of the Title seems to argue the discontinuance of the Office Ans. 1. It is held not without Reason that the name Apostle descended at least upon their next and immediate Successors which some call Secondary Apostles the Inseriour Ministers being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters But in a little time the Apostles Successor laid aside that Title of Apostle out of modesty contenting themselves with that of Bishop and the inferiour Ministers with that of Presbyter To this purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is evidence sufficient in the Scripture of these Secondary Apostles such perhaps was James the Just and 〈◊〉 the Apostle of the Philippians Titus and others are called Apostles 2 Cor. 8. 23. Therefore it may be further observed that the Ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 'em indifferently both Apostles and Bishops as may be seen in Jerom 〈◊〉 and Salvian as Mr. B. informs me It may not here be passed over that in after Ages the Learned Writers often called the Apostles themselves by the Name of Bishop as may be seen in in Cyprian and Hilary and in Eusebius Peter is reckoned the Bishop of Rome in conformity to the Language of their own time when Bishop signify'd the Supreme Officer of a Church This Observation shews clearly that the Apostolical and the Episcopal Office is the same in reality But I answer 2. That the changing of the Title of the Office cannot import the ceasing of the Office Caesar was Emperor by the Title of Perpetual Dictator Augustus his Successor by that of Caesar and the following Emperors by those of Caesar and Augustus though Caesar at length was appropriated to one as yet only designed and named the Emperor's Successor whatever were their Titles they were all Emperors But to come nearer home and to Instance in a Matter more directly to our purpose At the Reformation in Scoltand the Prelatical Rulers of the Churches were stiled Superintendents yet the Office of Bishop was not therefore changed because the Title was The Superintendents had the same Power to inspect the Churches in their own Districts as the Bishops had To conclude the change of the name Apostle into Bishop is no prejudice against the Episcopal Power being the same as the Apostolical was and succeeding into its place It will again be Objected that since Ordinary Presbyters are confest on all hands to succeed the Apostles in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments why not then in the other parts of the Apostolical Office sc. the Ordaining and Governing Power Ans. The Solution of this Difficulty such as it is depends upon Matter of Fact sc. how God was pleased by the Apostles to determine this Point This is not the place to dispute the Question whether the Apostles convey'd their whole Power and Office unto every or to all Presbyters it has I am in hopes been cleared in the Negative both in these and my former Papers but to the Objection I reply that when an Office is attended with Variety of Work it does not follow of necessity that he who succeeds in one part of the Office must be reckoned to succeed in all It cannot be doubted but the Apostles had it in their Power to divide and put the several parts of their Office into several hands and we have an Instance that they did so They made seven Deacons unto whom they committed the care of the poor and distribution of the publick Alms which was before in the Apostles themselves But then no one will say that because the Apostles conferred upon these Seven one part of their Office that therefore they must be understood to have committed to 'em all the rest sc. the Powers of Ordination of Government and of Discipline By parity of Reason though Presbyters succeeded the Apostles and were by them Ordained unto that part of the Apostolical Office viz. Ministring in the Word and Sacraments it will not follow that they also received the whole Apostolical Power that of Ordination Government and Discipline 'T is further Objected That the Apostolical Power extended it self every where the Evangelistical reached to divers places and Countries but it cannot be pretended that the Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction is so large and as it were unlimited 'T is rather confined unto a certain Compass or District as we plainly see for which reason the Bishops are not the Apostles nor the Evangelists Successors Ans. 