that the Prince may make a Priest He that will infer hence that according to the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time Bishops were not Jure Divino but by the Law of the Land must be also forced to conclude that Priests and Ministers hold by the same Tenure and no other And from the whole it will follow that Mr. Hobbs was in the right when he affirms the Will and Laws of the Prince to be the Standard of the Peoples Religion Furthermore we are often confronted with the Doctrine and Practice of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Churches and called upon to have a more favourable charitable and just Opinion of them and their Ministry Hereunto it will suffice me only to answer with St. Paul What have I to do to judge them that are without But I farther consider with what Difficulties they at first struggled and still labour under and am apt to think that the same good God that would have Mercy and not Sacrifice and so dispensed with his own appointed Sabbath may and I hope will accept their Sacrifices though they be not prepared according to the purification of the sanctuary I also consider that the Foreign Protestants are by this time many of them even the most Learned quite Captivated by a long Prejudice which the continuance of the Presbyterian Government among them for so many Years since the Reformation has now perhaps rendred unconquerable and that therefore God may and I hope does wink at this Ignorance for such I reckon an inveterate Prejudice to be Besides though many of the Foreign Protestant Ministers have Zealously defended the Presbyterian Government and seem not at all willing or inclined to Model themselves into the Episcopal Platform though it were in their power and opportunity served yet others of them have been contrary minded and even in the 〈◊〉 of that darkness wherein they lay have been able do discover the Truth which shined through the Clouds of their Hardships and Prepossessions I will not here mention the French Letters written unto the present Honourable and Right Reverend Bishop of London Mr. O. has most maliciously Suggested as if the Authors were Brib'd or by some indirect means induc'd to write as they did I do not know upon what Authority he has published this scandalous surmize and if it had been fit to take up Reports by Conjecture or uncertain Fame meerly to blast the Credit of a Writer I could have told him 〈◊〉 now what I have heard from one who was no stranger to the Presbyterian Intregues in 1640. and so on and may be presumed to speak what he had 〈◊〉 to know sc. that Mounsieur Blondel came into England with hopes to be preferred in our Church by Archbishop 〈◊〉 but it seems mist his aim That he was afterwards hired by the Presbyterians to write for them against Episcopacy Thus Revenge and the Love of Money were the Parents of that Celebrated Book entituled Apologia pro Hieronymi Sententia And Lastly that even in the Apology its self some things were intermixed which undid and overthrew all he seemed to have advanced in defence of Presbytery Which therefore he was forced to expunge before he recovered the Promised Reward of his Labour But after this let us now hear what a Learned Protestant a Foreign Divine has written upon this Subject I mean Peter Du Moulin in a Letter to a Scotch Man Anno 1640. He says That the French Protestant Church never put down Bishops p. 6. nor encouraged others to do it That necessity not Choice keeps 'em from setting up Episcopal Order That at Geneva where Episcopacy was changed into the Presbyterian Form necessity bore more sway than Council and Policie than Divinity That the Reformation in France began among the People in Scotland and England at Court No wonder then that due Regard was not had unto the Primitive Government in the one as well as the other that the French Protestants have much ado to maintain their Ministers by reason of their Poverty That if they should establish Bishops it would provoke their Adversaries and raise them to Jealousy and 〈◊〉 would look more like direct Schism two Bishops being at the same time in oneSee That they are a Body prepar'd for Bishops when Bishops will reform He gives an Instance that somewhere the Bishop in his Cathedral preach'd the pure Word of God and the Protestants submitted to him He farther Apologizes that their King will not suffer them to have Bishops I only add hereunto Bishop Hall's Observation how that when our Bishop of Landaff at the Synod of Dort charg'd the Divisions there in Holland upon their want of Episcopacy he received this only in Answer Domine nos non sumus adeo faelices Whether this was spoken by way of Modest excuse and a tacit approbation of Bishops I know not of certaitny but believe so at least I look upon it as a shifting off the Question about Episcopacy the President not caring to enter into the Lists with the Bishop upon that Argument But if he intended it as perhaps Mr. O. will think for a Scoff I will take the Liberty to say that as the High-Priest prophesied a great Truth but intended it not neither understood it so might the President too stumble upon a great Truth and intimate Episcopacy to be the Happiness of a Church tho' at the same time he was otherwise perswaded or did not discern it For there are a sort of Creatures which cannot endure the Light and by how much clearer the Sun shines see so much the worse Like Saul going to Damascus before his Conversion are struck