at which the Congregation Ordinarily received the Lord's-Supper And again that Ignatius's Bishop was but the Chief Pastor of a Church which Ordinarily assembled together for Personal Communion that the Bishop's Diocess in Ignatius's time and long after exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parish Finally up and down in the Defence that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishops so neither could the Bishops without their Presbytery which is an Argument of their Parity and that as elsewhere he and generally all other Dissenters make Ignatius's Bishops they were but the Moderators in the Presbyteries and those not for Life neither but temporary only as many of them have affirmed Ans. The Presumptions Mr. O. means are those He speaks of in his Plea and Defence as I suppose grounded upon some slight Passages in the Epistles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like of which enough has already been said unless their sense could be more certainly determined For He and I may talk and dispute till Dooms-Days that thus or thus those Phrases may or ought to signifie and at last leave the Matter as we found it undecided and every Man to choose what sense he pleases as his Interest sways him or as his Affections and adherence to a Cause shall Byass him Letting then these things pass the Answer which I make shall be to lay before the Reader some Reasons as will I hope evince the Truth and prevail with him to embrace the sense of this Father which we have already given and to believe that Ignatius his Bishops were truly Prelatical and Diocesan And 1. Were it as Mr. O. affirms yet the Dissenters are Universally departed even from this Form of Church Government What one Congregation among 'em has its Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and the Bishop the Supreme Manager without whom nothing ought to be done But 2. Whereas he tells us that Ignatius his Bishop was but the chief Pastor of a Church that is the Moderator of the Presbytery this cannot be if we will allow Ignatius to have been a Man of common Sense and Understanding For what more absurd and impertinent could have been written than all along in these seven Epistles to distinguish so carefully between the Bishop and his Presbyters and yet all the while the Bishop was but one of the Presbyters set up only to Moderate in their Presbyteries and debates for Orders sake Or how could Ignatius direct as Mr. O. pleads that the Presbyters should do nothing without the Bishop nor the Bishop without the Presbyters except he thought the Bishop a distinct Species of Officer from the Presbyters and the Presbyters from the Bishop The Bishop then and the Presbyter must needs be two different Orders in Ignatius's Opinion It is objected that since the Obligation was reciprocal i. e. the Bishop could do nothing without the Presbyters as the Presbyters could not Act without the Bishop the Bishop therefore had no preheminence above the Presbyters I answer 1. That however the Bishop must be allowed to have been more than an Ordinary Presbyter yea at least equal to the whole Presbytery and to have himself made a distinct Order from it the very Reciprocal Obligation here objected of necessity implies as much 2. Not only so but as the King is the Supreme Monarch of this Nation and more than the Lords or Commons though He can enact no Law without the Parliament as the Parliament cannot without him as the King I say makes a distinct State of the Realm this I think Mr. O. will grant so was Ignatius his Bishop an Officer different from the Presbyters if the Father spake Sense in his Epistle and Superior to them If it be enquired wherein could his Supremacy consist I reply that after any Laws and Constitutions were resolved on between the Bishop and the Presbytery or whatever was known to have been ordained by the Apostles he had the care and oversight to see 'em executed and in matters of greatest moment he generally was the executor of 'em himself in Person as the King is in the Secular Affairs of this Nation For as the King does nothing that is makes no New Laws without the Parliament yet he sees to the Execution of 'em after they are once made and of all other the ancient Laws of the Realm and that without the Parliament so the Bishop though he did nothing that is made no New Constitutions without the Presbytery yet 't was he who had the care of their Execution and of the more Ancient and Apostolical Decrees and Traditions It must necessarily have been so if Ignatius his Epistles carry any Sense in them But perhaps a positive proof of all this will be demanded from me out of the Epistles To this purpose then observe 1. What Ignatius writes to the Ephesians Whom the Master Jesus Christ sends unto the Administration of his own Houshold the Church we ought so to receive him as we would receive the Master that sent him 'T is then manifest we ought to look upon the Bishop as we ought to look upon the Lord Jesus Christ Here it appears that Ignatius accounted the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Administrator of the Church or Houshold 2. That though Ignatius exhorts the Churches to be subject to and obey the Bishop and the Presbyters also And so He does to the Deacons too in the Epistles to the Trallians Philadelphians and Smyrneans yet he never thus prescribes Obedience to the Presbyters or the Presbyteries only or without mentioning the Bishop with and before ' em But he frequently admonishes the Church to obey the Bishop without express mention of the Presbyters 3. That though He advises the Church to be subject unto the Bishop and Presbytery and to the Deacons also yet he never advises them expresly to do nothing without the Presbyters or Presbytery Besides Mr. O's saying that the Bishop could do nothing without the Presbyters is without ground in these Epistles it being never said Do nothing without the Bishop and the Presbytery much less simply Do nothing without the Presbyters 4. 'T is not to be forgotten what Ignatius takes special notice of in his Epistle to the Magnesians You must not abuse or despise the Youth of our Bishop Demas but pay him all Reverence as I know the Holy Presbyters do who look on the Ordinance the Bishop as I take it or the Episcopacy not as a new Device but as Wise Men they submit unto him in the Lord or as the Institution of Jesus Christ. So then the Presbyters were subject and obedient to the Bishop But where will it be found that the Bishop is admonished or advised to obey the Presbyters 5. When Ignatius was in Bonds ravished from his People or Church H thus writes to the Romans Which the Church in Syria in my stead now 〈◊〉 the Lord only for its Shepherd But though the Church of Syria had lost its Bishop and was then at
Faith that City being so furiously zealous in their Superstition and Idolatry So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19. 19 20. Paul testifies sixthly that at Ephesus a great Door and Effectual was opened unto Him viz. a most advantagious opportunity of bringing in a mighty Harvest of Souls to Christ. 1 Cor. 16. 8 9. Put all these together how is it possible to imagine upon any solid 〈◊〉 that there were no more than one single Congregation in the Church of Ephesus These are the Assemblies and London Ministers Arguments which Mr. O. may do well at his leisure to confute if He can If He can't and as I am apt to suspect will not endeavour then my point is gained For if even in Paul's days there were many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus then much more in the times of Ignatius the Christian Religion doubtless getting ground continually in those parts upon the Gentile Superstition as is manifest afterwards from the Churches hereabouts planted and mentioned in the Revelations to which may be added Magnesia and Trallis out of Ignatius's Epistles none of which are to be found in the story of St. Paul except Laodicea that I can remember Now I will not contend that every of the Churches spoken of in Ignatius was 〈◊〉 Diocesan not knowing how early they were planted But thus much I repeat again they were intended to be cast into the same Model as Ephefus was as many be gathered from the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons fixt in them which was as I may say the Foundation of larger Churches to consist of many Congregations after more believers should by the Grace of God be added unto the Churches By this time I am in some Hopes 't is undeniably proved 1. That the Bishops of those Churches to whom Ignatius wrote were Prelatical that is were of a Distinct species of Church-Officers and Superior to the Presbyters who were subject to them 2. That they were likewise Diocesan that is Rulers over several Congregations and over the Presbyters and Deacons who Ordinarily Ministred in them from whence it must be concluded that the several Passages of whose Sense Mr. O. and I have disputed must be so expounded as to be made agreeable to Prelatical and Diocesan Episcopacy Whether I have done it is left to the Judgment of the Reader if He please to consult the T. N. To speak only of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar very briefly because He alledges the Testimony of no less a Man than the Famous Mr. Mede for one Numerical Altar and not a Specifical one as I expounded it Those Words in Ignatius's Epistle ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thought to favour one Numerical Altar which Mr. O. contends for of which thus Mr. Mede delivers Himself Here is a Temple with an Altar in it For in these Primitive Times they had but one Altar in a Church Ans. No more have we at this day Though we have many Churches in a Diocess yet every Church has an Altar and but one and so it might be at Magnesia for any thing that is yet said to the contrary But Mr. Mede goes on It should seem they had but one Altar to a Church taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful United under one Bishop in the City or place where the Bishop had his See or Residence as the Jews had one Temple and one Altar for the Whole Nation United under one High-Priest The Author endeavours to confirm this as Mr. O. truly says out of Justin Martyr and St. Cyprian Ans. But still Mr. O. misrepresents Mr. Mede as if He were positive herein which is not so For 1. Mr. Mede lays down his position very cautiously it should seem intimating it was not very clear from those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Words many imply only that every Temple had but one Altar as it is with us and yet there might be more Temples than one in the Bishop's Churches and therefore more Altars 2. Mr. Mede at the same time thinketh the Bishop's Churches to have been Diocesan For though they had not several Altars yet they had several Oratories or lesser Temples says He as the Jews had their Synagogues So that the one Numerical Altar in the Bishop's Church does not prove his Church to consist of one Congregation only in this Learned Gentleman's Opinion no more than the one Altar in the Temple of the Jews proves there were no Synagogues 3. Mr. Mede to back his Conjecture grounded on Ignatius produces two Testimonies the one out of Justin the other out of Cyprian and because he is not positive or certain of the Conclusion he draws from them it will be no breach of Modesty if I examine whether Mr. Mede has well grounded his Conjecture on those two Fathers Justin Martyr in his second Apology thus writes All that live in Cities or Countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plural meet togeher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place so Mr. Mede to Celebrate the Holy Eucharist This Passage does not evince that the Bishop's Church taken for the whole Company of Believers united under him had but one Altar for which I offer the following Reasons First Because Justin here intends not to give the Gentiles an Account of the Politie and Government of the Christian Churches nor how many sort of Church-Officers there were among them nor how many Congregations under one Bishop but of the manner of their Divine Worship and that not in one single Congregation but in all His meaning is that in all Towns and Countries throughout the World the Christians belonging to any one Congregation or certain district met together c. For all this there might be several Congregations under One Bishop If I for example should write to a Foreigner concerning the manner of our Worship here in England not intermedling with the Nature of our Government might I not ought I not to say All that live in Towns or Countries or where-ever there is a Congregation meet together in one place though at the same time there be many Churches and many Congregations united under one Bishop of the Diocess which thus meet together for Divine Worship Secondly Whereas Justin mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President who Celebrates the Divine Worship in these single Congregations there is no necessity of Understanding Him speaking of the Bishop only He may using one common Title for both speak of the Presbyters who preside over the Divine Worship in their particular Congregations So Mr. Mede expounds Antistes afterward not the Bishop only but the Bishop or Presbyter that is He who Ministers in the Congregation at that time Thirdly Supposing He means the Bishop He does but instance in and exemplify the Christian Worship by the most Honourable Assembly sc. that wherein the Bishop himself Ordinarily Presided in Person not excluding others wherein the Presbyters Ministred Fourthly Justin because he
writes in the Plural Towns and Countries and of Christian Worship in General or indefinitely must here intend all Christian Assembles in the World And therefore it may as well hence be concluded that there was but one Numerical Congregation or Altar in the World as that there was but one in the Bishop's Church Upon the whole matter the Point is no manner of way proved from Justin Martyr As for St. Cyprian who condemns the setting up Altar against Altar it can't thence be gathered that a Diocesan Bishop had but one Numerical Altar What this Father blames is setting up an Altar against the Bishop's Altar in opposition to it not in Subordination to and Communion with it It is true here what our Lord spake on another occasion He that is not against the Bishop is for him and He that is not with the Bishop is against Him In St. Cyprian's Time there were several not Oratories only but 〈◊〉 stately and magnificent Churches in the same Cities and within the limits of one Bishop's Jurisdiction So Optatus Milevitaâ—us relates post Persecuit onem apud Cirtam quia Basilica necdum sueram restituta in DOmum Urbani Carisi consederunt c. Many TRaditors afterward turning Donatist Bishops met the House of Urbanus 〈◊〉 after the Persecution 〈◊〉 Cirta because the Temples were not yet restored c. Now Cirta was an Episcopal See in Cyprians'ss Time and Crescens was Bishop of it and the Persecution here spoken of was that of Dioclesian wherein these Temples were taken away from the Christians They must then have been built before that Emperor's time It follows hence that at Cirta the Christians had several Churches before Dioclesian Reigned that is not long after Cyprian even in the Third Age therefore there were in the Cyprianic Age several Congregatâ—â—â—â—â—in in the same City and Episcopal Church and consequently several 〈◊〉 For no man can think that among these Basilicae these Magnificent Churches that one only had an Altar And so from the whole it may be gathered that the erecting Altar against Altar condemned by Cyprian was not the erecting more Numerical Altars than one in an Episcopal Church but erecting them or any one of them in Opposition to the Bishop This Father then does not favour Mr. Mede's Conjecture at all The Premises duly considered I think Igantius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar was rightly interpreted by me since it is made so manifest that his Bishop was both Prelatical and Diocesan I need not then trouble my self any further about the meaning of the other slight Passages objected 〈◊〉 me out of that Father since they must all some way or other be reconciled with this Hypothesis and I hope I was not very wide of the Truth in the Tentamen Novum CHAP. III. Of St. Mark the Evangelist Founder of the Church of Alexandria I Having produced the testimony of Eusebius Hist. lib. 2. ch 16 17. in proof of a multitude of Christians at Alexandria about the time that Philo the Jew wrote his Treatise de vita Contemplativa which was in the Days of Claudius the Emperor or beginning of Nero's Reign near fifty Years after Christ Mr. O. excepts against the Testimony as follows That this Passage of Eusebius overthrows the notion of the Learned Assertors of Episcopacy that a Diocess is the lowest species of a Church that Eusebius speaks of Churches in the plural that therefore there must be Bishops of Alexandria and not one Bishop only that Mark was an Evangelist that is an extraordinary Officer in that Church that Annianus Mark' s Successor was not a Bishop of a Superiour Order but an Honourable President in their Assemblies and a Moderator in their Synods without Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues Ans. I am not concerned in the private Opinions of Modern Authors who assert a Diocess to be the lowest species of a Church nor will I trouble my self to shew how they limit their Notion and explain themselves in that point nor whether Mr. O. fairly deduces his consequence from that Passage of Eusebius 〈◊〉 therefore there must be Bishops not one Bishop only of Alexandria Let the Assertors of this Notion see to it Mr. O's Reasoning such as it is affects not me nor my Hypothesis it being my firm perswasion that a single Congregation as well as Diocess is even in Scripture called a Church Only let it be observed Mr. O. grants that there were according to Eusebius several Churches or Congregations in Alexandria but how He will Evince there were several Bishops there I am yet to seek 'T is moreover supposed that Mark was an Evangelist or an Extraordinary Officer And what then still Annianus an Ordinary one might succeed him in the Ordinary Office of Governing a Diocesan Church See Part the first Chapter the fifth And tho' Mark was an Evangelist an Extraordinary Officer which Mr. O. must confess and had Power over all the Presbyters there yet says Mr. O. Annianus was not a Bishop of a Superior Order with Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues but an Honourable President or Moderator in the Synods But this is only Mr. O.'s singular conceit we are in the present Controversy to be guided by what Eusebius tells us that Annianus succeeded Mark in the Administration of the Church of Alexandria Can any one understand less thereby than that Annianus received the same and all the Power of Jurisdiction that Mark had In short I cannot discern Mr. O. has advanc'd any thing against me or laid his own sentiments so close together as to be consistent with themselves from the Acts. Fourthly The Therapeutae composed Hymns of divers kinds in Metre which the Christians did not till afterwards in the Days of the Antanini Fifthly The Therapeutae spread themselves throughout the World and were many in Aegypt but the Cristians few Whereunto it may be replyed First the Christians expounded the Law Allegorically as is manifest from the Epistle to the Hebrews and some Passages in St. Paul's other Epistles and besides though the Jews did endeavour to improve the Law by some Allegorical deductions from it yet they held Primarily unto the Literal sense and accordingly observed the Law whereas the Christians rejected it in the Literal Sense and adhered only to the Allegorical This then proves the Therapeutae to be Christians rather than Jews Secondly it must be confess'd that the Christian Religion was then New and the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of a later date they could not in any reason be called Ancient Nevertheless Philo here meant the Writings of the Old Testament which were out of controversy Ancient and which the Christians even the Apostles and Evangelists made frequent use of They may properly enough be called the Christians Ancient Authors Besides tho' Philo this must be owned believed the Therapeutae to be a Sect of the Jews and because they were conversant in the Writings of the Old Testament thence Collected that they
because it was a Fundamental Law in the Church that there ought not to be two Bishops in one Diocess with plentitude of Power it being impossible to serve two Masters therefore these 〈◊〉 were intirely under the Jurisdiction of the City Bishops who were indeed the 〈◊〉 There is not any Monument of Antiquity that I am aware of from whence we may better understand the Nature of these Chorepiscopi than the Canon of the Council of Antioch which I will therefore transcribe at length into English They who reside in Villages and in the Country or are called Chorepiscopi although Ordained by Bishops it pleaseth the Holy Synod that they know their own Measures and govern the Churches subjected to them and rest content with that care and Administration that they constitute Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and be satisfy'd with this Power not daring to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon without the express consent of the Bishop of the City unto which both he the Chorepiscopus and the Country belong But let the Country Bishop be under the Bishop of the City to which he is Subject Now the main Question is whether these Chorepiscopi were real Bishops Superior to and distinguished from Presbyters and in whom was lodged the Episcopal Character and Power The Affirmative is proved by the following Arguments 1. I consider that the Title of Bishop and the Power of Ordaining Presbyters was then acknowledged to be in 'em which I can never be induced to believe would have been granted them at that time of Day if they were meer Presbyters They were under the same Bishop as the City Presbyters were How came they to have that Honourable Title bestowed on them which the City Presbyters had not Were the Country Presbyters such the Chorepiscopi were according to Mr. O. far more Honourable and better deserving the Title of Bishop then the City Presbyters were I can imagine no other reason of this but because they had received the true stamp and Character of Bishops had an inherent habitual Power to do whatever any Diocesan could and more than any meer Presbyter was able to do Only as yet they were not Diocesan Bishops having no Independent Diocesses of their own to Govern and by consequence were under some limitations which Diocesans were not 2. I remember that by the same Conncil of Antioch they were allowed to give Pacifick Letters to the Clergy to go into other Diocesses which in those Days the Bishops only could do and which was one of the Episcopal Prerogatives 3. Again the 10th Canon of Antioch decrees that the Chorepiscopi although they had received imposition of Hands by Bishops may not dare to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon the obvious meaning whereof is that although the Chorepiscopi were Ordained Bishops 〈◊〉 they might not Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without leave from the Diocesan If a Chorepiscopus received the real Character or Power of a Bishop he might be apt to think and conclude with himself that he might Ordain Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Diocesan being of the same Order with him No says the Canon And the Reason of this Prohibition is manifest because at present he acted only as a Comminister and Assistant in anothers Diocess where he might not exert his Episcopal Power without Licence from the Diocesan nor could do it without Breach of the Peace and Order of the Church We have something of this kind even among our selves at this day A Diocesan Bishop out of his own Diocess and whilst he abides in another Mans can't Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without 〈◊〉 from the proper Bishop and something of this Nature I find in the 18th Canon of Ancyra where a Presbyter being supposed to be Ordained Bishop for another Diocess but rejected is permitted to return to his former Post but still to as be a Presbyter though retaining his Episcopal Honour and Character One may then be a real Bishop and have the habitual Power and Intrinsick Character of a Bishop and yet can't put forth the Act and Ordain in anothers Diocess There is no reason he should it would breed Confusion 4. Chorepiscopi were real Bishops because they had an equal Right and Authority to assist vote decree and confirm Canons at Councils as Diocesan Bishops had Divers of them subscribed the Council of Nice It must be confess'd that meer Presbyters did so likewise but it was in the Name and stead of their Principals as their very subscriptions shew Thus Vito or Victor and Vincentius Presbyters and Pope Sylvester's Legates subscribed the Nicene Synod yet added to their common Names Romanus or Roma missus So in the Council of Carthage Anno 419. two Roman Presbyters and Legates of the Pope did Philippus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae Asellus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae But the Chorepiscopi subscribed in their own Names without mentioning any Delegation at all and therefore acted by their own proper inherent Authority and by consequence were real Bishops Having I presume proved that the Chorepiscopi had the True Episcopal Character impress'd on them I come to consider what advantage Mr. O. would make of ' em In the first place from the 10th Canon of Ant. A. D. 344 or 341 he lays it down that the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by that Canon I agree with Mr. O. so far that 't is very likely the Chorepiscopi presumed to Ordain Presbyters in another Bishop's Diocess until they were prohibted by this Canon It was necessary they should be restrained for the peace and good Order of the Church from having an uncontroulable Liberty of Ordaining in another Bishops Diocess and without his consent The rule is highly reasonable and observed to this Day However this be the Canon will do Mr. O. no service if the Chorepiscopi were real Bishops and more than Presbyters of which I have already produced sufficient proof Again Mr. O. gathers that if these Chorepiscopi were Bishops then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country villages This I grant also unto Mr. O. but it nothing concerns the Matter in Hand We must Distinguish between Diocesan Bishops whose seat and Principal Church was oft-times in Villages and the Chorepiscopi who were not Diocesans but the Comministri and Vicarii of the City Bishops Now how far the Delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus extended no one alive can tell at this Day 'T is nothing likely that it was confined to one Village only as Mr. O. contends though haply his Ordinary Residence and particular care might be in some Country-Town where he discharged the Ordinary Duty of a Presbyter and on that score may be accounted as a Country Presbyter under the City Bishop such at this day is even a Diocesan Bishop who is by Commendam possest of a Rectory in anothers Diocess He can Act there but as a Presbyter except he has leave from the proper Bishop For
limited district and even Ordain Presbyters and Deacons when expresly delegated thereto by the Diocesan that they refided in some Country Villages where their Ordinary and constant Work was no other than of Presbyters and so were look'd on as the Diocesans Presbyters which can by no means prejudice their Episcopal Character One may be a Bishop yet without a Diocess as one may be a Presbyter without a Title or Parish The Council of Laodicea thought fit to put an end unto this Order so did the Romans and Spanish Churches as also the English Haply the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Archdeacons might have the Title of Chorepiscopi for some while continued to them being substituted in their room but this is no proof that they were Presbyters at their first Institution when the real Episcopal Character was 〈◊〉 on them though no Diocess was yet actually allotted them This is what I thought needful and enough to be offered in Answer to the Difficulties started about the Chorepiscopi As for that Epistle to 〈◊〉 it shall suffice to note that 't is one of those which are accounted Spurious as may be Collected from Bellarmin himself whose Judgment is ejus scripta non extant exceptis paucis Epistolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suns inter Epistolds S. Hieronymi aliique in Hiftorid 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 22. l. 5. c. 10. 11. The rest therefore and this in particular are Apocryphal It was possibly counterfeited by some that lived after the Council of Hispalis there being a very great Agreement between this Epistle and that 7th Canon of the Council as who ever will read them must confess We shall not need therefore to be concerned at any thing brought against us out of this connterfeit Epistle CHAP. IX Of the Council of Nice MRO. as if all Antiquity were on his side omits not to argue even from the Council of Nice its self in favour of the Power of Presbyters Ordaining which is a discovery so new and surprizing that one would 〈◊〉 the Whole Chriftian Church had been blind above these 1300. Years last paft till he with the help of Mr. Baxter has been pleas'd to open all our Eyes at last and to assure us that the Council of Nice decree'd concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius at 〈◊〉 as follows Hi autem Qui Dei Gratia nostris lege vestris precibus adjuti ad 〈◊〉 Scbisma deflexisse compersi sunt sed se intra Catholica Apostolicae 〈◊〉 fines ab erroris Labe vacuos continuerint Authoritatem 〈◊〉 tum Ministros 〈◊〉 c Mr. O. has taken this Passage out of Mr. Baxter and he out of some Translator that did not or would not understand the Historian aright The Words are part of a Letter wrote by the Nicene Fathers to the Church of Alexandria wherein they gave an Account to that Church of what had been propounded and examined in the Synod and what had been decreed and confirmed therein as first That the Impiety of Arrius and his Accomplices had been brought into Question and condemned c. that as for Melitius it pleased the Synod to deal more gently with him than with Arrius viz. that he should remain in his own City but that he should have no Power to Ordain or to propose the names of the Candidates to the holy Function only he might retain the bare Title of his Honour that is of Bishop that those who had been constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him being first confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more solemn and Religious Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop of Alexandria might be allowed to joyn in matters properly belonging to them but that until they had obtained their Honour and Ministry again they should be second unto all those who in every Diocess and Church have been before proposed under the Authority of our most beloved Collegue Alexander And moreover should have no Power to propound the Names of those who are subject to Alexander nor in short to do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop of the Catholick Church of Alexandria This is all the Nicene Synod wrote concerning the Melitians or those who had been constituted and Ordained by Melitius Here 's not a Syllable of Presbyters or of Ordaining Ministers the passage may as well and is to be 〈◊〉 of Bishops and of Ordaining Bishops But for the more thorough understanding it we must remember that Melitius whilst Peter was Patriarch of Alexandria had been Bishop of Lycus a City in Egypt subject to the said Patriarch that during the Persecution under Maximinus Peter absconding Melitius had taken upon him to constitute or Ordain Bishops which belonged unto the Patriarch to do 'T is not indeed doubted but that he Ordained Presbyters and Deacons also nevertheless his first and Principal Crime as I believe was his Constituting or Ordaining Bishops which was a manifest invasion of the Patriarch's Right And that 〈◊〉 constituted and Ordained Bishops is proved by Valesius out of Epiphanius Nay the said Learned Annotator Evinces that Melitius constituted or Ordained Twenty Eight Bishops besides Five Presbyters and Three Deacons as he gathers from the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians from whence he makes no scruple to affirm that Socrates in this place speaks chiefly of Bishops constituted or Ordained by 〈◊〉 yet so as that Presbyters and Deacons also were 〈◊〉 by him 〈◊〉 says he if the Nicene Fathers hid herein decreed nothing against the Melitian 〈◊〉 they had left their work very lame and imperfect Besides 〈◊〉 became Schismatical not by Ordaining Presbyters but by Ordaining Bishops Hence Sozomen observes that Melitius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had usurp'd the Power of Ordaining which did not all belong unto him The Power of Ordaining whom Why not Bishops For till by this means he was fallen into 〈◊〉 he had certainly as Bishop Power to 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons but not of Ordaining or 〈◊〉 Bishops without the 〈◊〉 leave And this was I suppose if not his only fault yet his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore when the Nicene Fathers decreed that the 〈◊〉 who had been constituted and Ordained by 〈◊〉 might not intermeddle in the constituting or Ordaining others until themselves had been confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more Solemn imposition of Hands they must thereby mean that the Melitian Bishops being Ordained Schismatically were suspended from Ordaining until they had been confirmed by the Patriarch and some of the Egyptian Bishops subject to him And this is all that the Synod declar'd concerning the Melitians But neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Baxter for any thing I can see in the Plea have taken any Notice of this Passage 〈◊〉 whereof we are amus'd with something less Pertinent to the matter in Hand as I am now about to shew For the Nicene Fathers go on in that Epistle to speak of the Alexandrians that is such as had not withdrawn themselves from Alexander the
Mr. O. If the Apostle joined the Presbytery with him in the Ordination of Timothy it proves that Presbyters have an Inherent Power of Ordaining Ans. True it may safely be granted in Conjunction with the Apostle and with Bishops but not without them The House of Commons has an inherent Power to make a Vote of Parliament but not without the Lords and both Houses have an inherent Power to make a Law but not without the King 'T is he that inspires Life and Breath into it after the two Houses have formed the Carcass Lastly Mr. O. adds The Apostles are Distinguished from the Presbytery Act. 15. 23. Ans. This is not appositely observed for it was a Council not a Presbytery though the Presbyters of Jerusalem were in it haply other Presbyters also besides an Apostle or Apostles though he be the Head or Governour of a Presbytery may be aptly distinguished from that Presbytery whereof he is Head and yet at the same time he is a Member of that Presbytery Jesus Christ is by St. Paul called the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 22. 23. c 4 15 16. Col. 1. 18. and so is distinguished from the Body though we cannot properly call any thing a Body except we comprehend the Head also for a body is not a Body without the Head and the Head is a Member of the Body And yet St. Paul distinguishes between the Body that is the Church and Christ the Head of it when at the same time Christ the Head must be believed a Member of his own Body I expect then Mr. O. will in good time rally npon St. Paul and expose his Expression as he has mine Moreover though the Apostles are distinguished from the Elders yet it follows not that they are distinguished from the Council or Presbytery when the Members of a Body are distinguished from one another they are not to be understood as distinguished from the Body but from one another only St. Paul speaking of the Natural body 1 Cor. 12. tells us that though the Members of that Body are many yet'tis but one Body and he distinguishes also the Members from one another as the Hands from the Feet and both from the Eyes and all these from the Ears and the Hand from the rest of the Body but yet he affirms they are all of the Body and together make up the Body So St. Luke reckons the two Principal and Constituent Parts of the Council at Jerusalem and distinguishes between the Apostles and the Elders between the Head and the lower Members but not between the Head and the Body between the Apostles and Council for no one can think but the Apostles were a part of the Council or if you please call it a Presbytery I beg the Readers patience when I say a Body is not a Body without an Head Our late Presbyteries were such Bodies without visible Heads The Classical Body moved to the place of meeting I say moved without an Head A frightful Spectacle When it had sat a few moments without an Head it then made it self an Head a President or Moderator protempore who was before but an inferior Member but now mounted up for an hour or two to be the Head But it may be ask'd who was the Head when this 〈◊〉 was set up Herein the Body acted without an Head However the Business of the day being over the Artificial Head drops off from the Shoulders and thence 〈◊〉 is an Hand or a Foot as before So every Member of the Body in its turn becomes the Head and the Head dwindling again into a small Member The Body then continues for some Days or Weeks without an Head And would it not scare one to see a Body once more without an Head Hereby Mr. O. may see 't is possible to ridicule the Presbyteries if one will take the Liberty to confine Words to their Natural Signification when they are used Metaphorically As to my Exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am not sensible Mr. O. has advanced any thing considerable against me Only after his usual and Sophistical manner he draws in what is admitted in one place and opposes it to what is supposed in another which can with no Justice be done When ex gr I explain this Passage 1 Tim. 4. 14. supposing that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the concrete It is a miserable shift to make use of what I here assert against what afterward I propose when I have admitted the phrase to be understood in the Abstract and then assert Paul to be at least one and the Head or Governour of the Presbytery I had laid down several ways of Expounding the Text and had permited Mr. O. to chuse which he pleased that the Argument might be brought to a certain head But instead hereof he jumbles 'em all 〈◊〉 contrary to allLaws of Disputation And whereas I laid this clearly before the Reader p. 33. by summing up briefly what had been said he 〈◊〉 us off with calling it a Recapitulation of my long perplexed 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Text. Mr. O. has indeed perplex'd it but it has been judged pretty clear by others I wish Mr. O. would have furnished us with a better Carpere vel noli 〈◊〉 vel ede 〈◊〉 But the Minister is better at pulling down than building up and indeed it is in a great measure the true Character of the whole Party In the Conclusion of my Discourse upon the General History of the Apostolical Churches and their Government I examined that passage of St. Peter 1 Eph. 5. but do not find my Adversary to have said any thing to that purpose or which in the least affects the account I gave of it Some Cavils are to be met with but such as if any one suspects of Moment let him but compare 'em with what I said in the 〈◊〉 Nov. p. 37. to p. 42. and he will easily discern the shifts Mr. O. 〈◊〉 put to in framing but a Colourable Reply Among many other things I will only in short produce one and the rather because Mr. O. has repeated it I 〈◊〉 above 20 times and yet 't is nothing but what I granted more than once ' 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 and Titus says he are no where expresly called Bishops in the Scripture nor Constituted Diocesan Bishops Now I had oft enough 〈◊〉 in T. N. and cautioned against all mistake and 〈◊〉 cavil that 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 are never called Bishops only contended they were the Supreme Rulers of the Churches of 〈◊〉 and Crete that is in the Language afterwards prevailing in the Church they were Bishops And yet for all this we are at every turn told they are never in Scripture expresly called Bishops nor constituted Diocesan Bishops as if I or any other ever asserted it Nevertheless that which I affirm and which is sufficient to my purpose is that they had express Commission from St. Paul to
old Hypothesis as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus constituted Timothy the Ruler Bishop of Ephesus yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that his Farewel-Sermon Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and that other to the Ephesians and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy takes no Notice of the Elders neither does John Peter or Jude in their Epistles nor lastly does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon but shall we thence conclude that those Churches had none of those Officers in them Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler Bishop of Ephesus might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government and one would think could not have forgot'em when he was discoursing on such an Argument Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself whose other Epistles so often and so fully remember Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in that to the Romans had not oneSyllable of any of 'em and yet he knew very well that Bishops as well as Presbyters were then established throughout the World as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians 'T is then no Proof that Timothy was not even at that time the established Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered and why let any one judge I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy Now whether as Mr. O. pleads Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution but Divine by the Power of the Holy Ghost v. 28. enough has been said of this already Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there or his Prelatical Power over them For it is not inconsistent to say that Timothy was appointed their Ruler Bishop and at the same time that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy We Presbyters of the Church of England do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock and that by Divine Authority too and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us by the same Divine Authority Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests viz. That we are Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord to teach premonish feed and provide for the Lord's Family and to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed abroad And at our Ordination the first Question is Do ye think in your Hearts that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God It follows not then from these words that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole intire and supreme Government of that Church They might even then be and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence as we are to our Diocesan Bishops If our Provincial Archbishop should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate exhort as ordinary Presbyters To take heed to our selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers to feed the Church of God not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering Before I conlude this Chapter there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis has suggested to me proving I am bold to say demonstrating that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome I will lay 'em as briefly and as plainly as I can before the Reader and so make an end 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment as Mr. O. affirms it must then have been written either before or at the same time or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy had sent Tychicus to Ephesus Chap. 4. 12 How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians if he was already gone to Ephesus before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians The second Epistle to Timothy therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians 2. Not at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written For Timothy who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 was sent for by Paul to Rome Chap. 4. 9. was even then with Paul at Rome and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon Chap. 1. 1. Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time as that to the Colossians was 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written For then Timothy who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul which 't is certain he did not Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome and once more gone back into Asia with him In like manner 〈◊〉 who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians from Paul and Timothy must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome and thence been sent back unto Ephesus 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment which is not in the least Probable 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase as no rational Man can admit Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy was not written after that to the Colossians If then it was written neither before nor at the same time nor after those to the Colossians and Philemon it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment therefore it must needs have been written in his Second 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to the Colossians and that other to Philemon I shall
Adversary 1. That they were an Order of Church Officers distinct from Apostles Prophets Pastors or Teachers 2. That in degree they were next under Prophets and above Pastors or Teachers I added my own Opinion 3. That they were not only Companions of the Apostles ready to serve in the Work of the Gospel where-ever whensoever they should be sent upon any special and Emergent business but sometimes likewise fix'd in some certain places as Resident Governours of those Churches in the Room of the absent or dying Apostles of which number I reckon'd Philip Timothy and Titus to have been Mr. O. Because Titus was to Ordain Elders in every City and every City must have a Bishop as Mr. O. phansies Titus therefore must have been the Archbishop of Crete and because the Power of Ordination was lodg'd in him alone as the Rector contends it will follow says he that Archbishops only have power to Ordain and the Diocesan Bishops are excluded Ans. There is no necessity that every City must needs have a Bishop At least in the Infancy of the Church and whilst Titus alone presided over it It was not so in Crete nor was there any occasion for it Admitting that in the next Age Christians and Churches multiplying and all the Apostles dead then haply there might be Bishops in many 〈◊〉 and some Person constituted the Archbishop of that Island I say admitting this it will not hence follow that the Power of Ordination was in him solely and not in the other Bishops also An Archbishop is not of a different species from a Bishop but was appointed and agreed unto by the Bishops among themselves for Peace and Orders sake although there might be plausible Reasons given out of Scripture it self for the Institution of Archbishops But that 's 〈◊〉 of my concernment This is certain among our selves when a Bishop is made an Archbishop he receives no new Ordination consequently no new Divine Power more than he had before that therefore as to the Office of Ordaining and Governing their Dioceses a Bishop and an Archbishop are the same thing and that the Archbishop cannot supersede the Episcopal Power of his Provincial Bishops Mr. O. will not allow that Philip was the fixt and settled Evangelist at Caesarea Ans. Nor am I positive it was so I gave my Reasons for it out of Scripture such as do I confess perswade me to believe it But the Minister is of another Mind I cannot help that nor do I wonder at it Where almost is there a Man to be found who is willing to renounce his former Sentiments or Errours Mr. O. requires it to be proved that Philip was settled and resided at Caesarea and that he was no where else c. Ans. 'T is hard Mr. O. should require me to prove a Negative all I can say is I read not of his being any where-else After an account given of his Labours in Preaching the Gospel whilst he was yet but a Deacon for any thing that appears I find him as it were sitting down at Caesarea Acts 8. 40. He preached in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea which words seem to Intimate that there he rested The next news we hear of him is that near upon Twenty Years after we find him still at Caesarea and then stiled an Evangelist a Title plainly there distinguished from Deacon who was or had been one of the seven Deacons but was now it seems an Evangelist and further 't is said of him that at 〈◊〉 he had an House and Family there and in Condition to entertain Paul and his Companions many days Acts 21. 8 9 10. I think that here is a tolerable proof that he dwelt and was the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea Mr. O. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Caesarea might be his Birth place or he might Marry there because he had four Daughters there Prophetesses Ans. These are bare Possibilities at most which cannot countervail those Circumstances and matters of 〈◊〉 whereon I build my Conjecture Herein I appeal to the Reader Besides tho' 't is possible an unsettled Officer may have a settled Family Yet a settled Officer must have a settled Family one would think if he has 〈◊〉 at all Caesarea might be his Birth place This is possible and it might not be which is most Probable 'T is great odds on my side I have all the Cities in Judea to say nothing of all the other in the Empire and elsewhere where Jews liv'd to set against Caesarea His name would make one think he was an Hellenist and born somewhere among the Greeks His being chosen a Deacon in favour of the Grecians argues something this way as also that at that time his Habitation was at Jerusalem for why else should he be chosen a Deacon there He removed thence meerly upon occasion of the Persecution After all imagine he was born at Caesarea this is no reason against his being an Evangelist there Once more He might Marry there True that 's possible but 't is as possible that he Marry'd at Jerusalem or any other of the Cities where he had preached the Word But Mr. O's Reason why he might Marry there is a very pleasant one sc. because he had Daughters there Prophetesses as if he might not have Marry'd in another place and yet his Daughters live with him at Caesarea Children are no evidence where a Man was Marry'd But what if he was Marryed there Might he not also have been the settled Evangelist there His Marrying at Caesarea could be no hindrance nor is an Argument against it Lastly 't is most absurd to suppose from Acts the 8. 40. That he Marry'd at Caesarea For 't was now about 20 Years since he arriv'd first at Caesarea There Mr. O. thinks he might Marry and so settle his Family I deny it He must in all likelyhood have been Marry'd before he ever came to Caesarea and that because he had four Daughters Prophetesses For if he was there and then Marry'd the oldest of these Prophetesses must have been but Nineteen Years old and the youngest but Sixteen It is not credible that at this Age they should be Prophetesses Lastly the most probable conjecture is that he Marry'd before he was converted or became a Minister of the Word Mr. O. He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea which the Minister confirms by Bishop Pearson's Testimony Ans. It is no wonder that Bp. Pearson should be of this Opinion who esteem'd an Evangelist to be not a distinct Species of Officer in the Church but to denote a bare Preacher of the Gospel But Mr. O. who believes it otherwise and I who have supposed it must seek for other proofs of Philip's being an Evangelist before he settled at Samaria Mr. O. Philip Preached up and down by virtue of an Extraordinary call Act. 8. 6 7 26 39. Ans. The places cited prove that Philip had extraordinary Gifts and Abilities and sometimes an Extraordinary call