'T is no hard matter to get over this small Rub. This unlimited Power of the Apostles may be reckoned among their Extraordinary and personal Privileges and so does us no prejudice The Office may be the same though the extent of Power may be more in one than in another The Bishop of Eugubium was as truly a Bishop as the Pope of Rome And Ptolemy was as really and to all intents and purposes King of Aegypt as Alexander had been of that and many other vast Kingdoms and Provinces and as he was really a King so he was really Alexander's Successor also For who will say that William 〈◊〉 was not Will. the Conqueror's Successor because he succeeded him not in the Dukedom of Normandy as well as the Kingdom of England We see by these Examples that one may have several Successors into several parts of their Jurisdiction How large soever the Diocess of the Apostles or Evangelists was yet the Bishops may be their Successors unto some parts of their Jurisdiction Among the Romans they who inherited any part of the Decedent's Estate were they few or were they many were all called Haeredes and distinguished according to the Proportion allotted them Hence we read of Haeredes ex deunce ex quadrante ex semuncia ex semisse as well as Haeres ex asse who inherited all But what if after all this every Bishops Power extends it self through the whole World being not in its own nature limited and fixt to any one single District Some have thought so and upon good ground too After many other Reasons and Evidences of the Universal Power of Bishops given by Mr. B. p. 56. It seems to 〈◊〉 a strong Argument for it that Bishops in Synods have ever exercised their Power in other Diocesses as well as in their own I do not see by what Authority Bishops in Councils could take upon 'em to correct the Miscarriages of particular Bishops within their own Diocesses to remove the Heretical or Schismatical to restore the unjustly deprived to confirm the Customs and Polity of single Churches except on this one Principle That every Bishop is a Bishop of the Church Universal and has an inherent Power over all the World and every where 'T is true it must at the same time be 〈◊〉 that for Peace and Order's sake and to the end the Churches may be certainly taken care of Bishops are limited to some particular Diocess as to the constant and Ordinary Administration of Church Affairs and one Bishop is not suffered to interlope in anothers District
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
short Period expresses himself both ways as well in the Bipartite as in the Tripartite Form Therefore he must surely be understood to respect one and the same Age in the same Sentence If he had therein an Eye unto the Apostolical Age Blundel's Distinction is of no Advantage to our Adversaries Still upon that supposition there were three Orders in the Apostles time If He referred to his own Age then although He comprehends 'em in two Words yet was there three Orders of Ministers in the Church 3. Ignatius can with no Colour of reason be supposed to look to any other than the Apostolical Age wherein he lived a great while and was Martyr'd but about ten Years after the Apostle St. John His three Orders therefore Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were not strictly speaking of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution By consequence Blundel's device makes nothing for the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters 4. It no manner of way relieves our Adversaries from our Argument grounded on the Scriptures which use the Dichotomy and in it comprehend the three Jewish Orders the High-Priests the second Priests and the Levites In conformity whereunto the Fathers may be thought to have summed up the Christian Ministers in two Words also If it be asked with what Congruity could the Fathers so often fall into this Dichotomy and yet at the same time believe the three Orders to be by Apostolical Constitution The Answer is easy Except the Ruling part that 's to say the Administration of the Church Government and Discipline otherwise the Presbyters were and still are among us as it were equal to Bishops sc. in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments wherein they Officiate as effectually as the Bishops themselves for which Reason they may be accounted the Bishops Peers and both not unfitly called by one common name Even as I before observed from St. Chrysoftom Presbyters are comprehended in Deacons as agreeing in some things common to both 8. And in the last place that which I insist and chiefly rely upon as a just Answer unto the Argument grounded on St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is this that 't is drawn only from a Negative Clement's not expresly mentioning the three distinct Orders which I contend is unconcluding I have oft enough produced Instances out of Scripture of the Apostle's not constantly remembring all the Church-Officers in their Epistles and frequently mentioning none at all To keep my self within the Compass of my present Province the Ecclesiastical History Ignatius whose great Design in all his other Epistles was to assert and vindicate the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons passes 'em all over in his Epistle to the Romans But 't is no good Consequence that therefore the Church of Rome had not in it so much as a Presbyter or a Deacon It may farther be considered that much more an Argument deduced from an Author's silence can be of no force when there are other positive and express Witnesses