blind with the Glory and Lustre of Truth which surrounds them This we are assured of by manifold and woful Experience and therefore need not wonder at it The Eyes of the Understanding labour under the same natural Weakness as those of the Body do When we have continued long in the dark or have shut our Eyes for somewhile we are not able to behold the Objects of Sense though placed at their proper distance and in a Medium duly fitted for their Reception Thus when Pride 〈◊〉 and Prepossession when Passion Sturdiness and Secular Interest when contentiousness Opposition and Hatred have for some time drawn a veil over the Understanding it is not easy for these Men to admit any Notions that thwart and contradict those which they have for a long time before entertained let the Evidence brought for their Conviction be never so bright and clear For instance Mr. O. as has been noted in the former Chapter has frankly acknowledged it as fit and warrantable that some Grave Divines be set over the Churches for Peace and Order sake whilst the Younger sort are for the present to be excluded or suspended from the exercise of their Inherent Power Now Mr. O. is not able I perceive to see that this very reasonable Concession of his if rightly pursu'd and improved as it ought puts an end unto
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
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
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
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
in the New 〈◊〉 there is no mention of other degrees and Distinctions of Persons in Orders that is of Persons Ordained by Imposition of Hands except Deacons and Presbyters For Bishops were not consecrated again by any express appointment in Scripture according to the prevailing opinion of those times 'T is lastly to be observed that in the necessary doctrine c. that we read that Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor ever had Power Authority and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Scripture 't is in the Latin Translation added cetrosque Inferiores Episcopos aut Presbyteros which makes no alteration For who is there that believes not that the Archbishop of York has no Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Chester nor over the Presbyters of this Diocess but what is given him by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Law of the Land for Peace and Orders sake But 't is worthy our Notice that in the K's Book as is before at large set down Orders or Ordination is taught to be A Divine Gift or Grace given by the Imposition of the Bishops Hands That the Apostles gave this Grace and appointed the Bishops after them to do the like What need we any more Here are Bishops having the Power of Ordaining distinguished from the Ordained sc. Priests and Deacons But when all is said and whatever Sense any Man shall think fit to put upon these passages out of the King 's and Bishop's Book I make little account of At best they express the Mind and Opinion of Hen. 8th Cranmer and other Bishops who were all still ingag'd and held fast in the Toils of Popish Errors and Superstitions all their Design hitherto in these Books being only to cast off the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope For the Rest they continued yet Papists all over Cranmer himself who was chiefly imployed in drawing up these Books still retained his old Errors and Prejudices suck'd in with his Milk and continued Zealous for the Corporal Presence even to the last Year of Hen. 〈◊〉 In the necessary Doctrine publish'd 1543. 't was taught that in the Ave Mary the Blessed Virgin is Honoured and Worshipped that the reading the Old and New Testament is not so necessary as of Duty the People ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Polity of the Realm shall think convenient that the Publick Law of the Realm had so restrained it The seven Sacraments are in the Book its self asserted and explained Prayers for the dead recommended upon the Authority of the Book of Maccabees and of the Ancient Doctors in Masses and Exequies Now this is an hopeful Book to establish Protestant Doctrines by and thence to affirm the Protestant Church of England was of the Mind there were no more Officers in the Church than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons At best the Reformation was but now on the Anvil and Cranmer and the other Reformers were but Hammering it out by Degrees Nor can we believe they always or at that very time declared their own Opinions fully and freely Hen. VIII was an Haughty and Sturdy Prince impatient of any Oppósition and resolved to assume unto himself all the Popes Usurped Powers Cranmer and his Associates thought it a good step towards their Design if they could but shake off the Tyranny of the Pope hoping after this point once gain'd they might in good time compass their whole Design and establish the Church upon the sure Foundations of Truth To please then the Humour of the King and gratify his Pride it must be declar'd and acknowledged forsooth by the Bishops when they took out their Commissions as Cranmer himself did more than once that all Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical flowed from the King that the Bishops Exercised it only by the Kings Courtesie that the King impowred them to Ordain to give Institution and to do all other parts of the Episcopal Function of which Opinion Cranmer himself was