a Deacon first and then Goaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotis honore festinavit Optansque sibi Successionem dignissimam providere eum Presbyterii honore provexit He adds That Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce the Ordination null that we read of nor any other in that time Had it been either irregular or unusual doubtless it had been Censur'd Ans. It must not be deny'd but that this Instance of Presbyters Ordaining appears the fairest of all others that Mr. O. has muster'd up in his Plea Nevertheless what I have to reply is as follows 1. It is but a single Instance of a for ought I know Humoursome Abbot who took upon him to do this contrary to the known and establish'd
Deacons at Mareota They all then looked upon Ischyras as Ordained by a Presbyter and for that reason his Ordination Null For so 2. It is expresly recorded Colluthus died a Prebyter therefore all his Ordinations were void and all Ordained by him in the Schism were reduced into the Order of Laics says the Synodical Letter of the Alexandrian Fathers Ischyras was no Presbyter for he was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus so that by consequence all Ordained by him went back into their former place and Ischyras appeared a Laic say the Presbyters and Deacons at Mareota But it will be objected that the Words in the Alexandrian Synod are all Ordained by Colluthus in Schism became Laics implying by those Words 〈◊〉 Schism that therefore his Ordinations were void not because Colluthus was a Presbyter but because his Ordinations were Schismatical Ans. 1. It is very true in Fact that all Colluthus his Ordinations were Schismatical yet this was not the proper and immediate reason of their Nullity but only mentioned as a Circumstance which aggravated his Crime the True Reaon being assigned in the former Clause of that Period Colluthus being a Presbyter died therefore all his Ordinations were void viz. because he died a Presbyter and for the same reason those Ordained by him were meer Laicks 2. Schism if it was one reason of the Nullity of Colluthus his Ordinations yet it was not the only one For another was because Colluthus died a Presbyter 3. I do confess the Alexandrian Fathers prosecuted the Melitians with the utmost Rigor declaring all their Ordinations without exception utterly void so that such as were Schismatically Ordained were Universally Commanded to be what they were before But the Nicene Fathers came to a better Temper and in some Degree confirmed the Schismatical Ordinations that is such as were meerly Schismatical And yet Ischyras was not permitted to tast of this favour Why so Why because there was another fatal blot in his Escocheon which could never be wiped out viz. He had been Ordained by a Presbyter only 4. It is a great mistake to think that Schism must needs be understood of the breach of the Ecclesiastical Laws only There is Schism in departing from some Scripture or Divine Rules which not immediatly appertaining to the Fundamentals and Essence of Religion denominates the Persons not Apostates or Hereticks but Erroneous and 〈◊〉 only If any of the believers at Antioch had presumed to eat Blood contrary to the Apostolical Decree concluded on at Jerusalem he had been doubtless a Schismatick Thus we reckon the Dissenters Schismaticks as departing from the Divine Apostolical Constitution of Episcopacy Colluthus a Presbyter Ordaining Ischyras did it in Schism true but 't was such a Schism as contravened a Divine Law and so the Alexandrian Fathers thought for any thing I see to the contrary when they condemned his Schismatical Ordinations as Null in themselves For surely that which is done against a Divine Law and such is Schismatical Ordination Schism being a Work of the Flesh is in its self Null and of no Effect 5. We ought to distinguish between the Law its self and the Censures of the Church declared against the breach of that Law The Law may be of Divine Appointment though the Censure is meerly Ecclesiastical St. Paul has given us a Canon that a Bishop ought not to be a striker But Deposition for this fault is purely Ecclesiastical not an Apostolical Penalty In like manner a Presbyter as Colluthus Ordaining without the Bishop and for that cause being deposed the fault was committed against a Divine Law though the punishment was Ecclesiastical 'T were foolish and absurd to conclude that Ordination by a 〈◊〉 was only a Canonical Irregularity because a Synod declares it Null Or that Ischyras his Ordination was only irregular uncanonical not unscriptural because his Deposition was decreed by the Alexandrian Synod As it is not the verdict of the Jury nor the Sentence of the Judge nor the Execution of the Criminal which properly and in intrinsick Justice makes him a Murtherer but the Murther its self committed so 't is not a Synod's Solemn Declaration which is purely Ecclesiastical but the Schism its self or a Violation of some Scripture Law that makes him a Schismatick and subjects him to Ecclesiastical Punishment Blundel himself suspecting as I believe that the Whole Fabrick which he had with so much Artifice and Subtlety here raised in Opposition to us would not stand is therefore