of the Title seems to argue the discontinuance of the Office Ans. 1. It is held not without Reason that the name Apostle descended at least upon their next and immediate Successors which some call Secondary Apostles the Inseriour Ministers being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters But in a little time the Apostles Successor laid aside that Title of Apostle out of modesty contenting themselves with that of Bishop and the inferiour Ministers with that of Presbyter To this purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is evidence sufficient in the Scripture of these Secondary Apostles such perhaps was James the Just and 〈◊〉 the Apostle of the Philippians Titus and others are called Apostles 2 Cor. 8. 23. Therefore it may be further observed that the Ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 'em indifferently both Apostles and Bishops as may be seen in Jerom 〈◊〉 and Salvian as Mr. B. informs me It may not here be passed over that in after Ages the Learned Writers often called the Apostles themselves by the Name of Bishop as may be seen in in Cyprian and Hilary and in Eusebius Peter is reckoned the Bishop of Rome in conformity to the Language of their own time when Bishop signify'd the Supreme Officer of a Church This Observation shews clearly that the Apostolical and the Episcopal Office is the same in reality But I answer 2. That the changing of the Title of the Office cannot import the ceasing of the Office Caesar was Emperor by the Title of Perpetual Dictator Augustus his Successor by that of Caesar and the following Emperors by those of Caesar and Augustus though Caesar at length was appropriated to one as yet only designed and named the Emperor's Successor whatever were their Titles they were all Emperors But to come nearer home and to Instance in a Matter more directly to our purpose At the Reformation in Scoltand the Prelatical Rulers of the Churches were stiled Superintendents yet the Office of Bishop was not therefore changed because the Title was The Superintendents had the same Power to inspect the Churches in their own Districts as the Bishops had To conclude the change of the name Apostle into Bishop is no prejudice against the Episcopal Power being the same as the Apostolical was and succeeding into its place It will again be Objected that since Ordinary Presbyters are confest on all hands to succeed the Apostles in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments why not then in the other parts of the Apostolical Office sc. the Ordaining and Governing Power Ans. The Solution of this Difficulty such as it is depends upon Matter of Fact sc. how God was pleased by the Apostles to determine this Point This is not the place to dispute the Question whether the Apostles convey'd their whole Power and Office unto every or to all Presbyters it has I am in hopes been cleared in the Negative both in these and my former Papers but to the Objection I reply that when an Office is attended with Variety of Work it does not follow of necessity that he who succeeds in one part of the Office must be reckoned to succeed in all It cannot be doubted but the Apostles had it in their Power to divide and put the several parts of their Office into several hands and we have an Instance that they did so They made seven Deacons unto whom they committed the care of the poor and distribution of the publick Alms which was before in the Apostles themselves But then no one will say that because the Apostles conferred upon these Seven one part of their Office that therefore they must be understood to have committed to 'em all the rest sc. the Powers of Ordination of Government and of Discipline By parity of Reason though Presbyters succeeded the Apostles and were by them Ordained unto that part of the Apostolical Office viz. Ministring in the Word and Sacraments it will not follow that they also received the whole Apostolical Power that of Ordination Government and Discipline 'T is further Objected That the Apostolical Power extended it self every where the Evangelistical reached to divers places and Countries but it cannot be pretended that the Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction is so large and as it were unlimited 'T is rather confined unto a certain Compass or District as we plainly see for which reason the Bishops are not the Apostles nor the Evangelists Successors Ans. 'T is no hard matter to get over this small Rub. This unlimited Power of the Apostles may be reckoned among their Extraordinary and personal Privileges and so does us no prejudice The Office may be the same though the extent of Power may be more in one than in another The Bishop of Eugubium was as truly a Bishop as the Pope of Rome And Ptolemy was as really and to all intents and purposes King of Aegypt as Alexander had been of that and many other vast Kingdoms and Provinces and as he was really a King so he was really Alexander's Successor also For who will say that William 〈◊〉 was not Will. the Conqueror's Successor because he succeeded him not in the Dukedom of Normandy as well as the Kingdom of England We see by these Examples that one may have several Successors into several parts of their Jurisdiction How large soever the Diocess of the Apostles or Evangelists was yet the Bishops may be their Successors unto some parts of their Jurisdiction Among the Romans they who inherited any part of the Decedent's Estate were they few or were they many were all called Haeredes and distinguished according to the Proportion allotted them Hence we read of Haeredes ex deunce ex quadrante ex semuncia ex semisse as well as Haeres ex asse who inherited all But what if after all this every Bishops Power extends it self through the whole World being not in its own nature limited and fixt to any one single District Some have thought so and upon good ground too After many other Reasons and Evidences of the Universal Power of Bishops given by Mr. B. p. 56. It seems to 〈◊〉 a strong Argument for it that Bishops in Synods have ever exercised their Power in other Diocesses as well as in their own I do not see by what Authority Bishops in Councils could take upon 'em to correct the Miscarriages of particular Bishops within their own Diocesses to remove the Heretical or Schismatical to restore the unjustly deprived to confirm the Customs and Polity of single Churches except on this one Principle That every Bishop is a Bishop of the Church Universal and has an inherent Power over all the World and every where 'T is true it must at the same time be 〈◊〉 that for Peace and Order's sake and to the end the Churches may be certainly taken care of Bishops are limited to some particular Diocess as to the constant and Ordinary Administration of Church Affairs and one Bishop is not suffered to interlope in anothers District
without necessity Nevertheless on extraordinary Occasions such as Apostacy Heresy and Schism the other Bishops made use of their general Power to rectify Disorders even in those Churches where Ordinarily they had no Jurisdiction Every Bishop then is a Bishop every where besides the constant care of some particular Church committed unto him But it will lastly be Objected That Apostles and Evangelists were not 〈◊〉 but Itinerant Officers shifting from place to place as the exigences of the Church and Interest of the Gospel required This the Bishops do not pretended to neither can Ans. 1. Some of the Apostles were fixt or at least fixt themselves Thus James the Apostle or at least an Apostle was the constant residing Prefect or Bishop of Jerusalem So was Simeon after him So was Peter at Rome for 25 years according to Jerom. So was John in Asia for a long time So was Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete But 2. Bishops are no otherwise fixt than were the Apostles I have shewed before that upon necessary occasions they interposed any where Besides a Bishop may in unconverted Nations pass from one City and Country to another and plant Churches as the Apostles did Thus Frumentius played the Apostle in India being Ordained Bishop at Alexandria in Egypt by Athanasius So did Aidan in Northumberland among the Angles and Mercians 3. It is so difficult a matter to define exactly what Residence is and when a Man may be said to be fixt how oft how long and on what Occasions he may be allowed to be Absent and yet at the same time be the settled Minister of a Church that I think no Man alive can with any tolerable certainty prononuce a Person not to have been the Resident Ruler or Bishop of a Church because he finds him employ'd in some other place upon some extraordinary Service of the Church I make no difficulty to affirm that when and as oft as any Emergent necessity requires it and his Superior Commands him a fixt Resident Officer may leave his Flock for some time and attend the Business which he is thus ' specially called to and yet still he is their fixt and settled Minister If Paul called Timothy to him at Rome from Ephesus and Titus from Crete it will not follow they were not the fixt and Resident Rulers Bishops of those Churches which the Apostle had before committed to 'em no more than that the British Bishops who by Order of the Emperor Constantius assisted at the Council of Ariminum were not the fixt Resident Bishops of the British Churches Or that the Members of the Assembly of Divines were not the settled Rectors Vicars or Lecturers of their respective Congregations though they were a good while absent from 'em and sitting at Westminster 4. One may be the fixt Minister of a Church and yet afterward remove to another place and settle there I suppose my Neighbour Mr. B. had been the fixt Minister of some Congregation in the West of England before he settled here among us So that if for some important Reasons Paul had quite removed Timothy from Ephesus and Titus from Crete appointing Tichycus in the Room of the former 2 Tim. 4. 12. And Artemas to succeed the latter Tit. 3. 12. This will not evince That Timothy was never the fixt Ruler Bishop of Ephesus or Titus of Crete To draw toward a Conclusion all alterable Circumstances such as Extraordinary divine Gifts different Titles Largeness or extent of Power over all or very many Cities and Countries and unfixedness as to any one City or Province or whatever else of this kind may be alledg'd make no difference between the Apostolical or Evangelistical and the Episcopal Power It is the Ordination which conferrs the Office and the Power not the fixedness or unfixedness of the Ordainer 'T is the Power of Ordination given unto Apostles Evangelists and Bishops which enables 'em to Ordain others not any alterable Circumstance which is observed in any of ' em In a word that Ordinary Officers may succeed Extraordinary Officers understand Extraordinary in the second signification before laid down must needs be confest by our Adversaries themselves I mean the Presbyterians They affirm and believe that they succeed the Apostles in the Office of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments of Ordaining Governing and exercising the Discipline of the Church With what Front then can any of 'em deny that Ordinary Officers and such at this day are they at the best may succeed Extraordinary ones in the exercise of an Ordinary Office Or with what Colour can they pretend that fixt Officers such are they themselves now as they believe cannot succeed those who were unfixt that is the Apostles So that these Quirks of Extraordinary and unsettled Officers are devis'd merely to disguise the Truth and gull the simple Part of Mankind into Schism and Errour The APPENDIX MR. O. thinks he presses very hard upon me when upon my supposing Evangelists to be a Species of Church-Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers in Eph. 4. 11. I must be forc'd to deny the Diocesan Bishops to be the Pastors of their 〈◊〉 Churches contrary to the Prayer in the Ember-Weeks Ans. The Good Man has I fear wilfully forgot what I discoursed about Pastors in T. N. to this effect that in Scripture Pastor is a common Name given to Superior and to Inferior Officers in the Church as Minister also is Here in the Epistle to the Ephesians it can mean none but the Ordinary Teachers Pastors and Teachers by the Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Importing the Ordinary Pres-byters for which reason Pastors is twice together left out 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. In after Ages it by degrees came to signify Bishops at least principally them and so as I reckon it is taken in this Sense in the Ember-Weeks Prayer Bishops and Pastors there signifying the same Church-Officers I say perhaps for tho' I will not assuredly affirm that by Pastors in that Collect is meant the Presbyters who assist at Ordinations and examine the Candidates for Orders and lay on hands with the Bishop yet the Prayer is capable of that Sense The Bishops and Pastors that is The Bishops and the Assisting Presbyters But Mr. O. adds If the Rector says they are both Pastors and Evangelists he confounds those Officers which the Apostle distinguisheth Ans. If what I said just now be not a sufficient Reply hereunto I add that one and the same Person may have distinct Offices and the distinct Titles belonging to those Offices John was an Apostle and an Evangelist Every Apostle was a Prophet was an Evangelist was a Pastor and Teacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles had all the Ministerial Powers And so had Evangelists all the Powers which their Inferior Officers had They were Pastors and Teachers Nor is this a Confounding the Officers because the Proposition is not convertible Though every Bishop or Evangelist is a Pastor also and Teacher
present without one yet surely they had not lost all their Presbyters And if the Church of Syria retained yet her Presbyters as by the quiet that Church even then had must be thought they might easily have made to themselves a Chief Pastor or Moderator out of their remaining Number and not been destitute of a Shepherd as Ignatius bewails whole loss or absence at present could only be supply'd by the chief Shepherd and Bishop of their Souls Here by the way the conceit of a temporary Moderator must be thrown out of Doors Ignatius was Bishop of Syria for life nor could they have another whilst He was living tho' absent in Bonds This was the Reason he so Passionately resented the unhappiness of that Church of Syria that they were forced to be without a Bishop which they needed not to have been if another 〈◊〉 Pastor and Moderator might have been constituted in his absence and Life-time which by the Presbyterian Principles might easily have been done 6. Ignatius over and over prescribes that the Churches should do nothing without the Bishop and not only so in these General Terms which haply will be understood of his presiding in Presbyteries and moderating in their Debates for Order's sake but also in particular that Marriages should not be Celebrated the Lord's-Supper should not be administred nor Baptism given unto Believers without him without his appointment and approbation This shews that Ignatius his Bishop was not only the President in their Synods and Deliberations but the Supreme Director of the Execution of the Laws and Rules of the Church without whose leave the 〈◊〉 could not Marry nor Administer the Sacraments 'T is all we desire of the Dissenters if we might prevail with 'em that they would not presume to do any thing without the Bishop and particularly not to Ordain Presbyters Lastly Although he often calls the Presbytery the Council of God and College of the Apostles yet to keep up the Authority of the Bishop He then at the same time resembles him unto God himself or to the Lord Jesus Christ. If then God the Father was Superior to the Apostles and if Jesus Christ must be confest greater than the Council of the Apostles so was the Bishop than the Presbyters or Presbytery in the Opinion of this Father and according to the Analogy and Resemblance in this Author From the whole 't is I hope clear to a Demonstration that Ignatius his Bishops were more than what Mr. O. means by chief Pastor or Moderator in their Assembles pro tempore They were Prelatical and in the nature of their Office Superior to Presbyters It remains that we shew they were Diocesan Bishops that is had the oversight of more than one Congregation for this is another Objection Mr. O. has raised against our established Diocesan Episcopacy For Proof hereof let it be remembred 1. That if there were not in Ignatius his time de facto Diocesan Bishops they were at least formed and designed for such when ever the multitude of Believers should be encreased It has already been observed that Titus left by St. Paul in Crete to Govern that Church was particularly directed by the Apostle to Ordain Elders in every City in all or as many Cities as should afterward receive the Faith or in Order to convert more of ' em I gather hence that Titus was intended to be the Ruler of all these Congregations Let Mr. O. make him a Bishop or an Archbishop 't is all one to me he was constituted to be Ruler over many Cities and Congregations Thus at least it was I conceive in these Asiatick Churches to whom Ignatius wrote as will hence appear viz. that every of these Churches was furnished with a Prelatical Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons under him To what purpose else so many Presbyters and such distinct kinds of Orders One or two at most might have sufficed 'em at present especially if it be considered that the Christians at that time were not in so flourishing a condition as to be able to maintain so many Church-Officers for one Congregation nor was there business enough to employ 'em all in the service of that one Congregation 'T is then most rational to believe that so many Presbyters and Deacons were provided at least for carrying on the Conversion of the Infidels and multiplying them into several Congregations But if every Congregation must have had or was intended to have a Bishop we should doubtléss have read of Bishops ex gr at Ephesus as well as Presbyters in the Plural Let us then suppose what is most reasonable to admit that some at least of these Churches had been in Ignatius's time multiply'd into several Congregations yet still there was but one Bishop I do not remember that ever we read of two Bishops of any one City in all Antiquity excepting when the Christians of that City were harrassed and disturbed with Schisms and Divisions Now who can imagin that no one City in the World even in Ignatius's time ever had more Believers in and near it than did Assemble for Divine Worship in one place Especially in those times of Persecution when the Christians skulked and could not with safety meet in great numbers nor had Rooms capacious enough and therefore cantoned themselves into several Meetings Let any one put all these things together and impartially weigh them and he will not easily grant that Paradox that there was no more than one single Congregation in any City nor will he make any scruple to believe that Ignatius's Bishop was at least designed to preside over several Presbyters and Congregations Lastly the Negative that there was but one Congregation in any of 'em has not been proved neither can by any express Testimony I conćeive it behoves our Dissenters to make this out before they can throughly justifie their Congregational Churches But let us now come to particulars and therefore 2. Note that Ignatius stiles himself Bishop of Syria in his Epistle to the Romans Now how large a tract Syria contained I need not say neither will I affirm he was Bishop of all Syria taken in its utmost Latitude But seeing he calls himself and was Bishop of Syria 't was more than of the bare City Antioch as any one will confess His Episcopal Power must have extended unto some considerable compass of Ground in the adjacent parts of the Country else it had been foolish to have pretended himself to be the Bishop of Syria when he was only Bishop of Antioch and of one Congregation there Will any one then suffer himself to believe 〈◊〉 was Bishop but of one Congregation only It cannot enter into my head so much as to think it possible because it must be supposed there were Congregations in Syria as well as at Antioch in Country as 〈◊〉 as City 3. I reckon also that the Church of Ephesus consisted of more than one Congregation and my Reasons are 1. As I argued in T. N. p. 145.
from Act. 19. 10. That the Church of Ephesus took in all Asia All they of Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus from the mouth of Paul who then resided at Ephesus and there Preached the Gospel first in the Synagogue v. 8. then in the School of Tyrannus v. 9. Asia I expounded Asia the Proper but I would crave leave a little to mend that Gloss understanding it only of some of the nearer parts of it adjoining unto Ephesus which belonged ùnto Asia the Proper And wheras the Historian expresses Himself thus largely all Asia and yet intends as I suppose only the Neigbhouring parts of it we need not much admire at this since it is so said to aggrandize and Magnify the success and Increase of the Gospel We have an Instance of this kind of expression in the Chapter before us Act. 19. 27. where the mad and superstitious People of Ephesus Glory of their Goddess Diana that all Asia and the World Worshippeth Her and yet v. 34. she is called Diana of the Ephesians at least she was not Worshipped all the World over strictly speaking So I read Jo. 12. 19. Behold the World is gone after him and yet only some Numbers of the Jews followed Christ. In short by all Asia is to be understood the Ephesian Asia or that part which adjoined pretty close unto Ephesus whither their secular business oft drew the Country People Their Curiosity first lead them unto the Synagogue and School of Tyrannus and so they became Acquainted with the Word of the Lord Jesus and embraced it of these Country Converts we read in this Chapter v. 31. And certain of the chief of Asia which were his Friends sent unto him c. Nor is it an unusual thing to call the parts of a Country near unto the Principal City by the general Name of the Province whereof it is but a little Member Thus as is before observed Ignatius stiles Himself Bishop of Syria not of all Syria properly so called as will I hope be granted me but of the Country round about Antioch which was within the limits of Syria So then if all they which dwelt in Asia in the Adjacent parts of Ephesus as well as in the City its self heard the Word of the Lord Jesus both Jews and Greeks v. 10. and this within the space of those two Years the Apostle remained at Ephesus it must be allowed that the Church of Ephesus was too numerous to be contained within one Single Congregation and it is reasonable to believe that there were some Congregations in the 〈◊〉 especially in Ignatius's time which the Presbyters of Ephesus in Ordinary attended under the Bishop If it be doubted whether these Country Proselytes or these Country Congregations were Members of the Church of Ephesus some Reasons or Evidences to the contrary must be assigned We read no where of any Prelatical Church which must be confessed the Form of Church Government thereabouts in Ignatius's Time nearer Ephesus than that at Magnesia distant from Ephesus about fourscore Miles But that the Country Presbyters and Congregations within the foresaid Tract did belong unto Ephesus is most probable hence that the Scripture all along speaks of the Church of Ephesus and of Asia as one and the same Church Acts 20. 18. Ye know says He to the Ephesian Elders after what manner I have been with you from the first day that I came into Asia Acts 19. 31. Certain of the chief of Asia 2 Cor. 1. 8. We would not Brethren have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia Acts 20. 16. Paul determined to sail by Ephesus because He would not spend the time in Asia These expressions could never have dropt from the Holy Pen-Men except the Church of Ephesus had extended its self round about in the Country of Asia We read 〈◊〉 times that when St. Paul speaks of the Affairs of Corinth He uses the Word Achaia whereof Corinth was the Principal City Rom. 15. 26 16. 6. 〈◊〉 Cor. 16. 15. 2 Cor. 9. 2. 1 Thes. 1. 7. Which is an Evidence that the Church of Corinth comprehended a good part of Achaia From the whole I gather there must needs have been several Congregations belonging to the Church of Ephesus even in St. Paul's days much more in the days of Ignatius and if so then Onesimus was a Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus But Secondly I also pretended to evince by an Heap of Arguments collected from the Form of Church Government drawn up by the Assembly of Divines and Vindicated by the London Ministers after in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani that in St. Paul's Time there were several Congregations in the Church of Ephesus Mr. O. who tells his Reader somewhere in his Defence that He has followed and Answered me Paragraph by Paragraph has made a shift to skip over these Proofs They come too near the Quick I shall be forced therefore for that Reason and the more strongly to Establish my Position to repeat them once more and so dismiss the Epistles of Ignatius The Assembly and the London Divines undertook to evince by Scripture that even in the Days of St. Paul there were several Congregations in the Church of Ephesus and argued as follows The Number of Prophets and Teachers at Ephesus were many Paul continued there two Years and three Months settled thereabout twelve Disciples who Prophesied Act. 19. 1. 6 7. How should these thirteen Ministers be employ'd if there were not many Congregations compare also Act. 20. 17 18 36 37. where 't is said of the Bishops or Presbyters of Ephesus that Paul 〈◊〉 down and prayed with them all and they all wept sore Here is a good number imply'd The gift of Tongues also was given unto all these twelve Prophets Act. 19. 6 7. To what end if they had not several Congregations to speak unto in these several Tongues The multitude of believers must needs be great at Ephesus For first why should Paul who had Universal Commission to plant Churches in all the World stay about two Years at Ephesus if no more had been converted there than to make up one single Congregation Act. 19. 8 10. During this space secondly all that dwelt in Asia usually Meeting at Ephesus for Worship heard the Word of the Lord Jesus both Jews and Greeks Act. 19. 10. At the knowledge of Paul's Miracles thirdly Fear fell upon all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus and the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified Act. 19. 17. Many of the believes fourthly came and confessed and shewed their deeds v. 18. whereby is intimated that more did believe than did thus fifthly Many also of them that used curious Arts brought their Books together and burnt them before all Men and they counted the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of Silver This they would never have done publickly if the Major part or atleast a very great and considerable part of the City had not embraced the
among the Christians and believing it conduced to the furtherance of their Religion for the same reason appointed the same among the Gentiles He then drew his Pattern from the Christians Which is moreover confirmed by Lactantius to have been then newly taken up by the Heathens Maximinus novo more Sacerdotes Maximos per singulas Civitates singulos ex Primoribus fecit parumque hoc fuit nisi etiam Provinciis ex alticre Dignitatis gradu singulosquasi Pontifices superponeret Maximinus then first Novo more created Chief Priests in every City and as if this had been too little he Ordained as it were High-Priests over Whole Provinces It was then a new device among the Gentiles first set up by Maxinisnus in conformity to the Christians Thirdly The same is proved out of that very Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the chief-Priest of Galatia though quoted by Mr. O. himself as if it were on his side I am ashamed any Man that pretends to Religion and Learning should thus foully misrepresent Authors and make as if they had written what is manifest they never so much as dreamed of To shew this I 'll first sum up what Sozomen himself relates concerning this matter and then give you an abridgment of Julian's Epistle that follows in the same Chapter He says The Emperor Julian desiring that the Gentile Religion should prevail but observing that it was far surmounted by the Christian was exceedingly troubled When he thought with himself that Christianity was chiefly commended by the lives and manners of those who profess'd it he determined with himself to 〈◊〉 the Temples of the Gentiles with the same Rule and Order which was in use among the Christians also with the same degrees and Prerogatives of Supremacy And sundry other things are mentioned wherein Julian was resolved to imitate the Christians He adds in general The Emperor endeavoured to conform the Gentile unto the Christian Institutions Then follows Julian's Letter to Arsacius the Chief Priest of Galatia wherein there is not a Syllable of State-Affairs as Mr. O. has falsly suggested not a word that intimates as if the Christian derived their Government from the Gentiles He only admonishes Arsacius to take care about Sundry particular things belonging unto Morality such as Hospitality to Strangers care about burying the dead that the Flamines should not frequent the Theater nor Drink in Taverns nor profess any Trade He advises him to build Hospitals for the Poor and promises to furnish him with Moneys to do it He warns him not to pay visits often to Great Men but to write to 'em only and live retiredly that the Inferior Flamines should not meet secular Officers when they entred the Cities in Pomp 〈◊〉 they came to the Temples of the Gods who when they are entred are then but private Persons In a Word he Orders Arsacius to endeavour to make the Flamines good Men by shaming them unto their Duty or perswading them or removing them from the Priestly Ministry to bestow Honour on them who obey'd but the the stubborn and contumacious to expel First From the Whole it appears that all this Policy of Julian was taken from the Christians whose Rules and Government he knew very well having himself once been a Christian and a Reader in the Church True many Writers of latter Ages have taught that the Christians followed the Gentiles in their Church-Government But 't is not my business to account for the dreams and fancies of School-Men and other Authors that follow them Although at the same time I am of Opinion that the Primitive Church regulated their Parishes Diocesses and Provinces according to the Divisions which they found ready made to their Hands by the Civil Magistrate and perhaps to the districts formerly appointed by the Druids in these Western parts which might occasion those Authors to affirm that the Episcopal Government it self was borrowed from them which is we see a great mistake To conclude seeing we have found the Government of the Gentile Religion in the East at least was taken from the Christian being before more like unto the Presbyterian or Congregational the Reflection may be retorted upon our Adversaries and it may with more Truth be said that they had their Pattern from the Gentile Priests If any one desire a more full and Learned account of this let him consult the late Bishop of Worcester CHAP. VI. Concerning Fortunatianus Bishop of Assurae Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops MR O. endeavours to prove that Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their own Bishop which is as 〈◊〉 as to say the Bishop is not Superior to his Prebyters who are his Judges This he pretends to evince from the 65 th Epistle of St. Cyprian which is thus directed Epicteto fratri plebi The case was this Fortunatianus Bishop of Assurae had Sacrificed unto Idols in the late time of Persecution under Decius the Emperor by Consequence he had abandoned his Bishoprick and even Christianity its self When affairs were afterwards somewhat settled and Peace restored unto the Church Fortunatianus claim'd his Bishoprick again and 't is not unlikely but he had some interest among some of the People of Assurae who were willing to accept him for so it was I find in the following Case of Basilides and Martialis Cyprian acquainted herewith in that Letter exhorts Epictetus and the People not to receive him 〈◊〉 to acknowledge him any more for their Bishop How this story establishes Mr. O's Proposition I am not able to discern For 1st By this Argument the Bps were subject unto the People as well as to their Presbyters which Mr. O. would do well to consider of 2 ly It does not appear that Fortunatianus was ever accused or cited to Answer unto the Charge laid against him by consequence no Judiciary Sentence was pronounc't upon him The Fact was Notorious He had of his own accord abdicated and turned to the Gentiles Thirdly If Fortunatianus was formally cited accused and condemned it follows not that Epictetus the supposed Presbyter and the People were his Judges One may with more reason imagine that the Cause was brought if at all before the the Provincial Bishops and by them decided Fourthly It s not certain that Epictetus was was a meer Presbyter 〈◊〉 for ought any one knows or can say to the contrary Epictetus filled the Episcopal Chair at Assurae when Cyprian wrote that Epistle Fifthly Supposing Epictetus was only a Presbyter yet here is no mention of a formal Process or Judgment given against Fortunatianus but only a caution given to that Church not to receive him again For the matter of Fact I suppose was plain The unfortunate Man had Sacrificed and thereby abandon'd his Bishoprick But Peace being restored he will needs intrude into it again having as is to be presumed some Friends at Assurae favouring his pretences This is certain the design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle was not to
ought any thing then that Mr. O. says or pretends to prove the delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus reach'd to more than one or half a dozen Villages Well! Mr. O. goes on and tells us that The Country Villages where the Chorepiscopi were fixt were but thinly Peopled with Christians the Majority or at least great Numbers of the People being Heathens by which he adds we may guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Here are divers things supposed and asserted but none proved 1. 'T is supposed that the Chorepiscopus's Power was confined to one Village or Country Parish only this ought to be made out by Mr. O. 2. 'T is asserted that these Country Villages were thinly Peopled with Christians but that is more then Mr. O. knows and the contrary is more probable so that they abounded with Christians now in the Reign of Constantius Son of Constantine the Great when that Council of Antioch was held and from whence Mr. O. makes the Deduction Besides 't is likely that a Chorepiscopus was never made but where the Christians were Numerous In short how thin soever particular Villages were of Christians yet there being many very many Villages all of them having some Christians and a Power over them being committed to the Chorepiscopi this note of Mr. O's is not very much to the purpose But however from the Premises he Collects 4. That we may thence guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Something of this Nature might perhaps be conjectured if all Mr. O. has asserted without proof and overlook'd without Examination were true But I ask whether this be not an intolerable piece of Confidence to intimate at this rate that these Country Villages were seperate and independent Diocesses when as 't is manifest from the very Canon that they were Appendages of the City Diocess and subject to the City Bishop Here then instead of a small Parish Bishoprick we have found as large a Diocess haply as ours are at this Day Mr. O. proceeds and affirms That the Chorepiscopi are an instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters they were but Parish Bishops under City Bishops Say then a Chorepiscopus had the charge of one only single Village or particular Congregation specially allotted to him which at this day we call a Parish admitting this yet it follows not that he was a Bishop without subject Presbyters probably he had some district of the Diocess committed to his particular care and inspection The Canon of Antioch seems to intimate thus much It seemed good to the Synod that the Chorepiscopi govern the Churches in the plural subject to them and to content themselves with this care and sollicitude of constituting Readers But granting they had no subject Presbyters but acted Ordinarily as Parish Presbyters yet they were real Bishops and ready upon occasion to discharge the Diocesans Office when required which Prebyters could not Morever if these Chorepiscopi were only Presbyters and Bishops of a small Congregation as Mr. O. has before concluded why was the caution given them against Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons except it was for other Parishes or Churches For surely they did not Ordain Presbyters and Deacons for themselves If they did even so they must have had Presbyters subject to them In short they had doubtless a delegated Power from the City or Diocesan Bishop to Ordain Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where and when ever occasion required But in the last place Mr. O. urges the second Council of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7th which makes the Chorepiscopi to be one and the same with 〈◊〉 This Council was Provincial aud held in Spain Anno 620. which is therefore of no great Authority with me especially since the Argument it insists on is chiefly drawn from the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Roman Church For so the Canon concludes quoe 〈◊〉 eis a sede Apostolica prohibita esse noscuntur Nevertheless that I may not be thought to decline any thing said on this subject that has the appearance of an Argument against me I answer that although by the first design and institution of the Chorepiscopi they were real Bishops so it was before and after the Councils of Ancyra and Antioch for sometime yet not long afterwards an end was put to these Chorepiscopi So I read in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. held Anno 364. There and then it was decreed that Bishops were not to be made any more in Villages and in the Countries understand within anothers Diocess but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their steads which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were but Presbyters intrufted with the Administration of some part of the Episcopal Power But 't is observable what is after added as for those Chorepiscopi who have been already made the former Canons of Ancyra and Antioch must be observed by them that they do nothing without the Consent of the City Bishop Where we see plainly a Supersedeas is given unto that Order of the Chorepiscopi for the future Nor is this alteration to be wondered at For the making the Chorepiscopi or Vicarious Bishops in the Country belonging to anothers Diocess was meerly an Ecclesiastical Constitution and by the same Power that it was introduced it might again be annulled I observe moreover that the 2d clause above mentioned which still reserves to the former Chorepiscopi their Power which had been committed to them by the City Bishops shews that they had received some Character which a Council could not deprive them of For otherwise the Power of the former Chorepiscopi might have been Abrogated as well as the Order its self intirely dissolved for the future The occasion of this change made by the Laodicean Fathers doubtless was that they had by experience found some inconveniences and disorders happening through these Chorepiscopi who it may be could never be hindred from Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons in other Bishops Diocefses contrary to all Order and good Rule Therefore an end was put to them and in their place were substituted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who I imagaine were like our Archdeacons at this Day and were instituted for the Diocesan's ease in matters of less moment but upon no account were to have the Episcopal Character impress'd on them with Power to Ordain no not with the Bishops Licence Accordingly the late Learned Bishop of Worcester observes That Lanfranc 〈◊〉 made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See that Thomas Archbishop of York first divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries and Remigius Bishop of Lincoln his into seven Archdeaconries says Harry of Huntingdon One occasion hereof was the laying aside the Chorepiscopi as too much assuming unto themselves The sum of what has been said is that the 〈◊〉 were at first real Bishops but in anothers Diocess where they might put forth such Episcopal Acts as were permitted them within some certain
be accounted Bishops who were neither chosen by the Clergy nor desired by the People nor Consecrated by the Provincial Bishops at the appointment of the Metropolitan Whence when the Question often arises concerning the Honour he means Episcopacy and the Power of Ordaining who can doubt that what does not appear to have been truly Conferred is in no wise to be given by those Pseudo Episcopi But if any Clergy-Man in those Churches which belong unto their own proper Bishop have been Ordained by those Pseudo Episcopi and the Ordination was performed with the Consent and appointment of the Presidents or proper Bishops it may be ratify'd provided they remain in those Churches This Pope Leo flourished about the Year 442. Now Mr. O. who alledges this Decree of Pope Leo against us is upon the Proof of Presbyters Ordaining which I do not see is in the least favoured by these Words except he will 〈◊〉 these Pseudo Episcopi were Presbyters only When Mr. O. shall have proved this I shall think my self oblig'd to return an Answer to it and not before In the mean while I observe Mr. O. leaving his Argument adduces this Passage to throw dirt upon our Establish'd Bishops and prove 'em to be uncanonically Ordained instead of Confirming his own dear Presbyterian Ordination But let us see what He says Two things are remarkable in the decision of Leo the Great 1. That our English Bishops wanting two of the requisites mentioned in the Popes Decree sc. The Election of the Clergy and the demand of the People their Ordinations therefore have a Canonical Nullity in them and our English Bishops would have been reckoned Pseudo Episcopi in Leo's time Upon which remark I make the following Reflexions 1. We are beholden to Mr. O. for making his simple Friends believe that we are departed from the decrees of the Popes From henceforth then let them not reproach our Bishops for Popish 2. Mr. O. is in the right Pope Leo perhaps would have called our Bishops Pseudo Episcopi I am sure at this Day the Popes do not fail to condemn 'em as such 3. The uncanonical Ordination of Bishops among us will not excuse that of the Presbyterians much less justify their Anti-Scriptural Ordinations No one can defend himself by Recrimination But a greater fault can never be excused by a lesser 4. We are so far from tying up our selves to the strict observation of Papal or Provincial Canons that we think not our selves absolutely oblig'd to the Observation of the Decrees of the Oecumenical Synods but take Libery to vary from them when ever necessity or great convenience invites us to it Otherwise we endeavour to conform our selves to them as much as is possible 5. I have more than once in the Preface to I. N. and in the former part of this Treatise I hope sufficiently evinc'd that our Bishops want neither the Election of the Clergy nor the Consent of the People and therefore their Ordinations on that score have no Canonical Nullity in them But. 2. Mr. O. remarks from the foresaid Decree of Pope Leo That the consent of the true Bishops ex post facto made the Ordination of meer Presbyters lawful which could not be unless Presbyters had an intrinsick Power of Ordination Hereunto I return 1. Mr. O. ought first to prove that these Pseudo Episcopi were meer Presbyters I am otherwise perswaded and think I can evince it out of Leo's Decree 2. The consent of the true Bishops was not required ex post facto that 's the disingenuous and false Gloss of an Adversary but antecedent to the Ordination as appears from these Words si Ordinatio Clericorum consensu judicio Praesidentium facta est if the Ordination of the Ministers was made with the Consent and appointment of the Bishops Let any Man of understanding judge whether this Consent and appointment of the Provincial Bishops was to be Antecedent to the Ordinations or to follow them 3. Whereas Mr. O. renders Pseudo Episcopi false Bishops as it were in opposition to true Bishops so he renders proprios Episcopos 't is I think a mistake The proper Bishops being the Bishops of the Diocesses within the Provinces and by consequence the Pseudo Episcopi such as had no Diocess there and therefore could not Ordain regularly without the consent and appointment of the proper Bishops of the Diocesses Of which I have spoken before Upon the Whole matter how Mr. O. will be able to infer hence that Ordination by meer Presbyters can be lawful or that they have an intrinsick Power to Ordain I am yet to learn If these Pseudo Episcopi were real Bishops as they must have been if their Ordinations were valid when the proper Bishops consent was first obtained what is this to the Advantage of Presbyterian Ordination 〈◊〉 who will believe the Pope of Rome at this time of Day viz. in the middle of the 5th Century would decree any thing that might Countenance the Ordinations of meer Presbyters This is plain that though the Pope called 'em Pseudo Episcopi yet they reckon themselves real Bishops and not meer Presbyters Which is a strong presumption that in those times meer Presbyters were not allowed to Ordain For to what purpose else should they assume the Title and Character of Bishops Our Presbyterians do not think there is any need for them to usurp the Title of Bishops and that because they believe themselves to have Power of Ordination as Presbyters All the Difficulty is why Leo calls 'em Pseudo Episcopi if they were real Bishops Ans. The reason hereof I conceivé is because they had been Ordained Bishops but were not possessed of any Diocesses in those Provinces and yet took upon them to Act there which they ought not to have done it being contrary to the peace and establish'd Order of the Church This appears from the first Words of the Decree There is no reason they should be accounted Bishops that is have Liberty to Act as Bishops in those Diocesses and Provinces who were neither chosen by the Clergy nor desired by the People nor Consecrated by the Provincial Bishops at the appointment of the Metropolitan From these Words 't is plain that he speaks not of meer Presbyters For it was never required by any Ecclesiastical Canon that meer Presbyters were to be Ordained by the Provincial Bishops with the Consent of the Metropolitan This Ecclesiastical Rule and Constitution concerned Bishops only So that I reckon the Pope called them Pseudo Episcopi not because they were not Ordained Bishops but because they acted irregularly in other Bishops Diocesses CHAP. XVI Of the Churches in the Island of Taprobane WE are come now to the Year 520. when says Mr. O. In the Island of Taprobane or Zeilan as 't is now called there was a Church of Christians governed by a Presbyter and his Deacon without any Superiour Bishop to whom he or his Flock was Subject This Island
Tentamen Novum Continuatum OR AN ANSWER TO M r OWEN's Plea and Defence WHEREIN Bishop Pearson's Chronology about the time of St. Paul's Constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete is confirm'd the second Epistle to Timothy Demonstrated to have been written in the Apostle's latter Imprisonment at Rome and all Mr. Owen's Arguments drawn from Antiquity for Presbyterian Parity and Ordination by Presbyters are overthrown Herein is more particularly prov'd THAT The Church of England ever since the Reformation believ'd the Divine Right of Bishops By THOMAS GIPPS Rector of Bury in Lancashire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Gang. Can. 5. 6. LONDON Printed by Tho. Warren for Ephraim Johnson Bookseller in Manchester 1699. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THere has been Two Books publish'd by Mr. James Owen Minister of a separate Congregation at Oswestry 〈◊〉 I am under an Obligation and Promise of Replying unto The Plea for Scripture Ordination and the Tutamen Evangelicum alias Defence of the Plea And though the time of their Publication might justly Require me to consider the Plea in the first Place yet the Nature of the Argument forces me to Invert that Order and to begin with the Defence The Reason whereof is this I had set out a small Book Entituled Tentamen Novum or a new Essay proving the Divine Right of Episcopacy the which engaged me to Answer some few things in the Plea which concern that part of the Controversy between the Dissenters and us of the Establish'd Church viz. The Scripture Evidence Hereupon Mr. O. Printed his Defence endeavouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to overthrow my Hypothesis in the Tentamen Novum and to Vindicate the 〈◊〉 one by the Word of God It is therefore necessary I should first of all Reply 〈◊〉 the Defence that is clear my Point about the Divine Right of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 also manifest the Inconsistency of the old Hypothesis with the Scripture and 〈◊〉 descend to his numerous Testimonies drawn out of the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 in behalf of Presbyterian Parity which will be a full and proper Answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly I have cast this Book into two Parts The first contains a 〈◊〉 to the Defence except a few Testimonies of Antiquity which are more 〈◊〉 reserv'd to the second Part wherein I answer his Plea In the management of this work the Reader must not expect that I should follow my Adversary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step in all the Sallies he has made into points nothing at all 〈◊〉 to the Present Controversy and involve my self into new Disputes before the Old one be done with My purpose is to keep close to the Game and not to run after every fresh Hare Mr. O. is pleased to start This would be an edless piece of Work and swell this Book unto an Intolerable Bulk which I design to draw into as narrow Compass as I possibly can and as the unreasonable Cavils of my Adversary will permit Nor will I trouble my self or my Reader to take notice of all those snarling and ill-natured Reflections which the Defence abounds with without any Occasion given by me that I am sensible of 'T is much better to neglect them than weary my self and others with Impertinent and Abusive Railery which betrays the weakness of the Writer or his Cause and hurts no Body but the man from whom it proceeds 〈◊〉 15. 18. Nevertheless it will be necessary to remove some little of the Rubbish of both kinds out of the way lest haply the World may be tempted to suspect me as Ignorant and my Performances as 〈◊〉 as my Adversary has all along represented ' em But when I have Vindicated my self in a few of the most material things of that Nature if there be any such the Ingenious Reader will I hope 〈◊〉 perswaded that I am able if I were as willing to discharge my self of the most trivial matters that are to be met with in the Defence Only let it be noted that I intend not to mix these By. Disputes with the main Argument which would be perplext thereby and become more obscure but to cast them into an Appendix by themselves at the end of every Chapter as a separated Entertainment unto those who shall have the Curiosity and Leisure to consult 'em and which may be easily laid aside by such as have no Mind to trouble themselves with unnecessary Squabbles In my Reply to the Defence and Vindication of my Hypothesis as also to the Plea I will not 〈◊〉 my self with the Opinions of 〈◊〉 Authors how Eminent soever they were or still are in the Church that is I will not be sway'd or governed by them farther than my own reason conducted by the Word of God shall convince me I am sensible that most if not all of the former writers engaged in this Controversy about Episcopal Government even many of the Episcopal party as well as the Dissenters for want of duly examining and understanding the Time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus have run themselves into such Labyrinths and Absurdities that a Man might justly wonder they could ever sit down quietly and content themselves with their own Sentiments and Explications I am verily perswaded there is not one Man in the World that will allow himself the freedom of thinking but would subscribe unto that Learned Prelate Dr. Pearson's Judgment in this cause after 't is once fully and fairly represented to him except only such as are captivated by some powerful Interest secret Pride 〈◊〉 prejudice or the Design of upholding a party Where these evil Affections Rule and 〈◊〉 Truth will not be able to prevail Non suaseris etiam si persuaseris Of this we 〈◊〉 had a Notorious Instance of another kind in the present Age when Dr. Harvey had 〈◊〉 and learnedly Demonstrated the Circulation of the Blood almost all the Naturalists and 〈◊〉 in the World even those of the first Form with open Mouth decry'd both the Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrine And when the truth had by Degrees forc'd its 〈◊〉 and gained Ground upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part of them then Envy stept in and would have snatch'd the Laurels from the Brow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immortal Philosopher and Physitian How many of the Ancients were alledged to have 〈◊〉 the Circulation of the Blood And Solomon besure was not ignorant of it as some have 〈◊〉 to prove from the 12th Chap. of his 〈◊〉 So 〈◊〉 a thing it is to bring Men off their old Mumpsimus and reconcile 'em to the Truth when it appears in the Shape of 〈◊〉 or to do Justice unto those who have had the good hap to find her out But to return to my business Mr. O. in his Plea cited some Hundreds of Authorities in favour of Pres byterian Parity and Ordination My design is not as I said to meddle with those which are adduc'd out of Private and Modern Writers All that is needful for me to do is to consider the Primitive the Councils especially the General