attesting the Truth brought into Question If a Witness deposes that John and Richard were engaged in the Murder of Robert this shall not quit Thomas if another Witness swears he also had an hand in the Assassination Clement mentions Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons not so much as intimating that there was a Prelate at Corinth let that now be supposed But his Contemporary Ignatius has again and again testify'd that there were Bishops Priests and Deacons in several Churches to which he wrote and particularly in his Epistle to the Ephesians that there were these three distinct-Officers throughout the World as far as he knew and by consequence at Corinth Though Clement for Reasons best known unto himself thought not fit to mention the Prelate Nor can it with Reason be pleaded that Ignatius was ignorant of the Government of this Apostolical Church of Corinth as I suppose it will be granted From the whole then I gather that Clement's Silence is no good proof that there was no Prelatical Bishop at Corinth because his Contemporary is positive there was which now brings me to the Testimony of Ignatim in this Controversy CHAP. II. Ignatius his Testimony IGnatius Clement's Contemporary the Disciple and Friend of St. John the Apostle and Martyr of Jesus Christ has so plainly so fully and so often in his Epistles given in his Testimony unto the three distinct Orders of Church-Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons and I have so exactly and at length cited his Words in T. N. p. 59. 60 67 68 69 70 71 72 and 73. that one might justly wonder this Truth should any longer be called into Question after so clear Evidence produced Mr. O. has sundry things to throw in our way which I must consider in their Order and remove if it be possible 1. Mr. O. would bring the credit of these Epistles into suspicion as if it were not agreed among the Learned whether they are Genuine That Daille endeavoured to prove 'em Spurious and La Roque with great Judgment reply'd unto the Learned Bp. of Chester Dr. Pearson who had endeavoured to confute Monsieur Daille in his Vindiciae Epist S. Ignatii Ans. The Genuineness of these Epistles was never questioned by any Learned Man that I know of since Dr. Pearson published his vindication of 'em save by Monsieur La Roque who attempted to support Monsieur Daille but without success I never heard he gained any one Proselyte 'T is confessed I have not read that French Gentleman's Book the Reason whereof is that when Dr. Pearson was by his Friends dealt with to make a Reply to La Roque the Wise Man answered There was no need of it that La Roque had advanced nothing of Moment against his Vindiciae and that the Authority of St. Ignatius's Epistles remained still unquestionable This I remember very well was the common Discourse among us many Years ago in the University of Cambridge and the Event confirms it no Body now daring to deny them not the Dissenters themselves though sometimes in general they would have 'em pass for uncertain It 's not intended hereby to disparage Monsieur La Roque in the least His Misfortune was that He undertook the Defence of an ill Cause against a Potent Adversary in such a Case the Learned'st Man in the World must be forced to retire with dishonour and disappointment But for Mr. O. to say that 'T was not agreed among the Learned c. when one only Learned Man is to be found that stands out is too much I think to offer unto the World as if the Balance were even and the Learned equally divided about the Genuineness of Ignatius's Epistles I am perswaded Mr. O. himself believes what Bishop Pearson has proved 'em to be though he would 〈◊〉 that they are yet doubtful But enough of this 2. Mr. O. further contends There are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could Ordinarily meet in one place and had but one Altar
should have been the Companion of Paul or of Barnabas This last also is the Evangelist of whom the dispute is betwixt Mr. O. and me who is but once mentioned in Scripture and that at Babylon which being in Aegypt as many with reason hold he might be a Resident Evangelist at Alexandria though occasionally with Peter at the writing that Epistle at Babylon But 〈◊〉 any will contend St. Peter's Babylon was Rome be it so what absurdity is it to affirm with Eusebius that Peter sent him from Rome to Alexandria where he planted that Church and departing this life bequeathed the Government of it to Annianus Yet once more admitting Mark after he had formed and regulated that Church of Alexandria to have removed unto some other Cities and Countries for I am by no means obliged to maintain that he dy'd there nor does Eusebius expresly say so that I know of 't is enough for me to affirm with Eusebius that Annianus took the Administration of that Church of Alexandria after Mark left it To conclude if there was but one Mark who sometimes was with Peter at other times with Paul and Barnabas then with Barnabas alone