content at least to grant that Ischyras was for this one reason accounted a Laic because he was Ordained by a Presbyter by Colluthus a Presbyter But says it does not hence follow that Bishops alone had power given them by the Apostles to Ordain or that Presbyters werenot Originally invested with that Power And he adds that nevertheless Ordination by Presbyters was only a Violation of the Ecclesiastical Constitution which he endeavours to confirm from numerous Instances of Ecclesiastical Canons by Vertue whereof Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were sometimes deposed for Canonical Irregularities Ans. This is a sorry shift and unworthy so Learned a Man for on the other side I am able to produce several Canons and have already produced enough the matter of which Canons is grounded on Scripture though reinforced by Ecclesiastical Penalties It will not follow then that because the Ecclesiastical Canons forbid Presbyters to Ordain reserving that Power to Bishops upon pain of Deposition or Deprivation c. therefore this was not a Divine Appointment but Ecclesiastical only For at this rate Blondel might pretend the 27th Canon Apostolical the matter of which is that a Bishop must not be a striker is a meer Ecclesiastical Constitution which yet we know is one of St. Paul's Canons 1 Tim. 3. 3. Though at the same time we must confess that the Deposition which is the Penalty annex'd is purely Ecclesiastical The matter of some Church Canons is often purely Ecclesiastical as well as the Penalty but it will not follow that all are so For as the Prince frequently causes old Laws to be observed reinforceing them by Proclamation so have Synods done with Ancient Scripture Laws and Rules In this Case the King makes not new Laws nor the Synods new Ecclesiastical Canons The Primitive Christians were wont to explain and propound unto the Church the belief of the great Fundamental and Essential Articles of Christianity as that of the Trinity against the Arrians and that of Grace against the Pelagians upon pain of Deposition or Excommunication We must not hence infer that these were only Canonical not Scripture Truths because others of their Definitions were so In short the Tryal of the Subject matter of Church Canons whether Divine or purely Ecclesiastial will depend on the Scripture chiefly Thither we are to resort for satisfaction and not fancy whatever has been reinforced by Canon is meerly Canonical We have 't is hoped already thence clear'd that point about Episcopal Ordination That
which properly belongs to us here is to prove it to have been the Principle and Practice of the Church in the beginning of the Fourth Century when the Alexandrian and Nicene Synods were Assembled which we think also is hitherto made good But Blondel goes on Ischyras was deposed by the Alexandrian Bishops whence it appears he was taken for a Presbyter not a meer Laic For else 't is absurd to affirm he was deposed A Man cannot be said to be knock'd down except he stood on his Feet before Ans. This is what we utterly deny and is indeed a Meer quirk no better than fooling Ischyras and many others were not properly deposed but only declared no Presbyters as being Ordained by a Presbyter which may reasonably be gathered from the Expressions used in the foresaid Synodical Epistles concerning such as Colluthus had Ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote no more And therefore when the Synod of Jerusalem complained how the Eusebians caused Ischyras to be called Bishop they aggravated the Insolence in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas he was not so much as a Presbyter viz. at that very time that 's to say When 〈◊〉 was alive and in some Credit and when the Eusebians gave him out for a Bishop before the Alexandrian Synod was assembled or had declared him a Laic even then he was not so much as a Presbyter So that he was a meer Laic in the Nature of the thing and before the Alexandrian Fathers had so pronounced him Nor do I see any impropriety in saying Ischyras tho' no Presbyter was deposed For though he was really no Presbyter as being Ordained by a Presbyter only yet he took upon him the Office and Title of Presbyter supported and upheld himself by Stilts by Confidence and Hypocrisy He was believed a Presbyter by many and by many countenanced and kept up as such Now though a Man lying prostrate on the floor can't be Knock'd down qui jacet in terrâ non habet unde cadat yet he who stands on Crutches or is held up by others 't is not absurd to say He may be Knock'd down which is sufficient to shew the Weakness of Blondel's fancy And the false Colours put on this Argument But Blundel gives it yet a siner Turn thus It was usual in that Age says he to reduce real Bishops and Presbyters transgressing the Canons of the Church ad Laicam Communionem and yet it cannot be deny'd but they had been real Bishops Ans. This is very true But is just such another piece of Sophistry as before and reaches not the Merits of the Cause For 1. this will not evince that ever 〈◊〉 was a Presbyter though some real Presbyters for Crimes proved upon them were allowed only Lay-Communion He has not 〈◊〉 us that they were declared meer Laics They