ones the Fathers and other Antient Ecclesiastical Writers and the practice of the most Flourishing Catholick Churches of old unto the 5th Century or thereabouts and to examine whether my Adversary has 〈◊〉 any one good Testimony for himself and Brethren out of these Monuments of Antiquity If he has not as I hope will be made appear there is an end of his Plea I suppose especially when such a Cloud of Witnesses which of necessity fall in our way as we Travel through the History of those times will rise up against him within the Compass of the 4 or 5 first Ages aforesaid Before I make an end of this Preface I thought it needful to prepare the Reader with a short account of my whole Hypothesis which if kept in Memory as he goes will be some ease and advantage to him He must remember then that all Authors I know of except haply the Rhemists who so far as I see spoke but at Random writing upon the Present Subject or commenting upon the first Epistle to Timothy have asserted or at least taken for granted till very lately that the time of St. Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia is somewhere to be search'd for in the Acts of the Apostles before St. Paul had the Ephesian Elders Farewel in Acts 20. v. 17. from whence our Dissenters conclude that the supreme Government of the Church of Ephesus was not in that Epistle committed unto Timothy For that the Apostle could not have so wholly overlook'd their Bishop in that Farewel Sermon and applied himself only to the Elders to whom he commended the care and oversight of that Church On the other hand I have shew'd that the first Epistle to Timothy was wrote long after Paul's said Farewel Sermon even after his enlargement out of his former Imprisonment at Rome and by consequence that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went unto Macedonia at another time than what has hitherto been believ'd and assigned And so that Objection just now mentioned quite vanishes Thus then my Hypothesis lies After that Schism at Corinth had been in some measure though not intirely allay'd by St. Paul he with all hast made towards Jerusalem taking Miletus in his way where he bad the Ephesian Elders Farewel At Jerusalem he was Imprisoned and thence sent to Rome in Bonds Here he continued two years and upwards writing Epistles to the several Churches of Ephesus of Philippi of Coloss of Judea and to Philemon Being at length set at Liberty and in his way as he went back Eastward to visit the foresaid Churches he laid the Foundation of a Church in Crete leaving Titus behind to finish and to govern it Thence as I suppose he prosecuted his Journey to Judea Heb. 13. 23. and thence as it were back again through Syria to Asâ—a Being at Troas 2. Tim. 4. 13. about to sail unto Macedonia he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus shortly after when in Macedonia haply or Greece or somewhere thereabouts he wrote this first Epistle to Timothy giving him the necessary Orders how he was to behave himself in the Charge lately committed to him and not long after from Nicopolis that Epistle to Titus upon the same Subject Hence forward we hear no more of him in Scripture saving that being once again got to Rome he thence wrote his second Epistle to Timothy as is undeniably evinc'd in these Papers The Corinthian Schism like the Leprosy seemed incurable and spread its self unto other Churches also particularly Ephesus as may be gathered from the Epistle to the Ephesians and the first to Timothy And the like I reckon to have happened in other places also Wherefore Paul in his Visitation of the Eastern Churches before spoken of his Principal design I presume was to compose the Contentions already risen and to prevent them for the future To which end he committed the Government of the Churches to single Persons of Crete to Titus of Ephesus to Timothy The like being to be believed of the Rest of the Apostles and Churches throughout the World For how else could there have been Bishops every â—where as Ignatius writes to the Ephesians and not one Church at that time governed by a Presbytery of Elders only without an Apostle or Bishop presiding over them that we can find in Ecclesiastical History Nor are we to imagin this a perfectly new device taken up by Paul and the other Apostles meerly upon the Occasion of the Schisms at Corinth and elsewhere For as I make account they came to this Resolution among themselves even at the beginning viz. to commit the Government of the Churches unto 〈◊〉 Persons Not that they immediately did so assoon as they had made the Decree For every Apostle 't is likely kept the Government and Care of the Churches by him founded in his own Hands so long as he thought fit and was able to manage them himself So that every Church was 〈◊〉 cast into this Platform nor furnish'd with a Bishop distinct from the Apostles at the same instant but 't was done paulatim as Jerom speaks in his Commentary on Titus James was Bishop of Jerusalem before the Corinthian Schism Titus of Crete at that Church's first Plantation though Timothy was not so of Ephesus till many Years after the Ephesian Church had been formed But at length because Schisms began now to increase and prevail the Apostles taking the Alarm 〈◊〉 to put their former Decree into Execution and more especially because at this time believers were multiplyed Churches were increased business grew on their Hands and they forced to be long Absent and unable to inspect all Churches As also because the time of their Departure now drew on apace 't was therefore high time and necessary to provide for the Peace and future Government of the Church as they had in the beginning contrived Whereas then I have frequently express'd my self as if the Church Government had been alter'd from what it was in the Infancy of Christianity and lest this should be taken for a rash and dangerous Concession to the Adversaries in prejudice of Episcopacy I thus explain my self 1. This was not a Change of the first Principle and Rule of Government but only a bringing it by Degrees to that Model and Frame which the Apostles as I said first pitched upon and afterward as Occasion required by degrees brought to perfection So that with respect to the Original design and Scheme of Government there was indeed no change or Innovation at all But then 2. If we consider matter of Fact there was an Alteration of Government in as much as the Apostles having left it for a while unto the Presbyters to discharge the Ordinary affairs of the Churches in their Absence but still reserving to themselves the Power of Ordination and other matters of greatest Moment at length constituted Bishops over them pursuant to their Prime Resolution and in Conformity to their own way of
and knowing the Secrets of Mens Hearts The things enjoyn'd by the Apostles excepting Fornication were not necessary before they were enjoyn'd but only Charitably and Prudentially necessary And so our few Ceremonies too were and still are Charitably and Prudentially necessary which was the Reason of their being enjoin'd at first and still continu'd amongst us The Council of Jerusalem did not widen the door of Church-Fellowship as Mr. O. asserts but made it straighter if the matters here spoken of can be said to belong unto Church-Fellowship The Gentile Believers had a Natural right to eat bloud things strangled and things offer'd unto Idols when sold in the Market But the Apostles depriv'd 'em of this Liberty commanding them to Symbolize with the Jews in the forbearance of ' em And I would know a Reason why in a few matters of Indifference Decency and Solemnity it is not Lawful for the Church-Governours now to restrain the Liberty of Believers I say in some few things out of Charity to many Foreign Protestants who have Ceremonies and to the Primitive Christians which were not without 'em even as the Apostles restrain'd the Liberty of the Gentile Believers in Charity to the Jews And why is it not as Lawful for us to Symbolize with the Primitive Christians and our Foreign Brethren-Protestants as the Apostles with the Jews 2. Mr. O. goes on The Council of Jerusalem freed the Christians from the Yoke of Circumcision Ans. But it put on them those three Yokes aforesaid Besides as the Apostles freed the Christians from Circumcision or rather declar'd them free from it for they were never under that bondage so did the Convocation free us from all Superstition and Idolatry 3. The Apostles he adds asserted that Christian Liberty which Jesus Christ purchased and obliged us to maintain Gal. 5. 1. Ans. And yet the Apostles took away the Gentiles Liberty in the things aforemention'd The Text of Scripture here cited has a false construction put upon it The Liberty there spoken of is not a Liberty not to do any thing which is in its own Nature indifferent no not a Liberty from all the smaller Observations of the Law for then the Apostles could not have enjoin'd the forbearance of the three things nor could Paul have Preach'd and Urg'd the observation of those Decrees as he did Acts 16. 4. But 't is the Liberty from the bondage of Circumcision which made Men Debtors to the whole Law and to every Ceremony thereof 4. He complains of the number of our Canons whereas says he the Apostles at Jerusalem made none new and continued but a few which were obliging before Ans. That these three Canons made by the Apostles at Jerusalem were new to the Gentile Believers is out of all question tho' Mr. O. affirms the contrary not new as if they had never been known or heard of before but they were I say new to the Gentile Believers who were not before oblig'd to the observation of 'em tho' Mr. O. says they were But whereas the Apostles at Jerusalem continued made but a few Canons 't is true nevertheless at other times and at other places they might have made more than threescore for any thing we know The code of the Universal Church consists of two Hundred and seven Canons yet they were made at several times and in several Places Even so though the Apostles at this time and at Jerusalem made but three Canons yet at other times and in other places they might have made more and did so as we may Learn from 1 Cor. 7. wherein I think we meet with several Canons as from those words of St. Paul The rest will I set in order when I come 1 Cor. 11. 14. And again Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thes. 2. 15. That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting Tit. 1. 5. But 5. The Apostles says Mr. O. Annexed no 〈◊〉 nor Excommunications against the breaker of their Canons they only concluded 'em with these gentle words from which if you keep your selves ye shall do well Ans. Well! and the Gentile Believers readily obey'd the Apostles Decrees without more ado not stubbornly clamouring for 〈◊〉 Liberty wherewith Christ had made 'em free For Christ had made the Gentile Christians free from the three Canons of the Apostles as well as from Circumcision But doing well was an effectual motive in those days unto Obedience though not in these Licentious Times of ours If the punishment annext unto Canons be now more severe than ordinary it is because some Men are more Stiff and Refractory more Disobedient and Unpeaceable than the Gentile Believers were of old 6. Mr. O. adds The Canons of Jerusalem were made by the Apostles Elders and the whole Church But ours by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation which are the true Church of England by representation by which he thinks to destroy the parallel because the Multitude of Believers were not present at the making our Canons as they were at the making of those at Jerusalem To obviate this Exception I observ'd that our Canons were consented unto or confirmed and receiv'd by the Multitude of Believers that is by their representatives in Parliament But Mr. O. having nothing else to cavil at or wherewith he might invalidate the Parallel which is so much to the advantage of our Church and fatal to the Dissenters corrupts my words and by way of gloss adds To the Multitude of Believers that is says he the Church I say and say it again that the Parliament represents the Multitude of Believers but I never said That is the Church nor any thing like it This Invention was hammer'd out at Mr. O's own Forge whence an abundance of the same kind have been uttered All the colour he has for thus misrepresenting me is that I make the Bishops to answer the Apostles the Presbyters the Elders therefore I must make the Parliament to answer the whole Church And so I do yet this will do Mr. O. no service For that expression The whole Church in the 15 th of Act. 22. is not so exact but will need a little explanation on this Occasion These words then the Whole Church cannot be understood strictly for the whole Church here must be distinguish'd from the Apostles and Elders but surely these also were part of the whole Church properly speaking The words then are meant of the Multitude of Believers they are call'd the Multitude v. 12. and in contradistinction to the Apostles and Elders and therefore I avoided saying The whole Church and chose to express my self thus The Multitude of Believers I am then I flatter my self pretty safe from Mr. O. and my Diocesan too were he what he is far from being the most severe and haughty Prelate in Christendom Because it is a common Objection against the Church of England's Constitution that Parish Priests have no power of Discipline I asserted
govern those Chuches and the particular Acts of Supreme Power are expresly committed to them which is enough I think to prove 'em the Supreme Rulers of those Churches and is all I contend for Besides Mr. O. should Remember that he himself acknowledges 'em Evangelists which where Officers in the Church Superiour unto Ordinary Presbyters according to the supposition agreed upon between him and me but on the other hand whether the Presbyter spoken of 1 Pet. 5. and Act. 20. were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's not to be disputed but whether they had the Supreme Power committed to them is the Question and is I hope resolved in the Negative to Satisfaction in the formentioned Pages of T. N. viz. that it does not appear so from those Expressions Feed the Flock of Christ taking the oversight thereof Take heed unto the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God For it can not be denied but that these Exhortations might be properly given to the Rectors and Vicars of the Church of England though subject to a Diocesian Bishop Yea might be given to every ordained Presbyter though but a Curate APPENDIX MR O. excepts many things against my Instance of the Jews Ecclesiastical Government by an High-Priest inferiour Priests and Levites concerning whom I noted That the Fathers and particularly Clem. Roman seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian 〈◊〉 c. To the Authority of Clemens I added in the Margin Jerom's Epistle to Euag. That which deserves to be consider'd is that he observes the Jewish High-Priest to have been a Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession and says he We follow the Jewish Typical precedent that is we acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our High-Priest Ans. For all this the Jewish Oeconomy was a Type of the Christian at least the Pathers though they make not the Jewish High-Priest a Type of the Christian Bishop Yet they make him a Precedent or Pattern of him and Clemens does so in particular as also many others as I shall shew in its proper place viz. my Answer to his Plea But why has not Mr. O. after so much pains taken in Vindicating Clemens from what is imputed to him endeavoured to take off the force of my other Testimony out of Jerom There was something in the wind that he who undertakes to reply so fully to the Authority of Clemens leaves poor Jerom in the lurch and has not one Syllable to plead in his behalf But the 〈◊〉 of this is plain 't was too hard a Knot for the Minister at 〈◊〉 to Unty or so much as to cut Blundel promised to account for it but was not as good as his Word Walo put us in hopes of it from Salmafius But he deceived the World of their expectation and honest Ludovicus Capella was afraid to take the least notice of it I know nothing that can excuse Mr. O. and the other Gentlemen 〈◊〉 a Parting-blow upon this Argument Mr. O. entertains us with a piece of Drollery The Rector says he calls the 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ministers and at the same time saith they were Prophets that is extraordinary Ministers One would think if they were Ordinary Ministers they were not extraordinary If Extraordinary not Ordinary Now the Rector undertakes to reconcile this Contradiction and to expose Mr. O. as a meer Trifler The same Man may be an Ordinary and an Extraordinary Person on several Accounts not Secundum idem I 'll give him one single Instance and so 〈◊〉 this Point Mr. O. is as I reckon but an Ordinary Minister and yet I account him an Extraordinary Wrangler I had said in T. N. according to my present apprehensions that James was not the Apostle but Mr. O. will needs have him the Apostle that is one of the Twelve for that was my meaning Ans This I am sensible has of old and is still a Controversy among the Learned and Bishop Pearson whom the Minister gets on his side as ost as he can is not very Positive in it though he 〈◊〉 that Way However I 'll comply with Mr. O. for once and let James pass for one of the Twelve Apostles but then I must accquaint him that one of the Twelve Apostles was the fixt and constant Prefect or Ruler that is Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem We read of him being at Jerusalem Act. 12. 17. Gal. 1. 19. Act. 15. 13. Gal. 2. 9 12. Act. 21. 18. All which time to his Death takes up near Thirty Years as is computed It seems then that he was fixt and resident at Jerusalem Salmasius thinks that he never was absent from Jerusalem nor mov'd a foot once from thence to his Dying Day Now that he was Prefect or Bishop there is proved from Clem. Alexandrinus from the Council of Constantinople from Hegesippus and from Jerom besides a Cloud of Witnesses more and among them Calvin that might be adduced in confirmation of this Whoever pleases to be so curious may be directed to 'em in the fourth Chapter of the Learned Mr. Burscough's Treatise of Church-Government from whom I have borrowed all this and several other things in these Papers APPENDIX IN this Chapter Mr. O. has mov'd two Controversies in Philology his Master-Piece on which he seems to value himself the first whereof is that I call the Government of the Church by the Apostles an Oligarchy which he says is a mistake I had prepared a pretty large and exact Account of this Word but have thought good to contract it and 't is in short this that tho' Plato disparages Oligarchy in comparison with Monarchy and Aristotle calls it not Oligarchy for with him that 's the Corruption of the Government but Aristocracy yet that the word Originally signifies a lawful and honest kind of Government and sets forth the true and distinct Nature of it as is manifest from its Etymology which Aristocracy doth not for this word according to the Philosopher denotes any of the Three sorts of Government well managed that 〈◊〉 in Herodotus commends this form of Government by the very name of Oligarchy that Plutarch speaks of it under the same name describing it also by two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and calling its Corruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 that Hesychius reckons up Three kinds of Government one of which is Oligarchy and Lastly that Aristotle himself confesses when a few govern well and for the Common good it is a right and just Government plainly implying there was no harm in the Word Oligarchy or in the Government though in his time and Country custom had disparaged it The next thing he quarrels about is my writing Sanedrin and that I seem to make it an Hebrew word Ans. The Rector neither makes nor seems to make Sanedrin an Hebrew word but if Mr. O had any good Nature
or Observation in him he would rather have concluded that the Rector seems to derive the Word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as himself also believes For my writing Sanedrin without the Aspirate h in the middle might reasonably have been judged done in Conformity to the Greek Language which frequently casts away the Aspirat h in the middle of Compound words the Conjugates at least of many derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this especially Synedrium Wherefore since Mr. O. will needs have 〈◊〉 borrowed from the Greeks 't is more conformable to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to writ it Sanedrin not Sanhedrin with the Aspirat And to speak the very Truth in writing that Word my thoughts were ever upon the Greek Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 into the Orthography But when all is said concerning this Word Sanhedrin I must acknowledge I have some scruple and suspition about it 'T is very odd in my Thoughts that the Name of this great Council which began with Moses should descend from the Greek Tongue a long while unknown to the Jews And that it should have no other Title in the Hebrew Language that I ever heard of But 〈◊〉 or too much of this Trivial matter CHAP. III. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 3 d Chap. MR O. in this Chapter undertakes first to 〈◊〉 his own Hypothesis scil that Paul at his taking final leave of the Ephesian Elders Act. 20. appointed them the sole Governours of that Church in a Parity and that this Constitution was and was intended to be unchangeable I will briefly run through his Arguments and as I go along make my Answer to every one of 'em singly Mr. O. The Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter Supreme to preside over the rest For Timothy and Titus were not Ordinary Presbyters but extraordinary Officers that is Evangelists There is no hint in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. that they were Ordained to be the Apostles Successors in Ephesus and Crete Ans. I shall consider in the following Fifth Chapter this pretence of their being extraordinary Officers and Evangelists whereby Mr. O. would evade our Argument for Timothy's being made the Prefect or Ruler of Ephesus in the Apostles stead mean while granting there is no hint in the Epistle to Tim. that he was Ordained to be the Apostle's Successor in Ephesus though the second Epistle 1. 6. is a shrewd Intimation of it according to Jerom yet it follows not hence that he was not the Apostle's Successor The Reverend Dr. Stratford was not Ordained Presbyter with 〈◊〉 design to be afterward Bishop of Chester and yet for all that he is Bishop of this See Mr. O. The Apostle did and it was the proper Season and his Duty at his taking final leave to settle the Government of that Church But he then committed it to the Presbytery in a Parity and not to any single Person Act. 20. 28. Ans. 1. For any thing to be found in that Act. 20. 28. St. 〈◊〉 might have before this time appointed a single Person over the Ephesian Elders and so have left it These words Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the 〈◊〉 of God might and may properly enough at this day be spoken unto Presbyters subject to a President or Bishop set over them But 2. If the Supreme Power was here committed to the Elders however it s not proved nor can be that it was in a Parity the words might have been spoken to 'em divisim severally which divests one part of the Dissenters of their Presbyteries 3. However it was suppose the Government lodged in the Presbytery St. Paul might afterwards by Divine Authority intrust it with a single Person As to the matter of fact whether he did so is the present controversy the Issue whereof will depend on what follows Mr. O. We may with better reason affirm that Timothy's Power at Ephesus was temporary than that of the Elders Ans. Not so If Timothy's Supreme Power followed that of the Elders as shall be proved and if it cannot be proved that the 〈◊〉 of Government committed to Timothy was ever changed afterwards by any subsequent Act of the Apostles the Objection vanishes Mr. O. Paul gives not the least hint Act. 20. of any Ruler set or to be set over them That he must needs know what Government God would have setled in the Church c. Ans. What hint is there to be observed in the 1st Epistle to lim concerning Presbyterian Parity Or indeed of the Presbyters having the least share in the Church Government It was as necessary he should mention the Presbytery in his first Epistle to Timothy supposed by Mr. O. written before the farewel Sermon as to make mention of their Prelatical Bishop in his Farewel Sermon Nor did the Apostle know beforehand all the mind and Intentions of God concerning his Church He knew not so much as what would befal himself save what other Prophets told him v. 23. and yet still he was left in the dark as to many things v. 22. I see no reason for believing Paul must needs know at that time God's Intention of altering the Church Government afterwards If so 't is not to be wondred he did not acquaint the Presbyters with it Besides there 's good reason to think that Paul though he knew it would not acquaint 'em with it at that time Happy he saw they would not then brook nor endure to hear of the alteration and of being subject to any other single Person except the Apostle himself especially when no Occasion was as yet given for it But in process of time after some of themselves were risen and had spoke perverse things and turning Schismaticks 〈◊〉 drawn away Disciples after them v. 30. then was the time for changing the Government and charging Timothy to silence those that taught false Doctrine 1 Tim. 1. 3. and then it was that at least the Humble and Peaceable and Obedient and Holy Presbyters would readily submit to the Change Mr. O. Asks whether there were no Prophecy of Timothy's being the suture Bishop Ruler of Ephesus If there was why did Paul suppress it in Act. 20. Ans. I have given a reason of this already But further note that there was such a Prophecy as I believe 1 Tim. 1. 18. though it might not have been given till after Paul's farewel Sermon I add it is very probable also that he was Ordained unto it 2. Epist. 1. 6. So St. Jerom thought as I have already observ'd Mr. O. to overthrow the common reason given of the change of Church Government asserts That the establishment of the Presbytery at Ephesus was for a remedy against Schism therefore the Elders were admonished to Oversee the Flock v. 28. Ans. The Minister here is not at all fair in his reasoning for the Remedy which the Apostles prescribes against the Wolves
or Interlopers that would thrust themselves in among 'em and against the Vipers which would arise out of their own Bowels was to take heed to themselves and to the Flock to feed the Church of God the other words over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers being only a reminding them by the way of their Power and Duty All Government of what kind soever it be 't is confest is in general a Remedy against Schism But these Elders are not said to have been Ordained Overseers by the Apostle as if that particular Government of Presbyterian Parity was especially intended for a Remedy against future Schism The proper and parcular Remedy here prescribed by St. Paul is To take heed c. and as it follows v. 31. To watch c. without which 't was impossible to provide Effectually against a surprize from their Enemies the Wolves and the Vipers there spoken of Being Overseers or Governours of the Church would not do the Work whether they acted in a Parity or in Subordination to some single Person was the same thing as to the Apostles Argument here and whether it were the one or the other still it was their taking heed and watching must secure 'em against Schisms and against Heresies But if afterward this Presbyterian Parity was by experience found inconvenient rather a Nursery and Occasion of Schism and therefore for that very reason altered into Prelatical form of Government for the security of the Church in Peace and Order as Jerom owns it is most proper to say that Prelacy was introduced into the Church as a designed Remedy against Schism and not Presbyterian Parity which was indeed the Occasion of it at least was not sufficient to prevent it Mr. O. further argues that God did not could not change the first instituted Church Government because he foresees all events and knows how to prevent Schisms by apt and effectual Remedies and with him is no variableness nor shadow of turning Ans. Such general Harangues though grounded on true Principles if rightly understood and explained prove nothing For on the other side we know that God oftimes Repents and takes new measures for the accomplishing his own great and good designs God imployed Noah a Preacher of Righteousness to perswade the then wicked World to Repentance and Reformation when this succeeded not it repented him that he had made Man and so he drowned all the World except eight Persons God who himself in a Peculiar manner governed Israel appointing what Prophets and Rulers should succeed at a vacancy the Government of Israel is hence called a Theocracy yielded to the importunity of the People and gave them a King Saul to govern them after the manner of the Nations But presently after it repented God that he had set up Saul to be King because he turned back from following God 1 Sam 15. 11. Where then is the absurdity in saying God upon the Occasion of Schisms directed the Apostles to alter the Government among the Christians Or rather as Bishop Pearson speaks to perfect and compleat it For the Apostles so long as it seemed good unto 'em retained in their own hands the Government of all the Churches by them founded as appears from Act. 14. 21 22 23. and Chap. 15. 36. but when the time of their departure drew on or when business encreasing on their hand by reason of their many conversions they were forced to be absent or distant from those Churches a long time they substituted in their Rooms Successors and single Persons to preside over the Churches Which indeed in exact speaking was not a Change but a continuance rather of the former Government all the difference being that whereas the Apostles were Governours of many Churches these their Successors were Rules but of one haply of which difference I speak afterwards Mr. O. after he had endeavoured to confirm his own Opinion by such weak Arguments as we have here mentioned proceeds in the next place to attack mine Many things are here repeated which have been answered already and many things offered which depend on the proof of the main Point and which to make a particular reply unto here were superfluous Mr. O. The 1 Tim. 1. 3. does not say that Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus that is Ruler Ans. Let the Text with the other Passages of this Epistle relating unto the Powers committed unto Timothy speak for it self I put 'em together in T. N. and Mr. O. has no other way to evade the force of the Evidence but pleading that Timothy was an Evangelist and extraordinary Officer as before is noted Mr. O St. John resided long at Ephesus after Paul's departure thence he returned thither after his Release from his Banishment at Paimos and lived there and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's days By consequence St. John was the Supreme Ruler of Ephesus and not Timothy Ans. Let us see what the Authors he quotes say in this matter Euseb. l. 3. c. 18. writes That in the Persecution rais'd by Domitian John was banished into the Island Patmos And out of 〈◊〉 that he received his Revelation at the latter end of Domitian ' s Reign No more than this is to be found in that Chapter of Euseb. Cited by the Minister and yet Mr. O. affirms Euseb. here writes that John returned to Ephesus after he was released c. There is here not a Syllable of returning nor of Ephesus nor of Released nor of living at Ephesus or among the other Asian Churches until Trajan ' s day This notwithstanding I do acknowledge that Euseb. in other places asserts these things But this signifies nothing Euseb. says not that John in particular governed Ephesus but the Asian Churches after the manner it may seem of a Metropolitan To the same purpose speaks Jerom C. S. E. Sub Nerva Principe redit Ephesum 〈◊〉 usque ad Trajanum perseverans totas Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias They affirm not that John governed these Asian Churches Immediately after St. Paul's departure into Macedonia but in the days of Trajan and after his release out of Patmos Nor do they tell us who governed Ephesus and the other Asian Churches from the time of Paul's going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. unto the Reign of Nerva or Trajan And therefore Timothy might in that Interval of time notwithstanding any thing here produced to the Contrary have been the Ruler or Bishop of Ephesus I do further grant that 〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 3. writes that John remained among the Asian Christians or Churches until Trajan but he says not that the Apostle remained there from the time of Paul's last departing from Ephesus into Macedonia when he constituted Timothy Ruler or Bishop there One thing must not be omitted that whereas Eusebius and Irenaeus confess what is indeed manifest in Scripture that Paul founded these Asian Churches yet Jerom makes John the 〈◊〉 and Ruler of them Totas Asiae
fundavit rexit Ecclesias which how to reconcile may deserve a few words That Paul founded the Asians Churches cannot be deny'd and settled their Government ought not to be Questioned That these Asian Churches were to decay by the time of John's Banishment into Patmos is manifest from the Epistles unto the Seven Churches in the Revelations That John after his Release returning into 〈◊〉 new form'd regulated and reformed 〈◊〉 Churches is most probable and therefore is said by Jerom to have founded and governed them Perhaps he removed some of the Angels or Bishops of those Churches who had misbehaved themselves in their Offices whether for a while he personally govern'd 'em all himself without continuing or placing over them Bishops or whether as a Metropolitan having a subordinate Bishop in every Church under him cannot with certainty be determined but 't is out of Question that he appointed Bishops in them before he dyed as appears from 〈◊〉 Epistles and from those remarkable words in Tertullian Ordo Episcoporum ad Originem recensus in Joannem stabit Authorem Mr. O. that he may shake off the Argument for Bishops drawn from the Angels in the Revelations Argues 1. That Angels Minister to the Heirs of Salvation Heb. 1. 14. which imports a Ministery not Superiority Ans. He abuses the Text 't is Ministring for not to the Heirs of Salvation They Minister to God for us So the King is the Minister of or to God Rom. 13. 4. for us Nevertheless he is our Superior even as the Angels are Briefly by this Argument neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles nor Bishops nor Presbyters nor Dissenting Ministers have any Authority for all these Minister for our Salvation or pretend it 2. That Angel singular is often taken Collectively for Angels plural as are Stars also Ans. Mr. O. has not produced one example hereof If any one is at leisure to examine the Text cited by him he 'll find this true For of Mal. 2. 7. I treat by and by 3. That the Epistles were directed to all the believers of the Asiatick Churches so I understand him and not to the Angels only Ans. Not so But to the Angles only for the use of the Believers 4. That 't is uncertain whether there is an Hierarchy among the Angels that the Pseudo-Dionysius makes them the lowest Order that therefore they cannot represent the highest Order in the Church Ans. 'T is meer jangling to alledge the Opinion of an Author confessedly spurious But 't is manifest that there is an Angelical Hierarchy from Scripture and that Angels are the Superior Order may be gathered from Rom. 3. 38. where they reckoned in the first place before Principalities and Powers Lastly the Superlative Excellency of Angels supposing them the lowest Order makes them a fit Representation of the Highest degree among Men. We may say of the meanest Angel He that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the mightyest Potentate of the Earth Even Jesus Christ himself is called an Angel Mal. 3. 1. 5. That the Holy Ghost in the Epistles alludes to the Minister of the Synagogue in Conformity to the Language of the Old Testament Job 33. 23. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 1 7. ch 3. 1. Ans. In these Texts there is no mention of Synagogues nor any where else in the Old Testament Nor do we meet with Angels of the Synagogue but Ruler in the New nor any where else but in the late Rabbins Job's Messenger was either a real Angel or extraordinary Prophet Interpreter and one of a Thousand v. 23. Hagga was a Prophet so was the Baptist not Ministers of Synagogues When Mr. O. appeals unto Malachy he is gone from the Synagogue to the Temple and so quitted his Argument Nor doth Priests Mal. 2. 1. signify all even the Secondary Priests in the Temple but the High Priests only in Succession who are therefore v. 7. exprest in the singular and indefinitely or if Mr. O. will have it so Priests here signfies Collectively all High Priests For it must be confest when the Subject of a Proposition is put indefinitely in the singular number and the Predicate belongs to the whole Species then the Subject may be taken Collectively and is equivalent to an Vniversal Proposition as when we say Man is a rational Creature we mean all Men are so But it will be said that the Predicate viz. his Lips should keep knowledge c. appertains to the whole Species of Priests even the Secondary I reply 1. Supposing this yet still there was an High Priest in the Temple And therefore agreeably hereunto though all the Elders were called Angels admitting this yet there was an Arch-Angel in every Church unto whom the Epistles were directed who was The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 2 Angel in the Epistles is not described by a Specifical but an individual Character ex gr the Angel of the Church of Ephesus If it be said this is a Specifical Character because all the Elders were Angels of that Church I return that cannot be For no body ever directed a Letter thus indefinitely to all and to every one or any one of the same Denomination The Title may haply belong to many Persons for different Reasons and yet the Letter is intended for some one more Eminently called so As if a Letter were directed To the Speaker of the House of Commons though every Member is Speaker if he pleases and though of the Topping and forward Commoners we usually say They are Speakers because they often Speak to matters in Debate yet every Foot-Boy will apprehend the Letter is sent to a particular determinate Person commonly called The Speaker Wherefore if all the Elders of Ephesus were in some sense Angels yet The Angel must mean some single Person known in Special manner stiled Angel who could be no other than the Prelatical Ruler of that Church A great deal is argued in defense of the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. against that of the Seventy But besides what has been elsewhere offered in the Vindication of the latter I here add That Clemens Romanus * that Origen * and Jerom * himself the fierce Stickler for the Hebrew reads the place according to the Seventy It may then with Reason be suspected that the proud conceited Jews corrupted this Scripture to magnify themselves and their Nation as if God in dividing the Nations had his Eye ' specially on the Sons of Israel modelling the World according to the number of them that went down with Jacob into Aegypt as the Rabbins imagine As for the precise number of Provinces and their Guardian Angels though the Rabbins and the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. seem to determine them by the number of Jacob's Children who went with him into Aegypt yet neither the Seventy nor I have adventured so punctually to define it but have left that point uncertain and indefinite It is not known into how many Provinces God cast the
World at first nor can we tell into how many more he might afterwards multiply or into how few reduce it For even the Romans were wont sometimes to increase and sometimes to diminish their Provinces As therefore God might for any thing we know in the beginning have divided the Nations into Seventy times seven Provinces and constituted so many Guardian Angels over them and afterward altered the number of both by adding or diminishing as he saw good So might he have appointed and varied the Number of Bishops as the Condition of the Church requir'd into sometimes more and sometimes less I will conclude the whole Argument with two or three Observations which will confirm what is before pleaded That there is an Hierarchy among the Celestial Spirits and Angels as I said according to the current Opinion in former times presiding as Guardians over Kingdoms and Provinces is Witnessed by Jerom who thus delivers himself Angeli qui Regnis Nationibus praesidebant That Angels in the Revelations is an Allusion to these Guardian Angels is countenanc'd by that noted Passage in Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Progressions of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are I think imitations of the Angelical Glory and of that Ordination As also by that other of Origen Per singulas Ecclesias c. There are two Bishops in every Church one visible the Man Bishop the other invisible the Angel Bishop I think there may be found both an Angel and a Man good Bishops of the Church and as it were Partners in the Work Lastly Optatus Milevitanus Stiles Bishops Angels and plainly alludes unto the Apocalyptical Angels Nor have I met with that Conceit about the Angel of the Synagogue the Charan or Bishop in the Primitive Fathers who make no use of that Notion to explain the Order of Bishops For indeed it is the Invention of the later Rabbins But sometimes as I have just proved they allude unto the Angels and frequently unto the High Priests in the Temple Mr. O. whereas I argu'd that the Synagogue-Rulers were subject to the 〈◊〉 High Priests Ch says he so are Presbyters to Jesus Christ our High Priest Ans. But we are inquiring about subjection unto visible Rulers and if Mr. O. will needs have the Synagogue a Pattern of the Christian Congregations then the Presbyters must be subject unto some visible Superiour as were the Rulers of the Synagogues which he is obliged to Name Till then my Observation is of Moment but his Reply meerly Delusory and Evasive Mr. O. Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High-Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit Ans. First It is sufficient I suppose that the Bishops Charter is a clear one as to the Power they Claim and exercise tho' not as to the Title of Bishop It makes no great matter what becomes of that Secondly Let Mr. O. bring as clear a Proof of Presbyterian Parity or Independency or of Presbyters exercising the Supreme Acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as are to be produced from the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. in behalf of Prelacy that is for a single Persons presiding over Churches and governing them and there 's an end of the present Controversy Thirdly I ask Mr. 〈◊〉 between him and me whether he does not submit to some Religious usages for which there is not so clear a Charter in the New Testament as there is in the Old for some of the Jewish Rites Whether he has as clear and express Commandments for Infant Baptism for the Observation and Divine Institution of the Lord's-Day for days of Publick and general Fasts or Humiliation for Singing David's Psalms in Metre as the Jews had for Circumcision for Saturday-Sabbath for their Fasting-Days and for their Singing the Book of Psalms in their way It is not then for want of a clear Charter as I fear that he refuses to submit to Bishops but for want of a clear Understanding and a peaceable and humble mind He that can sit down with reasonable Deductions and be prevailed with to make no scruple of doing what is thereby recommended unto him if he were steady to his own Principle ought to be satisfyed with the like Reasonable Conclusions in all other matters of Religion I said in the T. N. that a great deal of the Temple-Worship being Moral Religion it was as much the Pattern of the Christian as the Synagogue Worship was And on that account the Jewish Priesthood might be the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy Mr. O. says no because the Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial worship of the Temple though they performed the moral parts there also Ans. Though the Jewish Priesthood and the Temple worship were incumbred with Ceremonies yet they might be the Pattern of the Christian Priesthood and Worship An embroidered Garment may be the Pattern of a plain one They may both be like in shape and in substance though not in Ornament and their Trimming Besides though the Levitical Ceremonies were abolished yet some others were substituted by Jesus Christ in their room as Baptism and the Lord's-Supper But how could the Synagogue which had no Ceremony at all only the Moral parts of Religion performed in it according to Mr. O's reasoning be a pattern of the Christian Churches which have Ceremonies There is as much disagreement between a Synagogue which has no Ceremonies only Natural Religion exercised in it and a Christian Church which has Ceremonies besides the natural Religion as there is between the Temple which had Levitical Ceremonies and the Christian which has not Mr. O. argues that the Legal Priests and Altar and Priesthood were changed Ans. True as to the Levitical Ceremonies But not as to any thing which was Moral And Government I conceive is a part of Moral Religion though therefore a Levitical Ceremonial High-Priest was not ordained for the Christian Church yet in Imitation of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Government a Christian High Priest might be appointed the Ceremonies of the Law being laid aside Mr. O. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests Ans. And will Mr. O. therefore assert that any Man may in a Christian Publick Congregation perform the Moral parts of Worship This very Observation of Mr. O's shews that the Synagogues were not the Pattern of Christian Churches or Congregations because I take it for granted that none among us can perform even Moral Worship in Publick except Deacons Presbyters and Bishops It rather therefore imports that the Temple Worship is the Pattern of the Christian Because as none but the Priests and Levites could perform the Moral Worship in the Temple 2 Chron. 30. 27. Nehem. 9. 5. Joel 2. 17. Even so among us none can except Bishops Priests and Deacons I shall 〈◊〉 my Answer to Mr. O's Discourses about 〈◊〉 's Epistles to the Reply which I intend unto his Plea Judging that the most