after that with Paul again and lastly with Peter yet this hinders not but at last he settled at Alexandria Neither will his occasional removals thence at the Apostle's call destroy his Residence See part the First Chapter the Fifth whither I refer the Reader for Satisfaction 'T is high time now to consider Mr. O's Plea on this Argument I am referred to Page 126. St. Jerom is the only Ancient Author that has any thing of the particular manner of Church Government established by Mark 〈◊〉 Alexandria and on whose Authority the Presbyterians very much rely What he says is The Alexandrian Presbyters from Mark to Heraclas and Dionys. call'd one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree I say called him Bishop But he tells us not who chose him nor who Ordained him so that we are yet at a loss as to one main part of the Controversy for any thing Jerom has discovered to us Only one would have expected that if the Presbyters at any time had Ordained their Bishop this Father would not have failed to let us know it for the Honour of himself and those of his own Order He also informs us in the same Epistle that One Presbyter was set over the rest for a remedy against 〈◊〉 and this was done Postea that is after John's two last Epistles those of Paul to Timothy and Titus and the first of Peter were written for Bishop and Presbyter were all one till then as He supposes and we must be made to believe But 't is very hard to believe all this upon the credit of Jerom Nay Jerom himself did not believe it if we may believe him for he confesses that Paul made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus How then comes in this Postea after he had quoted St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy For if ever 〈◊〉 was made Bishop of Ephesus by Paul 't was before St. Paul wrote that Epistle And if so how comes Jerom to say that the devise was formed Postea c. that is after the Writing of that Epistle that is after Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus All that can be said the good Father writes somewhat confusedly and is inconsistent with himself But to let this pass at present One thing only is very observable that if St. Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus if James was Bishop of Jerusalem statim 〈◊〉 Apostolos and if Mark appointed a Bishop to be chosen and set over 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 at Alexandria then this Remedy against Schism was found out and establish'd in the Apostle's Days it being certain that Mark dy'd before Peter and Paul or 〈◊〉 I might argue to the same purpose from another Passage in Jerom who affirms that Mark himself was the first Bishop of Alexandria Therefore this Remedy against Schism was prescribed in the Apostle's Days and by the Apostles also and therefore Bishops must needs be of Divine Institution even in the Opinion of Jerom himself But still the difficulty remains who chose and Ordained the Bishop after Mark was gone Here Mr. O. thinks He has caught us having found an unquestionable Testimony that the Presbyters at Alexandria both chose their Bishop and Ordained him yea and Ordained one another So 't is testified by 〈◊〉 in his Origines 〈◊〉 set forth by Mr. Selden many Years ago His Words are Mark appointed Hananias or Annianus first Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria and Twelve Presbyters his constant Assistants to the end that when the Patriarchship was vacant they should chuse one of their own Number should lay hands on his Head and bless him and create him their Patriarch then after that they should elect some Eminent Person and make him 〈◊〉 in the Room of him who was made Patriarch that so there should be always Twelve 〈◊〉 c. This Mr. O. calls a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer also of Presbyters making Presbyters Before I give a direct reply I will try what can he gathered from this Narrative of Eutychius in favour of Episcopal Government First 'T is Natural hence to gather that Mark not so much as dreamed of a Parity between the Bishop and his Presbyters His conceit was there should be Twelve Presbyters answerable to the Apostles and a Bishop 〈◊〉 them like Christ over his 〈◊〉 Secondly By this Constitution of Mark' s at Alexandria Episcopacy must be acknowledged the first Government set up in that Church and because Mark was an inspired Evangelist it was Divine also Thirdly Note that according to Eutychius the Presbyters were to chuse their Bishop and not the People which the Dissenters will not very well like of Fourthly That the Presbyters Ordained new Presbyters which will scarce go down with the Dissenting Congregations now a Days Fifthly That excepting accidents the Patriarch or as Mr. O. the Moderator of the Class was chosen for Life which the Presbyterians will not allow of Sixthly That the Dissenters are every whit as much departed from the Observance of St. Mark' s model as they can pretend we are yea and much more too Thus much being premised that which I would reply to 〈◊〉 his story is that he is the first that told it that he is an Author of no Credit and that there are considerable exceptions to be made against him and his Tale. They are as follows First He is acknowledged by Selden himself to have lived but in the Tenth Century about 900 Years after the pretended constitution of St. Mark He alledges no Writer or Records known unto us from whence he received this account nor is it known that there were any such Besides Jerom who was several times in Egypt knew nothing of this which is very strange 〈◊〉 should 500 Years after and