were only suspended from performing the Office of Presbyters and admitted to Lay-Communion their Character still as I may say lying dormant in them If any such Instance were to be found it can't thence be gathered that Ischyras also was so dealt with 'T is absurd to argue from one or a few particular Instances unto all others or to any other single Case especially which differs from them For 't is one thing to misdemean ones self in an Office another to counterfeit it The former is deprived from performing what he is orherwise rightly qualify'd for the latter is not what he pretends to be The instance of the former kind is of a pure Ecclesiastical Punishment whereas the latter labours under a defect and Error of the first Concoction which in the Nature of the thing annuls all his following Ministerial Acts he having never received the Power which he pretends to Though therefore a Real Presbyter is for his misbehaviour sometimes condemn'd to Lay-Communion yet the suspension taken of as he once was so he again becomes a real Presbyter to all intents and purposes 'T is no good Consequence hence drawn that a Counterfeit Presbyter such was Ischyras who is declared a meer Laic must needs have been a Presbyter Neither will it follow that he who has usurp'd the Seat of a Presbyter from whence he is thrust down and deposed was ever a real Presbyter For a Man may well enough be said to be deposed from an Office which he usurps and discharges for a while but never had a Right and Title to A Real King though deposed was once a real King that 's undeniable but one that personates and is called a King and Acts all the parts of the Royal Character for a time must be acknowledged never to have been a real King 'T was Ischyras his Case He Acted the part of a Presbyter and was afterwards Kick'd off the Stage shall it hence be concluded He was once a real Presbyter Under Blondel's favour I think not But Let us see now what Mr. O. who has a Knack at improving Arguments 〈◊〉 offered about the Case of Ischyras He acknowledges Colluthus was but a pretended Bishop and therefore was Commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter I am of this Mind and 't is all I demand should be grantedme The Reader of himself will discern hereby that he has given up the Whole Cause But perhaps Mr. O. means that Colluthus pretending to be a Bishop though he was not one and under that false Colour to Ordain therefore not his Power of Ordaining as a Presbyter was called in Question but his Dissimulation in taking upon him to be what he was not was condemned and so he was publickly declared to be a Presbyter that is a pretended Bishop only Ans. But I ask then why was Ischyras laid aside as a meer Laic Surely not because his Ordainer falsly assumed the Character of Bishop which belonged not to him But then say I is it not hard my Ordainers Dissimulation supposing him otherwise to have the Power should annul my Orders But Colluthus his Ordinations were vacated not because he pretended to be a Bishop and was not but because he was a Presbyter without Power to Ordain Well! But Mr. O. tells us Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by the Authors Colluthus belike not owning he had Ordained Ischyras So that it not appearing 't was taken for granted He was never Ordained and so He became a Laic no Presbyter not because he was Ordained by a Presbyter but for want of any Ordination that appeared The meaning of all which as I apprehend is that the instance makes nothing against Ordination by Presbyters seeing here was no Ordination at all Ischyras's Ordainers not owning that they had imposed hands on him For answer hereunto I referr the Reader to what is above replyed unto something of this kind The sum whereof is that Ischyras was either really Ordained by Colluthus the Presbyter or at least by his Judges taken for such which is the same thing As for Dr. Field's Argument
represent it first according to Mr. O's Hypothesis and secondly according to my own According to Mr. O's Hypothesis Demas had forsaken Paul loving this present World and was departed to Thessalonica before the Apostle wrote that second Epistle to Timothy Paul in the same second Epistle after Demas had forsaken him sent for Timothy from Asia unto Rome v. 9. Timothy being come to Rome joined with Paul in the Epistles to the Colossians Chap. 1. 1. and to Philemon v. 1. and yet Demas was still with Paul at Rome even though he had forsaken Paul and he is by the Apostle and Timothy mentioned with Honour in both Epistles Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. after he had forsaken the Apostle This is absurd enough For here are several Inconsistences yea Contradictions in the Story as 't is laid by Mr. O. 1. Demas had forsaken Paul 2 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 and yet had not forsaken him Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. 2. Demas had forsaken Paul and was departed to Thessalonica and yet was still with Paul at Rome 3. Demas was at Thessalonica and at Rome at the same time 4. Demas at once was an Apostate and yet a 〈◊〉 Labourer with Paul 〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 10. Philem. 