proper place We are then now to Treat of Titus and enquire whether he was the Supreme Ruler of the Church in Crete by the appointment of Paul I had affirmed in T. N. and I think prov'd it But Mr. O. tells us 〈◊〉 no where said that Paul made Titus Bishop of Crete Ans. It is sufficient to me that Paul committed to him the Supreme Governing Powers over that Church I 〈◊〉 not about the word Bishop On the other side I retort that 't is no where said that Paul ordained or constituted any one Presbyter in Crete will it follow that he made none at all Mr. O. Titus was left in Crete but for a Season perhaps not above half a Year Paul charging him to come to him unto Nicopolis c. Tit. 3. 12. Ans. According to my Hypothesis it might be some Years after Paul's leaving Crete that he sent for him unto Nicopolis The Apostle as I suppose left him at Crete as he sailed from Italy to Judaea after his release from his first Imprisonment at Rome and long after as he was returning to Italy he sent for him to Nicopolis If this be once proved as I promise then Titus was not left in Crete for a Season But according to Mr. O's Hypothesis I cannot imagine that Titus could have been left in Crete half a Month far enough short of half a Year and too short a time to set in Order the things that were lacking To ordain Elders in every City To stop the Mouths of false Teachers To rebuke 'em and that with all Authority In a Word To reject 〈◊〉 after a second Admonition This surely was above a Months Work or indeed half a Years It implies a permanent and continued Employment I said according to Mr. O's Hypothesis Titus had not sufficient time for the Work whereunto he was appointed For he attended Paul from Achaia unto Macedonia and so into Asia till they arrived at Jerusalem of all which I shall have occasion to treat more punctually in the Fourth Chapter However it cannot I own be denied that Paul called Titus from Crete and by consequence it will be said he was not the fixt Ruler or Bishop there Ans. The resident Governors of Churches in the Apostles days were not so tyed to their Posts that they might not on any account whatever stir thence It is not to be doubted but that they removed for a while at the Apostle's call and for the furtherance of the Gospel unto other places and afterwards returned to their Residence again I do suppose Titus went to St. Paul at Nicopolis and thence with him unto Rome That as he returned back unto Crete by the Apostle's direction he took Dalmatia in his way to plant the Gospel there or to confirm the Churches What became of him afterward cannot be known from Scripture the Divine History of the Church of Crete reaching no further But if we will hearken as in Reason we ought unto what is delivered in the Church-History we must acknowledge that Titus returned into Crete For there he died and was buried And I hope Mr. O. who seems to have a due Regard unto the Fathers and so frequently quotes 'em for the support of his own Opinions will take notice of this Evidence Mr. O. here tells us That the Elders in Crete were chosen by the 〈◊〉 before they were ordained by Titus grounding himself upon Act. 14. 23. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used and is rendered Ordained but implies choosing Ans. Although this is not to the Point here debated yet lest I should be thought to over-slip a Difficulty I answer That there is not in the Epistle to Titus the least intimation of the Multitudes chusing the Elders but the contrary rather the Qualifications and fitness of the Candidates unto that good Office being left unto the judgment of Titus Nor does it appear in Acts 14. 23. that the Multitude chose those Elders there spoken of 〈◊〉 if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place signifies Ordaining then here 's not one word of choosing 'em but if it signifies choosing then were the Two Apostles Paul and Barnabas the Electors as well as the Ordainers Why not So God first without the suffrage of the People chose the Twelve Apostles Act. 10. 41. where the same word is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then Ordained 'em Act. 2. by anointing 'em with the Spirit Nor is Mr. O. mistaken when he imagines me Dreaming that after Ordination Titus assigned those Elders some new Powers which I think is intimated in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which does not properly signify to Ordain but pre-supposes Ordination and imports the placing of those Elders in their particular Stations And this I believe is distinct from their Ordination Mr. O. after a tedious Discourse about Evangelists of which number he reckons 〈◊〉 and Titus having contended that were unfixt Officers of the Church of which more hereafter believes it a degrading them who had a general Power over all the Churches to tie 'em to Residence in one particular Church making Ordinary Officers of ' em Ans. I do not apprehend this to be a degrading them For whilst they continued the Companions and Fellow Labourers of the Apostles and unfixt Officers of the Church they cannot properly be said to have had a general power over all Churches but were continually at the beck and Command of the Apostles to dispatch such Orders as were from time to time given them As they had no certain place of Residence so neither had they any certain work but were like Reformades in an Army who have nothing to do but what the General by a special Order employs 'em in upon sudden Occasions If it be allowable magnis componere parva to explain the Condition of the unfixt Evangelists by an Instance well known in this County Palatine of Lancaster they were like to our Itinerant Preachers founded by Q. Elizabeth of Famous Memory These have a Power from the Bishop of the Diocess to Preach c. in any Church or Chappel within the said County as his Lordship shall direct them or they know is necessary and convenient to the Service of the Reformation They have a general Power to Preach in the Churches in Lancashire Now if the Bishop fixes them in some Rectory or Vicarage no Man will say they are degraded though the Exercise of their Ministery is brought into a narrower Compass than before But I have spent more Words on this slight Objection than it deserves APPENDIX MR O. Whereas I affirm'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought properly to have been rendered appoint or constitute and settle or place them pre-supposing at the same time their Ordination he hence concludes I give up one of Titus ' s main Powers adding if this Text proves not Titus his Ordaining Power no one in that Epistle doth Ans. But Mr. O. forgets that himself as well as the
Rector have all along taken it for granted that whatever Powers were committed to 〈◊〉 were also given unto Titus and reciprocally what to Titus were committed to Timothy Besides I take it to be out of Controversy that he to whom any one Part of Supreme Power is given is to be understood as invested with all Consequently if Titus was to appoint where every Presbyter was to officiate he then had the Power of Ordination also As in like manner though Timothy had no express Commission to reject Hereticks after the second Admonition yet because Titus had that Power so had 〈◊〉 likewise In short Titus had Authority to receive Accusations and to rebuke openly as well as Timothy had 1 Epist. to Tim. 5. and Timothy to excommunicate the Contumacious as well as Titus had Ch. 3. 10. and both had power to ordain because one had CHAP. IV. Being An Answer to Mr. O's 4 th Chap. THE Question here is whereas St. Paul gave Timothy those ample Commissions and Instructions that we read of in his first Epistle concerning the Government of the Ephesian Church some time after he had besought him to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 1 Epist. 1. 3. What was that precise time of Paul's going into Macedonia and beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus In the Tent. Nov. following Bishop Pearson I resolved this Question thus That Paul's Journey here spoken of could not be meant of any of those mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles that therefore it must be some other after his bidding the Elders of Ephesus Farewel That coming to Jerusalem he was there made Prisoner and thence carried to Rome where he continued about 2 Years in Bonds That being at length released he returned into the Eastern Parts again visiting the Churches and then as he passed out of Asia into Macedonia besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus as the fixt Ruler or Bishop of that Church And shortly after dispatched the 1st Epistle to him That Paul himself some while after went back into Italy and unto the utmost parts of the West Preaching the Gospel and being at length once more got unto Rome was there Imprisoned a second time when he wrote the second Epistle to Tim. a little before he was Beheaded We are now to consider Mr. O's Objections against all this Mr. O. To abide still doth not imply a continued Residence But may signify a short stay Act. 17. 14 15. by Consequence he was not the fixt Bishop Ruler of Ephesus Ans. There is a great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 14 15. The former implies a continued stay at Ephesus the latter only signifies Silas and Timothy's halting that is tarrying behind Paul at Beraea Besides we have no account of Timothy's sudden remove from Ephesus But we have of Timothy's leaving Beraea soon after Act. 18. 5. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Lastly the Orders given unto Timothy at Ephesus were many and Important which also required time to be executed which does not appear to have been the Case of Timothy at Beraea Mr. O. Timothy's stay there at Ephesus was but short that is until the Apostle came to him 1 Tim. 3. 14. ch 4. 13. Ans. There is no Colour of Argument in this It is not said he must tarry no longer there than till Paul came to him Nor can that be the meaning For then it would follow that Timothy was to give attendance to Reading to Exhortation and to Doctrine but till the Apostle came to him Which I hope Mr. O. will not affirm Besides Paul was not certain of his going to Ephesus shortly Therefore he adds 1 Tim. 3. 15 If I tarry long c. from which Passages I gather That Paul at his first beseeching of Timothy to abide at Ephesus thought his Instructions not full enough and therefore intended to see Timothy shortly at Ephesus and to furnish him with further Orders how he ought to behave himself in the House of God the Church of Ephesus committed to him But because he suspected he might tarry long he therefore in the mean while sent him this Epistle All which shews that Timothy was designed for the fixt Ruler of Ephesus Although the Apostle resolved to visit him there shortly Not to remove him thence but to give him fuller Directions about the management of the Government of the Church Mr. O. He was not fixt as Resident at Ephesus because the Apostle afterward called him to Rome 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. Ans. I will take an Opportunity by and by to Discourse about Residence where the weakness of this Objection will fully appear In the Interim I 'll only acquaint the Reader that according to Mr. O's own Hypothesis it could not be less than between three and four Years after the writing of the first Epistle that Paul sent for 〈◊〉 unto Rome and according unto mine about six Years which is a considerable stay or Residence in one Place I say further that Paul's sending for Timothy to Rome is no Argument that Timothy for ever quitted that Post That he returned back to Ephesus must be made appear from Ecclefiastical History the Scripture going no further in the Account of Paul and Timothy than that in the second Epistle Sophronlus or Jerom Witness that he was Martyr'd at Ephesus and Photius acquaints us with the time and Occasion viz. At the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which Timothy would have had abrogated Lastly supposing Timothy never returned back to Ephesus it 's no consequence that he was not by Paul constituted resident Bishop Ruler of Ephesus as will afterwards in these Papers appear Mr. O. Objects against the time assign'd in T. N. of Paul's going into 〈◊〉 after his Release from his first Imprisonment at Rome that is after the History of the Acts of the Apostles wherein no mention is made of this Voyage as I assert against this I say Mr. O. Objects That nothing can be concluded from Luke's silence in this Point For 't is certain that he doth not mention all the Journies of Paul and Timothy Ans. I readily grant that bare silence is no good Proof without some other considerations to support it and I also grant that Luke mentions not all Paul and Timothy's Journeys But I contend that he Omits none of Paul's from the 13 th Chapter unto the end of the Acts of the Apostles as any impartial Man will believe if he carefully reads that part of the History And for proof of this I shall at present content my self with the acknowledgement and. Testimony of Beza himself who thus writes particularly as to Paul's Journeys into Macedonia Ter omnino vidit Macedoniam Paulus ut ex historiae filo apparet Quamvis enim non omnia perscripserit Lucas ita tamen contextam historiam esse apparet ut non plures profectiones in Macedoniam possint constitui Paul saw Macedonia but thrice as
at Rome visited Ephesus Ans. The Rector's 〈◊〉 as laid in T. N. does not require that Paul visited Ephesus I took notice of Mr. Bain's Mistake in saying or supposing that Paul left Timothy at Ephesus as if Paul had then been there but no such thing is to be found in 1 Tim. 1. 3. Besides I exprest my Thoughts thus That Paul being at 〈◊〉 going unto Macedonia as he had signified Philipp 1. 25 26. then besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus Not that Paul was at the time 〈◊〉 his beseeching Timothy at Ephesus but at Troas Neither is it necessary to suppose that Timothy was then at Ephesus for St. Paul might by Letter beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus though he had at that present been at Troas with Paul or Timothy in some other place These are unnecessary Repetitions Mr. O. Whereas in proof of Paul's return into the East after his Enlargement from Prison I alledged 2 Tim. 4. 20. Trophimus's being left at 〈◊〉 sick c. the Minister replies It is most likely that Paul touched at 〈◊〉 when he returned from Jerusalem in Bonds to Rome 't is evident he intended to sail by the Coasts of Asia Act. 27. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 to Sail Surely Mr. O. forgets himself Paul was now a Prisoner in Bonds How then could the Apostle intend or determine which way the Ship must Sail Our Translation haply which is not very exact here betray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foul Mistake Meaning to Sail c. but in the Original 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being about to Sail by the Coasts of Asia we all in the Ship Lanched 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul and his 〈◊〉 that meant or designed which way they would Sail but the Centurion and Master of the Ship who determined that Point But for the Ships Sailing by the Coasts of Asia the Reason is plain for thither the Ship was bound no further in the way to Rome and therefore they changed their Ship at Myra v. 5. a City of Lycia part of the Southern Coasts of Asia and took another belonging to Alexandria so Sailing directly into Italy v. 6. It was then neither Paul's 〈◊〉 no nor the Centurions Commands which brought the Ship by the Coasts of Asia 〈◊〉 Myra but the Merchants Business which indeed lay so far in the direct Road unto Italy For every one knows the Ancient way of Sailing before the Compass and Loadstone were 〈◊〉 they chose 〈◊〉 Legere littus to Sail by the Coasts as much as they safely could and they were generally all what we now call Coasters For they had no certain way to Steer directly from Place to Place in the open broad Sea except by the Sun or Stars which did not always appear so that they were wont to keep within sight of Land if possible But I pass this and further say to Mr. O. that 't is a very absurd Conjecture to think that Paul in his Voyage touch'd at 〈◊〉 As if Miletus lay in the way from Myra to Italy or as if the 〈◊〉 nturion or the Master of the Ship would go out of their way I know not how many days Sail to accompany Paul in visiting the Churches at and near Miletus when as Paul was a Prisoner sent to Rome The Centurion could never have answered it to his Superiours As for the other two Suppositions that Miletus might be a Town in Crete of that name or the Island Malta it cannot be deny'd that then Paul might in his Voyage from Judea to Italy have left Trophimus in one or in either of those two places but what then will become of Paul's having been at Troas 2 Tim. 4. 13. and at Corinth v. 20 If then he touch'd not at Troas and at Corinth in his Passage from Jerusalem to Rome as for the foresaid reasons is clear there is good ground to believe he visited Miletus in Asia Philippi and other Churches at the time by me assigned This will further be disputed by and by After all this Mr. O. undertakes directly to Vindicate the Ancient Chronology and to prove that the first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's meeting and taking leave of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. Ans. If this were substantially proved yet still it will not follow that Timothy was not the Supreme Ruler Bishop of Ephesus For first nothing in Paul's Farewell-Sermon proves the Elders to be the Supreme Governours of that Church as has already been made out And as for Paul's taking no notice of 〈◊〉 in that Farewel Sermon I must retort that neither did Paul mention the Elders in the Commission given to Timothy in the first Epistle which Mr. O. supposes written before that farewel Sermon There are several Epistles to the Churches wherein the Presbyters are not mention'd but it will not thence be concluded that they had no Presbyters atall much less ought it to be gathered that Timothy was not the Supreme Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because he is not spoken of in so short a 〈◊〉 Speech But these things have been oft enough spoken of let us then hear Mr. O's Arguments proving the first of Timothy was writ before the Farewell-Sermon Mr. O. Argues from Paul's excommunicating Alexander the Copper-Smith 1 〈◊〉 1. 20. who is the Person mentioned Act. 19. 33. He adds that this Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy and so is mentioned as a late thing Ans. I 'll not create Mr. O. any unnecessary trouble but grant that the same Person is mentioned in both places But I must say it does not appear that this Alexander was a Christian at the uproar in Ephesus mentioned Act 19. The contrary is most probable He is called a Jew not a Christian Believer v. 34. If so then he who never yet Believed could not yet be an Apostate and Consequently could not be Excommunicated But say he were a Christian-Jew it does not appear that he had any hand in raising the Tumult against Paul or that he Apostatized from the Faith at that time That his Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy I easily admit but when he Apostatized I do desire to be informed as also where or to what Church he belonged when he Apostatized and was Excommunicated The most likely was the Ephesian Let that be supposed The Question then is still when he 〈◊〉 and was Excommunicated But the Truth is we are in the Dark both where and when he Apostatized and by Consequence know not when Paul Excommunicated him And therefore nothing can be drawn hence in proof of the time of the Apostles writing the first Epistle to Timothy Mr. O. Puts the Objection against himself How came Timothy to leave Ephesus and 〈◊〉 with Paul in Macedonia Act. 20. 4. seeing the Apostle desired him to stay till he came 1 Tim. 4. 13. His Resolution of this Difficulty is out of Dr. Lightfoot as follows Paul designing to have Sailed for Syria Acts 20. 3. came near to Timothy and there discovering the Danger laid
unto some certain place to Preach the Word But Philip had no extraordinary call unto the office of an Evangelist that I can meet with though he had Extraordinary Gifts in Preaching the Gospel For any thing I read Philip was yet but a Deacon 'T is then reasonable to believe that he was afterward appointed the Resident 〈◊〉 of Caesarea Mr. O. observes very truly and I freely acknowledge that I have no Testimony at hand out of the Father's proving Philip to have been the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea But whereas the Minister pretends that this Philip died at Hierapolis and by consequence was not the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea citing for this Eusebius E. H. l. 3. I am forc'd again to expose his unfaithful representing Authors making 'em write what is not to be found in them The Historian in l. 3. c. 31. first speaks of Philip the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One of the twelve who died at Hierapolis But he affirms it not of Philip the Deacon or Evangelist To the same purpose 〈◊〉 Philippus Apostolus in Phrygia praedicat Evangelium Domini Jesu Sepelitur Hierapoli cum 〈◊〉 bonorifice 'T is true Euseb. at the latter end of that Chapter speaks also of Philip the Evangelist and his Daughters says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who lived with their Father Philip in Caesarea But not a Syllable of Hierapolis Nay here is a tolerable proof that Eusebius thought Philip lived and resided in 〈◊〉 Here then we have another Instance of Mr. O's false dealing with Authors Mr. O. still contends that Timothy and Titus were not resident Bishops Evangelists the Apostle calling 'em both away Tit. 3. 12. To the Apostle Titus came at Nicopolis and after was sent by Paul to 〈◊〉 2 Tim 4. 20. and we hear no further of him It cannot be made appear that ever he returned more to Crete Ans. From Scripture it cannot because the Holy History there ends sc. at Titus going into Dalmatia But the Ecclesiastical History which Mr. O. rightly appeals to in the like cases tells us that Titus died in Crete What would any Man expect more The Question is whether Eusebius asserts the 〈◊〉 to have been Resident or unfixt Ministers in l. 3. c. 37 38 39. Mr. O. maintains this latter Opinion 〈◊〉 testifying That they Preach'd Christ to Infidels Ordained Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations That they went far 〈◊〉 their own Houses did the work of Evangelists and diligently Preached Christ to such as had not yet heard the Word of Faith delivered to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels Ordained other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations Ans. True all this Eusebius Witnesseth but it proves not Mr. O's Point This many Evangelists did for some time but were afterwards fixt in some certain place to govern particular Churches as appears from the Examples Eusebius produces sc. 〈◊〉 Clemens Romanus Polycarp and Papias all which he assures us were the constant residing Bishops of particular Churches Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. though they had been sometime before unfixt Evangelists attending the Apostles uncertain Orders as the necessities of Religion occasionally required And this is what I insisted on in T. N. that Evangelists were both fixt and unfixt according as the Apostles Ordered them that therefore fixedness or unfixedness is not a proper Note nor distinguishing Character of an Evangelist he may be one or the other or both at different times as is manifest from Eusebius Though I delivered my self in T. N. to this effect Mr. O. takes no notice of it but urges again the old Argument avoiding what I observed out of Eusebius in proof that his unfixt Evangelists became afterwards the fixt Bishops of Churches It remains then that Evangelists many of 'em were according to Eusebius fixt Ministers which is all I am concerned for and by Consequence so might Timothy and Titus be Another Controversy is moved about St. Mark whether he being an Evangelist was the settled Governour of the Church of Alexandria Ans. I do readily grant that Mark was a great while an unsettled Minister waiting on the Apostle Peter and by him dispatched up and down upon the Service of the Church though afterward he went or was sent unto Alexandria where he planted a Church and Govern'd it After whom Annianus undertook the Administration and is by Eusebius called the first Bishop thereof which implies that Mark was the Evangelist of it the Administrator of that Church having not as yet perhaps received the Title of Bishop as particularly belonging to him But Mr. O. shakes me off by objecting I may as well make Peter a Resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome Ans. Supposing Peter was there so long as 't is reported of him I must profess I think he was the Resident Apostle of Rome for there are Men of Learning and Observation who will tell Mr. O. that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome that Apostles were wont to have the special care and oversight over some particular Church or Churches besides their general Power which extended unto all Places Of Peter Jerom testifies ibique Romae viginti quinque annos Cathedram Sacerdotalem tenuit Petrus And I hope this Father is of some credit and in esteem with the Minister They will tell him that the removing from place to place and from one City or Country to another was not of the Essence of an Apostle that they might if they thought fit remove or else continue and fix That if an Apostle upon some Emergent Occasion 〈◊〉 to another place this proves not that he was not before his removal the settled Minister of the former Church no more than when a Non-con Minister leaves his former Congregation and running into a remote Country adheres to a new one Will Mr. O. in this case deny that he was ever the settled Minister of the former They will tell him that an Apostle when he removed did still hold even in his Absence the Government of the Church which he left until he thought fit to fix his Successour or was by Death prevented taking any further care of it There want not Examples of this kind Thus 't is believed Euodius succeeded Peter at Antioch in the Apostles Life time and Linus at Rome after his Death And by the same Reason it 's Probable that Annianus succeeded Mark tho' not with the same Title and Character But Mr. O. has St. Chrysostom on his side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who went not about every where but only Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila c. He grants that the Evangelists did not go about Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did but yet they Travell'd up and down into divers places as the Apostles appointed them distinguishing forsooth between every where which belong'd to Apostles and divers places which
was proper to Evangelists Ans. I don't find that Chrysostom speaks one Word here of Evangelists as if they Travell'd into divers places though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as Mr. O. Glosses upon the passage The Instance of Priscilla and Aquila will not evince this For though we read of some removals of these two Persons yet it was not in Order to Preach the Gospel but on some other Account Their first movement was from Rome to Corinth 〈◊〉 being by the Emperors Edict Banished thence This then was not moving up and down into divers places by the Apostles Direction to Preach the Gospel but in Obedience to the Civil Magistrates and for their own security The other motion was in Company with Paul from Corinth to Ephesus where Paul proceeding in his Journey towards Jerusalem left Aquila and Priscilla Act. 18. 19 21. Whereas then Mr. O. says that Aquila and Priscilla removed from Corinth to Ephesus doubtless by Paul ' s appointment as other Evangelists did I see no such thing in the Text. I rather think it was because they were all of the same Craft or Trade Tent-Makers v. 3. and as we shall see anon not such Evangelists as Mr. O. and I am now disputing about Mr. O. The Apostles went up and down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where whither the Spirit Guided them and at their own pleasure but Evangelists not every where at their own pleasure but up and down as the Apostles appointed And this forsooth must be Chrysostom's Meaning that Evangelists did not go up and down every where as they pleased but that 't is imply'd they Travell'd whithersoever the Apostles were pleased to direct them Ans. There is no Substance at all in this slight Gloss. For the Apostles themselves strictly speaking did not go up and down at their own pleasure every where but were under as great restraint and determination as the Evangelists were As the Evangelists were under the Conduct and Command of the Apostles so were the Apostles under the Conduct and Determination of the Spirit as Mr. O. confesses The Apostles then travell'd not up and down at their own pleasure no more than the Evangelists did and the Evangelists went up and down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and into as many Cities and Nations as the Apostles did and perhaps more But to pass over abundance of Trivial Observations made by the Minister I will here endeavour to explain the meaning of this dark Passage of St. Chrysostom which I suspect Mr. O. either does not or will not understand or has not duly considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which Words his meaning is as I conceive that there were a sort of Evangelists who went not up and down to Preach the Gospel Publickly but only taught and instructed some People that came to them privately at home and such were Priscilla and Aquila so we read of 'em Acts 18. 26. Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos unto them and Expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly Unto this passage I am apt to believe Chrysostom alludes For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports their not going up and down to preach Publickly will be easily granted me I hope and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies private instructing may be inferr'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which sense 't is taken Mat. 18. 15. Tell him his fault between him and thee alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter 14. 23. When he had sent the Multitude away he went up into the Mountain apart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately to pray And when the Evening was come he was there alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or private by himself see Luke 9. 18. He was praying alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Aquila and Priscilla instructed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately and alone not in publick Assemblies or in the Face of the Church not every where but in private and at home If this be the Sense of St. Chrysostom the place nothing belongs to the Controversy between Mr. O. and me St. Chrysostom goes on and having in the fourth and last Place named Pastors and Teachers he puts the Question to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Pastors and Teachers less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes he answers they are less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Less than those who travel abroad and preach publickly as being invested with the Evangelical Office But not less than Aquila and Priscilla who were only private Evangelists Thus far St. Chrysostom has informed us of two sorts of Evangelists 1. The private who went not up and down to Propagate the Gospel in Publick but at home only and privately 2. Such as did travel up and down and were publick Evangelists Here there ought to be a full Point Then he proceeds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning whereof is more fully There are Evangelists who reside and continue in one place as Timothy and Titus He had spoken before of private Evangelists viz. Such as Aquila and Priscilla and of Publick Evangelists who travelled abroad and preached the Gospel and now Thirdly he mentions another sort of Evangelists who were fixt and resided in a certain place as Timothy and Titus Which how far it favours Mr. O's Opinion I leave to the Judgment of the Reader If any one else offers me a better explication of this obscure passage in Chrysostom I shall thankfully embrace it In the mean time I believe it makes nothing for my Adversary nor does it in the least distress me Yea it agrees with my notion and Eusebius as I have Expounded him and I presume agreeably to his meaning St. Chrysostom Lastly mentions a fourth sort of Evangelists sc. who wrote the Gospels but they come not under the present Subject Lastly Mr. O. pleads that Chrysostom doth not 〈◊〉 Timothy and Titus among Evangelists but among Pastors and Teachers Ans. How then is Chrysostom of Mr. O's side as he boasted before How will he thence prove that Evangelists travelled up and down as Timothy and Titus did And what becomes of Mr. O's constant affirming they were Evangelists and extraordinary Officers But if my Exposition holds good as I hope it will then Timothy and Titus are reckon'd among fixt Evangelists and not among Pastors and Teachers Besides I am not concerned among whom Chrysostom reckons 'em they were fixt according to Chrysostom and the sole and the Supreme Power was committed to 'em by Paul as is plain in the Epistles Whatever then their Title was they were the settled Rulers of those Churches Finally Mr. O. cites Eusebius for saying It was only reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus but that there was no certainty who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches c. for which he 〈◊〉 Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 4. Ans. If Eusebius had written to this purpose the Words however imply that some single Persons succeeded the Apostles though it was not known of a certainty
who they were nor what their Names were But setting aside this the Principal thing here to be remark'd is that Mr. O. according to his usual Custom has misrepresented Eusebius The Historians Words are as follows How many and who of the true Followers of the Apostles were reckoned sufficient to feed the Churches founded by them it is not easy to say Those only excepted which any one may gather out of Paul ' s Epistles For this Paul had innumerable Fellow Labourers and as he calls 'em Fellow-Soldiers very many of whom were by him thought worthy of immortal Fame he having in his Epistles given an everlasting Testimony of them and Luke also in the Acts reckoning them by their Names Among these Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reported to have receiv'd the Episcopacy of the Ephesian Diocess even as Titus also of the Churches in Crete But Mr. O. craftily transposes the Historians Words He begins at the latter end It was says he only reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus Then he adds from the beginning of this long Period That there was no certainty who succeeded the Apostles c. As if it were but a Report and not a certainty that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of their respective Churches Whereas Eusebius first says 't was uncertain how many and who governed the Churches that vast number of 〈◊〉 planted by the Apostles only he excepts those mentioned by name in the Acts and Paul's Epistles who certainly ruled the Churches planted by the Apostles and among them says he 't is reported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where is this reported Why in St. Paul's Epistles 't is Witnessed that Timothy received the Bishoprick of Ephesns and Titus of Crete And I hope the Testimony drawn from the Historical part of the Apostles Epistles is not an uncertain Report With the help of that common distinction between Ordinary and Extraordinary Church-Officers the Dissenters 〈◊〉 off whatever is brought against them out of Scripture They will tell you that the Apostles and the Evangelists were Extraordinary Officers and cannot be drawn into Consequence nor made a President for Bishops these being but Ordinary Church-Officers Mr. O. I do believe serves himself of this subterfuge near an hundred times in this Defence of his and the Plea My design then here is to examine this Distinction that this short Chapter may rise to some degree of Proportion with the rest The Question then is what is an extraordinary-Officer And my Answer is 't is of two kinds 1. An Extraordinary Officer properly speaking is one whose very Office is Extraordinary and Temporary Such were the Dictators among the Romans so long as that People preserv'd their Liberty These Dictators were Created upon some occasion of extream danger threatning the Common-Wealth which being over there was an end of the Officer and Office both The Dictator returned back to the Plough and the Consuls again reassumed the Administration of the publick Affairs Of this kind is the High-Steward in England who is constituted the chief Manager at the Coronation of the King or Trial of a Peer But so soon as these Solemnities are over there 's an end of the High-Steward He breaks his Staff the Ensign of his Honour and Office and becomes a private Man as he was before Such I reckon Prophets in the Church to have been God raising them up by an extraordinary Commission for the necessary Service of Religion but it was not necessary that a Prophet should have a Successor or that the Office of a Prophet should be continued For in the Jewish Church Prophets ceas'd as well as in the Christian which every one knows and acknowledges 2. An Extraordinary Officer is one whose Office generally speaking at least several parts of his Office are Ordinary necessary and of perpetual use But who is endued with many Singular Personal and extraordinary qualifications and advantages for the Discharge of his Office Such was Aaron the High-Priest of the Jews Such were the Seventy taken in by Moses to bear with him part of the burden of the Government Such were the Apostles and Evangelists the Pastors and Teachers many of 'em in the Apostles days as I make account and am now about to explain The Ordinary necessary and permanent parts of the Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices were Preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments Ordaining Elders and managing the Government and Discipline of the Church With respect hereunto the Apostles and Evangelists were Ordinary Church Officers Though having received from God many extraordinary personal Gifts enabling them to discharge their Office more effectually on which Account they may be called extraordinary Officers also For so we are wont to call even Persons of very Eminent Natural Parts and mighty Improvements in knowledge extraordinary Men Much more then those who receive their divine Abilities immediately from God But still for all that their Office was but Ordinary and it was necessary and God appointed that there should be a Succession unto the Ordinary Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices though he did not continue the extraordinary Gifts So it appears from those Words of our Lord And lo I am with you alway to the end of the World Matt. 28. 20. This promise of Christ cannot be thought to belong to the Apostles personally for they were mortal how then could Jesus Christ be with them alway and to the end of the World Nor is the Promise to be understood of extraordinary Gifts and Assistances such as were given to the Apostles and Evangelists For we know that those ceased in the Church in an Age or two It remains therefore that in the fore-mentioned Passage Christ promised to be with his Church alway unto the end of the World in the Ordinary work of the Ministery Preaching the Word Discipling Nations Administring the Sacrament exercising Discipline and Governing the Church And from hence it follows that they in whose hands is lodged the Power of Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments of Ordaining and Governing the Church at this day are Successors unto the Apostles and Evangelists and invested with the same Powers that the Apostles and Evangelists were though not with such Extraordinary Gifts and by Consequence are the same Species of Church-Officers ex gr Was not Caiaphas as truly the High-Priest as Aaron and the Sanhedrim in the Apostles days the same that it was in Moses's only excepting the Eminent Gifts which were bestowed on the one and not on the other I conclude then that the Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices were if we will speak exactly Ordinary tho' the Apostles and Evangelists Abilities were Extraordinary And that the Apostles and Evangelists had and to this day have and will and ought to have unto the end of the World Successors in all the Ordinary parts of their Office But it will be Objected if the Apostolical or Evangelistical Office was succeeded to why was the name of the Office altered The discontinuance
Laws of the Church are made by them with their knowledge and consent in Convocation Mr. O. The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be confirmed in Parliameut Ans. They are though not Civil yet Ecclesiastical Laws and formerly at east obliged in Conscience as the late Bishop of Worcester informs me Ecclesiastical Cases p. 336. 372 373. 'T is nothing to me whether in Convocation they be made Laws of the Land I was speaking of the Laws of the Church Besides Mr. O's Charge against us was that all the Power in the Church is in the Bishop's Hands But this Argument of his Excludes not only the Presbyters but the Bishops also from having any Power in the Ecclesiastical Legislative For 't is likewise true that the Decrees of Convocation tho' they were made by the Bishops only as Mr. O. would insinuate yet would not be Laws of the Land till confirmed by Parliament Thus the Minister by denying or questioning too much has destroyed the Subject of the Question the Bishops also being hereby strip'd of their Power as well as the Presbyters 'T is then to no purpose for us to dispute whether the Bishops have all the Ecclesiastical Power in their hands or whether the Presbyters have some since according to Mr. O. neither of 'em have any Mr. O. Has every Parish Priest a Power of making Church Laws If not c. He thinks they have not and argues That if the Parish Priests make Laws by their Representatives and shall therefore be thought to have Power of Discipline it will follow that Free-holders have Power of Government their Representatives in Parliament being concerned in the making Laws Ans. The Rector asserts not that Every Parish Priest has a Power of making Church Laws It were an unreasonable thing But every Parish Priest has a share in the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws which he executes by his Representative in Convocation and I add Every Free-holder has a share of Power in making the Political-Laws But all this is Trifling Nothing is more evident than this what is done by a Representative is the Act and Deed of the Persons represented And nothing is more Ordinary than to tell discontented People when the Laws are executed upon them that they are of their own making that is made by their Representatives Mr. O. The Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Ans. There are two things only that I know of necessary to make a just Representative 1. That the Representers be sufficient as to Number 2. That they be freely chosen by the Represented On both accounts I will prove that the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy 1. One cannot from the reason of the thing gather with any certainty what number of Representers is necessary to make a just Representative and 't would be in vain to all edge the private Sentiments of Men among whom it will haply be found quot homines tot sententiae so many Men so many Minds The surest way then to determine this Point is I think to compare the Convocation with the House of Commons which is the Representative of People My Argument lies thus If the House of Commons be a just Representative of the People as to the number of the Representers which no Body I presume will dare to deny then the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy Let us then compare the number of the Representers and the Represented in the House of Commons with the number of the Representers and Represented in the House of Convocation The People of England represented in Parliament are according to Dr. Chamberlain's computation in 〈◊〉 Angliae between five and six Millions Their Representers in the House of Commons about five hundred The Clergy of England are I reckon about fifteen Thousand allowing ten Thousand for the Parsons Rectors and Vicars of so many Parishes and adding to these the Masters and Fellows of the Colledges in both Universities Chaplains Lecturers and Curates which will in all amount to five Thousand more as I will grant because I will not favour a side tho' it may be they 'll not reach above one Third part of that Number The Representers of these fifteen Thousand in Convocation are an hundred Sixty and Six which make up the two lower Houses of Convocation in both 〈◊〉 Any Man may hence discern at first sight the disproportion between five hundred Members of the House of Commons Representing above five Millions of People And one Hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation representing only fifteen Thousand Clergy Every Parliament Man let us now consider them 〈◊〉 represents about ten Thousand Persons But every Member of Convocation represents not much above Ninety The difference then is as Ninety to ten Thousand If then the Members of the House of Commons are in respect of number a just Representative of the People as we all believe much more are the Members of Convocation a just Representative of the Clergy Now because the Wisdom and Integrity of Representers is to be regarded also as well as their Number and because their Wisdom and Integrity cannot be better judged of than by considering the freedom of their choice we are in the next place to enquire whether the Members of Convocation are not as freely chosen by the Clergy as the Members of Parliament are by the People Let it then be remembred that a great part of the Nation have not any Voice at all in the Election of Members of Parliament For we know a vast number of Servants Labourers Mechanicks Shop-keepers Merchants Artists of all sorts Scholars Attorneys Lawyers Physicians Divines not having Freehold Estates Copy-holders Minors also and single Women have no Voice in the Election of any Parliament Man That is as I reckon four parts of five of the People are not at all admitted to chuse Parliament Men. But all the Parsons Rectors and Vicars have Suffrages in the Election of Members of Convocation and these Electors are two Thirds of the Clergy viz. Parsons Rectors and Vicars being ten Thousand by my former Calculation It appears hence that if the House of Commons is a just Representative of the People with respect to their Election much more is the Convocation a just Representative of the Clergy four fifths of the People as I reckon being intirely excluded from choosing Members of Parliament and but one Third part of the Clergy from choosing Members of Convocation But to evince this and make it yet more plain we must go another way to work because of the various methods whereby Persons by Ancient Custom or Constitution become Members of Parliament and of Convocation without any due Election Of the five hundred Members of the House of Commons one hundred are Knights chosen only by Free-holders who are not haply an eighth part of the People of England and the other four hundred are Citizens Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque Ports Elected by an handful of
Men who are not I believe a fiftyeth part of the People of England And these latter in respect of the Body of the Nation I can scarce admit to be elected they may more fitly be said to come in by Privilege Of the one hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation about fifty two or a third part are chosen Proctors by the Parsons Vicars and Rectors who are two thirds of the Clergy about an hundred and fourteen come in by vertue of their Dignities as Deans and Arch-Deacons or by the Election of the Chapters only Let any one then judge whether the lower Houses of Convocation are near so much cramp'd with Members by Privilege as the House of Commons is four parts of the House of Commons being chosen by not a fiftieth part of the Pople and the fifth part of 'em by about an eighth part of the People But a third part of the Convocation is chosen by two thirds of the Clergy and the rest by privilege If then the House of Commons notwithstanding what has been observed are by all Wise Men look'd upon as a just Representative of the People with respect unto their choice as well as their number I would know a Reason why the Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Now least what has been said shall not be thought clear enough and sufficient to evince what it is intended for there being a great uncertainty in such Calculations I shall compare the Convocation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who if I am not much mistaken will be found on both the forementioned Accounts that is of Number and of Choice to have been not so just a Representative of the Clergy as the Convocation is This will be dispatched in a very few Words In the Year 1643. the Parliament called that Assembly consisting of one hundred twenty and two Persons Of whom let it be noted 1. That they fell short of the two Houses of Convocation forty four in number besides that there were some Scots among 'em 2. That not one of 'em was chosen by the Clergy but all Nominated by the Parliament Either then let Mr. O. give over taxing the Convocation as if it were not a just Representative of the Clergy or confess the Westminster Assembly to have been packed to serve a Turn contrary to all Law and Justice In short and to retort Mr. O's Reflections the Assemby of Divines were all of 'em except a few Nominated for a Colour the Parliaments Creatures chosen by them alone The rest if they had joined in the Westminster Deliberations had been meer 〈◊〉 there were enough to out-vote 'em besides those Lords and Commoners who were taken into the Assembly like so many Lay-Elders to Influence their Counsels and prevent any Decree that might be offered contrary to that Parliaments Inclinations or Designs Mr. O. If the Rector can find no proof in Scripture that Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all how dare they the Episcopal-Clergy do it for a Fortnight If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending Ans. We suspend not by virtue of our own sole inherent Power but in conjunction with our Diocesan with his knowledge and consent There is a great Difference between an Inherent Power for Presbyters to suspend a precedent for which I require out of Scripture and to suspend for a time according to the Constitutions of the Church and in Subordination to the Bishop unto whom the Party Suspended may appeal Mr. O. Whereas I affirmed that the Ordinary Elders had not Supreme Authority in the Churches at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East the Minister inferrs that herein is imply'd that Ordinary Presbyters had the Supreme Authority before that time and Challenges the Rector to prove they were ever deprived of it afterward Ans. There is no such thing imply'd by the Rector but only supposed at most to avoid all unnecessary Disputes with his Adversaries But if it were out of question that the Ordinary Elders had once the Supreme Authority yet the Apostle committing afterward the Supreme Authority unto single Persons ex gr unto Timothy and 〈◊〉 and making no mention at all of the Ordinary Presbyters must be understood to supersede the Power that was before in the Presbyters and to subject them unto those single Persons for the future But this is the Point in Controversy throughout these Papers and needs not here to be insisted on Mr. O. Here the Rector fairly confesses there were no Bishops when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds Ans. The Rector supposes it only as is said before but does not grant it Nay he is quite of another mind But it sufficeth to his Hypothesis that single Persons were afterward at least Constituted Rulers Bishops in the Churches Mr. O. 〈◊〉 could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ans. Here Mr. O. if I take him right grants that 〈◊〉 was Ordained by 〈◊〉 taking the 〈◊〉 into his Assistance This is as much as I desire and the exact Pattern of our Ordinations Presbyters therefore did not by their own sole Power Ordain but in Conjunction with the Apostle On the other hand if the Revelation concerning Timothy's Ordination came to the Presbyters as well as to St. Paul they then acted not as Ordinary 〈◊〉 but as Prophets and so cannot warrant Ordinary Presbyters Ordaining by Virtue of their Ordinary Power 〈◊〉 it no where appears that Paul joined the Presbyters in Commission with Timothy it may then be reasonable to conclude that Timothy received the sole Power though 't is sufficient for me to say He had the Supreme Mr. O. But Paul joined 〈◊〉 with him in the Ordinations Acts. 14. 23. Ans. Be it so yet still if Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul as is manifest from Acts 14. 4 14. Gal. 29. And if Barnabas was equal to Paul as many believe and Mr. O. will not deny then we are but where we were before This is nothing to Ordinary Elders Ordaining That Barnabas was tho' not equal to Paul yet independent on him may be probably hence gathered that in the sharp Contest between 'em Barnabas submitted not to Paul but separated from him Acts 15. 39. Besides Barnabas received the same Commission that St. Paul did and at the same time Acts 13. 1 2. However admitting Barnabas was but a Secondary Apostle which I rather believe or 〈◊〉 yet Mr. O. will not I hope deny he was more than an Ordinary Elder what then is this to Ordinary Elders Ordaining by their own sole Power and inherent Authority And how will it hence 〈◊〉 that because Paul admitted Barnabas an Apostle at least a Secondary Apostle to join in the Ordinations Acts 14. 23. that therefore Timothy joined the Ordinary Presbyters with him All this notwithstanding I give Mr. O. what he cannot prove sc.