one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
Power of Government and Ordination was in the Hands of Deacons in Scythia for these 70 Years as Blundel could make his Inference for Presbyters The most probable Conjecture is that there were some of all sorts sc. Bishops Priest and Deacons Fourthly I might demand of Mr. O. to prove that there was any one Presbyter among those Christian Captives which haply he will be put hard to do but in the mean while I 'll undertake to demonstrate that there was at least one Bishop in Scythia before Ulphilas viz. Theophilus who was one of the Nicene Fathers and subscribed the Canons of that Council so Eusebius Witnesseth also the Bishop of Persis was present at the Synod nor was there wanting a Scythian Bishop Socrates names him Theophilus who being Bishop of the Goths 〈◊〉 there present subscribed the Nicene Council Theophilus therefore was Bishop of the Goths before the Nicene Synod and was present at the Council and subscribed it Therefore the power of Ordination and the Government of the Scythian Church was not in the Hands of Presbyters among the Christian Goths or Scythians for about 70 Years as Mr. O. and Blondel have affirmed but in the Hands of Bishops or of a Bishop at least I add that seeing we find a Bishop among the Goths before the Nicene Synod 't is but reasonable to think that Bishops or a Bishop at first went along with the Captive Christians into Scythia or that one soon followed them thither I will confirm this Con jecture from that passage in Sozomen who informs 〈◊〉 that it was an Ancient Custom speaking of the Scythians that one Bishop only govern the Churches of that Province Sozomen is now writing of the Church-affairs in the Reign of Valentinian and Valens that is about the Year 370. 43 Years after Ulphilas had been first Ordained Bishop Now Ulphilas was not long before this time alive according to Socrates and invented the Gothick Letters 〈◊〉 the Reign of Valens Without all Peradventure therefore the Goths had Bishops long before Ulphilas For if there had been but two in all that is Ulphilas and after him Vetranio then Bishop it had been a foolish remark of Sozomen to tell his Reader that it was an Ancient Custom among the Scythian Christians that one Bishop only governed their Province when as this Ancient Custom forsooth had been but of 40 Years continuance from the first and there had been but Two and the former of them dead but about four Years before For both Ulphilas and Vetranio were Bishops in the Reign of Valens The sum is there were Bishops in Scythia during some part at least of the 70 Years mentioned by Mr. O. and in all likelihood all the while I defy Mr. O to shew the contrary out of Philostorgius or any other Historian extant There does remain indeed a small Difficulty to be accounted for viz. How then comes it to pass that Philostorgius calls him the first Bishop of the Goths if the Goths had Bishops before him The answer hereunto is easy and 〈◊〉 Fifthly Theophilus who was present at the Nicene Synod was Bishop of the Goths beyond the Danube or Ister for they came not over the River into the Roman Empire till after the said Synod Upon their Arrival or at their request Constantine allotted Maesia for 'em to inhabit that is to say that part of the Roman Empire which lay to the Banks of the Danube on this side the River and named Ulphilas to be Bishop and he was the first Bishop of the Cisistrian Scythians within the Roman Empire and Ordained by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea tho' Theophilus before him had been Bishop of the Transistrian So Socrates Moreover to this Faith even Ulphilas himself Bishop of the Goths then first consented For before that time he had imbraced the 〈◊〉 Faith following Theophilus Bishop of the Goths who being present had subscribed the Nicene Council So that after all this it can't be questioned but that the Gothick Christians were long before Ulphilas governed by Bishops although Blondel and Mr. O. have so roundly denyed it without yea against plain Evidence to the contrary Upon a farther Search into Blondel I find him acknowledging what I have before spoken of Theophilus Bishop of the 〈◊〉 but Mr. O. who pretends to improve Arguments has left this lamer and more imperfect then he found it Let us then see what answer Blundel has framed against