24. Mr. O. may try if he please whether he can surmouut these Difficulties But according to my Hypothesis Demas continued with Paul at Rome all his first Imprisonment there being little or no danger at this time Paul wrote the Epistles to the Colossians and that to Philemon and therein Commends Demas there being then no reason to the Contrary But in the Apostle's second Imprisonment when the Christian Religion and the Apostle in particular was more violently persecuted then the Apostle wrote the second Epistle to Timothy and then Demas had deserted Paul and withdrawn himself into Macedonia as indeed all Men then forsook him 2 Tim. 4. 16. Let the Reader judge whether this is not a plain and coherent Account but Mr. O's confused false and utterly irreconcilable with it self In a word here is an end I suppose unto that part of the Controversy about the time of Paul's writing the second Epistle to Timothy It must need be in his second Imprisonment And thus Mr. O's main Bulwark raised for the defence of the Old Chronology 〈◊〉 Paul's writing the first Epistle to Timothy before his leaving Miletus Act. 20. is demolished and levelled with the Ground THE APPENDIX I Must not deny as I once before acknowledged that I borrowed my Hypothesis about the time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus from Bishop P. and that I believed him to have been the first publick Author of it I am very sure he cited none And that passage out of the Rhemists produced by Mr. O. 't is confest I was not aware of And what then They stumbled upon and had a suspicion of something which they were not able to make out distinctly But the Bishop of Chester has done it with the approbation of the most Learned Men except such as are led aside with the 〈◊〉 of Interest and have espoused a cause which will not allow it And yet I hope I may say without Breach of modesty that I did add some further proofs and Confirmations of this NewChronology though they 〈◊〉 absolutely necessary those of Bishop Pearson's being sufficient without 'em as I freely own Mr O. is not mistaken when he say Miracles are grown very common in this last Age. But he has not proved his Proposition by a proper Argument He should have alledged those Miracles of this Age who cast out the Devil at Surey and that Miracle of this Age who undertook the Defence of the pretended Exorcists and yet acknowledged the Imposture at the same time It is indeed a surprizing Miracle that the Devil should be cast out where he never entered and much more that two Confident Ministers should assume to themselves the Glory of Dispossessing Dicky when 't is well know that several other good Men pray'd for that unhappy Wretch If Mr. O's displeased that I called Bishop Pearson the Miracle of his time I cannot help it but would be glad he would shew me his equal from among the Dissenters Of all others I would advise him not to instance in that great Man Mr. Baxter I cannot believe his own Testimony of himself sc. That he and 〈◊〉 Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages All the World knows Mr. Baxter did not understand Latin very well Haply he understood English and that 's all I verily believe he was Master off But this Boast of his puts me in Mind of a certain Bishop's Chaplain Who told his Lord that they two had been during the Civil Wars in all the Prisons in England The Bishop Modestly reply'd being unwilling to load his Enemies with an untruth I was never in more than one and there indeed he had been near upon twenty Years Ay but the Chaplain answered I have been in all the rest Thus perhaps Mr. Baxter and his Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages Mr. Baxter understood English and his Scribe the remaining Eighteen and here we have two other Miracles of this Age. A Man of no Learning making as great a Figure at least Noise as any other even in this Learned Age And his Amanuensis who understood Eighteen Languages much more than Solomon did as I believe or any Man will ever do again But the greatest Miracle of all is that Mr. Baxter and his Scribe understood Ninteen Languages yet no use is made of any of 'em to any purpose except the English in all the Voluminous works of that Great Man Mr. O. informs us that St. Paul had Preached the Gospel in 〈◊〉 at that time when being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he wrote his Epistle to the Romans I will convict him of a great mistake to say no worse by laying the Testimony before the Reader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum I have fully 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Christ. Not in but unto Illyricum which spoils the Ministers Argument in that place Concerning Paul's Preaching the Gospel in Spain and the Western parts of Europe I chanced to express my self thus All the 〈◊〉 say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went to Spain and to the remotest parts of the West c. And at this he takes occasion to reproach me in general for my crude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because I said All c. 〈◊〉 I must needs own that every Father has not affirmed this But I have this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self that 't is ordinary to express a Notion thus Universally 〈◊〉 nevertheless there are many restrictions and exceptions unto the Universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. O. with some Instances out of Scripture Rom. 5. 18. By the Righteousness of one the free Gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life John 12. 32. And I if I be lifted up from the Earth will draw all Men unto me Titus 2. 11. For the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation 〈◊〉
