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
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
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
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
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