That Timothy did not Ordain alone 'T is enough to my purpose that he was constitued the Principal Judge and Director in Ordinations as in all other Acts of Jurisdiction Mr. O. The Rector having argued from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Timothy was intended the Resident Governour of the Church of 〈◊〉 the Minister denies it upon the Authority of Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these places produced against me is Limited by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes a great difference A Man may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reside or abide in a place one two or three Days or Months or Years and yet we know what 't is to reside when 't is spoken undeterminately As for those Words Till I come 1 Tim. 4. 13. 't is no Limitation of Timothy's Residence at 〈◊〉 nor does it imply that his Authority there must then cease If it were so then after Paul was come to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must have left off Giving attendance unto Reading to Exhortation to 〈◊〉 which yet I suppose were Duties perpetually incumbent upon him let the Apostle be at 〈◊〉 or not In a word St. Paul's going shortly to Timothy at Ephesus was not with intent to remove him thence but to Instruct him throughly how to behave himself in the House of God the Church committed to his Charge as is before observed and proved Nevertheless least the Apostle should be prevented of his intended Visit and should tarry long as he suspected might happen he sent him for the present this Epistle containing the sum of what afterward when he came to Ephesus he would more at large communicate unto him But these are Repetitions Mr. O. to prove that 〈◊〉 had been furnished with the same Powers at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica as he was afterwards at Ephesus Alledges the Rectors granting that unfixt Evangelists governed the Churches and Ordained Elders under the Apostles Ans. This Concession proves not that Timothy was furnished with the same powers in Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus For 1. It does not appear that Timothy was an Evangelist when sent to Corinth c. This is no where to be found in Scripture But in St. Paul's second Epistle to Timothy which was a great while after he had been sent to 〈◊〉 Philippi and Thessalonica then indeed 't is intimated he was an Evangelist and not before 2. It seems Evident unto me that Timothy was sent unto Greece and Macedonia for quite other purposes than to govern those Churches and Ordain 'em Elders His business at 〈◊〉 was To Establish and comfort the Christians there concerning their Faith 1 Thes. 3. 2. And afterward he went thither again to hasten their Contributions as I conceive His Business to 〈◊〉 was to carry the Apostles Letter concerning the 〈◊〉 Schisms and Contentions We read of no Commission given him to receive Accusations to reprove Offenders openly to examine the Qualification of the Candidates for Holy Orders or to Ordain Elders either at Corinth 〈◊〉 or Thessalonica as He had at Ephesus 3. Eusebius on whose Authority the Hypothesis of unfixt Evangelists depends describes them thus They went from place to place among those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith Or where no Churches were as yet established But Paul had already planted Churches at Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica These then were not places proper for an unfixed Evangelist to be imploy'd in and therefore Timothy did not the work of an Evangelist in those Cities that is he had not the same Powers there as at Ephesus So that I still call upon Mr. O. to prove Timothy was furnished with the same Powers in Greece and Macedonia as he was after at Ephesus 4. If Timothy had been furnished with the same Powers at his going to Greece and Macedonia as at Ephesus why should Paul resolve for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there to instruct 〈◊〉 in his Office And because he foresaw that Journey might possibly be put off for a longer time why did he dispatch a Letter to 〈◊〉 wherein in the mean while he gives him the necessary Orders for the better Ruling of the Church 〈◊〉 I suppose was not so forgetful as to need these Instructions if he had before been furnished with 'em when he was sent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Mr. O. A great part of T. N. is to prove That Presbyters were not Supreme Governours because the Apostles were above'em And yet that Timothy and Titus were Supreme Governours though the Apostles were above them also Either the Elders were Supreme Governours or Timothy and Titus were not Ans. I shew'd by Induction of Particulars that the Presbyters were subject unto the Apostles in every single Act of Government That either an Apostle or a Prophet was constantly at the Helm to guide and direct ' em The Elders had not a discretionary Power in any Case that we read of But Timothy and Titus though they also were subject to St. Paul whenever he thought fit to interpose yet generally speaking were left unto the Judgment of their own private Discretion as appears from the Rules of Government prescribed 'em by the Apostle There is a manifest difference between Timothy and Titus their subjection to the Apostle and that of the Ordinary Elders See the Preface Mr. O. Whereas in proof of many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus I cited Acts 19. 10. All they which dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus And backed this with Ignatius's calling himself the Bishop of Syria not of Antioch only but of some considerable part of the adjacent Country The Minister Replies This is little to the purpose and that Men will talk any thing But Ans. Do not these Observations render it highly probable that the Ephesian Church was also composed of several Assembles in City and Country And is not this a good account why a Bishop and many Presbyters and Deacons were employ'd in the Church of Ephesus not serving one Congregation alone in the City but others also in the Country round about called Asia If there had been but one Congregation at Ephesus one Bishop or Presbyter might have sufficed The Christians at that time of day were not so wealthy as to multiply Church-Officers more than needed This is not I confess to Mr. O's Purpose but I hope 't will be thought to mine Mr. O. further pleads That the Rector understand in Order to prove there were many Congregations in that Church May as well say that the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia c. for all these heard the Word of the Lord Jesus Acts 2. 9 11. as well as those of Asia did Ans. That 's the thing which I do affirm The Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia here mentioned belonged unto the Church of Jerusalem so many of 'em as were converted For the Dwellers in Mesopotamia v. 9. are said to be Dwellers at Jerusalem v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
viz. consisting of three distinct Orders of Ministers the Title only of the Supreme Governours haply excepted and so continued after him as I said unto the time of Ignatius And Lastly having answered all the Objections raised against our Episcopal Government by Mr. O. in his Book Entituled A Plea c. So many of 'em I mean as seemed to carry any weight in them and concerned the times within the Compass of which I have confin'd my self hitherto that 's to say the Apostolical Age. After all this it remains that I consider the Arguments which to the same purpose he was drawn from Ecclesiastical History beginning where the Scripture ends and so descending unto these last Ages before which time Episcopacy was never brought into Question for Fifteen Hundred Years save by one Arch-Heretick Aërius of whom more hereafter My Adversary indeed thinks he has found in Old Authors many Instances favouring the Presbyterian Identity and Parity and Ordination by Presbyters This is now to be Examined If my Answers shall be thought Old I have this excuse for my self that the Objections are old also and in such a Case it is pardonable if not necessary especially when an Adversary demands and even duns yea and reproaches one for not having already undertaken it I pretend not then to make new discoveries never heard of before in the Controversy now before us though haply some few things not observed before may be here offered to the Reader but to apply the proper Answers unto the Old Objections wherewith Mr. O. has endeavoured to embroil and perplex the Truth I will not tie my self unto his Method which is not so well fitted to my design it being my purpose to Manage the Dispute only 〈◊〉 Matters of Fact which being once cleared from countenancing the Presbyterian or Congregational Polities Mr. O's Syllogisms will and must fall to the Ground I will then digest and dispose all his Authorities and my Replies to 'em though not exactly for the controversy 〈◊〉 not on the Niceties of Chronology yet pretty near to the Order of Time to which they belong I begin with the Epistle of Clemens Romanus unto the Church of Corinth which is the best Colourable Argument the Dissenters do or can bring for themselves CHAP. I. Of the Testimony of Clemens Romanus THE substance of what Mr. O. argues from this Epistle against Prelatical Episcopacy and in favour of Presbyterian Parity is whereas I affirm in T. N. Clement seems to make the Jewish High-Priest the Inferior Priests and Levites a Precedent for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons That Clement no where saith there were those three distinct Officers in the Christian Church Or that the Jewish Government was a Pattern of the Christian That Clement mentions but two Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons That He calls these Bishops Presbyters That they governed the Church of Corinth in common That He mentions no chief Bishop there That he exhorts the Corinthians to be subject unto their Elders That Clement ought to be expounded by Scripture Philip. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. In both which places two only Orders are to be met with That Clement does not intend to affirm there were three kinds of Officers in the Christian Church as in the Mosaical but only that both the one and the other Church that is the Mosaical with three Orders and the Christian with two were both established by the same Divine Authority Unto all which it 's reply'd 1. I readily grant Clement no where expresly affirms there were three distinct Orders in the Christian Church or that the High-Priests Priests and Levites in the Jewish Church were the Pattern of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian. Thus much is granted Nevertheless what I cited him for may be true and is so sc. That He seems to make the Jewish Government the Pattern of the Christian as we are wont to argue from him comparing the one with the other One would think this joined with Jerom's Testimony cited with it in T. N. pag. 1. were sufficient to warrant me thus modestly to 〈◊〉 that Clement seems to 〈◊〉 the Jewish Government a Pattern of the Christian which others before me have done as Dr. H. in his Dissertations and Dr. 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. c. l. 2. e. 11. But Mr. Mede deserves particularly to be taken notice of who has more than once declared his Judgment in this matter Let us hear him teaching us that In things for which we find no rule given in the New Testament there we are referred and left to the Analogy of the Old He instances in St. Paul arguing for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 in Infant Baptism in hallowing the first Day of the Week in the three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons asserted by Jerom to be derived from 〈◊〉 his Sons and the Levites and Lastly in this Passage of St. Clement to the same purpose Once more He Expounds those Words in Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians We ought to do all things in Order as the Lord has commanded putting the Question to himself thus Where has the Lord commanded this and answering himself thus In the Analogy of the Old Testament Now Clement in the next following parts of his Epistle treats in general of the time when the Christian Ministrations were to be performed the place where and the Persons by whom If then the Analogy of the Law was a Divine Commission unto the Christians if the Temple of the Jews a Precedent of the Christian Churches if the Jewish Sabbath of the Christian Lord's-Day why not the Levitical three Orders of the Christian 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons But that which is of most moment is that many other Fathers following Clement as Jerom Synesius Cyprian and Firmilianus of whom I have spoken elsewhere did not forget to allude or appeal to the Law of Moses in confirmation of the three Orders of Church-Officers among the Christians St. Cyprian said He had a Divine Law to punish his rebellious Deacon Quoting Deut. 17. 12. Numb 16. 1. Here He thinks himself invested with the same Authority as Aaron was and through Aaron to have received it from God The like we meet with in several other Epistles And indeed the names Sacerdos Sacerdotium Altare Sacrificium Oblationes c. so familiarly used by the Ancients and by our Clement himself to express the Christian Officers and Offices imply as much It may then with Reason be supposed that Clement intended the same 2. As I acknowledge Clement did not totidem verbis assert the Orders so I observe that though He expresly mentions two only yet he affirms no where that there were two only kinds of Officers in the Church of 〈◊〉 and no more Or thus though he mentions two only yet he denies not expresly but that there might be a third 3. I join issue with Mr. O. that Clement ought to be
expounded by the Scripture but surely not by the two places only which he has alledged all the rest being laid aside The Epistle then of Clement must be Expounded by the Whole Scripture and what Intimations of three Orders are any where therein to be found This has been done already and needs not be drawn in here again to lengthen and confound the Argument Only thus briefly to the two Passages adduced by Mr. O. Though St. Paul Philip. 1. 1. mentions Bishops and Deacons only and no third Superior Officer in that Church yet Chap. 2. 25. 〈◊〉 calls Epaphroditus by whom he sent this Epistle the Apostle of the Philippians and though 1 Tim. 3. ch He names Bishops and Deacons only and no third Officer yet as I hope has been sufficiently made out he had constituted Timothy Ruler of the Church of Ephesus and particularly of the Elders there So that there were at Philippi three Orders an Apostle Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons Likewise at Ephesus Timothy the Ruler of that Church and Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons and the same is to be believed of the Church of Corinth when Clement wrote to 'em if we will suffer our selves to be guided by Scripture and Reason 4. That Clement exhorted the Corinthians to be subject unto the Presbyters is certain But so did Ignatius require that the Churches should be subject to their Presbyters tho' at the same time he urged the Christians and specially the Presbyters themselves to be subject to the Bishop The Flock may be subject to the Presbyters and at the same time they and the Presbyters ought to be subject to the Bishop Again that the Presbyters governed the Church in common is not questioned but that they did so without a Bishop is no where expresly said Lastly that Clement expresly mentions no Chief Bishop at 〈◊〉 I own especially not by the name Bishop but still He seems to speak of an Order of Church-Officers Superior to and distinct from Presbyters Page the second commending the peaceable Behaviour of the Corinthians in time 〈◊〉 He writes that they had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subject to 〈◊〉 Rulers and giving convenient honour unto the Presbyters And again p. 〈◊〉 Let us worship the Lord Jesus Christ let us reverence our Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us honour our Presbyters One would think here is sufficient Intimation of an Order of Church Officers Superior unto Presbyters and distinct from them 5. Clement was himself Bishop or Supreme Ruler of the Church of God at Rome being as 't is thought the same Person that we read of Philip. 4. 3. Now 't is not at all likely that Clement a Person of unquestionable Piety and Integrity being a Prelatical Bishop himself at Rome should approve or countenance the Presbyterian Parity at 〈◊〉 and that those two Apostolical Churches should thus widely differ in their Form of Government 6. It may deserve our Observation what Clement writes towards the Conclusion of his Epistle p. 69. thus Whoever among you is Generous and Charitable let him resolve thus If the Sedition Contention and Schisms are risen on my account I 'll be gone where-ever ye will and whatever the People require that I 'll do only let the Flock of Christ and the Presbyters set over them live in Peace Methinks the Author in these Words plainly enough distinguishes between that Generous Person first spoken of and a considerable part of the Presbyters immediately after mentioned separately from him This Generous Person was it seems settled in some Post or Office by one Party of the 〈◊〉 or atleast continued in it against the Mind and Inclination of the Rest. From hence sprang the Quarrels and Schisms among ' em Now what Office could this be but that of the Prelatical Bishop He could not be a meer Presbyter for he 's plainly distinguished from them And besides 't is not to be imagined that one common Presbyter equal with the Rest should have been the occasion of such a dangerous Schism or that his Absence should immediately put an end to it as 't is here imply'd Nor will any one I believe say that He was a Deacon much less an Ordinary Believer He was then as I conceive the Prelate of that Church but not acceptable to one party of the 〈◊〉 and on this Occasion the Peace of the Church was disturbed Clement not intermeddling among 'em as to the Merits of the Cause advises this Generous Person out of Charity and for the Peace of the Church to abdicate and depart from his Office to the end some other succeeding with the Universal Consent of the Corinthians by this means a Period might be put unto their Divisions In further proof of this I offer unto Consideration what I long since wrote in my Clement upon the Margin but was not so happy as to refer to the Author whence I had taken that Note 'T is this That from the Passage of Clement's Epistle just before set down at length 〈◊〉 and others after him conjecture that Clement was named by Peter to be Bishop of Rome and the Apostles immediate Successor but refused it for a like Reason that he here exhorts the Generous Person at Corinth to lay down his Office Now 't was very proper for Clement to urge his own reason and example and especially since his Modesty and Condescension gained him afterward the Affections of that Church and at length advanced him unto the Bishoprick of Rome The like he hints unto this Generous Person as a Motive to him to resign in the next Period He says Clement who shall do thus shall procure to himself great Glory in the Lord and every place every Church will receive him The Passage in Epiphanius whereof I speak is in English as follows Peter and Paul were both the first Apostles and Bishops of Rome then Linus afterward Cletus and next him Clement Contemporary of Peter and Paul Nor let any one wonder that others before Clement received the Episcopacy from the Apostles seeing Clement was their Contemporary Whether He received Ordination to the Episcopacy and declined it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whilst they the Apostles Peter and Paul surviv'd for He says in one of his Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I depart I am gone let the People of God abide in Peace designing this for others Good and advantage or whether c. It may perhaps be objected that Clement ascribes not the Corinthian Schisms to that one Generous Person only but to some misunderstandings between the People and the Presbyters some of the latter being not suffered to continue in the exercise of their Ministry any longer at Corinth So 't is intimated pag. 58. in these Words It would be no little Sin in us to cast off those Presbyters or Bishops who have discharged the Office of their Ministry 〈◊〉 and without blame for we see that they have removed some Presbyters whose Conversation was laudable and
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
short Period expresses himself both ways as well in the Bipartite as in the Tripartite Form Therefore he must surely be understood to respect one and the same Age in the same Sentence If he had therein an Eye unto the Apostolical Age Blundel's Distinction is of no Advantage to our Adversaries Still upon that supposition there were three Orders in the Apostles time If He referred to his own Age then although He comprehends 'em in two Words yet was there three Orders of Ministers in the Church 3. Ignatius can with no Colour of reason be supposed to look to any other than the Apostolical Age wherein he lived a great while and was Martyr'd but about ten Years after the Apostle St. John His three Orders therefore Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were not strictly speaking of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution By consequence Blundel's device makes nothing for the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters 4. It no manner of way relieves our Adversaries from our Argument grounded on the Scriptures which use the Dichotomy and in it comprehend the three Jewish Orders the High-Priests the second Priests and the Levites In conformity whereunto the Fathers may be thought to have summed up the Christian Ministers in two Words also If it be asked with what Congruity could the Fathers so often fall into this Dichotomy and yet at the same time believe the three Orders to be by Apostolical Constitution The Answer is easy Except the Ruling part that 's to say the Administration of the Church Government and Discipline otherwise the Presbyters were and still are among us as it were equal to Bishops sc. in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments wherein they Officiate as effectually as the Bishops themselves for which Reason they may be accounted the Bishops Peers and both not unfitly called by one common name Even as I before observed from St. Chrysoftom Presbyters are comprehended in Deacons as agreeing in some things common to both 8. And in the last place that which I insist and chiefly rely upon as a just Answer unto the Argument grounded on St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is this that 't is drawn only from a Negative Clement's not expresly mentioning the three distinct Orders which I contend is unconcluding I have oft enough produced Instances out of Scripture of the Apostle's not constantly remembring all the Church-Officers in their Epistles and frequently mentioning none at all To keep my self within the Compass of my present Province the Ecclesiastical History Ignatius whose great Design in all his other Epistles was to assert and vindicate the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons passes 'em all over in his Epistle to the Romans But 't is no good Consequence that therefore the Church of Rome had not in it so much as a Presbyter or a Deacon It may farther be considered that much more an Argument deduced from an Author's silence can be of no force when there are other positive and express Witnesses attesting the Truth brought into Question If a Witness deposes that John and Richard were engaged in the Murder of Robert this shall not quit Thomas if another Witness swears he also had an hand in the Assassination Clement mentions Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons not so much as intimating that there was a Prelate at Corinth let that now be supposed But his Contemporary Ignatius has again and again testify'd that there were Bishops Priests and Deacons in several Churches to which he wrote and particularly in his Epistle to the Ephesians that there were these three distinct-Officers throughout the World as far as he knew and by consequence at Corinth Though Clement for Reasons best known unto himself thought not fit to mention the Prelate Nor can it with Reason be pleaded that Ignatius was ignorant of the Government of this Apostolical Church of Corinth as I suppose it will be granted From the whole then I gather that Clement's Silence is no good proof that there was no Prelatical Bishop at Corinth because his Contemporary is positive there was which now brings me to the Testimony of Ignatim in this Controversy CHAP. II. Ignatius his Testimony IGnatius Clement's Contemporary the Disciple and Friend of St. John the Apostle and Martyr of Jesus Christ has so plainly so fully and so often in his Epistles given in his Testimony unto the three distinct Orders of Church-Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons and I have so exactly and at length cited his Words in T. N. p. 59. 60 67 68 69 70 71 72 and 73. that one might justly wonder this Truth should any longer be called into Question after so clear Evidence produced Mr. O. has sundry things to throw in our way which I must consider in their Order and remove if it be possible 1. Mr. O. would bring the credit of these Epistles into suspicion as if it were not agreed among the Learned whether they are Genuine That Daille endeavoured to prove 'em Spurious and La Roque with great Judgment reply'd unto the Learned Bp. of Chester Dr. Pearson who had endeavoured to confute Monsieur Daille in his Vindiciae Epist S. Ignatii Ans. The Genuineness of these Epistles was never questioned by any Learned Man that I know of since Dr. Pearson published his vindication of 'em save by Monsieur La Roque who attempted to support Monsieur Daille but without success I never heard he gained any one Proselyte 'T is confessed I have not read that French Gentleman's Book the Reason whereof is that when Dr. Pearson was by his Friends dealt with to make a Reply to La Roque the Wise Man answered There was no need of it that La Roque had advanced nothing of Moment against his Vindiciae and that the Authority of St. Ignatius's Epistles remained still unquestionable This I remember very well was the common Discourse among us many Years ago in the University of Cambridge and the Event confirms it no Body now daring to deny them not the Dissenters themselves though sometimes in general they would have 'em pass for uncertain It 's not intended hereby to disparage Monsieur La Roque in the least His Misfortune was that He undertook the Defence of an ill Cause against a Potent Adversary in such a Case the Learned'st Man in the World must be forced to retire with dishonour and disappointment But for Mr. O. to say that 'T was not agreed among the Learned c. when one only Learned Man is to be found that stands out is too much I think to offer unto the World as if the Balance were even and the Learned equally divided about the Genuineness of Ignatius's Epistles I am perswaded Mr. O. himself believes what Bishop Pearson has proved 'em to be though he would 〈◊〉 that they are yet doubtful But enough of this 2. Mr. O. further contends There are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could Ordinarily meet in one place and had but one Altar
should have been the Companion of Paul or of Barnabas This last also is the Evangelist of whom the dispute is betwixt Mr. O. and me who is but once mentioned in Scripture and that at Babylon which being in Aegypt as many with reason hold he might be a Resident Evangelist at Alexandria though occasionally with Peter at the writing that Epistle at Babylon But 〈◊〉 any will contend St. Peter's Babylon was Rome be it so what absurdity is it to affirm with Eusebius that Peter sent him from Rome to Alexandria where he planted that Church and departing this life bequeathed the Government of it to Annianus Yet once more admitting Mark after he had formed and regulated that Church of Alexandria to have removed unto some other Cities and Countries for I am by no means obliged to maintain that he dy'd there nor does Eusebius expresly say so that I know of 't is enough for me to affirm with Eusebius that Annianus took the Administration of that Church of Alexandria after Mark left it To conclude if there was but one Mark who sometimes was with Peter at other times with Paul and Barnabas then with Barnabas alone after that with Paul again and lastly with Peter yet this hinders not but at last he settled at Alexandria Neither will his occasional removals thence at the Apostle's call destroy his Residence See part the First Chapter the Fifth whither I refer the Reader for Satisfaction 'T is high time now to consider Mr. O's Plea on this Argument I am referred to Page 126. St. Jerom is the only Ancient Author that has any thing of the particular manner of Church Government established by Mark 〈◊〉 Alexandria and on whose Authority the Presbyterians very much rely What he says is The Alexandrian Presbyters from Mark to Heraclas and Dionys. call'd one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree I say called him Bishop But he tells us not who chose him nor who Ordained him so that we are yet at a loss as to one main part of the Controversy for any thing Jerom has discovered to us Only one would have expected that if the Presbyters at any time had Ordained their Bishop this Father would not have failed to let us know it for the Honour of himself and those of his own Order He also informs us in the same Epistle that One Presbyter was set over the rest for a remedy against 〈◊〉 and this was done Postea that is after John's two last Epistles those of Paul to Timothy and Titus and the first of Peter were written for Bishop and Presbyter were all one till then as He supposes and we must be made to believe But 't is very hard to believe all this upon the credit of Jerom Nay Jerom himself did not believe it if we may believe him for he confesses that Paul made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus How then comes in this Postea after he had quoted St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy For if ever 〈◊〉 was made Bishop of Ephesus by Paul 't was before St. Paul wrote that Epistle And if so how comes Jerom to say that the devise was formed Postea c. that is after the Writing of that Epistle that is after Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus All that can be said the good Father writes somewhat confusedly and is inconsistent with himself But to let this pass at present One thing only is very observable that if St. Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus if James was Bishop of Jerusalem statim 〈◊〉 Apostolos and if Mark appointed a Bishop to be chosen and set over 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 at Alexandria then this Remedy against Schism was found out and establish'd in the Apostle's Days it being certain that Mark dy'd before Peter and Paul or 〈◊〉 I might argue to the same purpose from another Passage in Jerom who affirms that Mark himself was the first Bishop of Alexandria Therefore this Remedy against Schism was prescribed in the Apostle's Days and by the Apostles also and therefore Bishops must needs be of Divine Institution even in the Opinion of Jerom himself But still the difficulty remains who chose and Ordained the Bishop after Mark was gone Here Mr. O. thinks He has caught us having found an unquestionable Testimony that the Presbyters at Alexandria both chose their Bishop and Ordained him yea and Ordained one another So 't is testified by 〈◊〉 in his Origines 〈◊〉 set forth by Mr. Selden many Years ago His Words are Mark appointed Hananias or Annianus first Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria and Twelve Presbyters his constant Assistants to the end that when the Patriarchship was vacant they should chuse one of their own Number should lay hands on his Head and bless him and create him their Patriarch then after that they should elect some Eminent Person and make him 〈◊〉 in the Room of him who was made Patriarch that so there should be always Twelve 〈◊〉 c. This Mr. O. calls a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer also of Presbyters making Presbyters Before I give a direct reply I will try what can he gathered from this Narrative of Eutychius in favour of Episcopal Government First 'T is Natural hence to gather that Mark not so much as dreamed of a Parity between the Bishop and his Presbyters His conceit was there should be Twelve Presbyters answerable to the Apostles and a Bishop 〈◊〉 them like Christ over his 〈◊〉 Secondly By this Constitution of Mark' s at Alexandria Episcopacy must be acknowledged the first Government set up in that Church and because Mark was an inspired Evangelist it was Divine also Thirdly Note that according to Eutychius the Presbyters were to chuse their Bishop and not the People which the Dissenters will not very well like of Fourthly That the Presbyters Ordained new Presbyters which will scarce go down with the Dissenting Congregations now a Days Fifthly That excepting accidents the Patriarch or as Mr. O. the Moderator of the Class was chosen for Life which the Presbyterians will not allow of Sixthly That the Dissenters are every whit as much departed from the Observance of St. Mark' s model as they can pretend we are yea and much more too Thus much being premised that which I would reply to 〈◊〉 his story is that he is the first that told it that he is an Author of no Credit and that there are considerable exceptions to be made against him and his Tale. They are as follows First He is acknowledged by Selden himself to have lived but in the Tenth Century about 900 Years after the pretended constitution of St. Mark He alledges no Writer or Records known unto us from whence he received this account nor is it known that there were any such Besides Jerom who was several times in Egypt knew nothing of this which is very strange 〈◊〉 should 500 Years after and
when their Records had been destroyed by the Saracens It must then rest upon the credit of 〈◊〉 himself alone and what that is will appear by and by In the mean time this Tale of 〈◊〉 must not pass being wrote by one who lived at so great a distance of time from the matter of Fact delivered by Him without any other known Ancienter Author to support him besides He is an Obscure Writer Pop't up into the World to serve a cause and therefore cannot Merit belief Secondly 〈◊〉 differs from many Authors of more Unquestionable Authority than himself He differs from Ignatius who affirms that Presbyters ought to do nothing without the Bishop not Baptize not Marry not Celebrate the Eucharist without the Bishop but according to 〈◊〉 they Ordained without him He differs from Eusebius so far at least as to relate what Eusebius knew nothing of It is very strange that Eusebius so diligent and so exact an Historian so curious and inquisitive a Searcher into the Antiquities of the most Eminent Churches from their first Plantation particularly this of Alexandria should not have discovered any thing of the Presbyters Ordaining their Bishop and one another that he that has acquainted us with the Names of all the Patriarchs from Mark to Alexander the precise Order of their Succession the Year when every Bishop succeeded in what Emperor's Reign it was and sundry other remarkable things which happened in that Church should be wholly silent and ignorant of this Constitution of St. Mark More over 〈◊〉 says that Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his Name in the first Year of Nero's Reign but Eusebius affirms it was done in the Days of Claudius Nero's Predecessor Eutychius tells us that Mark was slain in the first Year of Nero Eusebius not till the Eighth at soonest He differs from St. Jerom too who reports that all the New Testament was wrote in Greek except the Gospel of Matthew but Eutychius will have it that Mark wrote his in the Latin Tongue Briefly then he differs from some Authors quoted by Selden himself in whom he read of three Presbyters Seven Deacons and Eleven other 〈◊〉 Officers of what Character is not said whereas Eutychius mentions Twelve only and all those Presbyters on these accounts then he is of very little credit Thirdly He relates many things in his Annals whereof these Origines are a part against the Faith of all approved History He makes the Council of Nice to have consisted of 2048. Bishops which is not credible He says Peter was crucified in the Twenty Second Year after Christ and he reckons Origen a Bishop Fouthly Even in these Origines he is not at one with himself He writes that Mark went unto Barca to preach the Gospel that then Claudius Caesar dy'd and Nero succeeded him that in the Reign of Nero Peter the Prince of the Apostles wrote the Gospel of Mark with Mark in the Roman Tongue and in the City of Rome and yet that Mark was slain at Alexandria in the first Year of Nero. But if Mark was Martyr'd at Alexandria in the first Year of Nero it cannot be that he was at Rome with Peter in Nero's Reign and joyned with him in Writing the Gospel Fifthly Eutychius's story seems most improbable and in my Judgment overthrows its self For if the Presbyters had the Power first of chusing and then Ordaining one from among themselves to be Patriarch and after that Ordained the new Presbyter also to what purpose was a Bishop created was he to be a Bishop of Clouts to sit in his Chair and gravely to look on whilst the Eleven Presbyters Chose and Ordained the Twelveth and he have no Hand in it Sixthly The Origines consists of so many Childish Ridiculous and Absurd Relations that no wise Man can given any credit to so trifling an Author That story of Mark' s going to a Shoe-Maker or Cobler to have his Shoe-Latchet mended of Hananias pricking his Finger with the Awl and thereupon growing Angry of Mark' s 〈◊〉 him with a Promise to heal his Finger if He would belive in Christ of Hananias believing and being cured and Lastly of Mark' s Baptizing him thereupon and making him Patriarch of Alexandria is to me incredible Another of the like Nature is that of Alexander's desiring that the Patriarch of Alexandria should not be called Papa whereas it had been decreed before in the Days of Heracles I suppose for distinctions sake Bishops being stiled Fathers therefore it was judged fit that the Patriarch should be Honoured with the Title of Grand-Father But-why Alexander should be so Self-denying as to refuse an Honourable Title which several of his Predecessors had had beforehim is to me a Mystery Again that wonderful design of Mark as 〈◊〉 reports it to have always the exact Number of Twelve Presbyters in Alexandria appears to me not very Solid Lastly of the same stamp is that request of Peter to be crucify'd with his Head downward that he might not have the Honour to die in the same manner as Jesus Christ did I fancy that Peter never requested such a thing or if He did that Nero never granted it Seventhly Whereas Eutychius would make us believe that Mark' s Rule about the Presbyters of Alexandria not the Neighbouring Bishops of Egypt chusing and Ordaining the Patriarchs and Presbyters continued unto the Days of Alexander who must therefore be the last that was Ordained by the Presbyters about the Year 310. Yet St. Cyprian who flourish'd above 60 Years before Alexander has something that makes me suspect the contrary and that Mark establish'd no such Order at Alexandria St. Cyprians's Words are these Propter quod diligenter de Traditione divina Apostolica observatione servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per Provincias Universas tenetur ut ad Ordinationes rite Celebrandas ad eam plebem Cui Praepositus Ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur plebe presente c. This is part of a Letter written by the Bishop of Carthage to the Churches of Leon Asturica and Emerita in Spain from whence 't is manifest that this was a Divine Tradition an Apostolical Practice that the Bishops of the Province should Assemble Chuse and Ordain a new Bishop and that it universally obtained apud nos says the Father among us in Africa and almost in all the Provinces in the World in the Roman Empire besure And I take Cyprian to be a much trustier Author than Eutychius or Jerom either To support this Testimony of St. Cyprian I produce the First of the Apostolical Canons which were collected before St. Cyprian at least a good while before the Nicene Council as Dr. Beverigde has shewn wherein as is by Selden pretended the Custom of Alexandria was alter'd but 〈◊〉 cannot be as may be gathered from the first Canon aforesaid which runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then this
Apostolical Canon was in force before the Council of Nice then it was not the Nieene Council which altered the Alexandrian Custom as Eutychius and Selden suppose it having been a much more Ancient practise it seems for the Provincial Bishops to Ordain Bishops And so Eutychius is mistaken in this point also If ever there was such a Rule establish'd by Mark at Alexandria of Presbyters Ordaining Bishops or Presbyters it was changed before Alexander or the Nicene Council yea before St. Cyprian's time Eighthly Whereas Eutychius asserts there were no Bishops in Egypt till Demetrius it is proved to the contrary by that most Learned Prelate Bishop Pearson from several good Testimonies and particularly from the Vetus Vita Marci and Rabanus Maurus Abbot of Fulda of both which Mr. Selden likewise takes Notice The former writes thus Pentapolim pergit Marcus Ordinans Episcopos per Regiones illas Clericos iterum Alexandriam venit The latter thus Ordinaverat Marcus pro se Episcopum Annianum 〈◊〉 quoque longe lateque 〈◊〉 Episcopos Mr. Selden to avoid the force of these Testimonies has invented this Shift sc. that Mark made these Bishops in Pentapolis only and not in Egpyt If one ask'd why Mark should make Bishops in Pentapolis and not in 〈◊〉 also it would be hard for Mr. O. to give a satisfactory answer to it Besides 't is said that Mark made Bishops per Regiones illas doubtless the meaning is through all the Countries that he travelled between Alexandria and Pentapolis and surely Egypt was one of them And why should one Patriarch or Bishop suffice for Alexandria and all Egypt but not for Pentapolis Except Mr. O. would be so kind as to furnish us with so early an instance of a vast City and Province under the Government of one single Bishop It cannot then be questioned but that there were from the beginning Bishops in the Province of Egypt as well as one in the City of Alexandria Ninthly Whereas Eutychius says that Mark appointed the Twelve Presbyters to chuse their Patriarch and by Imposition of Hands and Prayers to Ordain him yet Bishop Pearson has produc'd several good Authorities to the contrary shewing they were not Ordained by the Presbyters as first the Apostolical Constitutions attest Of Abilius who succeeded Hananias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Jerom's Chronicle we read that Abilius was chosen ex Presbyteris 〈◊〉 Graecorum Traditionem a Sancto Luca Ordinatus est that is Abilius was chosen out of the Presbyters or from among them as Jerom has it not by 〈◊〉 and according to the Tradition of the Greek Church was Ordained by St. Luke Furthermore 〈◊〉 who wrote the Lives of the Alexandrian Patriarchs informs us that Cerdon who succeeded Abilius and Cerdon's Successors unto Demetrius were Ordained by the Bishops out of that Region that is Egypt I suppose By all which it appears that there were Bishops in Egypt before Demetrius who Ordained the Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria Tenthly It is not like that 〈◊〉 had any Authentick Records belonging to the Churches of Alexandria and Egypt the Saracens having destroy'd and burnt 'em all long before Eutychius was born so that where he wanders from the Truth or when he 〈◊〉 we must conclude he fram'd his Annals and Origines out of his own Brains or some uncertain Monkish Traditions and Legends then currant among them To conclude supposing the Alexandrian Presbyters by St. Mark' s appointment did Elect the Patriarch or Bishop yea and Ordain him too yet it must be confess'd that Bishops however chosen and Ordained are as early as he and by Divine Right St. Mark being a Person inspired and consequently having Authority from God at least from the Apostles to establish the Government of the Chuches which he founded with what Face then could Selden produce these Origines to justifie the Presbyterian design in the late Troubles I do not now say for altering the way of choosing and Ordaining them but for quite extirpating Episcopacy Or with what Colour of Reason can Mr. O. argue against Episcopacy and blame us for not observing the supposed Method of chusing and Ordaining our Bishops 〈◊〉 himself and his Partizans are undermining the Fabrick which St. Mark is confest to have built and levelling it to the very Foundation Let our Adversaries first conform themselves to this Rule of St. Mark let them in every City chuse and Ordain a Bishop for Life unto whom themselves and all the Faithful in the City and Country adjacent must be Subject and unto whose care and conduct the Administration of the Ecclesiastical Affairs may chiefly be committed and when they have done this then let them lay before us this special Author Eutychius It will be time enough then to consider farther of him Mean while it seems not fair nor honest to bring this Fabulous instance on the Stage against us which they themselves will not be guided by The 〈◊〉 is Eutychius of whom we have been speaking liv'd about 900 Years distance from the 〈◊〉 by him related without any intermediate Testimony to confirm his story He differs in many things from several good Authors of much more credit than himself He relates things against the Faith of all History he contradicts himself 〈◊〉 own story 〈◊〉 its self he intermixes many little Foolish and very improbable Remarks he is contradicted by more Ancient Writers yea and more unquestionable than himself Jerom whose design and Argument needed it makes no mention of that Constitution of St. Mark and lastly the Dissenters themselves observe it not By this instance therefore 〈◊〉 they do us harm they do themselves no good yea rather hereby they condemn themselves But Lastly against the Testimony of 〈◊〉 I lay that of 〈◊〉 Echellensis de Orig. Alexand. Ecl. which I borrow from the Bishop of Worcester Echellensis tells us out of Severns Alex. Bishop of the Asmonaeans and of the Sect of the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 that after the Death of the Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to Election The first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to chuse their Bishop and to the other Bishops in Egypt to consecrate him To which the Bishops then present assented only saying if he were worthy they would consecrate him whom they chose but not otherwise So then they had it seems a Negative Voice in the Election And Elmachinus makes this a Constitution of St. Mark in the first Foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the Nicene Council about which time it was ordered that the Bishop might be chosen from any place or Church whatever and this was all the Alteration in the Constitution of the Alexandrian Church at the Council of Nice whatever Selden or Eutycbius say to the contrary CHAP IV. Of the Syriac Translation of the New Testament MR. O. argues that the the Syriac 〈◊〉 which is so very Ancient that is comes nearest in time to the Original useth not two Words
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
I. 1. ch 13. That by the Pope Palladius was sent primus Episcopus ad Scotos Creden tes therefore the Scots were Christians before Palladius Ans. If this Testimony be adduced to any purpose 't is to prove that the Tramontane Picts received Palladius their first Bishop from 〈◊〉 the Roman 〈◊〉 that before that time they believed and had Presbytery only but no Bishops because Palladius was the first Now to shew the Disingenuity of this Suggestion it must be noted very briefly out of the Historical Account that by Scots are here meant the Scots in Ireland that Bede has not a word of their form of Government that some Copies read ad Scotos convertendos which would imply that they were not yet Christians that primus in Prosper whence Bede is thought to have taken his Narrative in some Copies is read primitus that is formerly that Palladius and Patricius were designed for the Primates only or the first Bishops in rank and finally that 't is true Palladius was the first Bishop sent into Ireland by the Pope Yet there were Bishops before that Time of which Number Archbishop Usher produces Four This was the first attempt of reducing Ireland to the Obedience of the Pope I 'll say nothing of Mr. O's confessing Palladius was sent into Ireland Plea 148. Mr. O. now promises us an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland 't is that of Segenius a 〈◊〉 and the Abbot of Hy who with other Presbyters Ordained Bishop Aidan and Finan Bede H. E. l. 3. 5 15 Ans. But Mr. O. acknowledges that there were Bishops at Hy and in that Province from Bede lib. 3. ch 4. and the Ulster Annals agree hereunto What need we say any more to resolve this difficulty Some Bishop with the Abbot and his Presbyters laying hands on as our Custom is at this Day Ordained Aidan For to what purpose were these Bishops among them if not to Ordain The Government was in the Abbots Hands the Presbyters were able to Minister in the Word and Sacraments The Bishops bufiness then was certainly to Ordain Mr. O. excepts against the Ulster Annals as not being attested by any Author of that Age And yet they agree in most things with Adamnanus and with 〈◊〉 and are a little relied on by Archbishop Usher Mr. O. urges a Bishop being supposed in the Monastery at Hy He was subject to the Abbot and thinks he has here sufficiently reply'd to My Lord of St. Asaph's Solution of that difficulty I do therefore add thereto Ans. Nothing is more certain than that Bishops were wont to be in Monasteries I read in Theodoret of eleven residing in those of Egypt from their Youth up to their Extreame Old Age and when they were Bishops too Theod. E. H. l. 4. ch 22. Now though the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot of Hy yet it must remembred also that the Abbots Jurisdiction extended it self throughout the Province No wonder then if the Provincial Bishops were 〈◊〉 to the Abbots Rule and Order required thus much If one of our English Bishops should 〈◊〉 into a College of Oxford and readmit himself a Member of the University He becomes thereby subject unto the Head of that College and to the Chancellor within the Precincts of the University And that I may not fain a case some of our Bishops have held a Prebendary of a Collegiate Church in Commendam He is thereby subject to the Dean therein all matters belonging to that Church even as 〈◊〉 says the Provincial Bishops were to the Abbots of Hy viz. within the Abbot's Jurisdiction But we know for all this the Chancellor of Oxford and the Dean of a Cathedral cannot Ordain Besides the Abbots of Hy though they retained an External Government over all in the Province the Bishops not excepted Yet as to the Episcopal and Ministerial Acts of Religion in that Age belonging to Bishops the Abbots gave place to Bishops as 〈◊〉 appear from the following story in My Lord of St. Asaph It was it seems the Custom at that time for the Priests being all equals to break the Lord's Bread in the 〈◊〉 together A certain Bishop being then at Hy and not discovering his Character was by Columba invited to break the Lord's Bread with him But Columba at length discerning him to be a Bishop would have the Bishop break the Bread alone as Bishops then used to do which shews that notwithstanding the Abbots Temporal Jurisdiction as I may call it Columba acknowledged the Episcopal Order to be Superior to that of a Presbyter Lastly Bede's inusitato more for the right understanding whereof I refer to the Historical Account implies that this was but one singular and unprecedented example One Swallow and such a one as was never seen before does not make a Summer One might then here justly cry out with 〈◊〉 Quid mibi profers 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae consuetudinem Cum 〈◊〉 Turba 〈◊〉 and the Whole World was Episcopal The first person sent into Northumberland from Hy was one described only but without a Name in Bede Returning back to Hy without 〈◊〉 Aidan is appointed and Ordained unto the Episcopacy in whose Ordination it is probable his Predecessor a Bishop was concerned for he was then present among them Mr. O. alledges he is called only 〈◊〉 a Priest but this is disputing a small point by Halves for if Aidan was a Bishop so was his 〈◊〉 And of Aidan 't is said Ipsum esse dignum Episcopatu and then in the next Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aidan at his Ordination 〈◊〉 Antistes So then in Bede's Language Antistes is a Bishop and the nameless Person we speak of is called so a little 〈◊〉 He was therefore a Bishop if Aidan was Lastly Aidan belike was a Presbyter before he was Ordained Bishop of Northumbria if so to what purpose was he Ordained if not to a distinct Office I do suppose all Mr. 〈◊〉 Material Objections are accounted for by this time and his Proofs of Presbyterian Ordination invalidated I will conclude this Chapter with two Observations First It cannot with any reason be imagined but that there were Bishops in the Province of Hy because Columba the first Abbot thereof came out of Ireland there we read of Bishops among whom he was educated convers't freely with them and was Ordained by them He was Ordained Deacon by Finian Bishop of Meath and was an Intimate Friend of Columbanus Bishop of Laghlin and Ordained Presbyter by one of them most probably by Columbanus from whom also he might take his Name as Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea did that of Pamphilus Hist. Account c. 5. After he was Abbot of Hy he propagated Bishops among the Northumbrians from whom our English Saxons derived On this account it was my Lord of St. Asaph argued that the Scotch Ordinations must needs be Episcopal meaning those at Hy which he confirmed by this Consideration because the Romans Austin the Monk and his Associates did not
dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church as being Episcopal though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain they could not dislike the Orders of Hy because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy and doubtless were the same and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal as were the Romans and all the World beside Mr. O. adds if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy be intended as not disliked by the Romans yet says he the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which are allowed by that Church Decret Greg. Abbas si sit Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial nor the Diaconal Order but the Inferior Orders only such as the Sub-Deacons Acoluthists Exorcists Psalmists Lectors and Door-keepers But that the Episcopal Order is not meant is to me past dispute For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of Secondly If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter Abbots It was allowed to such of them only who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See But not unto those who refused subjection to it as did the Abbots of Hy Mr. O. knows very Well This Privilege then whatever it was could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders Thirdly The Decretals mentioned were made or put together by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome in the Thirteenth Century about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy almost as many after Austin the Monk and therefore not appositely here alledged Fourthly Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders by Popish 〈◊〉 and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height But I like them never the better for that The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters 'T was their Principle that all Church-Officers derive from and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will even to a Deacon But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant as I fancy But Secondly I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland over the Monks and Culdees if any such were yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves for all or many of them at least were Presbyters and lastly over the Bishop also if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland which himself had formerly erected and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note which sprang out of these two both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity unless Mr. O. will assert that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn pro Tempore What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings ruling over many Churches and Congregations exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters as he thinks and that for life too All this did Columba and his Successors who are pretended by Mr. Baxter to have restored the Culdees or Presbyters strength against the incroachments of Palladius But all this while the Tyrants only were changed not the Tyranny the name altered not the thing Instead of Palladius the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter Moreover I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters If not as I believe all will and must grant our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination I should here have concluded this Chapter but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy and asserted that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire had their Platform from the Heathen who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens and I know not what Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion subordinate to one another it will not follow the Christians took it from them Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion wherein the Patriarch Jews Gentiles all agree But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius which I do not find in the places directed to cries out Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs Whereas any one may know that will but read or understand that Epistle which Mr. O. never did I preceive that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men that do not or will not understand what they say who so they may cast dirt upon us care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it But to let this pass The Question here is whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles or the Gentiles from them This latter I undertake to make out First From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests Priests and Levites All the World knows this I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one but of this I have spoke before Secondly Although the Druids according to Caesar had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East where Episcopacy was first established the Gentiles had no such Government as appears from what Eusebius has noted of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor who observing the way of Church Government