Theophilus the Scythian Bishop It is as follows If we grant Theophilus was Bishop of the Gothick Metropolis before 〈◊〉 we will being hereby furnished with a stronger Weapon justifie our Cause For they who make to themselves a Bishop their Superior who dare deny them a Power of Ordaining Presbyters which are but their equals Ans. This Argument is grounded upon a Supposition which is not to be allowed of nor can be proved Blondel takes it here for granted the Scythian Presbyters Ordained their Bishops Theophilus for instance But one may surmize several other things with equal probabilty any of which will overthrow this wonderful Demonstration As 1. It may be supposed that a Bishop or Bishops were by the Scythians at their irruption into Galatia and Cappadocia carryed Captives into Scythia as was before observed or 2. That some Bishop might follow the Captive Christians into that Barbarous Country being first Ordained in the Empire Theophilus which is a Greek Name haply was so made and Ordained their Bishop or 3. the Scythian Church might send one of their own Presbyters to be Ordained by the Imperial Bishops as Ulphilas after was For that there was a Correspondence between the Scythian and Imperial Churches is past doubt when we consider that Theophilus Bishop of the Scythians assisted at the Council of Nice There is nothing in Philostorgius the only Author of this Tale that thwarts any one of thesethree suppositions or that Countenances Blondel's surmises of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their own Bishop That of Ulphilas being the first Bishop I have already accounted for 2. If the Scythian Presbyters Ordained a Bishop to preside over them supposing this it hence follows they thought it necessary to have one and rather then have none chosen in their necessity to constitute and Ordain him themselves contrary to the Ordinary and established Method of which they could not be ignorant But this is said upon a bare supposition of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their Bishops which is not proved nor at all probable as I have shewed before That which appears above board is that the Scythians had a Bishop which setting apart meer Conjectures on both sides is sufficient to my purpose CHAP. VIII Of the Chorepiscopi THE Occasion of their Institution as I conjecture was either 1. To promote and quicken Conversions in the Countries and Villages subject to the City Bishops or 2. After believers and Congregations were there multiplyed to be as Suffragans and Assistants for the better Government of the Churches And
Christiana Quod Aaron filios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyterum noverimus 7. Jerom not 〈◊〉 and more than once insinuates that Bishops succeeded the Apostles Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi Bishops hold the place of the Apostles Habes pro Apostolis Episcopos filios Apostolorum you have instead of the Apostles Bishops the Sons of the Apostles Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 in Exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur Meritum and let Bishops and Presbyters take for their Pattern the Apostles and Apostolical Men whose honour they possess and therefore should endeavour to have their Merit Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri 'T is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul to possess the degree of Peter Omnes so Episcopi sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanais I may add from Jerom sive Divites sive Pauperes sive Sublimes 〈◊〉 Inferiores Apostolorum sunt Successores All Bishops whatever are the Apostles Successors And whereas in this very Epistle He is exalting his fellow Presbyters as high as with any colour of Pretence he was able yet no such thing as this drops from him sc. that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors If then Bishops are the Apostles Successors as if Jerom may be Judge they were then also the Office of a Bishop must needs be by Apostolical Institution For none could appoint Successors unto the Apostles but the Apostles themselves 8. The early establishment of Bishops in the very days of the Apostles or at least immediately after them will force any Ingenious Man to confess Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution This also Jerom has witnessed telling us that Clement of whom we read Phil. 4. was the 4th some said the 2d Bishop of Rome after Peter That Ignatius was the 3d Bishop of 〈◊〉 after Peter That Papias a Disciple of St. John the Apostle was Bishop of Hierapolis and Quadratus a Disciple of the Apostles Bishop of Athens To these add the Asiatick Bishops of whom we read in Ignatius's Epistles For because Jerom believed the Epistles genuine and approves of the subject Matter of them he has hereby given in his Testimony that there were Bishops in all those Churches Is it then possible to imagine Jerom beleived that Decree to be any other than Apostolical or that Episcopacy