Anno 1540 and even in the first of Edward the 6 th or pretended to be In short this Character Dr. Burnet gives of the Archbishop that his greatest weakness was his over Obsequiousness to Hen. VIII There is then no Colour to ascribe any thing we meet with in these Books as the free and settled Judgment of Cranmer much less as the the Doctrine of the English Protestant Church And if any Man shall pretend by these Testimonies to overthrow the Divine Right of Bishops he will be oblig'd to lay aside the Divine Right of Presbyters also who were at the same time and in the same manner subjected to the Will of the King and to the Laws of the Land as any intent Reader may observe from the aforesaid Passages out of the Kings and Bishops Books And so much of this matter The Third Testimony objected against us is the Celebrated MS. in the Irenicum from whence we are informed That Cranmer and other Bishops set forth this to be their judgments that Bishops and Priests were one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion alledging Jerom in Confirmation Ans. I have said enough of Jerom already and need not repeat or apply it here I chuse 1. to present the Reader with some particular account of that MS. before I directly reply to the Objection The King called a Select Convention of Bishops and Learned Doctors at Windsor Castle who were to give their Resolutions of several Questions relating to Religion every one under his own Hand They did so and Cranmer's are particularly 〈◊〉 in the said MS. Those which belong to Our present purpose are Quest. 9. Whether the Apostles lacking an higher Power as not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by necessity or by Authority given them of God Ans. Cranmer All Christian Princes have committed to them immediatly of God the Whole care of all their Subjects concerning the Administration of God's Word for the care of Souls That the Prince has sundry Ministers under him as Bishops Parsons Vicars and other Priests who are appointed by his Highness unto that Ministration That the said Officers and Ministers as well of one sort as of the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and Orders of Kings and Princes That in the Apostle's time when there were no Christian Princes the Ministers of Gods Word were appointed by the consent of the Christian Multitude among themselves That sometimes the Apostles sent and appointed Ministers of God's Word sometimes the People did chuse them and those sent and appointed by the Apostles the People of their own will accepted not for the Supremacy or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to Command as their Princes and Masters but as good People ready to obey the advice of good Consellors Quest. 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first If Priest then the Priest made the Bishop Cr. Ans. The Bishops and Priests were at one time and
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
I find it His Plea would have had something in it surely relating to this New Chronology In fine that Mr. O. thought of the Bishop's Argument before the Rector's Book came forth is not material but that He thought of it before the Rector proposed it to him we have only his own Word for it which is not much worth in this case of Self-Testimony Yea granting this also I have good reason to believe he derived this part of his knowledge from Bishop Pearson for a Reason best known to my self Mr. O. has wonderfully demonstrated from 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. That Paul sent for Timothy to him at Rome what no Body ever deny'd and yet he has not hereby proved that Timothy was ever in the Apostle's Company after he was besought to abide at Ephesus 'T is not out of doubt to me that Timothy saw Paul at Rome though he sent for him For not to speak of other Obstacles Paul might have been Martyred by the Emperor 's Special and sudden Command before Timothy reached Rome This is very likely if we consider the State of Affairs at Rome about that time as we read 'em set forth in the Annals of Paul What I excepted against in Dr. Whitaker was not that which Mr. O. pretends to make Answer to but that he asserted Equals could receive Accusations as Timothy did This the Dr. proved if Mr Prinn wrongs him not from a Synod of Bishops who received an Accusation against one of their own Number and then Censured him for his Fault Now how far this is from a proof of what it was alledged for I shewed at large and Mr. O. who Taxes me for so doing overlooks it nor makes any Reply to it Indeed it is not to be Answered if it 〈◊〉 true as I think none will deny that one Bishop is not equal but Inferior and Subject to a Synod of Bishops Therefore a Synod's receiving an Accusation against a Bishop is no proof of the Doctor 's Assertion but an Instance of the contrary As for Mr. O's own examples out of St. Cyprian were they never so convincing which shall in its place be considered they will not however Vindicate Dr. Whitaker nor are a proper Answer to my Exceptions against him The proportion of Dioceses how large at most they ought to be is not my business to determine as I undertake not to define how big a Parish or Congregation ought to be I suppose the ultimum quod sic and the Limits quos ultra citraque nequit consistere Rectum are in both uncertain and are only to be adjusted prout viri prudentes definiverint as Superiors shall think fit to Order and not by the