advise them to call Fortunatianus before them to try and to condemn or depose him but only to warn the Church of Assurae to think no more of their former Bishop who had 〈◊〉 into Idolatry and was therefore no Bishop at all And this was agreeable to the Rule which the Churches of Rome and of Africa and of the Whole World had formerly made as the Learned 〈◊〉 has observed That such as had Sacrificed should be deprived of their Ordination and Sacerdotal Honour and upon their Repentance should be admitted unto Lay Communion only The Observation is taken out of the 67 th Epistle of which I am to speak by and by in these Words Jam pridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Collega noster Cornelius Sacerdos pacisicus ac justus ac martyrio honoratus decreverit ejusmodi homines ad poenitentiam quidem agendam posse admitti ab Ordinatione autem 〈◊〉 atque sacerdotali honore prohiberi It is not then to be denyed but that as the Presbyters and the People of a Diocess when 't is Notorious that their Bishop has Apostatized and fallen into Idolatry and for some time deserted them and another is substituted in his place which was I presume the Case before us have a Power by the Law of Reason and of Scripture too to refuse him when he offers to obtrude himself again upon 'em so more especially since there is a solemn 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Law provided in the Case But I demand of Mr. O. to give me an instance when ever the Presbyters and People called their Bishop into Judgment before them censured and rebuk't acquitted or condemned him either when the Fact was in Question or the matter objected against him was in Controversy about its lawfulness Until Mr. O. produces an Instance of one of these kinds he is far short of proving that Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop as Timothy had Power to do against Elders For Timothy had Power to receive an Accusation upon information of Witnesses and to rebuke the offender accordingly and if need were to reject him Titus 3. 10. We are then safe as yet notwithstanding any thing St. Cyprian has written in this Epistle The Case of Basilides and Martialis is much what the same as that of Fortunatianus and is to be found in the 67 th Epistle of St. Cyprian 'T was wrote by St. Cyprian in his own name and in the name of 36 other African Bishops to Felix Presbyter and the People of Leon and Asturia also unto Lelius Deacon and the People of Emerita all in Spain in answer to a Letter of Sabinus Successor to Basilides and of another Felix Successor of Martialis whom the Bishop calls Coepiscopos Nostros our fellow Bishops What may fairly be Collected from this Epistle follows As First It may from this Epistle be gathered that Basilides and Martialis after they had been proved guilty of Idolatry were deposed from their Bishopricks Secondly That Sabinus and Felix were substituted in their Rooms Thirdly That the Idolatrous Bishops were deprived and the new ones Chosen and Ordained by the Provincial Bishops in the Presence and with the Concurrence or consent of the People For thus Cyprian speaks The People have Power either of chusing good Bishops or refusing unworthy ones Again the People ought to separate from a Wicked Bishop that Episcopal Ordinations ought to be Celebrated sub populi assistentis Conscientia with the knowledge and assent of the People present to the end that by the People the Crimes of bad Men may be detected the Merits of good Men may be testified and so a right and regular Ordination may be made which shall have been examined by the judgment and suffrage of all St. Cyprian goes on That is to be observed which is held among us in Africa and almost in all Provinces that to the end Ordinations be rightly made all the next Bishops of the same Province meet together with the People for whom the Bishop is design'd and let the Bishop be chosen in the presence of the People which knows and has been acquainted with the Lives and Conversations of the Candidates This we understand has been done among you in the Ordination of Sabinus our Collegue how that the Bishoprick was given him and hands laid on him with the Suffrage of the whole Fraternity and by the Judgment or decree of the Bishops who were present at the Meeting and who had sent their Letters of Consent concerning the Bishop to be chosen That which I would deduce from all this is that because the Power of chusing and Ordaining a Bishop was lodg'd in the Provincial Bishops together with the People of the Diocess it must follow that the Power of depriving consequently of receiving Accusations against the Bishop was 〈◊〉 in the same Provincial Bishops and and the People of the Diocess And if this be so then Basilides and Martialis were deposed by the Provincial Bishops in the presence and with the Consent of the People and so Mr. O's inference from this story will not hold sc that the Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop that 's to say in a Judiciary way Moreover it seems to me very probable by some passages in this Epistle that the People's Power in chusing or rejecting their Bishop consisted only in the Testimony which they gave to the Provincial Bishops concerning the Lives and Conversations of the Bishop propounded by the Provincial Bishops to succeed I gather this from those words 〈◊〉 ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi the which is more clearly explained in the same Paragraph where Cyprian adds Ordinationes Sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis Conscientia fieri oportere ut plebe presente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita predicentur Ordinations ought to be with the knowledge of the People that the Crimes of bad Men might be discovered and that the deserts of good Men might be made known unto 〈◊〉 Provincial Bishops who were indeed the proper Electors The same is shortly after again explained Episcopus deligatur Plebe Presente quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit 〈◊〉 actum de ejus Conversatione perspexit Let the Bishop he chosen by the next Bishop of the Province the People being present who knew the lives of each Candidate and saw every Man's Works and Conversation So that the Peoples business seems but to have been only to give testimony for or against the Candidate for the Bishoprick whilst the Synod of the Provincial Bishops chose and Ordained him However this be it is manifest from the whole that the Presbyters and the People did not without the Provincial Bishops by virtue of their own sole and proper Power hear or receive Accusations in a Judiciary way much less take upon 'em to give Sentence upon their own Bishops which is
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
Patriarch nor had ever adhered to Melitius They thus then farther write to the Church of Alexandria concerning these latter and Regular Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as for those who by the Grace of God and through your Prayers have been found in no Schism but have ever stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick Church it pleased the Holy Synod that they should have Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to point out and to give up the Names of 〈◊〉 as were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy to be of the Clergy and in short to do all things according to the Ecclesiastical Law and Constitution which is the passage misrepresented by Mr. O. and Mr. Baxter wherein the Synod confirms to 'em their Ancient Rights and Privileges Having given I hope an exact account of this latter part of that Epistle let us now see whether Mr. Baxter or Mr. O. have done so To which end I observe that here is not one Word of Presbyters at least not of Presbyters Ordaining and 〈◊〉 of all of Presbyters who had been Ordained by Melitius nor lastly which was the thing Mr. O. aimed at of Presbyters Ordaining Ministers 1. They speak not of Presbyters that is not in particular and expresly of them alone as is manifeft to any one that has his Eyes in his Head but only in General of such as had not been engaged in the Melitian Schism These surely must be Bishops as well as Presbyters or Deacons The truth is they include all the Three Orders and that 's the reason in this whole Epistle they Name no one of them expresly meaning to confirm them all as well Bishops as Presbyters that had stuck close to Alexander in their Ancient Respective Powers and 〈◊〉 2. Much more they speak not of the Ordaining Power of Presbyters Mr. O. at least ought not to say so for what then will become of the Authority of Father 〈◊〉 who asserts that Alexander or the Nicene Council first deprived them of it what did this Synod or Alexander both deprive 'em of it and confirm it to them that cannot be Either then Eutychius is out in his story or Mr. O. is a little mistaken about the Letter of the Nicene Fathers Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not 〈◊〉 to Ordain but the 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Word to put up the Names of the Candidates for Holy Orders and Sozomen in his account of this Fact uses that single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse Socrates expressing it in two Words as Valesius has observed Exegetical of one another it being usual for Authors to embellish their writings and give them a grateful Emphasis by a Variety and redundancy of Expression No body at this diftance of time can tell all the Customs of this Church and what Honorary 〈◊〉 the Presbyters might have at the publick 〈◊〉 However this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be expounded Ordaining And yet admitting that it signifies so 't is not necessary to understand the passage of Presbyters Ordaining it may as well be presumed to be intended of Bishops Ordaining there being no circumstance that limits the sense unto Presbyters and as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Words are spoken of those that were to be Ordained and not of the Ordainers and may as well be taken to mean such as were thought worthy to be Bishops as those who were 〈◊〉 worthy to 〈◊〉 made Presbyters For in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But least of all Thirdly do the Nicene Fathers speak here of the Melitian Presbyters because the Melitians had not according to the Character here given of these Persons stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick 〈◊〉 but had been engaged in the Melitian Schism Nor 4. does the Synod speak of Ordaining Ministers if by Ministers our Adversaries understand Presbyters which Title they seem at this day to affect and usurp to themselves though it generally denotes all the Three Orders These four mistakes has Mr. O. committed at the beginning of his Account of the Nicene Synod Before I proceed to consider what He farther advances on this Occasion I will only Note that the Patriarchs of Alexandria had power over the Bishops and Whole Church of Egypt with its Appendages long before the Synod of Nice That they had then power over these Churches appears plainly from this Epistle which in several places speaks of them as Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria that the Alexandrian Patriarchs had Power over them before the Patriarch Alexander is evident from the Melitian Schism which had not been a Sinful Schism if Peter and 〈◊〉 Alexander's Predecessors had not had Jurisdiction over them That this Power of the Patriarchs was very Ancient is also manifest from the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which begins thus Let the Ancient Customs obtain which are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these Provinces which shews lastly the extent of their Power through 〈◊〉 Libya and 〈◊〉 and that it had been an Ancient Custom that is long before Alexander and the Synod of Nice yea before Peter and Achillas Thus much being said for the right understanding of that Letter of the Nicence Fathers let us now proceed to examine what Mr. O. has inferred from the last mentioned passage according to Mr. Baxter's Lamentable Translation of it Mr. O. argues If any say the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and govern with Bishops but not with out them it is granted For the decree refers to the Ecclesiastica Instituta but this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently is no nullity tho' an irregularity as to the Canons when 't is done by them alone His meaning is as I take him that Presbyters have an Inherent and Intrinsick power to Ordain but that the Nicene Fathers had by their Ecclesiastical Constitution restrained that power so that it should not be exerted but with the Bishops that when the Presbyter did Ordain without Bishops 't was only an irregularity 〈◊〉 breach of the Ecclesiastical Constitution not a Nullity But to this I reply 1. That the Nicence Fathers as has already been observed speak not of Presbyter only but of all the Three Orders Bishops Priests and Deacons who are hereby every one of them allowed to do what properly belong to their own Order according to the Ancient Custom and Constitution of that Church 2. That therefore supposing their meaning to be what Mr. O. would have it that Presbyters in particular according to the Ecclesiastical Constitution shall Ordain with the Bishops and not without them it will not follow that Ordination by Presbyters alone without Bishops is vallid and only an irregularity Because it may with as good Reason be hence concluded that the Presbyters power to Ordain with the Bishops belonged to
them but by Ecclesiastical Constitution only and not by any inherent Right There is nothing in this Letter that argues any thing for their Intrinisick power to Ordain The most that can be said is that they had an Ancient Right by Ecclesiastical Constitution and Custom to Ordain with Bishops and if so then their Ordaining without Bishops was a Nullity as well as an Irregularity because they transgress'd that very Law which alone gave them their Power 3. It is a great mistake to think every thing established or rather reinforc'd by Ecclesiastical Constitution has no better Foundation than that very Ecclesiastical Constitution or Reinforcement A Divine and Scriptural Law may and has been oftentimes confirmed and renewed by a Synodical Decree and subjected to Ecclesiastical Penalties The Lord's-Day which Mr. O. will not deny to be Holy by Divine Institution has been made so by Humane appointment also and punishments decreed against those that prophaned it This is manifest among out selves here in England and Constantine Ordained the first Day of the Week for Divine Worship Shall we say the Lord's-Day was not Holy and Appropriate to Divine Worship before that Emperor's Constitution Of the same Nature are the 38. 41. 42 49. 50 51. c. Can. Apostol The Decree then of the Synod of Nice hinders not but that it might have been a Divine Institution that Presbyters Ordain and Govern only with and under Bishops And if this be so as I have formerly t is hoped made good then Presbyters Ordaining without Bishops will prove a Nullity and contrary to the Divine and Scripture Rule as well as an Irregularity or contrary to the Ecclesiastical Laws But how does the Ecclesiastical Constitution shew that Ordination belongs to the Presbyters Office His meaning I suppose is that the Nicene Synod could not appoint Presbyters to Ordain with Bishops except the Presbyters had a Prior and an intrinsick power to Ordain But I ask why may not the Synod shew thereby that the Presbyters intrinsick power what ever it was belonged to them only in Conjunction with Bishops And not separately from ' em If a Prince Commands the General of his Army to do nothing of Moment without the advice of the Principal Field-Officers this shews that the Field-Officers have a Power to Act with the General and under him but not that they have a power to Act seperately and without Him And if the General or other the Kings Ministers declare this part of the Commission to the Field-Officers they may and ought to Act in Conjunction with their General for the Commission so appoints but it would be presumption and Mutiny to Act without the General which if they presumed to do their Orders would of them selves be Null and invalid Briefly Mr. O. must first prove that the Nicene Fathers supposed the Presbyters to have an Intrinsick power to Ordain alone before he can make out that their separate Ordinations are irregular only and not invalid in themselves But Mr. O. again argues that If it be said these Nicene Constitutions condemn Schismatical Ordinations which he grants yet answers that Schism as such cannot make Ordinations Null though it implys an Irregularity Hereunto I return that Schism as such does make the Ordination Null It is Null as to the Exercise of the Office so conferred though not as to the habitual Power or intrinsick Character given This seems to have been the very Sense of the Nicene Fathers in this their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria The Melitian Bishops because they had been Schismatically Ordained were suspended from the Exercise of their Office yet their Character was not declared utterly void and annull'd There was Room left for their exercising it again upon some certain Conditions and the Title of Bishop was still continued unto 'em which could not be if the Character had been intirely lost or Null Hitherto belongs the Case of Colluthus and Ischyras which some Episcopal Divines have urged against the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters for say they Ischyras Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter is in Athanasius constantly called and declared no Presbyter but a meer Laic and not suffered so much as to have the Honor and Title of Presbyter as all others of the Melitian Schism Episcopally though Schismatically Ordained were allowed So the Nicene Fathers had decreed The reason why Ischyras was rejected is this he had been Ordained by a Presbyter only viz. Colluthus Blondel has taken much pains to perplex this Fact with sundry difficulties and Objections thrown in our way on purpose to render it useless unto us in the present Controversie and Mr. O. also has made his observations on it I shall consider them both and to that end shall in the first place produce the Principal passages that occur in Athanasius's second Apology relating to the said Colluthus and 〈◊〉 There I read of Ischyras who neither was Ordained by the Church nor when Alexander received the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius was reckoned among them that 's to say in Melitius his 〈◊〉 so that he was no Presbyter How then or by whom was he created a Presbyter By Colluthus For that alone remains to be pretended But 't is granted on all hands that Colluthus died Presbyter all his Ordinations were void and all Ordained by him in the Schism reduced into the Order of Laicks But they the Eusebians and Melitians called a private Fellow Presbyter Ischyras was not acknowledged a Presbyter by Athanasius Ischyras was not so much as a Presbyter he never was a Presbyter of Melitius not Ordained by him Ischyras was in no wise a Cleric though the Eusebians and Melitians gave it out that he was a Presbyter 'T is remarkable that Ischyras in his submissive Letter unto Athanasius disowned not his being a Presbyter Ordained by 〈◊〉 which I note here by the by Ischyras our accuser is no manner of way a Presbyter because he is not mentioned in the 〈◊〉 or Register of those who had been Ordained by Melitius Ischyras never was a Minister of the Church but boasted himself to be a Presbvter of Colluthus though no Body believed him so that He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was deposed by the Alexandrian Synod and number'd among the Laics Ischyras a Fellow that called himself a Presbyter but was no Presbyter for he was Ordained by a Catholick Presbyter Colluthus who himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but an Imaginary or Counterfeit Bishop and was Commanded in the General Council of Alexandria by Hosius and the other Bishops to be a Presbyter as he had been before So that by consequence all Ordained by him went back into their former place and Ischyras appeared a Laic The Eusebians and Melitians called this Fellow Bishop who was not at all a Presbyter but they made the Emperor to write unto Colluthus for nothing 〈◊〉 amiss to them that a Church be provided for Ischyras and immediatly caused him to be
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
his Authority I meddle not with cited by Mr. O. in these Words Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void by the Rigor of the Canons in use then because Ordinations sine Titulo were Null Concil Chalced. Can. 6. it belongs not to the time we are now speaking of the Council of Chalcedon being Held an Hundred and twenty Years after that of Nice Nor was the Qualification of a Title required till long after that Council of Chalcedon wherein also I meet not with a Syllable of annulling Ordinations for want of a Title That 6th Can. makes void Clancular Ordinations not given visibly in the Face of the Church the Rule which required the Candidate to be offered unto the suffrage of the Clergy and People in the Churches and Congregation being neglected as Justellus has observed from the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The method of Requiring Titles indeed grew up afterwards which the Canonists in the following Ages gathered from this sixth Canon of Chalcedon as fancying some Analogy or Agreement between them in Reason as Calvin teaches me However let us take the Argument as 't is propounded Ordinations by Presbyters were accounted void not in themselves but by the Rigor of the Canons in use then How does this appear Why because Ordinations sine Titulo were null by the sixth Canon of Chalcedon which is just as if one should pretend to prove the Lord's-Day not Holy by Divine appointment but by the Ecclesiastical Constitution because the other Holy-Days are not Is it not possible the Lord's-Day may be Holy by Divine Institution though Good Friday is not Or that Ordinations by Presbyters may be Null in themselves and by Scripture though Ordinations sine Titulo be uncanonical only But if Mr. O. intended this only as the Judgment of so Learned a Person as Dr. Field I let it pass as such being no ways obliged to account for the Opinions of private Doctors The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth if I rightly apprehend Mr. O. for I lift not to look after the Book its self intends to prove by the Nicene Canon which forbids Bishops to Ordain in one anothers Diocesses that the Irregular Ordinations by Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations by Presbyters Now there is no strength in this Reasoning I can scarce allow it to be sense He ought first to make out that Presbyters have power to Ordain and then indeed the irregular Ordinations of the one would be Null as well as of the other and both alike But we deny Presbyters to have Power to Ordain be sure That Nicene Canon gives them none and therefore the Comparison here is foolish and frivolous 'T is as if one should lay down this grave Maxim the Irregular Sentence of a Judge is as Null as that of a private Man whereas a private Man can give no decretory Sentence at all I own Bishops in their Ordinations were under many Canonical Restraints and some of their irregular Ordinations were decreed Null at least so as that the Ordained were not allowed to exercise their Function But to talk of the Irregularities of Ordinations by Presbyters is to suppose it proved they have Power to Ordain which is to beg the Question I am sure their power is not intimated in the Nicene Canons as that of Bishops is nor in any other that I am yet acquainted with If a Canon were any where to be found restraining Ordinations made by Presbyters and limiting the manner and circumstances of 'em 't were reasonable thence to gather that Presbyters had Power to Ordain But the Canonical Restraints laid upon Bishops will not convince me that Presbyters had that Power Finally one may by the same Reasoning conclude that Deacons yea that every Ordinary believer had power to Ordain as well as Bishops Thus I proceed in the Argument By the Nicene Canons Bishops Ordinations in others Diocesses without consent are forbid and hence we see the irregular Ordinations of Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations of Ordinary believers and Deacons But this is no better than beating the Air out of nothing to gather something For all this while neither Deacons nor Believers have power at all to Ordain Haply Mr. O. has left the Reverend Authors Argument short So I dismiss it CHAP. X. Of Aerius THis was a Turbulent and Heretical Presbyterian the only one to be met with in all Antiquity It may not be amiss in few Words to present the Reader with his Character as 't is transmitted to us by St. Austin and Epiphanius The former tells us that being a Presbyter he is reported to have been troubled because he could not be Ordained a Bishop that he fell into the Arrian Heresie adding to it some of his own Conceits as that stated Fasts ought not to be observed and that a Presbyter ought no ways to be distinguished from a Bishop that the Aerians his followers admitted to their Communion only the Continent or such as embraced a Celibate Life and who had so far renounced the World as to account nothing their own And did not abstain from Flesh in the appointed times as Epiphanius writes This Epiphanius among many other Errors and some of the aforesaid particularly remembers that he sought to be a Bishop but could not obtain it He calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hairbrained and mad Doctrine sc. that of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters When Epiphanius had reckoned up a great many of his Errors and Heresies he proceeds to refute 'em and in the first place takes him to task for that about the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters In short he sets him forth as a very Wicked and Impious Fellow It is not material in the Dispute whether Aerius was an Heretick or is called so by Epiphanius and St. Austin on the account of his teaching Bishops and Presbyters to be equal I am sure St. Austin places this Error of his in the front and before that of Arrianism And both condemn him for his Opinion about Bishops and Presbyters which is sufficient to my Purpose For I am not concerned about private Persons Opinions such as Bishop Jewel though an excellent Man and one of the greatest Ornaments of our Church and of the Reformation or others mentioned by Mr. O. Whatever their Sentiments were I shall hereafter shew that it was ever the publick Judgment of the Reformed Church of England that Bishops were Jure Divino and I hope 't is no breach of Modesty to confront theirs with the Churches Authority CHAP. XI Of Hilary the Deacon IT is not agreed among the Criticks who was the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which are in the Works of St. Ambrose Vol. 5. and 't is as uncertain unto whom belong the Quaestiones veter is novi Testamenti in St. Austin Tom. 4. There are some excellent passages found in them and cited by Austin in his Tracts against the Pelagians under the Titles of
〈◊〉 Sanctus Hilarius whence some conclude they cannot be ascribed to so ill a Man as the Deacon But that either Hilary Bishop of Poictiers or Hilary of Arles must have them Yet Vossius contends that those Titles of Beatus Sanctus were by Custom and in Civility given to all Clergy-Men whether they deserved them or not as at this Day Reverendus Venerabilis are That the Commentaries were written when Damasus was Rector Ecclesiae Pope of Rome and that Hilary of Poictiers dying in the second Year of Damasus was too Old to have either time or strength to perform such a Work whilst that Pope was living And lastly that Hilary of Arles came too late to write in Damasus his Pontificate or to be quoted by St. Austin And thus the Commentaries and Questions will fall to the Deacon's share Ans. 1. 'T is certain to me Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of the Questions and Commentaries as we now have them But not for the reason assigned Those words 〈◊〉 bodie Rector est Damasus are on 1 Tim. 3. from whence to the end of the Commentaries are but 52 leaves in Folio which he might have time and strength to finish in that Popes first Year The Commentaries moreover break off abruptly at the 10th Ch. of the Hebrews and the work is left unfinished whence it may be thought that there his Life or his strength might fail him But still it is confessed Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of them They are too mean to be Fathered upon so great a Man 2. The Particular Testimonies spoken of before cannot be attributed unto Hilary of Arles For he flourished Twenty Years after Austin 3. Neither can they belong to the Deacon a Reason of no credit or Authority as I shall shew Wherefore 4. They were cited out of some Work of Hilary of Poictiers not now extant which may be confirmed by another Testimony in Austin not yet observed by any that I know of writing still against the Pelagians Ecclesiae Catholicae adversus Haereticos acerrimum Defensorem Venerandum quis ignorat Hilarium Episcopum Gallum Which can be understood of no other Hilary then the Bishop of Poictiers as is manifest from what has been said 5. Neither 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 allowed this Deacon so much as a place in their Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Writers being it seems unworthy that Honour Bellarmine indeed incidentally mentions him in his Observations on Ambroses's Works yet makes no reckoning of him But Jerom falls foul on him calling him in derision Orbis Deucalionem and adds libellos adversus nos de Haereticis rebaptizandis edidit It can't then be thought St. Austin would build upon this Deacons Authority Thus much I thought fit to say concerning the Passages of St. Austin borrowed out of Hilary supposed by some to be the Deacon and Author of the Commentaries and Questions of which I will now say something considering them in the Lump 1. I do suppose the same Person or Persons whosoever they were wrote these Commentaries and Questions Blondel Himself is of this Opinion and so is Bellarmine in his Observations on Ambrose's Works 2. I also Judge they were written long after Hilary of Poictiers yea after Jerom and Austin by some ignorant idle and knavlsh Fellow who mixed truth and falshood good and bad together Collecting some Notions out of the Fathers and adding many of his own silly conceits The Testimonies which I have spoken of were its likely collected out of Austin The Discourse about the Ambition of the Roman Deacons exalting themselves above Presbyters was borrowed from Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius But to make short Work on it Let us hear Erasmus's Censure of the Questions The Author says he repeats many the same things in several places propounds the same Questions and treats of 'em over and over again is not constant in his Opinions Some scraps out of other Mens Works are often inserted He repeats what he had said 〈◊〉 but in a quite different stile He is very idle in starting Questions which he ought not There is a perfect confusion in the Work Sometimes he writes Commentaries sometimes Controversie Sometimes he Preaches and sometimes disputes very Foolishly and Meerly Prates He is often Scurrilous and Abusive and yet has said many things worthy to be read and known but gathered out of others He cites not his Authors he cheats the Reader with counterfeit Titles By the repetitions and the disorder in his matter he writes of by his Tumultuous and Womanish Talkativeness he even kills his Reader The first part seems to be the Work of some Greek affecting to speak Latin c. Erasmus is more favourable to the Commentaries yet confesses the Prefaces are not St. Ambroses's but some busy and illiterate Fellow tack'd 'em to the Commentaries I make account then these Commentaries and Questions are of no Credit or Authority in any Controversy whatever 2. The compiler of them has intermixt several things favouring Episcopacy and so is Jack O' both-sides 1. He expounds the Angels spoken of 1 Cor. 11. 10. Bishops grounding himself on the Revelations And gives the Reason why Women ought to be covered in the Church because of the Angels that is Bishops quia Episcopus personam habet Christi vicarius est Domini sustains the Person of Christ and is the Vicar of the Lord. The which must be understood of the Days of Paul Else the Explanation is altogether fruitless and impertinent 2. He resembles the Deacons to the Levites Presbyters to the Priests whereof one was the High-Priest unto whom the Bishop answers see Question 101. 3. He grants Timothy had the Power ofOrdaining committed to him by Paul in these Words unde Quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet Timotheus ostendit Paulus But he no where expresly allows this to the Presbyters Many other Observations if it were worth while might be Collected out of this Author tending to the same purpose 3. He contradicts himself the Holy Scripture and the most Ancient Writers in the Church He affirms that at first all might Preach Baptize and explain Scripture but after Churches were Establish'd and Distinct Offices were appointed and the Church began to be govern'd another way so that no Man should presume to Officiate in Holy things except he were Ordained Whereas nothing is more manifest than that there were at the Council of Jerusalem besides Deacons two Species of Officers at least Apostles and Elders to say nothing of Prophets of whom also we read Act. 15 That when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians there were set in the Church by God himself Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers c. The same are to be met with in his Epistle to the Ephesians In that to the Philippians we read of their Apostle of their Bishops or Presbyters and their Deacons Timothy and Titus had their Elders and Deacons under them To omit sundry other examples hereof in
Scripture Clemens Romanus tells us that the Lord appointed who were to Minister in Divine Offices among the Christians and Ignatius needs not here to be brought in for Evidence But let us consider the several Instances Mr. O. gives in Confirmation of this Paradox that there were no Ministers in the Church at the beginning The first is of Philip. But Philip had been Ordained by Imposition of Hands and besides was a Person endued with extraordinary and supernatural Gifts that is was a Prophet and of such I readily grant it true that they were not strictly and indispensably ty'd to common Rules of Order but might do what the Spirit moved 'em to But 't is remarkable what Hilary himself says of Philip Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut Philippus So then here were Ministers thus Early besides the Apostles As for Apollos Act. 18. 24. to pass by other Observations that might be useful I much question whether when he preach'd at Ephesus he was yet a Christian or rather am positive he was none For he knew only the Baptism of John v. 25. unto whom therefore Aquila and Priscilla expounded the way of God more perfectly v. 26. And tho' after this he still Preach'd at Corinth v. 28. it may be said that by this time he had been Ordained to it for any thing appears to the contrary And we must not think none were Ordained but such of whom 't is expresly testify'd in Scripture We ought rather to conclude all were Ordain'd because many were Of Aquila and Priscilla their instructing Apollos I have shewed elsewhere that it was private not Ministerial Instruction In short I know not one Example of a Person unordained and of ordinary Gifts only that took upon him to Preach in any Christian Assemblies much more to administer the Holy Sacraments nor can I fancy when that time was of which Hilary speaks when every Man that would did Administer in the Word and Sacraments But the story of Vrigen is urg'd who was made Catechist in the School of Alexandria and taught the Catechumens in the Rudiments of Christianty as Dr. Cave relates it and what is yet more Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem invited him to Preach before them As Africa has always been noted for a Country abounding with strange and Monstrous Creatures so are we continually pester'd with some surprizing and extraordinary fact in the Egyptian Church as if that differed from all the World besides But to this Example of Origen I first say that Mr. O. is as much obliged to reconcile it with the Presbyterian Principles as I am with the Episcopal That Origen though he instructed the Catechumens at Alexandria in the principles of Christianty so do our School-Masters though not Ordained Haply once or so he preach'd at Cesarea before he had been Ordained so do our Fellows of Colleges at the University Yet this is nothing to the Sacraments which he did not presume to Administer and lastly though Theoctistus and Alexander of Jerusalem out of Curiosity desirous to hear the great Origen Discourse upon some profound point in Christianty invited him into the Pulpit yet Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria condemn'd it and it became a Scandal and occasion of offence among them Mr. O. speaking of Evangelists would prove them to have been unfixt Officers from this observation out of Hilary that Evangelists that is Deacons as Hilary thinks did Preach sine Cathedra which he expounds without a fixt Residence Ans. This is more absurd then any thing I have met with in my Adversary Sine Cathedra without a fixt Residence He might as well have rendred it without fear or Wit The meaning doubtless is that whereas Presbyters had their Stalls as well as the Bishop and sate in his Presence and perhaps according to Hilary Preach'd out of them the Deacons always stood nor had their Stalls so that when permitted they Preach'd sine Cathedra Stantibus Diaconis we often meet with in St. Cyprian and Hilary himself took Notice that the Roman Deacons did not assume the Privilege of sitting in the Church had 〈◊〉 Cathedra no seat in it Jerom has also observ'd the same Sedent Presbyteri stant Diaconi So that Hilary's meaning was hereby to distinguish the one from the other and intimated that Deacons were inferior to Presbyters being not suffer'd to sit or to have a Stall in the Church as the other had In short no one surely will dare to say that Deacons were unfixt Officers in the Church either in the Apostles or in Hilary's Days Mr. O. and before him Blondel in Order to prove that Bishops were meerly the first Presbyters and had only precedency but no Power or Jurisdiction over the rest argue from Hilary that in the beginning the oldest Presbyter in Years succeeded into the Episcopacy and so became the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President of the Presbytery and that this Apostolical Custom or 〈◊〉 continued till it was by experience found that undeserving or disabled Old Men were advanced to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Affairs and the dishonour of the Church 'T was therefore chang'd into Election to the end not Order but Merit might take place Ans. 1. The Controversy is not about the manner of succeeding into the 〈◊〉 The Method is either prescrib'd in Scripture or not If it be let the Presbyterians shew where and we promise to observe it for the future If not 'tis left to the Church to Order this Circumstance as shall be thought fit In the mean time we may not lay aside Bishops because we have not a Divine Rule about their Succession Many things are appointed in the Word of God the particular Circumstances being left at large unto Humane Prudence We are commanded to read the Scriptures but not how much at a time whether one or more Sections whether one or more Chapters nor in what Order Shall we therefore abolish the Command it self because these Circumstances are not expresly delivered to us in Scripture God forbid Supposing then that there have been different Customs taken up about the way of Succeeding into the Episcopacy this is no prejudice against Episcopacy its self 2. It is some matter of wonder to me how the Affairs of the Church could be prejudiced by the Oldest Presbyters succeeding as of right to the first Chair or Presidency if he received thereby no Power or Jurisdiction as our Adverrsaries pretend 3. It is false and nothing can be falser then this conceit of the Oldest Presbyter succeeding into the Episcopacy Timothy was a Young Man and promoted by St. Paul and that not for his Age but his Merit For surely none can believe he was the Oldest among the Ephesian Elders What occasion then for the Apostles Admonition let no Man despise thy Youth if all the Presbyters were Younger than himself And Jerom who affirms that Paul Ordained Timothy Bishop of Ephesus his Maxim was Presbyter aetatis Nomen est Episcopus
Officii It had then been more Congruous according to our Adversaries Argument to have named all of 'em Bishops except the President who should have been called Presbyter as being the Eldest among them Afterwards Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians not to despise Demas their Bishop for his Youth Lastly 〈◊〉 assures us that the Presbyters of Alexandria by Mark' s Institution chose their Patriarch so that Merit and Election not Age determined the Competition By the way they also according to this Author Eutychius Ordained their Patriarch by Prayer and Imposition of Hands With what Truth then could Hilary assert Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 est Ordinatio But I have done this Fictitious Hilary his Questions and Commentaries too great an Honour in wasting thus much Paper about Him and Them CHAP. XII Of St. Jerom ' s Testimony BEfore I examine the Testimonies of this Father alledg'd by Mr. O. in favour of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters I will lay down my own Hypothesis such I am perswaded as is agreeable to the Word of God And I am of Opinion also will go a great way to reconcile Jerom with himself As for my own Opinion I make account with Bp. Pearson that the Christian Church strictly speaking began upon the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit descended upon the Holy Apostles and as I may say anointed them unto the Office of Preaching the Gospel and establishing the Christian Church throughout the World beginning at Jerusalem That they were for some small time the only Ecclesiastical Officers in the Church That when the Church increased and believers were multiply'd and by consequence the Apostles unable to manage the Whole Work by themselves they took in seaven Deacons to their Assistance devolving on them intirely one branch of their Power viz. dispensing the Publick Alms among the Poor as also admitting them to Preach the Word and Baptize when Occasion offered or necessity required or their Leisure from their own proper business would allow That not very long after the Church still encreasing more and more and believers multiplying not only at Jerusalem but at Samaria and in other parts of Judea the Apostles added another sort of Church Officers that is Presbyters Acts. 11. 30. ch 15. That to these Presbyters were committed by the Apostles the Principal Care and Trust of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments and in their Absence of Ruling the Flock in Matters of less Moment the Apostles still reserving to themselves the Supreme Power in the Highest and Important affairs of the Church which they discharged either by Messengers or by Letters or else visiting them and lastly that these Presbyters were indifferently called either Elders or Bishops and governed the aforesaid Churches in a Parity among themselves Of this Interval of time I reckon Jerom might speak when he contends for the Parity and Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Churches then hitherto were governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Colleges of Presbyters no other presiding over them in the Apostles Absence In process of time when the Apostles had determined among themselves to disperse in Order to the Preaching of the Gospel unto all the World they resolv'd that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest unto whom all the care of the Church should belong the seeds of Schism might be taken away and that this should be established and observed toto Orbe throughout the World The period of time when this Course was Taken by the Apostles I have spoken of in the Preface But Jerom in this Circumstance seems not at one with himself For whereas in his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus he supposes the Apostles to have taken up this Resolution after the Corinthian Schism yet making James Bishop of Jerusalem He must of Necessity suppose it done before or at the Council of Jerusalem at which time there was not any Church or so much as one Christian at Corinth By what name or Title the Persons thus chosen out of the Presbyters and intrusted with the Supreme Government of Churches were called is of little Moment to be enquired into Nevertheless if Theodoret is to be Credited as I know no reason to the contrary they also were at first stiled Apostles and it is with reason thought that Epaphroditus is therefore reckon'd or rather declared the Apostle of the Philippians Blondel himself acknowledges there were a Secondary sort of Apostles among the Churches Persons of the Highest Rank and most Eminent Gifts I take these things in some measure proved sufficiently before and in what follows and most reasonable in themselves to be supposed Nevertherless if the Adversaries shall reject them as 't is most likely they will I shall only say that I am not much concerned about them that is whether it be possible to make Jerom write consistently with himself If not his Testimony in the Controversy before us is not worth a Rush he having contradicted himself and overthrown in one place what he is made to have affirmed in another The Question then upon Jerom's Authority is not about the precise time when this Remedy against Schism was applyed by the Apostles that 's to say whether before or immediately after the Corinthian Divisions let Jerom look to that But more generally whether he believed or ever asserted or could consistently with himself assert that this Provision against Schism was devised and made not till after the Apostles decease The Presbyterians are oblig'd to hold the Affirmative or else give up the Cause My business then is to prove that Jerom did not believe nor ever asserted nor could intend to assert that the Decree about chusing one from among the Presbyters and setting him above the rest to preside and Govern the affairs of the Church was made after the Apostles days by some Ecclesiastical Constitution but that it was the Ordination and Appointment of the Apostles themselves This I pretend to make appear by the following Observations out of Jerom. 1. These Words of Jerom toto Orbe decretum est must denote it to have been an Apostolick Constitution For an Ecclesiastical Decree obliging all Christendom to its Observation could never have been made for above 200 Years after the Apostles decease and nothing less then an Oecumenical Synod had competent Power to prescribe this Remedy against Schism But there never was any such Universal Council before that of Nice too late to Father the Decree in the Judgment even of our Adversaries themselves Moreover this Apostles Canons as they are commonly called which are a Collection of the most Ancient Decrees of the Church take it for granted that the Government of the Church was lodg'd in the Hands of Bishops and only regulate some Circumstances about their Ordinations and the Methods of their Government If Bishops had been meerly by Ecclesiastical Constitution we should certainly have found them established in these Apostolical Canons It is not to be imagin'd the
Collectors of them would have omitted so important a Decree as this whereon so many of their other Canons are built as on a Foundation Jerom's toto Orbe decretum est must then imply that Episcopacy was an Apostolical Constitution 2. The same may be 〈◊〉 from those Words Remedium Schismatis Episcopum nominabant in Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius The Remedy then against Schism must be as Ancient as the Presidents who according to Jerom were called Bishops Now they were stil'd Bishops before Ignatius was Martyred as abundantly appears in his Epistles therefore this Remedy against Schism was divised in the Apostolick Age except any one will affirm that Ignatius and all the other Followers Disciples Fellow-Labourers and Fellow-Soldiers of the Apostles who gave Testimony to the Gospel of Christ even unto Bloud prepared this new Remedy against Schism so soon as the Apostle St. John's Eyes were Shut and took upon them to set up a Government in the Church which the Apostles were altogether strangers to as our Adversaries suppose 3. Jerom. Witnesseth over and over again that Bishops were established in the Churches whilst the Apostles lived and flourished Upon those Words Quae est in to per impositionem manuum mearum he thus glosses scilicet ad Episcopatum Upon those other Words cum Episcopis Diaconis he thus comments hic Episcopos Presbyteros intelligimus non enim in una Urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent intimating that though Bishops and Presbyters were the same in that place yet there was then an Higher Degree of Bishops of whom there could be but one in a City Now Jerom here must of necessity speak of the Apostles days else his Comment had been altogether vain and absurd For to expound St. Paul's 〈◊〉 by an usage which sprang up in the Church long after were sensless Besides he thinks Epaphroditus was at that time Bishop of Philippi as is plainly implyed when he glosses on the other passage in this Epistle Epaphroditum Commilitonem meum Commilito propter honorem Quia ipse acceperat in illis Apostolatus Officium Epaphroditus then was the Apostle of the Philippians according to Jerom that is in the Ecclesiastical Language he was their Bishop Again whereas Jerom questions Archippus to have been a Deacon of the Church of Coloss. ch 4. 17. yet elsewhere he puts the question to Himself Quid est ministerium quod Archippus accepit a Domino And Answers Legimus Archippo Commilitoni Nostro exquo puto aut Episcopum eum fuisse Colossensis Ecclesiae aut si ita non est c. hereby though not positively asserting him the Bishop of Coloss yet implying plainly by the Disjunctive there were Bishops in those days Moreover Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers reckons up James made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and Simeon after him Timothy of Ephesus Titus of Crete by Paul and Polycarp of Smyrna by John On the 45 Psalm he thus speaks Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus Mundi Principes Ecclesiae i. e. Episcopos And that by Princes he here meant single Supreme Governours of Churches appears from his Comment on the 1 st of Titus where he has this Observation that Paul was then forming a Prince of the Church of Crete This Institution then being by Jerom attributed unto Christ himself must be understood as done at least by the Apostles of Christ. Lastly Jerom Notes that all who saw the Lord and Preached the Gospel were called Apostles paulatim vero tempore procedente others also were Ordained Apostles by them whom the Lord had chosen as Epaphroditus We can understand no less by Ordained Apostles here than those who were set over Churches to Rule them called afterwards Bishops And the paulatim here being to be understood of the Apostles time will let us in to the understanding Jerom's paulatim and his postquam in his Commentaries on 〈◊〉 and that the Decree there spoken of was put in Execution by the Apostles themselves but by Degrees If then Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi Archippus of Coloss James of Jerusalem Timothy of Ephesus and Titus Bishop and Prince of Crete Polycarp of Smyrna and in a Word if there were Bishops and Princes appointed by Christ in all Quarters of the World and all whilst Paul was alive in the Opinion of Jerom then Jerom's toto Orbe 〈◊〉 est is to be understood of an Apostolical Constitution 4. The occasion of setting up one above the 〈◊〉 to take the care and charge of the Churches of necessity implies that the Apostles themselves instituted Episcopacy It was according to Jerom the Corinthian Schisiu And yet more particularly because our 〈◊〉 contend that Jerom only alluded to the Corinthian Schism not that that Schism in particular was the occasion of the Decree Which is but mere 〈◊〉 at best I farther note the Schism which gave occasion to the Decree was according to Jerom founded on such a Principle and pretence as is not to be met with in any other Church than that of Corimh nor in any other Age than that of the Apostles The pretence as Jerom believ'd was posiquam unusquisq eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. alluding to the 1 Cor. 1. 13 14. 15. If then the toto Orbe decretum was occasioned by the Corinthian Schism which in Jerom's Judgment sprang from that false and foolish Principle that every Minister might challenge to himself all those Christians whom he had Baptized to be Members of his own separate Congregation the Remedy against this disease must of necessity be confess'd to have commenced soon after this Corinthian Schism and by consequence in the Apostles days 5. Jerom's instancing in the Church of Alexandria confirms what I am proving viz. that Bishops were appointed in the Apostles Days A Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Presbyteri unum ex se electum excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Here we have a Bishop of Alexandria name and thing acknowledg'd by Jerom from Mark the Evangelist Therefore Jerom must have believed the 〈◊〉 Orbe decretum est happened in the Apostles days since many of them survived St. Mark 6. The Character and Commendation Jerom gives of this Institution of Bishops I observed before what he has written on the 45 Psal. constituit Christus in omnibus mundi finibus Principes 〈◊〉 If then it was an Institution of Christ it must needs be at least Apostolical so he calls it Ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento The Apostolical Traditions or Institutions were borrowed from the Old Testament And that Episcopacy and the three Distinct Orders of Church Officers Bishops Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 included yea principally meant here by the Apostolical Traditions is evident from what follows Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt 〈◊〉 sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vindicent in Ecclesia