say they intended to commute and Punish the Offenders Purses instead of bringing them to the Stool of Repentance But Oliver it seems 〈◊〉 in their way and forbade the Bans and so the honest Men adjourned to fresh Quarters at Bolton Thus poor John Redfern was wronged and no satisfaction could be had by fair means But being ask'd why would he not sue 'em he reply'd No the Remedy is worse than the Disease and Justice is not to be had Here then we have an Example of at least designed Commutation or which is worse of as Errant a piece of Roguery as can Ordinarily be met with in History Here we have a Bevy of Presbyterian Saints of the first Rate Painful Preachers and Zealous Lay-Elders gathered together in the fear of God so doubtless they were willing it should be believed to Reform the Country hereabouts and yet giving an Example of the most scandalous Knavery such as a good Heathen or Turk would have been ashamed of I hope there is no Precedent in the Gospel for this kind of Discipline 〈◊〉 any questions the matter of Fact as 't is here related I am able to prove it when reasonably required thereunto Mr. O. The Rector supposes that some in the Church may Rule well who don't labour in the Word and Doctrine Ans. I do so But then at the same time I suppose 'em Ordained not Lay-Elders Mr. O. When I alledged Heb. 12. 15. in proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an Artificial Word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is and observed that Believers are there exhorted To look diligently c. Mr. O. asks Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock as the Pastors of it Ans. No. But because it hence appears that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in a common sense applicable to any Man therefore I conclude that nothing of certainty can be argued from it concerning the Power of Government And I further say that as Believers are not directed to play the Bishops or to look diligently unto the Flock as Pastors of it so neither can it be proved by this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Elders were to look diligently unto the Flock as the Supreme Pastors of it or as Timothy and Titus who were Commissioned to do so Mr. O. Who so bold as blind Bayard Ans. Whether Mr. O. exposes the Rector or his own Wit and good Breeding by such a rude and trivial Diverb I leave to the Reader to decide Such a Clownish expression shews him to have convers'd rather among rude Carters and Dray-Men than Men of Polite Learning or Celebrated Authors that 〈◊〉 boasts so much of and pretends to be so wonderfully 〈◊〉 in Now the occasion of this Elegant and spruce Questionis this The Rector in T. N. represented his Hypothesis borrowed from Bishop Pearson as an Argument which no Papist had ever thought on before But Mr. O. belike has chop'd upon something to that purpose as he thought in the Rhemish Testament for which cause I am here compared to a Blind Tit. 'T is confest though there 's no need to confess it as will appear presently I was not aware of that Passage of the Rhemists and I am certain 〈◊〉 Pearson makes no mention of 'em or of any other Author which drew me into this mistake if it will prove one at last but what if it should It does not in the least affect me that Mr. O. is able to find me once in an Errour I pretend not to be infallible or Omniscient I have somewhat a better Proverb to excuse my self with than Mr. O. had to revile me Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus The good Old Man Homer himself was not only blind but asleep too sometimes Nor would I trouble my self to make more Words on this slight Occasion were it not that I think my self obliged to vindicate Bishop Pearson least any one should surmise that he was beholden to the Rhemists for his New Chronology about the time when Paul besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus and yet had not the Ingenuity to acknowledge it Let us then in the first place produce the Rhemists Words which are as follows This Epistle was written as it seems after Paul's first Imprisonment in Rome when he was dismissed and set at Liberty and thereupon it is that he might say here I hope to come to thee quickly 1 Tim. 3. 