Caprice and humoursome phancy of every overweening Opinionanist and self conceited Reformer Mr. O. hears the Rectors Parish has four or five Chappels in it Ans. The Rectors Parish has neither five nor four Chappels in it Tho' the Ministers Ears be never so long yet is he mistaken herein If it had twenty 't is nothing to the purpose Mr. O. Because the Rector affirm'd it no more impossible for Timothy supposed then the Angel of the Chruch of Ephesus mentioned Rev. 2. To leave his first Love than for Judas to betray his Master is mightily disturbed and to confute it musters up many Commendations given of Timothy in Scripture Ans. In T. N. I declared my Opinion plainly that Timothy was not that Angel there spoken of yet supposing it 't was not impossible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection The Commendations alone render it not impossible Abstracting from Matter of Fact then that Judas an Apostle who had the Power of Casting out Devils should turn Apostate is as strange as that Timothy should leave his first Love Lastly when 't is for his turn Mr. O. can admit that Timothy might be overtaken with Youthful Lusts but when he wants an Occasion of Cavilling then 't is monstrous horrid to suppose it possible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection from the Truth If the one was possible why not the other But especially if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 22. Signifie the Lusts of the Mind its proneness to Paradoxes to New up-start Opinions curious Conceipts and Innovations in Religion of which kind we reckon Presbytery and Independency which are but of Yesterday and the product of Minds addicted unto Novelties I do not find Commentators Ordinarily Expounding the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Youthful i. e. Fleshly Lusts but to the Sense I have now given them In a Word whoever attentively reads Rev. 2. 2 3 6. will find considerable Commendations of the Angel of Ephesus perhaps not much Inferior to those of Timothy in other places of Scripture And yet this Angel left his first Love 'T was not impossible then but Timothy might do so likewise I have now done with Mr. O's Defence If I have left any thing of Moment unanswered Or if I have failed giving full satisfaction to any Material Difficulty Objected against me I do promise either to supply these Defects or fairly to confess my self unable Only I could wish all personal Reflections and unnecessary Digressions might be laid aside that Arguments be plainly proposed and 〈◊〉 as few words as may be that no trickish and evasive Answers be made when we have nothing else to reply And finally that we would not take to task a piece of an Argument and the weakest part of it too and then make the Reader believe we have fully accounted for the Difficulty when in Truth we kept our selves all the while at a distance and never came near the Merits of the Cause THE SECOND PART Wherein All Mr Owen's Authorities for Presbyterian Parity and Ordination by Presbyters are overthrown and particularly is prov'd THAT The Church of ENGLAND Ever since the Reformation HELD The Divine Apostolical Right of EPISCOPACY 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. One ought to endure to the utmost rather than divide the Church of God and dying rather than rend it in pieces is a no less glorious Martyrdom and in my Opinion greater than being a Martyr for not Sacrificing unto Idols In this latter Case a Man suffers for his own sake only in the former for the whole Church Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. LONDON Printed in the Year 1699. THE INTRODUCTION HAving spoken of the Government of the Christian Church in General and as far as the Holy Scriptures afford us any Light Having thence shewn that meer Presbyters alone did never exercise any Supreme Act of Jurisdiction of any kind that can be there discovered except in Conjunction with and subordination to some extraordinary Officers as Apostles or Prophets Having in particular traced the manner of Government at Ephesus unto the Death of St. John the Apostle and the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius and found it cast by St. Paul into the same Form as the Church of England is at this Day
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
yet every Pastor or Teacher is not an Evangelift or a Bishop Mr. O. engages me once more to enter the Lists with him in Philology a part of knowledge he values himself upon but without reason as will now appear as it has also before He Corrects me for writing Mark' s Successor at Alexandria Annianus which he says ought to be Anianus with a single n at the beginning Ans. I have the Paris Edition of Eusebius the best extant in the World as all agree I in my writing Annianus conformed my self to that Copy wherein I find him not once called Anianus And Valesius a Critick of the first Form vindicates himself for writing it with a double n from the Authority of the Mazarine and Medicean MSS. unto whom he adds Ruffinus and Jerom Subscribe For Annianus is a Latin Word deduced from Annius as Valerianus from Valerius and many other of the same Nature are obvious to any who read the Roman 〈◊〉 Particularly there was a Poet of good esteem in the Reign of Adrian the Emperor named Titus Annianus as I observed in Helvicus's Chronology accidentally when I was looking for another thing 'T is true other MSS. write him Anianus as Mr. O. does and 〈◊〉 