received its Date from a meer Ecclesiastical Canon sometime after It can never enter into my Head that the Church Government which some say was Presbyterian that is Administred by a College of Presbyters acting in a Parity when the Apostles were living should be thus quickly altered by a meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Decree upon a pretence of preventing Schisms whereas the Apostles themselves did not as the Presbyterians believe think this Reason sufficient to change the Church-Government in their time that is 't is most improbable and absurd to say so many Holy Men and Martyrs of Christ familiar with and Disciples of the Apostles sc. St. Clement Ignatius Papias Quadratus and an innumerable Company whose Names and whose particular Diocesses are not Transmitted unto us says Eusebius should dare not only to decree and consent to the Alteration of Church-Government but themselves to Usurp and Exercise an Authority over their Equals contrary to the Apostolical Rule and Practice From the whole then that has been said I may reasonably conclude 1. That Episcopacy which is by Jerom called The Remedy against Schism was Set up and Decreed 〈◊〉 the Apostles in their own days 2. That though he terms it an Ecclesiastical Custom and Constitution he is to be taken to mean in opposition to 〈◊〉 Veritati our Lord 's own Personal Appointment and not unto Apostolical Tradition or Institution 3. That what I have offer'd in this Chapter towards the reconciling Jerom with himself is most reasonable to be admitted And lastly That the Power and Authority allowed by Jerom unto Bishops particularly that of Ordination and the other of Confirmation belong'd to them by virtue of the Apostles Commission and were not Restraints laid upon the Presbyters by Ecclesiastical Canons That of Confirmation he deduces from Scripture in his Dialogue against the Luciferians But Mr. O. will perhaps say that all this is nothing to him and to the Objections he has laid in our way I am then obliged now to consider in particular what Observations he has mustred up out of Jerom and levelled against Episcopacy in favour of the Presbyterians Claim Mr. O. then Pleads that Jerom has shew'd the Presbyters of Alexandria 〈◊〉 their Bishops for almost 200 Years and that he would leave nothing out that was Material in Constituting them Ans. Jerom has not shew'd nor so much as directly asserted that the Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops But he has omitted several Circumstances not only Material but Advantagious to his main Design if they had been true Jerom both in his Commentaries on Titus and in his Epistle to Evagrius speaks constantly in the Passive Voice how that one was chosen and set over the rest but by whom he says not Why not by the Neighbouring Bishops Why not by the Predecessor as well as by the Presbyters Jerom has not expresly told us that the Bishop of Alexandria chosen out of the Presbyters received another and a new Consecration nor that the Presbyters Ordained him all which would have tended much to the Honour of himself and his Fellow-Presbyters True he expresly says the Presbyters nam'd him Bishop at his Instalment bnt this does not necessarily imply either that they Chose or Ordained him He ought and doubtless would have spoken out if either or both these things had been true Whereas then Mr. O. adds Jerom mentions no other way of Constituting them but by Presbyters it is certain he mentions no way at all This is manifest ' beyond all exception Jerom has assur'd us of it that the Apostles not the Presbyters Made and Ordain'd Bishops in most parts of the Christian World at Ephesus at Coloss at Philippi at Athens in Crete at Jerusalem and if Mark did not so at Alexandria it were very strange However Orbis Major est Urbe It should indeed seem by the Allusions wherewith Jerom explains himself that the Presbyters chose one of their own Number and set him over the rest So says he the Army chooses their General the Deacons their Arch-Deacons Admitting then this at present I reply 1. 'T is no where so much as hinted in Jerom that the Alexandrian Presbyters Ordain'd their Patriarchs But rather the contrary that the neighbouring Bishops impos'd Hands on him Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter In which words he must have an Eye unto the Custom of the Alexandrian Church from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius implying that Bishops not Presbyters Ordain'd all that while Well! But I