14 That 's to say at Ephesus where he had desired him to remain Ans. But though the Rhemists here stumbled upon a small part of the Truth they offer'd nothing in Confirmation of it neither in the Argument nor in their Observations upon the Epistle it self Nor which is to be noted did they in the least make use of their Opinion in proof of Episcopacy But Bishop Pearson did both without being beholden to the Rhemists for one Syllable towards the Establishment of this New Chronology Moreover the Rhemists speak only of the Time of Paul's writing this Epistle not of his Beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus at his going into Macedonia concerning which they have not given the least intimation but left that part of the Old Chronology as they found it Only they seem to think that Paul having long before his Imprisonment besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus did now after he was Dismissed and set at Liberty viz. about the time that he wrote to the Hebrews and immediately after his Enlargement send this Letter unto Timothy which is an Hypothesis quite different from that of Bishop Pearson's as any one that understands and remembers what has already been offered upon the Argument will readily confess So that the Learned Prelate was not in the least beholden unto the Seminary at Rhemes for the Discovery and proof of this New Chronology the Time of Paul ' s beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus There was then little Occasion for Mr. O's challenging me with Boldness and giving me that undeserv'd Character That when I am remotest from Truth I am then most consident I leave it to my Adversaries themselves the Dissenters to determine which of the two is in the point of Time now debated guilty of most Confidence Well but Mr. O. Thought of this Argument before the Rector published it Ans. Haply so but the Question is whether he ever thought of it before Bishop Pearson brought it to Light And if he has been so long acquainted with it as he would have us think or has prepared a Dissertation to vindicate the Old Chronology as he boasts I hope 't will be better put together than his Defence and that one time or other we shall be blest with a sight of so Elaborate a piece of Work in the mean while I am of Opinion that if Mr. O. had been so long acquainted with this New Chronology and had prepared a Dissertation to vindicate the Old one his Defence would have been more tight and correct than
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
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
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
Power of Government and Ordination was in the Hands of Deacons in Scythia for these 70 Years as Blundel could make his Inference for Presbyters The most probable Conjecture is that there were some of all sorts sc. Bishops Priest and Deacons Fourthly I might demand of Mr. O. to prove that there was any one Presbyter among those Christian Captives which haply he will be put hard to do but in the mean while I 'll undertake to demonstrate that there was at least one Bishop in Scythia before Ulphilas viz. Theophilus who was one of the Nicene Fathers and subscribed the Canons of that Council so Eusebius Witnesseth also the Bishop of Persis was present at the Synod nor was there wanting a Scythian Bishop Socrates names him Theophilus who being Bishop of the Goths 〈◊〉 there present subscribed the Nicene Council Theophilus therefore was Bishop of the Goths before the Nicene Synod and was present at the Council and subscribed it Therefore the power of Ordination and the Government of the Scythian Church was not in the Hands of Presbyters among the Christian Goths or Scythians for about 70 Years as Mr. O. and Blondel have affirmed but in the Hands of Bishops or of a Bishop at least I add that seeing we find a Bishop among the Goths before the Nicene Synod 't is but reasonable to think that Bishops or a Bishop at first went along with the Captive Christians into Scythia or that one soon followed them thither I will confirm this Con jecture from that passage in Sozomen who informs 〈◊〉 that it was an Ancient Custom speaking of the Scythians that one Bishop only govern the Churches of that Province Sozomen is now writing of the Church-affairs in the Reign of Valentinian and Valens that is about the Year 370. 43 Years after Ulphilas had been first Ordained Bishop Now Ulphilas was not long before this time alive according to Socrates and invented the Gothick Letters 〈◊〉 the Reign of Valens Without all Peradventure therefore the Goths had Bishops long before Ulphilas For if there had been but two in all that is Ulphilas and after him Vetranio then Bishop it had been a foolish remark of Sozomen to tell his Reader that it was an Ancient Custom among the Scythian Christians that one Bishop only governed their Province when as this Ancient Custom forsooth had been but of 40 Years continuance from the first and there had been but Two and the former of them dead but about four Years before For both Ulphilas and Vetranio were Bishops in the Reign of Valens The sum is there were Bishops in Scythia during some part at least of the 70 Years mentioned by Mr. O. and in all likelihood all the while I defy Mr. O to shew the contrary out of Philostorgius or any other Historian extant There does remain indeed a small Difficulty to be accounted for viz. How then comes it to pass that Philostorgius calls him the first Bishop of the Goths if the Goths had Bishops before him The answer hereunto is easy and 〈◊〉 Fifthly Theophilus who was present at the Nicene Synod was Bishop of the Goths beyond the Danube or Ister for they came not over the River into the Roman Empire till after