Christiana Quod Aaron filios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyterum noverimus 7. Jerom not 〈◊〉 and more than once insinuates that Bishops succeeded the Apostles Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi Bishops hold the place of the Apostles Habes pro Apostolis Episcopos filios Apostolorum you have instead of the Apostles Bishops the Sons of the Apostles Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 in Exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur Meritum and let Bishops and Presbyters take for their Pattern the Apostles and Apostolical Men whose honour they possess and therefore should endeavour to have their Merit Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri 'T is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul to possess the degree of Peter Omnes so Episcopi sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanais I may add from Jerom sive Divites sive Pauperes sive Sublimes 〈◊〉 Inferiores Apostolorum sunt Successores All Bishops whatever are the Apostles Successors And whereas in this very Epistle He is exalting his fellow Presbyters as high as with any colour of Pretence he was able yet no such thing as this drops from him sc. that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors If then Bishops are the Apostles Successors as if Jerom may be Judge they were then also the Office of a Bishop must needs be by Apostolical Institution For none could appoint Successors unto the Apostles but the Apostles themselves 8. The early establishment of Bishops in the very days of the Apostles or at least immediately after them will force any Ingenious Man to confess Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution This also Jerom has witnessed telling us that Clement of whom we read Phil. 4. was the 4th some said the 2d Bishop of Rome after Peter That Ignatius was the 3d Bishop of 〈◊〉 after Peter That Papias a Disciple of St. John the Apostle was Bishop of Hierapolis and Quadratus a Disciple of the Apostles Bishop of Athens To these add the Asiatick Bishops of whom we read in Ignatius's Epistles For because Jerom believed the Epistles genuine and approves of the subject Matter of them he has hereby given in his Testimony that there were Bishops in all those Churches Is it then possible to imagine Jerom beleived that Decree to be any other than Apostolical or that Episcopacy received its Date from a meer Ecclesiastical Canon sometime after It can never enter into my Head that the Church Government which some say was Presbyterian that is Administred by a College of Presbyters acting in a Parity when the Apostles were living should be thus quickly altered by a meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Decree upon a pretence of preventing Schisms whereas the Apostles themselves did not as the Presbyterians believe think this Reason sufficient to change the Church-Government in their time that is 't is most improbable and absurd to say so many Holy Men and Martyrs of Christ familiar with and Disciples of the Apostles sc. St. Clement Ignatius Papias Quadratus and an innumerable Company whose Names and whose particular Diocesses are not Transmitted unto us says Eusebius should dare not only to decree and consent to the Alteration of Church-Government but themselves to Usurp and Exercise an Authority over their Equals contrary to the Apostolical Rule and Practice From the whole then that has been said I may reasonably conclude 1. That Episcopacy which is by Jerom called The Remedy against Schism was Set up and Decreed 〈◊〉 the Apostles in their own days 2. That though he terms it an Ecclesiastical Custom and Constitution he is to be taken to mean in opposition to 〈◊〉 Veritati our Lord 's own Personal Appointment and not unto Apostolical Tradition or Institution 3. That what I have offer'd in this Chapter towards the reconciling Jerom with himself is most reasonable to be admitted And lastly That the Power and Authority allowed by Jerom unto Bishops particularly that of Ordination and the other of Confirmation belong'd to them by virtue of the Apostles Commission and were not Restraints laid upon the Presbyters by Ecclesiastical Canons That of Confirmation he deduces from Scripture in his Dialogue against the Luciferians But Mr. O. will perhaps say that all this is nothing to him and to the Objections he has laid in our way I am then obliged now to consider in particular what Observations he has mustred up out of Jerom and levelled against Episcopacy in favour of the Presbyterians Claim Mr. O. then Pleads that Jerom has shew'd the Presbyters of Alexandria 〈◊〉 their Bishops for almost 200 Years and that he would leave nothing out that was Material in Constituting them Ans. Jerom has not shew'd nor so much as directly asserted that the Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops But he has omitted several Circumstances not only Material but Advantagious to his main Design if they had been true Jerom both in his Commentaries on Titus and in his Epistle to Evagrius speaks constantly in the Passive Voice how that one was chosen and set over the rest but by whom he says not Why not by the Neighbouring Bishops Why not by the Predecessor as well as by the Presbyters Jerom has not expresly told us that the Bishop of Alexandria chosen out of the Presbyters received another and a new Consecration nor that the Presbyters Ordained him all which would have tended much to the Honour of himself and his Fellow-Presbyters True he expresly says the Presbyters nam'd him Bishop at his Instalment bnt this does not necessarily imply either that they Chose or Ordained him He ought and doubtless would have spoken out if either or both these things had been true Whereas then Mr. O. adds Jerom mentions no other way of Constituting them but by Presbyters it is certain he mentions no way at all This is manifest ' beyond all exception Jerom has assur'd us of it that the Apostles not the Presbyters Made and Ordain'd Bishops in most parts of the Christian World at Ephesus at Coloss at Philippi at Athens in Crete at Jerusalem and if Mark did not so at Alexandria it were very strange However Orbis Major est Urbe It should indeed seem by the Allusions wherewith Jerom explains himself that the Presbyters chose one of their own Number and set him over the rest So says he the Army chooses their General the Deacons their Arch-Deacons Admitting then this at present I reply 1. 'T is no where so much as hinted in Jerom that the Alexandrian Presbyters Ordain'd their Patriarchs But rather the contrary that the neighbouring Bishops impos'd Hands on him Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter In which words he must have an Eye unto the Custom of the Alexandrian Church from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius implying that Bishops not Presbyters Ordain'd all that while Well! But I
have admitted that the Presbyters of Alexandria chose their Patriarch and then Mr. O. argues That Jerom makes this an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Ans. Whatever may be inferred from Jerom I am very sure this is no good Argument for the Identity and Equality of Bishops and Presbyters For it is plain that Ordinary Deacons were not the same nor equal to Arch-deacons nor the Army to the Emperor as I have occasionally observ'd elsewhere although the Deacons chose their Arch-deacons and the Army set up the Emperor For to what purpose is an Arch-Deacon chosen or a General if they be but still equal to the Army and to the Deacons if they have no power over them There is a memorable Story to our purpose of the Emperor Valentinian He had been chosen Emperor by the Army The Soldiers afterwards demanded of him to chuse and receive a Partner in the Government to which he reply'd It was in your choice fellow Soldiers whether you would chuse me Emperor or not but since you have chosen me what you require is in my power not yours and ye ought to rest contented as good Subjects But to return unto Jerom. I have shew'd before out of him that the Apostles made Bishops what then is become of this Argument for Parity in all the Churches of the World except Alexandria But if Jerom contradicts himself past all relief I cannot help it Yet again Why may not one imagine that Jerom's principal aim being to maintain the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons he noted that at Alexandria the Bishop was chosen not out of the Deacons but unum ex se viz. out of the Presbyters Ay but 't will be reply'd that Jerom in this Epistle design'd to prove that Bishops and Presbyters were at first the same and that to other Arguments for their Identity he subjoyns this Story of the Church of Alexandria I reply not so if Mr. O. will allow me to reconcile Jerom with himself I am not indeed able to account for Jerom when he proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters from sundry places of Scripture the Epistles of Peter and Paul and St. John and yet gives us a Catalogue of several Bishops in that time But this I say Jerom after he had advanc'd the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons in that Epistle to Evagrius telling us there was a time when Bishops and Presbyters were the same He proceeds to argue from the Church of Alexandria that there even to Heraclas and Dionysius for 200 Years the Bishops were chosen out of the Presbyters not out of the Deacons which Observation was not designed to prove the Presbyterian Identity nor the Parity but the Honour given to the Presbyters above Deacons because the Patriarch was for a long while chosen out of their Number only Lastly Let what will become of Jerom and his Arguments this is sure and confessed on all Hands there were always Bishops of Alexandria from the beginning of their Conversion by Mark. It no manner of way belongs to the present Controversy how or by whom chosen and set up If the Scripture shall be thought not to have determin'd this point I mean what way and bywhom the Bishops shall be Constituted it is then in the Church to determine but not utterly to lay them aside But Mr. O. goes on We read not of any other Consecration of the Bishops of Alexandria than the Presbyters Election and their placing him in an higher Degree and naming him Bishop No has Mr. O. forgot or did he not know till aster he had thus shot his Bolt that according to Eutychius cited this very 128th p. that by the Institution of Mark The Presbyters when the Patriarchship was vacant chose one of their Number on whose Head they laid their Hands and blessed him and created him Patriarch And if this be true Jerom forgot a very material thing that would have made for the Honour of Presbyters and their Identity with Bishops and Mr. O. forgot another that of the Presbyters imposing Hands on their new Patriarch which I take to be somewhat more than Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop Mr. O. proves there was anciently no other Consecration but Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop from the Testimony of Polydor Virgil who in his Book de Invent. rerum l. 4. c. 6. 〈◊〉 says Mr. O. that anciently in making Bishops there were no Ceremonies used c. Ans. Mr. O. has a Knack above all other Men to misrepresent Authors And though I resolved not to concern my self with late Writers Yet being Polydor was in his time a Learned Man and of no small Reputation in the Roman Church of Engl. I will with Mr. O. pay some deference to his Testimony and Character Let us then hear what Polydor has delivered in the place cited He tells That Jesus Christ created twelve Pontiffs whom he called Apostles also Seventy Disciples whom he made Sacerdotes Priests that from these latter the Order of Presbyters arose that the Apostles and Disciples were not admitted into their Office by any other Rites save only the Election or Institution of Christ. Which Polydor proves immediately after from the practice of the Apostles in taking Matthias into their Number and instituting the Seven Deacons Let us run through Polydor's Argument backward and see what it says The Apostles imposed Hands on the Seven Deacons therefore on Matthias and by consequence according to Virgil so did Christ lay Hands on the Apostles and Seventy Disciples So that this Authority out of Polydor recoils upon himself Indeed Mr. O. owns as much But then thereby he destroys his own propositition which is We know no other Ceremony but Election c. But is not Impositiof Hands a Ceremony and more than Electing placing and nominating him Bishop I am perswaded it is a Ceremony Thus Mr. O. confutes himself when he pretends to confirm his Opinion I cannot pass by one thing which Polydor very falsly tacks to his Discourse here concerning the Original of Imposition of Hands which he derives from our Lord and his Apostles but adds atque hinc olim factum c. hence it came about that 〈◊〉 it was an Old Ecclesiastical Practice in Consecrating a Bishop the Presbyters imposed Hands and for this cites Cyprian's fourth Epistle to Felix in the Oxford Ed. the 67. 'T is pity Mr. O. stumbled not upon this Hint of Virgils In appearance 't is better then any He has produced in his Plea But the comfort is there is nothing like this to be found in that Epistle and this I thought proper to Note to the End no new trouble should be created me upon Virgil's Authority Mr. O. Jerom saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius What Custom Not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People For that continued long after therefore it must be be the 〈◊〉 of Bishops which afterwards was done by Neighbouring Bishops in
1. That the People here spoken of were aforetime Subject to Bishops which Mr. O. has miserably perverted by saying that till that time the Diocesses never had any Bishops at all contrary to the apparent sense of that Canon which affirms it and describes those People thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the People here spoken of were even in the possession and under the Jurisdiction of Bishops Ex. gra To make the matter plainer to Mr. O. The People of Lancashire cannot be said never to have had any Bishops at all it being well known that the Bishop of Chester is their Diocesan 2. The People mentioned in the Canon had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper Bishop peculiar to themselves Thus it is true that the County of Lancaster never had to this Day a proper Bishop of their own 3. The African Fathers did not Peremptorily resolve that those People should have no Bishop for the future though Mr. O. has very falsly affirmed it But two things they define either first that they should continue in subjection to their former Bishop that is to keep to my Example that the County of Lancaster should continue as a Member of the Diocess of Chester Or else secondly that they should be erected into a Distinct Bishoprick and have their own proper Bishop provided nevertheless that it be with the Consent of their former Bishop or thus in the Example that the County of Lancaster should be made a Bishoprick by its self and have a proper Bishop of its own provided my Lord of Chester would consent thereunto There is another Canon in the African Code which is more full to my purpose It pleased the Synod that the People who never had proper Bishops of their own should not have them Except it be so decreed in a full Provincial Synod and particularly by the Primate and with the Consent of that Bishop unto whose Government that Church or the aforesaid People formerly belonged Mr. O. then 〈◊〉 he had dealt honestly and faithfully with the African Fathers and with us should have cited the whole Period at length and not abused them and endeavoured to cozen the present Age with such Counterfeit Stuff I have this only farther to remark upon these Canons of the Carthaginian Councils and so shall conclude that the Occasion of making the former and of the latter too as is probable was the Ambitious and Haughty and Aspiring Stubborn and Foolish for all these Epithets are there bestowed on them Disposition of some Presbyters who raising their Crests against their own Bishops and Wheedling the People by some indirect means would needs in a Disorderly manner make themselves their Rectors i. e. Bishops This immediately follows in the aforesaid Canon as any one that pleases may see at his Leisure To prove that Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination Mr. O. alledges the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 3. Omnes Presbyteri qui Praesentes sunt Manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius Ordinandi Presbyteri teneant Ans. 1. He has not given us the Canon intire having left out something which perhaps will go a great way to the overthrowing his Argument as will be seen anon Thus the Canon runs Episcopo eum sc. Presbyterum benedicente Omnes c. But it is not unusual for Mr. O. to quote his Authors by Halves and to suppress what seems to make against him At this rate he may soon get the Christian World on his side so many of 'em at least as will not be at the pains or are unable to examine his Authorities 2. This Canon though Caranza and other Authors mention it is not to be found in the African Code set forth by Justellus which makes me suspect that the Fathers who in the Council of Trull took the African into the Code of the Universal Church look'd upon it either as Spurious or rejected it as to the matter therein decreed But I will not insist on this 3. It is most reasonable to interpret one Canon by another The said Council decreed Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet From 〈◊〉 one would guess that the Imposition of the Presbyters Hands was designed only 〈◊〉 a Testimony that the Bishop Ordained with the advice and consent of the Presbyters at least not without them 4. If Presbyters laid on Hands as proper Ordainers how comes it to pass that in other Councils and Canons of the Church it s declared that the Bishop only Ordains and not the Presbyters In the 2. Council of Hisp. Can. 6. Episcopus enim sacerdotibus Ministris solus Honorem dare potest Can. 7. Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Presbyteris Mysteriorum Communis sit Dispensatio quaedam tamen sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum Diaconorum Consecratio But the fifth Canon is remarkable The Occasion of it was this A certain Bishop being Blind laid on his Hands at the Ordination of some Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of his Presbyters Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum Ordinem benedictionem dedisse fertur For which 't is added that the Presbyter deserved to be condemned but that he was in the mean time dead From whence I think 't is plain 1. That Ordination was not effectually given by Imposition of Hands but by Benediction the Charge or Commission wherein properly consifted the Ordination which was given to the Ordained 2. All the Irregularity here committed was that the Presbyter presum'd Benedicere and there with it may be to give the Commission that is to Ordain which if Imposition of Hands was Ordination had been no Irregularity at least no Essential defect as it is declared to be 3. For if Imposition of Hands be the Ordination then there was no Irregularity in these Ordinations the Bishop having laid his Hands on the Ordained as 't is testifyed in the Canon as well as that Presbyter who blest him 4. The Orders thus conferred were declared Null by the Council Hi Presbyteri Diaconi gradum sacerdotii Levitici Ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt amittant So that 〈◊〉 the whole it appears that in the Judgment of these Fathers and of the Church at that Time laying on of Hands was not properly Ordination and by 〈◊〉 though Presbyters impose Hands yet they do not Ordain which 〈◊〉 overthrows Mr. O's Major Proposition But let us see how Mr. O. confirms his Major He endeavours it by this Medium That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power But Imposition of Hands is an Ordaining Act. Therefore c. To the Minor I answer by denying Imposition of Hands to be an Ordaining Act 't is only an outward and Solemn Concomitant of it as is before Evinc'd though Warranted by Holy Scripture By the Imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters Hands is signifyed to the Congregation present that
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
Order of the Catholick Church and particularly of the Alexandrian whereof he is supposed to have been a part The Desert of Scetis where he usually resided adjoining to the Lake Maria or Maeris which borders on Egypt 2. Whereas 't is urged that Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce this Ordination void and null that we read of there is no great matter in this For it may with as great reason be argued that Theophilus would have Censured it if it had come to his knowledge there being no probability that Theophilus would have past by such a Disorder and Affront done to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions seeing Peter and Alexander of Alexandria his Predecessors would not bear with the Melitians 3. 'T is wonderful that Mr. O. should Insinuate that it was neither irregular nor unusual which in former Cases he has granted over and over again 4. Valesius tells me that Paphnutius was engaged in the Melitian Schism as Ephiphanius testisies de Haeresi Melitianorum He also observes that the Schism was then improv'd unto Heresie 'T is no wonder then that an Heretical Schismatick should presume to break through the Rules and Orders of that Church from which he divided and usurp a Power that nothing belonged to him And hence also may be drawn the reason why Theophilus took no notice of what Paphnutius did he being a Schismatick if not an Heretick and out of the Communion of the Church and what had the Patriarch to do to judge them that were without already As St. Paul speaks in somewhat a like Case But 5. I will not content my self with these Answers though I reckon them sufficient But add 't is no where affirmed by Cassianus that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel a Deacon or Presbyter but only Cum Daniel multis junior esset aetate ad Diaconii praelatus est Officium and then Festinavit coaequare made baste to equal Daniel with himself in the Honour of the Priest-hood And Lastly desiring to provide a most worthy Successor to himself whilst he was alive Provexit promoted him to the Honour of the Presbytership The Question is whether these Words signifie that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel That he did so can no ways be concluded from this Testimony of Cassianus For 1. It has been ordinary to attribute that unto a Person which indeed he only commanded or directed devised or procured to be done Thus Parents are commonly said to make their Sons Ministers but Ordain them not themselves Thus Patrons among us make and prefer Vicars and Rectors of Churches and the King Bishops though Bishops Ordain and Institute them Thus Joshua made him sharp Knives and Circumcised the Children of Israel Joshua 5. 3. Now I hope Mr. O. will not affirm that Joshua himself made the sharp Knives or Circumcised all these Israelites with his own hands But to come yet nearer to our purpose I read in St. Cyprian Novatus Felicissimum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione ambitione Diaconum constituit The enquiry is whether Novatus a Presbyter imposed hands and Ordained Felicissimus a Deacon and whether St. Cyprian is thus to be understood This doubt is to be 〈◊〉 from another passage of St. Cyprian in the same 〈◊〉 Qui Novatus isthic Carthagine Diaconum fecerat sc. Felicissimum illic Romae Episcopum fecit sc. Novatianum Novatus made Felicissimus a Deacon at 〈◊〉 and Novatianus a Bishop at Rome But how Not Ordaining him himself but procuring or encouraging him to be Ordained by Bishops as we read in Eusebius Novatianus a Presbyter of Rome by Eus. called Novatus also having from some remote parts of Italy invited three Bishops unto Rome forced them to Ordain him Novatianus Bishop This was the Contrivance of the African Novatus as we learn from Cyprian As then Novatus did not Ordain Novatianus but three Bishops procured for the purpose so neither can it be thought he Ordained Foelicissimus Deacon but by his Policy and Interest got him to be Ordained And yet Cyprian witnesseth that he made fecit constituit the one a Deacon and made fecit the other a Bishop In like manner 〈◊〉 made Daniel a Deacon and a Presbyter that is appointed and commanded him to take Orders For being the Abbot he had the Authority to determine his own Monk unto the Orders of Deacon and Presbyter But It may not be amiss to consider what Blondel has from this Testimony of Cassianus advanced for the establishment of Presbyterian Ordination He places this fact in the Year 390. when the Egyptian Church enjoyed a profound Peace and Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria and the Government of this Church was improved in a manner into a Secular Dominion If in these Circumstances He argues a Presbyter might Ordain Presbyters how much more before the ancient simplicity of the Gospel was shackled with Novel Constitutions Ans. It is is some prejudice against this Story of Cassianus that neither 〈◊〉 Sozomen Theodoret nor any of those Ecclesiastical Historians though they mention Paphnutius should have one Syllable of this Action nor so much as mention Daniel Besides the Egytian Churches were not in so perfect Tranquility as Mr. Blondel imagines and represents them The Melitian Schism still remained among them and this Paphnutius was one of them as I have before observ'd so that it is not be wondered at that Paphnutius presumed to Ordain and Theophilus overlook'd and neglected it For what had he to do with them that were already out of the Church and Excommunicated as the Melitians must needs be supposed This premised I frame an Argument against Blondel and as I conceit every whit as good as his 'T is this If in the most Turbulent State of the Egyptian Church when Alexander was Bishop of Alexandria the Ordinations of Melitius and Colluthus were declared invalid it is Morally impossible that the Ordination of Daniel by Paphnutius should be approved or connived at when Theophilus being Bishop of Alexandria the Episcopacy was raised to a higher degree of Grandeur and the Peace of the Church better established To conclude this Chapter let it be remembred what I have already noted out of Theodoret how that Bishops were wont to reside among the Monks in the Wilderness of Egypt and that seven of them are said to have done so from their Youth up to their extreme Old Age even when they were Bishops and a little Sense will perswade one to believe that Daniel was Ordained by a Bishop Paphnutius the Abbot commanding and directing his Monk to receive Holy Orders CHAP. XV. Of Pope Leo ' s Decree THE case was this There were was in the Diocess of Rusticus Bishop of Narbona as may be conjectured from Pope Leo's Epistle some Persons who toook upon 'em to Ordain and who are called by that Pope Pseudo Episcopi Rusticus complains thereof in a Letter to Leo which is not extant that I know of Leo's Answer is There is no reason they should
is above 2000 Miles in Compass a Province big enough for a Bishop yet had none in Justin the Emperor's time which was about the Year 520. but was under the Jurisdiction of a Presbyter Ordained in Persia who in all likelyhood Ordained his Successor and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries From hence Mr. O. roundly concludes that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches no not in the 6th Age and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction and consequently of Ordination I 'll not now contest the Truth of the story Let us rather suppose the matter of Fact to be as it is reported by Mr. O. But I have these following things to reply to it and to the conclusion drawn from it 1. How does Mr. O. know that this Presbyter and his Deacon and the flock of Christians belonging to 'em were without a Superior Bishop to whom they were Subject They might be subject to some Bishop in Persia for any thing he can tell or the first Relator says 'T is true this Presbyter regebat he did rule the flock but it might be under some Bishop the likelihood hereof is the greater because he was Ordained in Persia and from thence sent to propagate the Gospel 2. Whereas Mr. O. thinking to magnify the Power of Presbyters and to shew what vast Churches have been rul'd by them without Bishops acquaints us that this Island is or was 2000 Miles in Compass and that it was big enough for a Bishop it might not be unseasonable to ask him first whether he is not mistaken in the extent of the Island Heylin makes it but 700 or 800 at most Well but I 'll not stand with Mr. O. for 1200 or 1300 Miles Almost two thirds shall 〈◊〉 break Squares between him and me especially since he has so good a Geographer on his side as N. Lloyd granting then this 2. Neither his Country-Man Lloyd nor Heylin make any mention of Christians in this Island The story then may be but a Fable at last 3. I ask whether there were any more than one single Congregation of Christians in this Island or more than one Presbyter and his Deacon If not he has the reason why there was no Bishop in the Island but that the Presbyter and his Flock were subject unto some Persian Bishop If he says there were Christians up and down in the Island as his telling us of the large compass of it seems to intimate and many Congregations and yet this Presbyter ruled 'em all why then we have a real though not nominal Bishop I mean in respect of Jurisdiction 4. Whereas Mr. O. makes this Reflection that this Island in Compass 2000 Miles was a Province big enough for a Bishop he 'll give me leave I hope to retort that it seems it was not too big for one Presbyter and his Deacon 3. Let it be observed that Mr. O. knows not but this Presbyter had a Predecessor in that Island For there is a Tradition that Philip the Evangelist preached the Gospel in Persia India and Taprobane I demand then upon that supposition who Ordained his Predecessor A Bishop in Persia in likelihood for so much is reasonably gathered from this Presbyter's being himself Ordained there and Bishops were before that time in Persia If so there is more Probability that this Presbyters Successor also was Ordained in Persia than that the Presbyter himself Ordained him But these things are all in the dark and we know not certainly that this Presbyter had either a Predecessor or a Successor and so Mr. O's whole Argument is lost He has built upon no Foundation It tumbles down 〈◊〉 it s own accord I add 't is likely this Church in Taprobane increased not much nor continued long there being no Monument of a Christian Church there but the Monk Cosma's Tale of this single Presbyter 4. Since we must contend with likelihoods I ask whether it be not much more likely that this Presbyter being Ordained in Persia did take care rather that his Successor if he had any should be there Ordained likewise than that himself should presume to Ordain Him There is not any the least ground to conjecture that the Presbyter himself Ordained Him but there is some to think that his Successor was Ordained in Persia viz. because he himself was 5. Admitting that the Church of Christ in this Island of Taprobane continued there for some Ages if it increased not much which is most likely because we hear nothing more of it it might depend upon and remain subject unto some Persian Bishop and be under his Guidance and direction as our Western Islands are under the Bishop of London If it flourish'd and Christians multiply'd considerably there who can tell but they had Bishops of their own afterwards The summ of the matter is A certain Monk called Cosmas a Man of no Note and Reputation that I know of tells a lame story of a Presbyter without a Name which renders the Tale Suspicious who in the Year 520 when all the World besides was confessedly Episcopal was Ordained in Persia where the Government of the Church was Episcopal and ruled a Church in Zeilan no one knows how Numerous or how long he ruled it nor how long it continued a Church without a Superiour Bishop says Mr. O. which is more than is testify'd by the Relators and in all likelihood Ordained his own Successor and would not be at the Trouble of sending for one to very Remote Countries all which is spoken at Random it being in the story not so much as intimated that he had any Successor or that he Ordained him or that he was unwilling to get a Successor from a remote Country And from hence without any Colour of pretence very rashly and very weakly Mr. O. has gather'd that even in the 6th Century Bishops were thought Essential and that meer Presbyters have Power to Ordain If this must pass for a tolerable Argument against Episcopal Government or in the least favours the Presbyterian I do renounce all pretence to common Sense CHAP. XVII Of Pelagius his Ordination WE have now been a long Journey in search after some Instance of Presbyters Ordaining or some Law and Custom that warrants it We have been in Africa and among the Moors in Egypt and the Desert of Scetis at Taprobane which lies to East-India among the Northern Scythians in England and in France and among the Picts and Scots in the most remote parts of Britain We have examined the most famous Councils and their Definitions of Nice of Ancyra Antioch and the Carthaginian Synods and all to as little purpose as they who seek a Needle in a Bottle of Hay We are now at length going to visit Limina Apostolorum Rome its self the Centre of Christendom and thence to learn what may be found in the practice of St. Peter and St. Paul's Successors for Presbyters Power to Ordain And surely we will not decline the
determination of this Question which the Infallible Church has made by her Example To this purpose therefore we are put in Mind of the Ordination of Pelagius Bishop of Rome which happened about the Year 555 and is remembred by Anastasius who wrote the lives of the Popes Anastasius then relates as Mr. O. tells me how that Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by John Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia Whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Before I make a direct Answer to this and to the Argument which Mr. O. builds upon the Fact it is requisite that I tell the story a little more largely For some Men have got a Scurvy Trick to leave out whatever is to their Disadvantage or In validates the Force of their Argument it being not the Truth but the Interest of the Cause which they labour to support The story then is thus Vigilius the Immediate Predecessor of Pelagius had been severely Treated at Constantinople by Justinian or rather Theodora his Empress and returning back to Rome fell Sick and died Pelagius was suspected to have had an Hand in his Death at least had been his Enemy and a cause of his Sufferings for which Reason the Clergy hated Pelagius so that he could not procure three Bishops to consecrate him He therefore in the place of the third admitted Andreas the Presbyter of Hostia and what will not such a Man as Pelagius do to establish himself in so considerable a Post as the Bishoprick of Rome But if such as these shall pass for good Precedents any Irregularity in the World may at this Rate be Justifyed Thus much being premised let us see what use Mr. O. makes of this Ordination of Pelagius He argues thus Either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop c. or else a Presbyter has Intrinsick Power of Ordination c. that is either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and then the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and Consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession Or c. Ans. I reply that though Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop i. e. not Canonically Ordained yet this notwithstanding the English Bishops have true Canonical Succession For 1. We need not pretend to derive the Succession of our Bishops from the Popes of Rome 't is more probable that they are the Successors of St. Paul or some other Apostolical Men who first planted the Gospel here in the Days of the Apostles or soon after So that we are not concerned at any Irregularity supposed in the Roman Succession 2. We had Bishops here in England or Britain long before Pelagius was Pope of Rome it being certain that some British Bishops assisted at the Council of Arles held in the days of Constantine the Great and at that of Ariminum called together by Constantius his Son above 200 Years before Pelagius And this Race of Bishops continued even unto Austin the Monks coming hither Whatever then becomes of Pelagius his Consecration 't is no matter to us His Irregularity affects not our English Bishops 3. Supposing what nevertheless is not true that the Heathen Saxons the Angli and the Danes quite extirpated Christianity in this Land until Austin the Monk coming from Rome with the Pope's Commission once more reduced and brought back the Inhabitants of this Isle unto the belief of the Gospel and gave us a new line of Bishops Yet still the Irregularity of Pelagius's Consecration will not at all disparage our Succession of Bishops as Mr. O. knows very well if he would not dissemble For I ought to believe that he has read the known History of Venerable Bede o'er and o'er and thoroughly digested him because he so oft and familiarly quotes him in the Plea c. He may then please to remember that Austin was not Created Bishop by Pope Gregory but by Etherius Archbishop of Arles in France Interea vir Domini Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem Civitatis Etherio juxta quod jussa Sti. Patris Gregorii acceperant Archiepiscopus Genti Anglorum Ordinatus est So that from henceforth Mr. O. and the Papists may take notice that the English Bishops as to the Succession of their Orders are nothing beholden to the Bishops of Rome at least not unto Pelagius that if Etherius was a Canonical Bishop as I must believe till the Contrary is prov'd so was Austin a Canonical Bishop and so are our English Bishops unto this day whatever becomes of Pelagius his Consecration Without any farther fear of danger therefore I may Conclude that Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop that is was not Canonically Ordained and yet we have a true Succession of Canonically Ordained Bishops in England But Mr. O. goes on Or else he was a Canonical Bishop and what then Why then it follows a Presbyter has a Canonical Power to Ordain for so Andreas had if Pelagius was Canonically Ordain'd and then by another consequence that Presbyters have an Intrinsick Power to Ordain Because no Ecclesiastical Laws can give to any Order of Men a Canonical Power to that which they have not an Intrinsical Power to do Supposing this for I need not contend the truth of it the Answer then to the whole Argument is as before that Pelagius was not Canonically Ordained But now I think on 't what if a Man should affirm that Pelagius was Canonically Ordained and yet assert that a Presbyter has not an Intrinsical Power to Ordain The first Apostolical Canon decrees Let a Bishop be Ordain'd by two or three Bishops Pelagius's Consecration therefore was Canonical being performed by two Bishops according to this Canoh and Presbyter Andreas may stand for a Cypher True the Nicene and other Synods afterwards said by three Bishops Nevertheless the Apostolical Canons being always reckoned as part of the Code of the universal Church the Nicene and all other Canons ought in conformity to this to be favourably interpreted I mean that it did not intend peremptorily to command but rather prudentially advised that if it could be a Bishop should be Consecrated by three Bishops It is not improbable but Pelagius's Consecration was upon this very Account afterwards allow'd of For this is manifest that Pelagius what ever his Ordination was is not reckoned amongst the Schismatical Bishops of Rome but was acknowledged and peaceably submitted to Mr. O. then is too positive when he affirms that by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Without all peradventure fewer might serve in cases of Necessity as this haply afterwards might be judged If God himself is pleas'd that his own Laws shall submit to those of Necessity much more the Canons of the Church shall Wise Men have so determin'd even in this particular case Gregory declared that Austin notwithstanding the Canons might himself alone Consecrate Bishops quidem in
Anglorum Ecclesia in qua solus tu Episcopus inveniris Ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi sine Episcopis potes Doubtless then the meaning of the Canons must be that in Ordinary and when it may be with convenience three Bishops are requir'd to the Consecration of a Bishop though even one in the case of Necessity be sufficient I will not affirm there was a necessity in the case of Pelagius because there was no necessity he should be Bishop of Rome yet after his Consecration the wise Italians might judge it necessary to overlook the later Canons and confirm his Consecration rather than create an Anti-Pope and a Schism in the Church Pelagius then was a Canonical Bishop according to the Apostolical Canon though not Canonically Ordained according to the strictness of the Nicene Canon But it will be demanded why did not Pelagius content himself with two Bishops but took in a Presbyter to assist in the Ordination The reason is plain because Pelagius being a wise Man as is to be presumed though not so good as were to be wished would give his Adversaries as little occasion as was possible to quarrel at his 〈◊〉 If therefore he could not get three Bishops he at least procured two and a third Person and so came as near to the Nicene Canon as he could He observed the number though not the exact Qualification of the Ordainers and so vary'd as little from the Rule as might be Hereby he made account to impose upon the ignorant Multitude who 't is likely were the principal Spectators of the Solemnity of his Ordination For the Clergy would not be present to countenance his Ordination whom they hated CHAP. XVIII Of the Waldenses the Boyarians the Lollards and some other People who separated themselves from the Roman Communion OF the Waldenses Mr. O. speaks in his Preface page 1. c. and in the Plea p. 156 to the effect following That the Vaudois or Waldenses have had no other Ministers for near 500 Years past than Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops that they maintain all Ministers to be in a state of Parity that their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination that the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers from these Waldenses And for the truth of all this he quotes Perrin's History of the Waldenses Of what Authority Perrin is may be hence guessed that the Synod which set him on work disapproved it as I am told or whether Mr. O. has given us an honest and fair Account of him I know not I am a Stranger to that Author nor can I hereabouts light on him neither am I very much concerned about any thing he says which is so late sc. according to Mr. O's Computation near 1200 Years after Christ and so obscure that no weight can be laid upon the Argument drawn from the Practice of these Waldenses I say obscure For they being a poor and illiterate thin scatter'd and harassed People and almost always under Persecution it is Morally impossible they should have an exact History of themselves transmitted unto these last Ages especially considering that their Enemies the Papists made it their business to destroy the most ancient Records of that People and as Sir S. Morland testifies the most that is known of them is supposed generally to be taken out of their Adversaries Writings who will sometimes make bold to load those who separate from them with Calumnies and fasten on them odd Opinions meerly to expose and render them the more odious Lastly although I do not delight to detract from their Merits yet I see no great reason for those excessive Commendations some think 〈◊〉 to bestow on them when I call to mind that at the time when the Fratres Bohemi became 〈◊〉 acquainted with them they found the Waldenses taking the Liberty of going to Mass and joyning with the Papists in their Idolatrous Worship Nevertheless these Exceptions set apart what I find in such Authors as are at hand shall here be produced to confront the others cited by Mr. O. to the end the Reader may judge whether Mr. O. and his Author Perrin have made a faithful Report of the Waldensian Churches at least whether it may not truly be affirmed that the History of that People is so uncertain that no Argument can thence be drawn to countenance the Presbyterian Government and Ordination by meer Presbyters Sir Sam. Morland in his History of the Waldenses shews that Claudius Archbishop of Turin was a great Promoter of true Doctrine against Roman Idolatry in his Diocess that the Waldenses succeeded this Archbishop that the said Archbishop delivered his Doctrine to his Disciples and these unto their Successors unto the ninth and tenth Centuries In the Year 1059. the Waldenses again separated from Rome In the Year 1223. the Albigenses in Bulgaria Croatia and Dalmatia had one Bartholomew whom they stiled their Pope The Pope's Legate called him Bishop Mat. Paris Anti-Pope adding that he drew over to him Bishops and others and that he Ordained Bishops In the Year 1254. Reinerius makes mention of their Bishops in Lombardy In the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Moravia and Austria had Bishops They asserted that they had Lawfully Ordained Bishops among them and an uninterrupted Sucession of that Order even from the Apostles although out of hatred to the Papists they chose to call them Seniores and Antistites In their Responsio Excusatoria Anno 1500. they declare Nec summum 〈◊〉 Romanum nec nostrum nec quempiam alium caput esse 〈◊〉 plainly intimating that they had Bishops among them as well as the Romanists Anno 1655. Leger was Moderator of the Churches of the Valleys which Office was for Life with power to call Synods to preside in them and to lay on Hands Thus much is delivered as Matter of Fact let us now see what were their Principles concerning Church-Government Wolfius saith They held there were but three Degrees of Church-Officers sc. Bishops Priests Sacerdotes and Deacons the same is delivered by Guido But Aeneas Sylvius that a Bishop is not Superior to a Presbyter either in Dignity or in Power as Alphonsus de Castro also observed and most of the Popish Writers charge them with that Opinion But one of them viz. Reinerius does set forth their Doctrine and Practice to the effect following The Cathari or Puritans meaning the Waldenses have four Ecclesiastical Orders viz. the Bishop the elder Son the younger Son something like the Chorepiscopus or Suffragan Bishop and the Deacon The Office of the Bishop is always tenere Prioratum to possess the Supremacy in every thing done in the Imposition 〈◊〉 Hands in Celebrating the Lord's-Supper and in beginning the Prayers as does the elder Son in the Bishop's absence The said Orders are created by the Bishop or by the Sons with the Bishops 〈◊〉 When the Bishop is dead the younger Son Ordains the elder a
Bishop then the Bishop Ordains the younger Son to be the elder and lastly another younger Son is chosen by Prelatis Subditis the Ministers and People and Ordain'd But by another part of these Cathari near the Sea thus The Bishop before his death Ordains the elder Son Bishop to succeed him and then as before All the aforesaid Ordinations are made with Imposition of Hands and the Honour of Ordaining and giving the Holy Ghost is attributed unto the Bishop or unto him that is the elder Son who holdst he Book of the New-Testament upon the Head of him on whom the hands are laid Thus much their Adversaries said of them wherein doubtless there is a mixture of Truth and I alshood at least this miserable People scattered up and down did somewhat vary in their Rites and were never at all times and in all places steady to themselves I have mentioned before how that about the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Austria and Moravia had Bishops and from these it was that the Fratres 〈◊〉 drew the Succession of their 〈◊〉 Orders which History will deserve here to be more particularly Transcribed In order whereunto I must now tell the Story of the Fratres Bohemi as Comenius and the History of the Persecut Bohem have made it ready to my Hands fetching it from the very beginning of Christianity The Sclavonian Nations were Converted in the Apostles times Rom. 15. 19. 2 Ep. to Tim. 4. 10. By Sclavonians Comenius means all the Nations from Macedonia Northward even to Russia Polonia and Germany Some proof of their early embracing the Gospel he fetches from St. Jerom who was Born at Strydon a City of 〈◊〉 or Dalmatia In the sixth Synod of Constantinople in the Year 680. the Lombards and Sclavonians are acknowledged to be Christians About the Year 861. Cyrillus and Methodius two Graecian Bishops made the People inhabiting about the Danube Christians and then passing into Moravia and Bohemia propagated the Faith among them After this Comenius mentions Ditmarus Saxo Bishop of Prague * The History of the Bohemian Persecution tells of Waytichius II. Bishop of Prague in the Year 907. of Boleslaus Pius another Bishop of Prague Anno 965. of Priests and Prelates Anno 1197. who opposed the Usurpations of the Popes and of Conrade Bishop of Prague who leaving the Romish Errors remained Bishop there Anno 1421. About 20 Years before this hap'ned viz. Anno 1400. the Bohemian Churches separated from the Roman upon the account that the Publick Prayers were made in the Latin Tongue that the Clergy were obliged to Celibacy that Transubstatiation was made an Article of Faith and that the People were deprived of the Cup in the Lord's-Supper This occasioned the dispersion of the Bohemians and their Settlement in Austria from whence they sent unto the Greek Church for the Ordination of their Ministers and had hopes given them of their obtaining it They removed after into Silesia Now it was that Gregory an Holy Man was by the Persecutors tortured but falling into a Trance felt no pain and was believed dead Recovering he told his Friends of a Vision wherein among other things he saw three Men standing about a Tree laden with Fruit and defending it from the Birds and about the same time the Fratres Bohemi were under some trouble of Mind how they should for the future be provided with a Succession of rightly Ordained Ministers For they considered that though several of the Roman Priests came over to them it was too uncertain to hope for them 〈◊〉 Rome They doubted also whether the Ordination was valid when a Presbyter and not a Bishop Ordained a Presbyter and that if the Question was once mov'd about it whether they should be able to defend such an Ordination either at Home or Abroad At length after some Years deliberation viz 1467. and about 6 Years after the said Vision of Gregory having Fasted and Pray'd for Direction from God they resolved upon the following Course They chuse nine of the most deserving Brethren and fittest for the Ministry They wrap up twelve Tickets nine whereof were Blanks and three full ones having writ on them est that is to say as they meant it should signifie it is the Will of God but the Blanks were to denote it was not the Will of God they should have Bishops These twelve Tickets being mixed were delivered to a young Boy not knowing what he did to be distributed one to every one of those nine Persons 'T is manifest that the nine Blank Tickets might every one have been given out unto those nine Persons from whence it would have been concluded that what they were about to do was not the Will of God But it so hap'ned that the three full Tickets were delivered to three of the nine sc. to Kunwaldius Praelausius and Crenovius And hence they gathered assuredly that what they were designing was the Will of God sc. to seek for Episcopal Orders and the means of continuing a right Succession of them and that to that end those three Persons were to be Ordained Bishops Accordingly they sent three Persons unto the Church of the Waldenses who were at that time planted in the Confines of Moravia and Austria acquainting them with what was done and asking their Advice One of these three was Michael Zambergius so called because he was Pastor Zambergensis his true Name being Michael Bradacius How it came to pass that he was sent in the room of one of the other three chosen by lot is not said But Zambergius and the other two coming to the Wâldenses find one Stephen their Bishop who calling to him another Waldensian Bishop and some Ministers they create these three Bishops with imposition of Hands thereby conferring on them the Power of Ordaining Ministers 〈◊〉 three new Ordained Bishops of the Fratres Bohemi were the three which 〈◊〉 saw in his 〈◊〉 Guardians of the Tree that is of the Bohemian Churches Note that the Waldenses affirmed themselves to have had a lawful and uninterrupted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles days and derived their Original from the time of 〈◊〉 This hap'ned I reckon about 1420. or 1430. About the Year 1500. my Author witnesseth that there were 200 Churches in Bohemia and Moravia In the History of the Bohemian Persecution after their having received Bishops from the Waldenses I read of Lucas Pragene Bishop of the Bohemians of Sanctuariensis an Italian Bishop who for Conscience sake embraced the Bohemian Communion Anno 1482. and of Philip Bishop of Sidon being among them Anno 1493. Afterwards in the Year 1499. the Bohemians sent as far as Armenia for Ordination their Succession perhaps by some accident failing Anno 1542. I find Joanes Augusta was their Antistes or Bishop The next year after I meet with a great number of the Bohemians retired into Prussia whom their Bishop Mathias Sionius followed soon after
About 1556. a Synod was held in the middle of Moravia where were present more than 200 of the Clergy Then were fifteen Ministers Ordain'd two Bishops and six Conseniors The two Bishops were George Israel for the Polonian Churches and Johannes Blaboslaus for the Moravian At the same time Joannes Nigranus was Bishop in Bohemia Now it was that the Arrians afterwards called Socinians disturbed the Peace Order and Unity of the 〈◊〉 Bohemi asserting that the Pastors alias the Ministers or Presbyters had power to do all things in the Church And this Paradox they pretended to advance left any thing that smelt of Popery should remain among them who had renounced that Communion Therefore they were so true to their Principle as not only to disallow of Bishops called Seniors or Superintendants but to deny even the Godhead of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 forsooth the Papists maintain'd that Doctrine But for the same reason they might as well have denyed the Being of God himself At the same time in 〈◊〉 Polonia the Fratres Bohemi had five Bishops for so many Diocesses vix the Crasovian the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 the Russian and the Belsensis Diocess Anno 1571. Joannes Calephus was their Bishop in Bohemia Joannes Laurentius in Poland Stanislaus and Andreas Stephanus Bishop of the Fratres in Bohemia And lastly Johannes Adam Comenius a Moravian and another a Polonian their Elect Bishops Annno 1632. Comenius after this History of which I have given a Summary Account so far as belongs to the present Argument has furnished us with another Tractate which he stiles Ratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Unitate fratrum Bohemorum The Pontifical of the Bohemian Brethren as I may call it the substance whereof is as follows He tells us That in their Church whereof himself was a Bishop Elect there were four Orders of Ministers sc. the 〈◊〉 sen Antistites or the Prepositi Ministrorum sometimes called Vigiles or Speculatores Superintendentes or Superattendentes that is as he explains himself in our Language Bishops 2 Conseniores which he expounds Coepiscopi or Chorepiscopi or the Bishops Fellows 3. Pastors who were also Ordinarily called Ministers the same as with us are stiled Presbyters Priests or Elders 4. Deacons called 〈◊〉 Administratores or Adjutores Among the Bishops there were besides a Praeses or Primate or the first Bishop The President 's or Primate's Office among other things was to appoint and call Synods The Office of the Bishops besides other things was to Ordain all Ecclesiastical Degrees as Deacons Pastors Conseniors and Seniors or Bishops All other Degrees were obedient and subject to the Bishops The Conseniors were Coadjutors to the Seniors or Bishops had power with the Seniors or without them but by their Direction and Command to be Members of the Ecclesiastical Senate and were above the Pastors or Deacons Their business was to provide for good Order to acquaint the Seniors with Misdemeanors to admonish the Ministers to observe the Ecclesiastical Statutes and Customes to provide fit Persons for the Ministry to exercise Discipline over the Ministers together with the Bishops or without them yet by their Direction to examine the Candidates for Holy Orders and to present them to the Bishops diligently to observe how the Pastors discharged themselves in their Office to reprove their smaller Offences and to acquaint the Bishop with their more Scandalous ones I do not find they had power to Ordain and 〈◊〉 in his Annotations says That in minoribus negotiis Episcopi vices obirent as the ancient Chorepiscopi did If they be chosen Seniors they are new Ordained with Imposition of Hands as Pastors or Ministers are The Seniors Ordain all Orders The Seniors are chosen by the Seniors Conseniors and Pastors and are Ordained in a General Assembly with Imposition of Hands At the Solemnity is sung that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The former or the Ordaining Seniors offer the new created Bishop their right Hands in token of Fellowship The Conseniors theirs in token of Obedience The Conseniors being Ordained with Imposition of Hands give their right Hands to the Seniors in token of Obedience to the former Conseniors in token of Fellowship The Ministers offer theirs to the new created Conseniors in token of Obedience Ministers are Ordained by the Seniors with laying on of Hands of the Seniors so many as are present At the Solemnity they sing that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The new Ordained Ministers give their right Hands unto the Seniors and Conseniors in token of Obedience to the Pastors in token of Fellowship and the Deacons offer their Hands to them in token of Observance To conclude it most be confessed that Comenius says Bishop and Presbyter are one I suppose he means have the same Power and Authority to Minister in the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and this is out of all doubt but withal he intimates that a Bishop is one who is moreover an Inspector or Superintendent and for this cites Acts 20. 28. His mind is I suppose that St. Paul in the 17th verse addressed himself generally to all Presbyters whether meer Elders or those who moreover had the oversight of the rest But in the 28th 〈◊〉 he turns his Speech unto those especially who had been made Bishops And this is but what the Syriac Version seems to imply wherein as has already been noted verse the 17th Elders is rendered by Kashishaa which properly and only signifies Elders but verse the 28th Episkupea is used which denotes Overseers However this be if any one carefully observes what has been before related concerning the Government of the Church of the Bohemians it is impossible to conceive but that Bishops or Seniors were somewhat more than meer Presbyters The Division of Ecclesiastical Officers into three or four Orders the Power of Ordaining appropriated to Bishops the great care they had about getting a right Succession of Orders 〈◊〉 Bishops and many other remarkable passages before mentioned render this point uncontestable From the whole I think it follows that the Waldenses and the Fratres Bohemi were governed by Bishops superior to Ministers or Pastors long after they were separated from the Roman Idolatrous Communion yea that the Waldenses had Bishops within 150 Years and less the Fratres Bohemi within 160. that therefore Mr. O. is utterly mistaken who avers that the Waldenses had no other Ministers than Presbyters for near 500 Years last past and that Presbyters Ordained Presbyters without Bishops The contrary is most certain if my Authors have not deceived me Mr. O. was not insensible of this Matter of Fact of the Bohemians deriving their Bishops from the Waldenses but he shuffles us off with saying That the Waldensian Bishops were only Titular Bishops That is indeed meer Presbyters honoured with the bare Title of Bishops If Mr. O. had not known that remarkable Story about Zambergius and two others being Ordained Bishops by Stephen and another Waldensian Bishop he might possible have been pardonable