has Hananias But what then When a Word is differently written may not one chuse to write it as he pleases Haply if I had chanced to have followed those who believe the right name to be Anianus Mr. O. could have amended it into Annianus But I do him too much credit by supposing he knew any thing of this different way of writing Annianus Mr. O. hopes the Rector will not make a settled Church Officer a Bishop of Priscilla a Woman This I suppose he intends for a little piece of Wit or a Jeer. Ans. Why not a Bishop as well as an Evangelist And why not a settled Church-Officer as well or rather than an 〈◊〉 one I am sure a 〈◊〉 and virtuous Woman is not very forward to gad abroad 't is her Character that she Loves home and not often appears in publick St. Chrysostom makes her an Evangelist Let Mr. O. look how well that suits with his professed Opinion of Evangelists being Extraordinary unfixt Officers Let Mr. O. acquit St. Chrysostom and his own dear self in the first place and the Rector will be safe I am confident But surely Mr. O. knows an Ancient Father of good credit with him tho' with no body else I mean Dorothaeus who among other of his Fables makes Priscilla a Bishop If his Authority be so good Mr. O. has the Mystery proved to him Mr. O. It is well observed by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon Four Hundred Years after Ans. By the Ministers good leave I must Question the Truth of what he here asserts though he backs it with never so good Authority Whoever shall tell me that The first who called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon must excuse me if I say he is grosly mistaken Eusebius who lived and Flourished above an Hundred Years before that Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must at least be understood of the Ecclesiastical History before Eusebius's Time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is recorded in History That Timothy first received the Episcopacy of the Diocess of Ephesus Jerom calls him Bishop of Ephesus and he was 60 Years before the said Council of Chalcedon Thus much I have adventured to say before I consult Mr. O's Testimony borrowed from the Irenicum But I am now going to consult the Learned Bishop of Worcester and examine whether he was guilty of this Oversight imputed to him by the Minister Well! I have deliberately as well as I can read the 〈◊〉 and 303 d pages of the Irenicum and I find Mr. O. has served that Reverend Author as he has done many a good one besides in downright Terms belying him Mr. 〈◊〉 so I will make bold to call him that Book being wrote in his Youth and before he had received the Honours which were afterward deservedly bestowed on him speaking there of the Succession of Bishops tells us That the Succession at Ephesus is pleaded for with greatest Confidence by Leontius Bishop of 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon Mr. 〈◊〉 't is confest afterward has these Words No wonder then if Leontius makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derives the Succession down from him He does not affirm that Leontius first called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus But that 't is no wonder if he made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and thence proved the Succession of Bishops by the Succession of the Ephesian Bishops down from Timothy He made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus but he was not the first that did so for many had done it before him I will not deny perhaps this Learned Author at that time Questioned whether Timothy was so or no. However he did not assert that Leontius was the first that called him Bishop of Ephesus Mr. O. then who seems to value himself for the Hundreds of his quotations would do well if he more carefully examined his Authors and more sincerely represented their Opinions But 't is no hard matter for any one if he will make it his business for some little time to Collect an innumerable number of Authorities upon this Subject of Episcopacy 'T is but taking into his hand Blondel and 〈◊〉 Forbes and Stillingfleet Saravia and some others particularly Mr. Baxter from whom Mr. O. has borrowed at least two of his Arguments in his Plea almost verbatim and many of the Testimonies wherewith he has confirmed 'em and he shall be thought by Ignorant Readers Helluo Librorum a Devourer of Books a Man of infinite Reading and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and Ancient Writers when perhaps he never read one of 'em no nor so much as consulted the particular Testimonies which he cites out of ' em But 't is one thing to dabble in Authors and another throughly to understand and truly to represent ' em CHAP. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 6 th Chap. THE Principal Matter whereof may be reduced unto Four Heads 1. What has already been argued between us in the former Chapters which I quite lay aside 2. What will fall in my way when I Reply farther unto the Plea which I reserve to a more convenient Place the second part of this Book 3. What is here de novo started against the Rector which I make the Subject of this last Chapter And 4. The Cavils wherewith he has furnished out this last part of his Defence which are considered apart in the Appendix In Vindicating the Politie of the Church of England I asserted in T. N. That the Parish Priests have a share of Power in the Ecclesiastical Government for as much as all the Canons or