the said Synod Upon their Arrival or at their request Constantine allotted Maesia for 'em to inhabit that is to say that part of the Roman Empire which lay to the Banks of the Danube on this side the River and named Ulphilas to be Bishop and he was the first Bishop of the Cisistrian Scythians within the Roman Empire and Ordained by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea tho' Theophilus before him had been Bishop of the Transistrian So Socrates Moreover to this Faith even Ulphilas himself Bishop of the Goths then first consented For before that time he had imbraced the 〈◊〉 Faith following Theophilus Bishop of the Goths who being present had subscribed the Nicene Council So that after all this it can't be questioned but that the Gothick Christians were long before Ulphilas governed by Bishops although Blondel and Mr. O. have so roundly denyed it without yea against plain Evidence to the contrary Upon a farther Search into Blondel I find him acknowledging what I have before spoken of Theophilus Bishop of the 〈◊〉 but Mr. O. who pretends to improve Arguments has left this lamer and more imperfect then he found it Let us then see what answer Blundel has framed against Theophilus the Scythian Bishop It is as follows If we grant Theophilus was Bishop of the Gothick Metropolis before 〈◊〉 we will being hereby furnished with a stronger Weapon justifie our Cause For they who make to themselves a Bishop their Superior who dare deny them a Power of Ordaining Presbyters which are but their equals Ans. This Argument is grounded upon a Supposition which is not to be allowed of nor can be proved Blondel takes it here for granted the Scythian Presbyters Ordained their Bishops Theophilus for instance But one may surmize several other things with equal probabilty any of which will overthrow this wonderful Demonstration As 1. It may be supposed that a Bishop or Bishops were by the Scythians at their irruption into Galatia and Cappadocia carryed Captives into Scythia as was before observed or 2. That some Bishop might follow the Captive Christians into that Barbarous Country being first Ordained in the Empire Theophilus which is a Greek Name haply was so made and Ordained their Bishop or 3. the Scythian Church might send one of their own Presbyters to be Ordained by the Imperial Bishops as Ulphilas after was For that there was a Correspondence between the Scythian and Imperial Churches is past doubt when we consider that Theophilus Bishop of the Scythians assisted at the Council of Nice There is nothing in Philostorgius the only Author of this Tale that thwarts any one of thesethree suppositions or that Countenances Blondel's surmises of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their own Bishop That of Ulphilas being the first Bishop I have already accounted for 2. If the Scythian Presbyters Ordained a Bishop to preside over them supposing this it hence follows they thought it necessary to have one and rather then have none chosen in their necessity to constitute and Ordain him themselves contrary to the Ordinary and established Method of which they could not be ignorant But this is said upon a bare supposition of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their Bishops which is not proved nor at all probable as I have shewed before That which appears above board is that the Scythians had a Bishop which setting apart meer Conjectures on both sides is sufficient to my purpose CHAP. VIII Of the Chorepiscopi THE Occasion of their Institution as I conjecture was either 1. To promote and quicken Conversions in the Countries and Villages subject to the City Bishops or 2. After believers and Congregations were there multiplyed to be as Suffragans and Assistants for the better Government of the Churches And
the way of Consecration that is laying on of Hands as I apprehend Mr. O. Hence we must learn that before Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops were not consecrated by Imposition of Hands but barely elected c. that after 〈◊〉 and Dionysius the Custom was altered and then they were Consecrated by Neighbouring Bishops with Imposition of Hands Ans. Jerom teaches us no such thing He is here only falling upon a new Argument as I said before to advance the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons sc. that at Alexandria the Bishops were always chosen ex se out of the Presbyters says Eutychius not out of the Deacons though the Custom was afterwards changed about the time of Heraclas and Dionysius or not until Alexander as 〈◊〉 Nevertheless were Bishops from the beginning Consecrated by laying on of Hands for any thing Jerom intimates and which Eutychius has affirmed as may also be reasonably presumed and gathered from the practice of the Apostles recorded in the Epistles to Timothy yea and from Jerom himself in the following Period excepta Ordinatione Eutychius his Words are the Eleven Presbyters laid their Hands on the Bishop Elect and Blessed and Created him Patriarch This Rule was made by Mark himself Mr. O. after a long Quotation out of Eutychius thus Triumphs Here is a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer Ans. 1. And here is a full proof that Bishops were