deceived us We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses but have brought no thing back worthy our pains but a Word and Empty Title Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry a Scene of Imposture and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides This must be confessed if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular as Mr. O. is pleased to say On the other Hand the History assures us that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles as they believ'd But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort But the mischief is the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation they will plead That they are Presbyters as well as others and have an Inherent Power to Ordain that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right which the Scripture gives them And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers which he has planted against our Bishops and with more Reason too For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination he had not respect to Age but to Ability 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young And Demas Bishop of Magnesia in Ignatius was a Young Man also 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself 't is all I ask I will suppose then that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters but limited it unto a few I will not say the Graver or Older sort but the Wiser and most Holy If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession Mr. O. adds and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed But this is what the Dissenters aim at that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised but the Whole Church consented unto and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God In short did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions I mean that of taking the Covenant But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter I shall therefore let it pass Of the Lollards 〈◊〉 has it is 〈◊〉 fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters and that every Priest or Presbyter has as good a Power to bind and loose and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give But to this it may be reply'd that 't is only the report of an Adversary and perhaps may be a Scandal It may again be answered that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised It may yet further be said that when People grope their way in a Dark Night it is no wonder if they now and then stumble They are to be both pittied and pardoned For lastly 't is manifest if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God It was one of their Maxims Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 566. that no Day is Holy not the Lord's-Day or Sabbath Day as People will call it but that on every Day Men may work eat and drink c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy Yea rather 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People and utterly Cancelled their Office at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution In short I think they were a well meaning but ignorant People who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel about Government and Discipline Finally note here that this Instance of the Lollards who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does especially not among the Protestants that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to at least under the Title of the Primitive Church But what all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion and the Primitive Church will never have an end so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline Concerning the Boiarians or Bavarians who as Mr. O. would have us believe were once Presbyterians I will only say thus much in short I find
in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian but will not trouble my self or Reader with them He that is curious and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People may take Aventinus into his Hands and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops and governed by Presbyters only It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly but however as he goes along he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops even before they were brought into subjection to Rome CHAP. XIX Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors and continued down to our own Times This Doctrine says Mr. O. meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop hath been maintained also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors both of the Roman and Protestant Communion both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us All I am concerned for is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records at or since the Reformation For 't is nothing to me if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer much less of the Dissenters whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea My design is upon Mr. O. himself and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government Mr. O. has alledged three against us the little Treatise commonly called The Bishops Book another called The Institution of a Christian Man and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet the late Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Irenicum all which as I shall prove belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII and whatever Opinions are there to be met with are not to be imputed to our first Reformers at least not as their fixed and settled Judgment for I reckon that in Hen. VIII's Days the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb newly conceived not brought forth that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born and in its Swadling Cloths and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity that it has yet been able to attain unto during which Queens Government something also is objected to us which shall be examined in its Order The Bishop's Book was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments the Creed and the Grounds of Religion fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction 'T was composed by sundry Bishops of whom Cranmer was chief by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII in the Year 1537. established by Parliament and Printed by Tho. Barthelet with this Title The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man Out of this Book Fox has furnished us with this following Passage That there is no mention made neither in the Scripture nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor or Author of the Church being within the Times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or constitute any Distinction or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves and the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power c. and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church From hence Mr. O. has gathered for he refers to Fox's Martyrology that these Bishops the Authors of that Book affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Ans. This Deduction is downright false and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words The design of that Prince at that time was to throw off the Pope and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed that as the Apostles were equal among themselves so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times or according to Jerom that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Archbishops and particularly the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops particularly not over the English only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake But from the beginning it was not so Here is not one word of Presbyters or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops Now that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book I appeal to what I find elsewhere taken thence by Mr. Strype How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope but to the King's Laws That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel in matters Civil and Moral but by Grant and Gift of Princes that it was always and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes with the Consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call again into their Hands or otherwise to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given and permitted by their Authority and Assent and Sufferance without which if the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop whatsoever should take upon them any Authority or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil that Bishop is not worthy the Name is an Usurper and Subverter of the Kingdom That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church as well as that of Rome That there is no difference in Superiority Preeminence or Authority of one Bishop over another But they be all of equal Power and Dignity and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome The Equality here spoken of in the beginning and in the latter end of this Period is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church but between Bishop and Bishop Church and Church and particularly that no Church that of England especially is subject to Rome And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops such Priests
haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England in Subordination to and by the Popes Authority not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate and that in Civil and Moral Matters only The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another if haply it be another Book entituled The Institution of a Christian Man drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII and the Parliament and commanded to be Preached Out of this Book afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess Mr. O. cites as follows in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum Which Words it must be confessed look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight Ans. In the first place I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this and some other Books of the same nature and written with the same design The Bishops Book otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man of which before came forth again two Years after sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man Printed also by Barthelet That this also was once more Published in Engglish and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book according to the Custom of those Times though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer but called The King's Book because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation added to it by way of Preface and assumed to himself the being the Author of it Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book Entituled The Bishops Book because framed by them I guess it the same with that I first spoke of and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book but Entituled The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book going under this Title Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit 1544. in the Preface whereof 't is said to have been at first writ in English and then Translated into Latin by whom or by what Authority I find not and whether this be the same with Mr. O's I know not but this is sure Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops not about the superiority or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church I am apt to fear some foul play But concerning the Testimony its self as allowed of I shall speak more by and by Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man If it shall be said that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book but the Bishops Book yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other Thus then I read in the King's Book That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church given of God to Christian Men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands That this Sacrament was conferred and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed or limited by the Word of God for the nomination election presentation or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region provided made or to be made c. He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries both of Priests and Bishops sc. Teaching Preaching Ministring the Sacraments Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar loosing and assoiling from Sin Excommunicating and finally Praying for the whole Church and their own Flock in special That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices but with such sort and such Limitations as the Laws permit and suffer That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only that is Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio which I have seen there is some disagreement to be found For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition c. seems to speak of two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons the Christiani hominis Institutio expresseth it thus de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum Diaconorum Scriptura expresse meminit c. meaning as I suppose not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry sc. of Presbyters and Deacons That is the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons is only expresly mentioned in Scripture and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive not of Persons but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day It is not then affirm'd in either that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices that is Priests and Deacons and not Bishops according to the Scripture But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense and to his purpose rather sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions in Ordinibus but of Deacons or Ministers and of Presbyters or Bishops How Ministers and Bishops crept in here I 'll not say But they are capable still of the same Sence sc. that
were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Quest. 11. Whether a Bishop has Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture or no And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest Cr. Ans. A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scripture so may Princes and Governours and the People also by Election The People did commonly elect their Bishops and Priests Quest. 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and a Priest or only appointing to the Office be sufficient Cr. Ans. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture For Election and appointing thereunto is sufficient I have somewhat contracted the Archbishops Answers but so as to preserve the Sense full and intire and somethings I have omitted not Material as I Judge here to be set down These Questions and Answers in the MS. were subscrib'd T. Cant. and this is mine Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but remit the Judgment wholly to your Majesty To all which I reply 1. That though these were the Opinions of 〈◊〉 yet other Bishops unto whom the same 〈◊〉 were put were otherwise perswaded Mr. Strype has furnished us with different Answers given by some others of the learned Doctors or Bishops of that time from another MS. out of Cotton's Library To the 9th Question The Calling Naming Appointment and preferment of one before another to be a Bishop or Priest had a necessity to be done in that sort a Prince being wanting The Ordering Ordination appeareth taught by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture per manuum Impositionem cum Oratione This I doubt not will be own'd a truer and more Scriptural Resolution of the Question then Cr's was To Question 10th Bishops were first or not after These learned Men spake here cautiously Cranmer rashly and roundly pronounces To Quest. 11. Scripture warranteth a Bishop obeying the 〈◊〉 to Order a Priest per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione and so it hath been from the beginning They do not boldly define that Priest and Bishop were one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as Cranmer did To Quest. 12 Manuum Impositio cum Oratione is required unto the making of a Bishop or Priest So as only appointing it is not sufficient There is yet the Judgment of other Learned Men to be seen in Mr. Strype which I will add unto the former To Quest. 9th Making Bishops has two parts Appointment and Ordination Appointment which by necessity the Apostles made by Common Election and sometime by their own Assignment could not be done by Christian Princes because there were none yet now appertaineth to them But in Ordering wherein Grace is conferred the Apostles followed the Rule taught by the Holy Ghost per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione Jejunio A more solid and Judicious Answer then Cranmer's To Quest. 10 Christ made the Apostles first both Priests and Bishops but whether at one time some doubt After that the Apostles made both Bishops and Priests the names whereof in the Scripture be confounded They manifestly imply a real distinction between them in the beginning though they were one in Name or rather though both were called by both Names indifferently To Quest. 11 The Bishop having Authority from his Prince to give Orders may by his Ministry given to him of God in Scripture Ordain a Priest and we read not that any other not being a Bishop hath since the beginning of Christ's Church Ordained a Priest N. B. To Quest. 12 Only Appointment is not sufficient but Consecration that is to say Imposition of Hands with 〈◊〉 and prayer is also required For so the Apostles used to Order them that were appointed and so has been used continually and we have not read the contrary From the whole it appears that what ever was Cranmer's Opinion yet others were of a contrary Mind It cannot then be truly affirm'd that Cranmer's was the Judgment of the Church of England as farther may be confirmed by what Dr. Leighton reply'd at the same time unto the Queries 1. I suppose that a Bishop has according to the Scripture Power from God as being his Minister to create the Presbyter although he ought not to promote any one unto the Office of a Presbyter or admit him to any Ecclesiastical Ministry unless the Princes leave be first obtained in a Christian Common-Wealth But that any other Person has according to the Scripture Power to create the Presbyter I have not read nor learned from any Instance 2. I suppose Consecration by laying on of Hands is necessary For so we are taught by the Examples of the Apostles Thus much Dr. Durel who read the whole MS. by the permission of Mr. St. reports out of it in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Angli The Judgment then of Cranmer set forth in that MS. cannot with any Truth be ascribed to the Church of England it was the Opinion but of some Persons from which their Contemporaries we see differed much But 2. the Argument grounded on the MS. belongs not to the time when the Church of England was Protestant So that the Resolution of those Queries were rather of the Popish Church of England For the Questions were not put by Edw. VI. as was at first surmized but by Hen. VIII To make out which note 1. The Manuscript has no date nor any King named in it that called the Assembly at Windsor One may then ascribe it to the Father Henry as well as to the Son Edward 2. Cranmer submits himself and his Sentence unto the Judgment of the King But Edward VI. was a Child too young and unexperienced to ask these Questions or to have the final decision of them referred to him 3. Lee Archbishop of York who subscribed the Answers in the MS. died in the Year 1544. some Years before Edward was King by which Argument Dr. Durel says he convinced Mr. Still that the Convention was held at Windsor in the Reign of Hen. VIII not of Edward VI. 4. In Mr. Strype's Memor the King makes his Animadversions upon the Bishops Answers which cannot be thought the Work of Edw. VI. a Child but of Hen. VIII 5. The matter of the Questions and of the Answers of Cranmer sufficiently prove that Hen. VIII convened that Assembly at Windsor They both resemble the foresaid King's and Bishops Books and one Animadversion of the King in Mr. Strype which is since they confess appointing Bishops belongeth now to Princes how can you prove that Ordering is only committed unto you Bishops bewrays King Henry's aspiring to be invested with all the Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Power even of Ordination it self Of which see more in his Memorials P. 16 17. Append. N. 7. It. Mem. 141. Briefly as in his elder Brothers life time he was bred up in Learning that he might be Alterius Orbis Papa or
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
of these Foxes and to unkennel them for the security of the Flock as well as to curb the Dissenters themselves Ministers was thought a fit Word to be added unto the Act to the end none might escape subscribing Mr. O's 〈◊〉 here turns upon himself whilst he distinguishes where the Law does not contrary to that wise rule of Interpreting Laws Besides these Words in the Statute Who pretend to be Priests or Ministers by reason of any other form of Institution or Consecration or ordering than the English then in force do in my Opinion plainly and more openly strike at the Popish Ordinations the Great Design of that Reign especially in the beginning being to extirpate the Romish Priests It may be urg'd That the Dissenting Ministers by subscribing those Articles which only belong unto the Confession of the true Christian Faith were to be admited or continued in their Benefices and by consequence their Ordinations allowed though they did not declare their Assent unto the Ceremonies and Traditions nor to the 20th and 36th Article of Religion Ans. This cannot be For I shall shew anon that they were oblig'd to subscribe those two Articles which if they did ex animo they must of necessity forth with enter into Episcopal Orders and approve of and use Church Ceremonies which was what the Statute aim'd at Nor as Mr. O. argues does the subscription seem to intend those only who scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies and not the other Doctrines in the 39 Articles which was the case of the Dissenters alone For the Papists scruple many other of the 39 Articles which also were to be assented unto but were not scrupled by the Presbyterian Dissenters though other Dissenting Ministers haply did and though the Papists scruple not Ceremonies and Traditions in General yet they scruple ours in particular By consequence were intended in the Act as much and more then the Dissenters Mr. O. Because the Assent and Subscription was only to the Articles of Religion concerning the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments therefore an Indulgence was intended the Dissenting Ministers who scrupled nothing else but Ceremonies and the Book of Consecration which belonging not to the Christian Faith are not required to be subscribed and assented to and by consequence Ordination by Presbyters was here allowed Ans. All I have to do is to prove that the 20th and 36th Articles among the 39 were by this Statute required to be subscribed and assented to And thus I prove it 'T is manifest that the 39 Articles are meant in this Statute viz. from these Words in the Act Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and 〈◊〉 of both Provinces and the Whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions in Religion Oh! but cries Mr. O. 't is meant of such Articles only as concerned the Confession of the true Christian Faith which the two aforesaid Articles did not all the rest being opposed it seems unto the 20th and 36th Articles Ans. It is very absur'd in my Judgment to Interpret Acts of Parliament in so loose a manner which are wont to speak more correctly and with greater exactness and if this had been intended the Statute would certainly have excepted the two Articles I rather believe the Articles of Religion here mentioned are opposed to other Articles of the Queen's setting forth in the 6th of her Raign Anno 1564. and to be seen in the Collection of Dr. Sparrow called Articles 〈◊〉 Doctrine and Preaching for Administration of Prayer and 〈◊〉 for certain Orders in Ecclesiastical Politie Apparel or Persons Ecclesiastical and Sundry other Protestations All which were injoined by the Queens Letters and Authority only unto which this Statute did not direct an Assent and Subscription but to the 39 only which for Distinctions sake are entituled Articles of Religion and in Allusion thereto are so called in the Statute To all these 39 Articles called 〈◊〉 of Religion all Priests and Ministers were to subscribe And this was enacted as well for the avoiding diversity of Opinions as establishing of Consent touching true Religion Moreover by Ceremonies we commonly understand things of meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution These indeed considered every one singly by it self belong not to the true Christian Faith Right But the 20th Article which in general defines and declares it to be in the Power of the Church to appoint some decent Ceremonies 〈◊〉 a Principle or Proposition which belongs unto the true Christian Faith as being founded on the Word of God and therefore with the rest was to be subscrib'd The Book of Consecration confirmed in the 36th Article contains the Scripture Rule of Ordination by Bishops and so concerns the true Christian Faith It was then to be assented unto Finally that I have not mistaken the Sense of the Statute or the Lawgivers Intendment I will support my Interpretation by the Judgment of the great Oracle of the Law and other Reverend Judges before him Subscription required of the Clergy is twofold One by force of an Act of Parliament confirming and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. c. 12. referring to Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation holden at London 1562. containing 39 Articles of Religion and ratify'd as aforesaid He adds that in Smith's Case who subscribed the 39 Articles of Religion with this Addition So far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God it was resolved by Wray Chief Justice and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of the 13 Eliz. because the Statute required an absolute subscription that this Statute was made for avoiding Diversity of Opinions which was the scope of the Act but by this Addition the Party might by his own private Opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God Contrary to the design of the Statute and the 39 Articles themselves Belike Smith intended to decline subscribing unto the 20th and 36th Articles Hereby then 't is apparent that this Act intended no indulgence unto the Dissenters nor allowance of Presbyterian Orders In King James the first 's Reign was publish'd a Book entituled Tractatus de Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae by Dr. Mocket the then Archbishop's Chaplain whereunto the Author annex'd Jewels Apology the greater and less Catechisms the Publick Liturgy the 39 Articles of Religion and the Homilies Now because Blondel builds upon these I ought at least to examine the Treatise and the Catechisms The latter I cannot get a sight of and shall at present only look into the former from whence it may be Collected That the Office of a Bishop is twofold The first has respect unto all the Faithful of the Whole Flock The second unto the Ministers of the Church As to the former it is acknowledged that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Degree of Office or
Order or call it what you please For the Presbyters Minister unto the People as effectually as the Bishops in all the Offices and Conveyances of Divine Grace And on this account are the Successors of the Apostles as much as the Bishops are The Presbyters Administer the Sacraments Preach the Word interpret Scripture reprove exhort incourage and comfort publish and declare Authoritatively and Ministerially the promise of the Remission of Sin and Eternal Life by Jesus Christ not only in the Sermons but after Solemn Confession of Sin and in the Visitation of the Sick and of such as have been troubled in Mind and Conscience In short to them in the 〈◊〉 Administrations appertains that Principal Gift and Commission Receive the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. Thus far Bishops and Presbyters are the same or as St. Jerom has it pene Idem gradus This is not to be doubted of For so they the Presbyters are the same with the Apostles But the peculiar and distinguishing Character and Office of the Bishop is to inspect Govern and Ordain Presbyters and succeeding Bishops On this account the Presbyter as Jerom also speaks is secundus gradus Thus much we own and freely confess let our Adversaries make the best of it they can I do suppose the difference and Preeminence and Superiority of Bishops from and over Prebyters and their Ordaining Power is sufficiently cleared to have been the Doctrine of the reformed Church of England from the beginning though Blondel would pick out of this Treatise something to the Contrary which is not my business here to take to task Lastly I shall only produce the Testimony of the English Divines in the Synod of Dort held 1618. 1619. The Bishop of Landaff Joseph Hall afterwards Bishop of Norwich John Davenant and Samuel Ward having approv'd all the Doctrines in the Belgick confession except Three Heads concerning Ecclesiastical Orders protested That the Government of the English Churches by Bishops Priests and Deacons was of Apostolical Institution Particularly Landaff in a Speech ran through the three Heads or Chapters and then entred this Protestation that there was not in the Apostles Times nor ever had been in the Church an Equality of Ministers From the whole I gather 1. That it has ever been the Judgment of the Protestant Church of England from the Reformation that there was by the Scripture and ought to be an inequality of Ministers and that Bishops are distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters 2. That the Presbyterians and Particularly Mr. O. do a great injury unto the Memory of that Great Man Archbishop Laud and through his sides unjustly Wound all that defend and assert Divine right of Episcopacy impeaching them of Novelty and altering the Doctrine of the Church That Renowned Prelate came into Play and became a Leader in this Church not till after all the Instances which I have alledged in proof of the Divine Right of Bishops Even the Bishop of Landaff and his English Collegues at the Synod of Dort were not Inferior to him nor was it in Laud's Power to Influence their Opinions He was not Archbishop of Canterbury till the Year 1633. not of St. Davids till 1621. two Years after the Synod was broken up It cannot therefore with Reason 〈◊〉 thought that these excellent Persons who assisted at that Assembly were led by the Nose or aw'd by the Authority of Dr. Laud. Nor do I find that he was any ways interested in their Deliberations or that he sent to them any Letters or Dispatches upon that or indeed any other subject It can hardly be believed since so many of the Calvinistical Points were then established doubtless to the regret of this Prelate Besides Dr. Andrews had before Laud written a Book to prove the Divine Right of Bishops surely not sway'd thereto by Laud who was or had been his Chaplain But to remove all the invidious Calumnies and Reproaches that have been falsly laid upon that unfortunate Prelate and the rest who before and after him have maintained the Divine Right of Bishops it were sufficient to call to remembrance that it was the Doctrine of Ignatius whose Testimonies 't is needless to repeat any more also of St. Cyprian Jâm pridem per omnes Provincias Urbes Ordinati sunt Episcopi and what he means by his jam pridem he explains elsewhere Sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto Mundo Divina dignatione praepositos Once more I read Cum hoc igitur omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur divina 〈◊〉 fundamentum sit Lastly of Jerom himself Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus Mundi Principes Ecclesiae which also he calls Traditionem Apostolicam writing to Evagrius which have been remembred before Now if some of Laud's immediate Predecessors or Contemporaries can be produced granting this as being of another Mind not seeing or not openly confessing and contesting the Truth 't was surely for want of Understanding Courage or Integrity But why these failings and defects should be laid in the balance with the undoubted Testimonies of the Fathers or prejudice the Wisdom and Faithfulness of others yea the Publick and Authoritative Declarations of our Church too is beyond my Capacity to comprehend This is out of question I judge that Presbyterian Ordination the Identity and Parity of Bishops and Presbyters has never yet been pronounced lawful much less of Divine Right by any Publick and AuthentickSentence of the Church of England since the Reformation except haply by that pack't Assembly of Divines not one of whom were Legally chose to sit at Westminster Some private Writers may haply be found inclining to the Opinion whereby Presbyters are equal'd unto Bishops and thought to be of the same Degree but I make no reckoning of such private Authorities though they were otherwise Persons of singular Learning Wisdom and Piety And some Passages favouring the Presbyterian Pretences may possibly be found in the publick Deliberations and Conclusions whilst Hen. VIII was Vindicating this Church from the Tyranny of the Pope and in his stead assuming it to himself Thus far we chang'd our Rider not our Burthen but it ought to be considered that as in those difficult times the Episcopal Power was subjected to the will of the Prince and to the Law of the Land and so may be thought not by Divine Right but Humane Constitution even so was the Power and Office of Parsons Vicars and Priests or Presbyters and from thence also it 〈◊〉 with equal Force that these also are but by Humane Law and thence derive their Authority Let us for example but look back unto Cranmer's Answer to the King 's 9th Query and we may be convinced hereof The substance of it is That the whole care of the Church is immediately committed to the Prince That Parsons Vicars and other Priests were to be appointed by His Highness to their Ministrations To the 10 th Query
the Controvery For though he has so frequently and unreasonably at every turn declared against Ecclesiastical Restraints yet here he allows 'em and supposes it in the Power of the Church to restrain some from the exercise of their Power and to reserve the Cheif care and Government of the Church to a few of the most Eminent Here I say then the Cudgels are in effect laid down and Episcopacy is sufficiently vindicated and approved of by the Adversary himself though before he is aware No! it will be replyed for still care must be taken that it be not however admitted as of Divine Right Well! But if an Ecclesiastical Right be sufficient to oblige us unto Obedience to our Superiors as in the concession its self he must suppose then have our Reverend Bishops a good Title to their own Power and to our subjection to ' em Besides how easy is it to improve this Concession even to the Vindication of the Divine Right of Bishops For if Mr. O. who when he suffers himself to think is I am hereby convinc'd a Wise Man and sees far before Him will but turn himself about and look the other way that is behind him I mean will but admit St. Paul and the Apostles heretofore to have been as wise as himself is now it would be no hard matter one would imagine to convince him presently of the Divine that is Apostolical Constitution of Bishops If it is now it was also in the Apostles Days fit and reasonable to commit the care and Government of the Churches unto some Grave and Worthy Presbyters And if so can we possibly believe the Apostles did not appoint what their own Reason and Prudence suggested to them But let us pass to another Instance Mr. Stoddon in his Pastoral Charge has confessed that there were Rulers in the Church who were not Teachers as appears plainly to me says he from 1 Tim. 5. 17. although I suppose the power of Preaching was committed to them Something of this kind I have in the precedent Papers offered my self and could farther confirm it out of Mr. Mede if it were worth the while and suited my Design But Mr. Stoddon again distinguishes between what is primarily and what is secondarily jure Divino as Bishop Sanderson long before him has done And to be short is of Opinion that the Clergy has as much need to have a Governour set over them as the Common People themselves and that if the Scripture has not expresly appointed it yet the reason and necessity of the thing does absolutely require it or to this effect for at present I have not the Book by me And surely the Apostles knew this and by Experience too as well as Mr. Stoddon Now I cannot comprehend what should hinder this Gentleman coming over to us but the inveterate Prejudices which he cannot part with or a stiffness and aversion to change his Opinions for which his Old Friends would be sure to reproach him without 〈◊〉 In a word then 't is to very little purpose to pretend by the dint of Argument to make Proselites One may happily comfort incourage and confirm some in the Truth which they already know and profess But to convert any there are very little hopes seeing most Men have an overweening Opinion of themselves and the Party which they have espous'd There I leave them not expecting they will be reclaim'd from the evil of their way till God shall open their Eyes and by some secret and powerfull Influence dispose their Hearts unto the knowledge and acknowledgment of the Truth or else by some visible Judgments and Afflictions constrain us unto Unity which is the only thing some Men are afraid of They have not stuck to declare that an Agreement would certainly destroy the Liberties of the People and introduce Tyranny among us A Paradox which Jesus Christ and his Apostles were 〈◊〉 Strangers to and which all Good Men I hope do utterly abhor But pray we for the Peace of Jerusalem They shall prosper that Love it Peace be between it's Walls and Plenteousness within its Palaces And if there be any Man that is not a Son of Peace let him be Anatkema 〈◊〉 ADDENDA to the 19 th Chapter THere is an Objection which escaped me in its proper place and therefore must here be considered 't is that Presbyterian Orders have been allowed here in England that Peter Martyr Bucer P. Fagius c. were suffered to exercise their Ministry among us Ans. 1. Allowances against an Establish'd Law are not very defensible especially when that Law was believed to be of Divine Right which is the Case here before us of Ordination by Bishops let this then be put among the Infirmities and mistakes of our first Reformers 2. Our first Reformers might think it justifiable in Charity to Foreign Protestant Churches which had not the opportunity of Episcopal Ordination the present necessities and Service of the Church required it The Reformation otherwise would have received some stop or Prejudice by bringing this Point into Controversy For some such like Reason as this it was that the Church of England in the Reign of K. James I. sent Delegates unto the Synod of Dort and contented her self after the Conclusions there made only to enter her Protestations against the Parity of Ministers 3. Our first Reformers haply went upon this Principle He that is not against us is for us and such were Peter Martyr Bucer Fagius c. But our Dissenters were always against us making it their whole business to overturn the Ecclesiastical Government of this Nation by railing and reviling and representing it as Popish and Anti-Christian 4. The Indulgence spoken of had in it perhaps more of State Policy than true Divinity and is to be reckon'd as the Act of the Civil Government rather than of the Church Thus the 〈◊〉 and Huguenot Ministers have ever even to this day been permitted to Officiate in Divine Things without Episcopal Orders 5. All these Indulgences 〈◊〉 not amount to the destroying the Truth of that Principle concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy Forasmuch as the Relaxation of the Execution of a positive Law cannot in Reason be accounted the annulling or abolition of that Law as we see at this Day when Liberty is given to the very Dregs of Enthusiastical and Fanatical Sectaries which is no more Prejudice unto Episcopacy than 't is to other acknowledg'd Truths of the Gospel 6. As for those particular Persons allowed to exercise their Minstry here in England we may note that Peter Martyr was in Episcopal Orders and it may be others of them were also But there is a story which I am obliged to take notice of because Mr. B. my first Adversary objected it to us He affirmed the Protestant Bishops of England formerly approved of Presbyterian Ordination as he inferred from a Passage about the Ordination of Bishop Spotswood and Others The Case was this In the Year 1609 some Scotchmen were
to be Ordained Bishops and a Synod was held by our English Bishops for that purpose Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely said that they ought first to be Ordained Presbyters as having not been Ordained by Bishops but by Presbyters only Bancroft Archbishop of C. maintained that there was no necessity of that because where Bishops could not be had Ordination though by Presbyters only must be esteemed lawful else it might be doubted whether there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesc'd From hence I inferr not that the Protestant Bishops of England approved of Presbyterian Ordination but that in the Judgment of this English Synod nothing but necessity can justify it now what Degree of necessity is requisite I 'll not here dispute 2. That where Episcopal Ordination may be had there Presbyterian Ordination is unlawful 3. That the necessity here pleaded in Defence of Presbyterian Orders implies that Episcopal Ordination is of Divine Right otherwise it had been impertinent to excuse Presbyterian Ordination only from the necessity of it But I crave leave to interpose my own Judgment and I humbly conceive there was no need of flying unto this Refuge of necessity for still the Ordination of these Scotch Gentlemen might have proceeded Salvo etiam Episcopalis Ordinationis Jure Divino for I do affirm that by the practice of the Church a Lay-man may be immediately elevated into the Throne and effectually receive the Episcopal Character without being first Ordained Deacon and Priest This latter is indeed more safe and regular in Ordinary Nevertheless in extraordinary Cases the former has been practised Thus the Learned Dr. Cave has observed that Monks were wont to be made Bishops without going through the usual intermediate Orders of the Church He instances in Serapion Apollos Agathus Ariston c. mentioned by St. Athan. Tom. 1. p. 957. However this be I shall produce two notable and unquestionable instances of it The first is of Nectarius P. C. He being but a Catechumen i. e. an unbaptized Christian if I may so say one of the Senatorian Order and a Praetor was nominated and Chosen Bishop of Constantinople when Greg. Nazianzen had abdicated it and immediately after 〈◊〉 was Ordained Bishop without the intermediate Orders of Deacon or Presbyter The other is of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milain He also a Catechumen only and at that time the Consular Governour of the Province was chosen and after Baptism Ordained Bishop thereof without the intermediate Orders of Deacon or Presbyter For a Bishop according to St. Chrysostom's Maxim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has in him the whole Ministerial Power I alledge this principally with this Design to Vindicate the succession of the Scotch Episcopal Ordinations The End ERRATA PART I. PAge 1. line 17. read managing l. 18. r. endeavour'd p. 5. l. 9. r. Diocesan p. 6. l. 33. r. Epist. 2. 1. 6. p. 12. l. 40. r. denoting p. 13. l. ult r. designat p. 15. l. 34. r. the for that p. 23. l. 3. r. Angels ibid. l. 37. after they add are p. 24. l. 5. r. Haggai ibid. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 33. after manner add to be p. 28. l. 28. after that add they p. 32. l. 25. r. Months p. 46. l. 2. r. Argument p. 52. l. 3. r. conclude p. 65. l. 25. r. Successors p. 67. l. 35. r. pretend p. 73. l. 17. after of add the People p. 76. l. 15. 1. Gal. 2. 9. p. 80. l. 5. r. Penance PART II. PAge 21. line 7. read bold p. 22. l. 38. r. Christians ibid. l. 45. for no r. do p. 42. l. 24. r. Maximinus p. 45. l. 11. r. Asturica p. 51. l. 33. r. Council p. 55. l. 26. r. Counterfeit p. 59. l. 4. r. valid ibid. l. 8. r. intrinsick p. 62. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 9. r. received ibid. l. 11. dele is ibid. l. 43. r. ordaining p. 63. l. 15. r. Ischyras p. 74. l. 16. r. Adversaries p. 76. l. 26. for this r. the p. 82. l. 35. dele be p. 92. l. 23. r. Liberty p. 102. l. 18. r. Joannes ibid. l. 37. r. because p. 106. l. 37. r. dislike ibid. l. 43. r. out p. 108. l. 3. r. sufficient p. 109. l. 2. r. divers p. 110. l. 10. r. voluntary p. 112. l. 35. dele that l. 37. r. ceterosque p. 114. l. 28. r. Counsellors p. 117. l. 32. after days dele p. 119 l. 37. r. Bishops p. 123. l. 37. r. Intrigues ibid. l. seq r. opportunity ibid. r. Monsieur Gal. 5. v. 3. Def. p. 25. See Justellus Def. p. 26. Calv. Ep. 136. Baz Ep. 29. Def. p. 27. Vide Office of Visitation of the Sick Def. p. 68. Def. p. 74. Def. p. 79. Def. p. 82. And so was Barnabas also Def. p. 84. Def. p. 85. Jo. Ep. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 5. 1. Deut. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. 25. Def. 88. 89. Def. Ibid. Def. p. 90. Synop. Crit. 〈◊〉 p. 91. Def. p. 95. Def. p. 97. See Office of Consecrating Presbyters in the 〈◊〉 Def. p. 48. Def. p. 77. Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. Theodoret. Hist. l. 5. c. 9. E. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. L. 4. c. 22. Jer. Cat. Ser. Def. p. 54. * De Repub. Dial. 8. †Polit. l. 3. c. 7 8. * Thalia or l. 3. c. 80. †In libel de Mon. Olig Dem. * Lexic voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Arist. ubi supra Def. p. 99. 100 101 102 103. P. 99 100. Def. p. 102. Def. p. 103. Def. p. 103. * De serie Succes p. 73. Def. p. 104. Def. p. 106. Sc. Edit Par. Eus. H. E. l. 3. c. l. 23. l. 5. c. 24. * De Praescrip adv Haer. c. 32. Def. p. 108. * Dan. 10. 13. ch 12 1. 1 Thes. 4. 16. Judge 9. Col. 1. 16. *** Ep. ad Corinth cont Celsum l. 5. p. 250. Edit Cant. Comment in Dan. c. 7. 2. * Comment in Zach. 1. 8. Dan. 7. 2. †Strom. l. 6. * Homil. in cap. 3. S. Lucae †Cont. Parmen l. 2. p. 44 45. Ed. Mer. Casaub. Tit. 1. 5. 11. 13. 2. 15. 3. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 poem 27. p. 169. Sopbron Hierom. in Cat. Scrip. Eccles. Def. p. 121. Tit. 1. 5. T. N. p. 64. Def. p. 122. * Catal. scr †Cod. 254. Col. 1041. Mr. Bur. Def. p. 124. In Dissertat de Serie Succes P. 75. Def. p. 124. * Near 700. †Or 38. 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Def. p 126. Def. p. 126. Def. p 129. Def. p. 130. Def. p. 131. Def. p. 131. Def. p. 132. Def. p. 133. Def. p. 134. Def. p. 134. * As Mr. O. has elsewhere supposed Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cortex Arboris * As also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a smooth Piece of Wood to write on Tabula Def. p. 135. Def. p. 138. 2 Tim. 4. 21.
Government which was Prelatical In this latter Sense I would always be understood and this Change was nothing else but an improvement and completing the Church Government as it had been from the beginning projected by themselves or rather suggested to them by the Holy-Ghost I must also here take notice of one thing more which is not sufficiently explained in its proper place It being acknowledg'd that Presbyters were subject and accountable unto the Apostles and by 〈◊〉 as I argu'd not Supreme Governours of the Churches Mr. O. retorts that Timothy and Titus and all Bishops also in the Apostles Days were so and by the same consequence not Supreme Governours But I answer 1. 'T is true Timothy and Titus Paul being alive were subject and accountable to him and so not absolutely Supreme Rulers if we look up towards the Apostles but if we look downward to the Presbyters they were Supreme or which is the same to my purpose Superiour to the Presbyters who were subject to the Bishops 2. Timothy and. Titus were not in Paul's life time actually Supreme Governours as if they had no Superiour for Paul was over them True Yet they were Supreme intentionally even whilst the Apostle was alive and actually after his decease For so they must needs of course be 3. There is a great difference between Timothy and Titus subjection and accountableness unto the Apostles and that of the Presbyters The Presbyters as I have shew'd and as far as we know did nothing without the express command and special direction of the Apostles I mean in the higher and most important business of the Churches But Timothy and Titus and so the rest had general Rules only prescrib'd 'em and were Ordinarily left to their own Discretionary Power in the Execution of them as is evident from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus except the Apostle in an extraordinary manner interposed sometimes as we may reasonably admit But there is nec vola nec vestigium no footsteps in the whole Scripture of any such general Rules and discretionary Power committed to the Presbyters as is evinc'd in T. N. and these Papers Jan. 1. 1697 8. THE CONTENTS PART I. Chap. I. SEveral Cavils against the Church of England considered Page 1 Chap. II. Id. p. 6 Chap. III. Id. p. 19 Chap. IV. The Old Chronology about the time of St. Paul ' s settling Timothy Ruler of the Church of Ephesus overthrown the Pearsonian Hypothesis more firmly established and the second Epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rome p. 29 Chap. V. Sundry Objections are Answered and particularly 't is here proved that the Convocation is and ought to be allow'd as a just Representative of the Church of England p. 57 Chap. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O's 6th Chap. p. 72 PART II. Chap. I. OF Clemens Romanus p. 3 Chap. II. Of Ignatius ' s Epistles p. 10 Chap. III. Of Mark and the Church of Alexandria p. 20 Chap. IV. Of the Syriac Version p. 30 Chap. V. Of the beginning of Christianity in the most remote North-West parts of Scotland p. 32 Chap. VI. Of some passages in St. Cyprian p. 43 Chap. VII Of the Scythian Church p. 47 Chap. VIII Of the Chorepiscopi p. 50 Chap. IX Of the first 〈◊〉 of Nice p. 55 Chap. X. Of Aerius p. 69 Chap. XI Of Hilary the Deacon p. 70 Chap. XII Of Jerom p. 74 Chap. XIII Of the Carthaginian Councils p. 84 Chap. XIV Of Paphnutius and Daniel p. 89 Chap. XV. Of Pope Leo. p. 91 Chap. XVI Of the Church in the Island Taprobane p. 93 Chap. XVII Of Pelagius his Ordination p. 95 Chap. XVIII Of the Waldenses Boiarians c. p. 98 Chap. XIX Of the Church of England at and since the 〈◊〉 p. 108 PART I. CHAP. I. In Answer to Mr. O' s 1 st Chap. THE Rector in his Preface to the T. N. complained of the unfair way which the Dissenters have taken up in managing Controversies that is of their bringing in other matter nothing at all belonging to the Point in debate which is as when a Lawyer when he is pleading the Cause of his Client and setting forth his Title unto the 〈◊〉 in Question should fall foul upon his Clients Adversary exposing his Person and upbraiding him with his private perhaps but suppos'd Faults and Infirmities I instanc'd in three things which are the common Topicks of the Dissenters railing against the Episcopal Clergy and which they will be sure to hook in whatever the Matter in Controversy be But if recrimination be but cavilling as one of their own Authors speaks much more 〈◊〉 Accusing My Instances were That the Episcopal Divines are Arminians That the Church of England Symbolizes with the 〈◊〉 That the Bishops are proud Lords and Lordly Prelates And if all this were true what does it signify in the Question about Church-Government Mr. O. In the Contents of his first Chap. at the beginning Advertises his Reader that The Dissenters are justified in their way of mannaging Controversies Indeed he should have edeavour'd it if he would have answer'd to the purpose and his way of Vindicating the Dissenters should have been I conceive either to deny the charge laid against 'em or else to justify the fitness and reasonableness of that way of controverting But instead of this he falls upon the old strain of accusing us the Rector of Arminianism of Symbolizing with 〈◊〉 and the Bishops for being Lords which is nothing to the Question between him and me here viz. Whether it be fair to charge ones Adversary with supposed faults which have no relation to the Question in hand unless he is so vain as to imagin that his own repeated practice is a sufficient justification of the Dissenters managing Controversies In giving an Account of the Nature of our Church-Government I observ'd in general That our Episcopal Government is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws made and consented unto by the Convocation consisting of Bishops and Presbyters and by the multitude of Believers That is by their Representatives in Parliament and that thus it was in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. This is plain matter of Fact and one would have thought incapable of being cavill'd at and yet Mr. Owen who is a Master at that knack has many things to oppose me in it and has found many disparities in the Resemblance As 1. He affirms that The Apostles c. 〈◊〉 Jerusalem enjoined the Def. P. 24. necessary for bearance of 〈◊〉 few things but the Convocation has made canons enjoining the practice of unnecessary things to create offence Ans. These last words are as Malicious as false and without ground How can Mr O. at this distance tell or how could the Dissenters of those times know that the Design of the Convocation was to 〈◊〉 offence Has he or had they the gift of 〈◊〉 Spirits Or dare they presume to lay claim to one of the Transcendent Attributes of God his Omniscience