from the beginning and were Created also by Imposition of Hands which Mr. O. just before denyed upon the Authority of Jerom and was now to have proved if he had stuck close to his Argument But it must be confess'd Eutychius does assert the Alexandrian Presbyters chose and created their own Bishops by Imposition of Hands and Benediction Wherefore 2. not to insift any more on the incompetency of Eutychius his Authority a late obscure and false Historian I ask how Mr. O. will be able to reconcile Jerom with Eutychius the former affirming as Mr. O. understands him that the Presbyters chose and set up their Bishops unto Heraclas and Dionysius then it seems this Custom ceas'd the latter unto Alexander That is to say Eutychius will have this Custom to have continued 90 Years longer then Jerom assigned it Eutychius says the Presbyters all that while Ordained their Patriarchs by imposition of Hands Jerom no such matter but rather the Contrary They only as Mr. O. will have it chose placed and named him Bishop We must then dismiss them both as the Evangelist did the Witnesses against our Lord their Witness does not agree together I only add that the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council seems to overturn at least Eutychius his Testimony Let the Ancient Customs continue which I understand of all things established by this Synod and among the rest that of the Neighbouring Bishops in Egypt Ordaining the Patriarchs of Alexandria For if this Synod as Eutychius believed at the motion of Alexander the Patriarch had altered the Old Custom with what Face could they have laid down this Rule Let the Ancient Customs continue Or was it Wisdom to exasperate the Alexandrians with a New decree when they were already engaged in Schisms and Contentions about the Melitian Ordinations To shut up this Chapter whatever Jerom shall be made to say concerning the Alexandrian Presbyters chusing placing and nominating their Bishop he no where affirms they Ordained him by imposition of Hands and Prayer He acquaints us that the Apostles Ordained Bishops in their Time not the College of Presbyters If afterwards the Presbyters of Alexandria chose and created their Bishop by Imposition of Hands it was at best but an Ecclesiastical Indulgence for which there is no Rule or Precedent to be found in Scripture or in the Apostles Days But I am well satisfy'd that in truth there could be no such Liberty allowed them Neque 〈◊〉 aliquid cuiquam largiri potest Humana 〈◊〉 ubi intercedit Legem tribuit divina proescriptio This Principle of St. Cyprians who flourished about 250 shews also that in the Days of Heraclas and Dionysius that is Anno 222 the Bishops had not yet taken upon them to dispense with any Divine Precept and therefore could not have given or decreed unto Bishops the sole Inherent Power of Ordination or restrain'd the Presbyters if they had any Title to it from the Apostles CHAP. XIII Of the Carthaginian Councils IT were to be wish'd that when Men built an Argument upon the Testimony of an Author they would 〈◊〉 read and weigh him and be sure to understand him too before they pretend to bring him forth as a Witness unto the matter in Controversy And also that they would let him speak the Whole Truth But in the next instance Mr. O. seems to have overlook'd both these necessary Precautions and has at Adventures produc'd a Scrap of a Testimony in favour of himself as he thinks but which in the end will prove fatal to his Cause and will confirm the World in the Belief that he is either very rash and ignorant in his own Quotations or that he will stick at nothing so he may seem to support his own Opinion The Fathers says He in the second Council of Carthage Anno 428 did observe That until that time some Diocesses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Jure Divino I agree with Mr. O. in the Deduction he has made provided the Premises were true To make these good therefore he quotes that Canon aforesaid thus placet ut Dioceses quae 〈◊〉 Episcopos acceperunt non habeant Whoever first formed this Argument against Episcopacy has grosly abused his Reader and the the Council too Mr. O. perhaps borrowed it of Mr. Baxter or some such kind of Author whose Interest and Partiality will not suffer them to let the Reader see the whole Period least at the same time he should discern the Truth and themselves be found Guilty of Falsification which I doubt not to make out in a few Words To which end I will take the Liberty to lay the Canon before the Reader in its own Language For though the African Fathers used the Latin Tongue yet all the Latin Copies among us at this Day were derived from the Greek Version as Justellus tells us which is therefore the most Authentick and ought to be accounted of greatest Authority The said Canon therefore runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English thus It was determined that the People in the Diocesses not the Diocesses having formerly belong'd to Bishops but never having had a proper Bishop of their own should not have now for the Future their own proper Rectors that 's to say Bishops except by the Consent of that Bishop under whose Jurisdiction at present they are From whence it appears