1. That the People here spoken of were aforetime Subject to Bishops which Mr. O. has miserably perverted by saying that till that time the Diocesses never had any Bishops at all contrary to the apparent sense of that Canon which affirms it and describes those People thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the People here spoken of were even in the possession and under the Jurisdiction of Bishops Ex. gra To make the matter plainer to Mr. O. The People of Lancashire cannot be said never to have had any Bishops at all it being well known that the Bishop of Chester is their Diocesan 2. The People mentioned in the Canon had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper Bishop peculiar to themselves Thus it is true that the County of Lancaster never had to this Day a proper Bishop of their own 3. The African Fathers did not Peremptorily resolve that those People should have no Bishop for the future though Mr. O. has very falsly affirmed it But two things they define either first that they should continue in subjection to their former Bishop that is to keep to my Example that the County of Lancaster should continue as a Member of the Diocess of Chester Or else secondly that they should be erected into a Distinct Bishoprick and have their own proper Bishop provided nevertheless that it be with the Consent of their former Bishop or thus in the Example that the County of Lancaster should be made a Bishoprick by its self and have a proper Bishop of its own provided my Lord of Chester would consent thereunto There is another Canon in the African Code which is more full to my purpose It pleased the Synod that the People who never had proper Bishops of their own should not have them Except it be so decreed in a full Provincial Synod and particularly by the Primate and with the Consent of that Bishop unto whose Government that Church or the aforesaid People formerly belonged Mr. O. then 〈◊〉 he had dealt honestly and faithfully with the African Fathers and with us should have cited the whole Period at length and not abused them and endeavoured to cozen the present Age with such Counterfeit Stuff I have this only farther to remark upon these Canons of the Carthaginian Councils and so shall conclude that the Occasion of making the former and of the latter too as is probable was the Ambitious and Haughty and Aspiring Stubborn and Foolish for all these Epithets are there bestowed on them Disposition of some Presbyters who raising their Crests against their own Bishops and Wheedling the People by some indirect means would needs in a Disorderly manner make themselves their Rectors i. e. Bishops This immediately follows in the aforesaid Canon as any one that pleases may see at his Leisure To prove that Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination Mr. O. alledges the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 3. Omnes Presbyteri qui Praesentes sunt Manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius Ordinandi Presbyteri teneant Ans. 1. He has not given us the Canon intire having left out something which perhaps will go a great way to the overthrowing his Argument as will be seen anon Thus the Canon runs Episcopo eum sc. Presbyterum benedicente Omnes c. But it is not unusual for Mr. O. to quote his Authors by Halves and to suppress what seems to make against him At this rate he may soon get the Christian World on his side so many of 'em at least as will not be at the pains or are unable to examine his Authorities 2. This Canon though Caranza and other Authors mention it is not to be found in the African Code set forth by Justellus which makes me suspect that the Fathers who in the Council of Trull took the African into the Code of the Universal Church look'd upon it either as Spurious or rejected it as to the matter therein decreed But I will not insist on this 3. It is most reasonable to interpret one Canon by another The said Council decreed Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet From 〈◊〉 one would guess that the Imposition of the Presbyters Hands was designed only 〈◊〉 a Testimony that the Bishop Ordained with the advice and consent of the Presbyters at least not without them 4. If Presbyters laid on Hands as proper Ordainers how comes it to pass that in other Councils and Canons of the Church it s declared that the Bishop only Ordains and not the Presbyters In the 2. Council of Hisp. Can. 6. Episcopus enim sacerdotibus Ministris solus Honorem dare potest Can. 7. Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Presbyteris Mysteriorum Communis sit Dispensatio quaedam tamen sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum Diaconorum Consecratio But the fifth Canon is remarkable The Occasion of it was this A certain Bishop being Blind laid on his Hands at the Ordination of some Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of his Presbyters Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum Ordinem benedictionem dedisse fertur For which 't is added that the Presbyter deserved to be condemned but that he was in the mean time dead From whence I think 't is plain 1. That Ordination was not effectually given by Imposition of Hands but by Benediction the Charge or Commission wherein properly consifted the Ordination which was given to the Ordained 2. All the Irregularity here committed was that the Presbyter presum'd Benedicere and there with it may be to give the Commission that is to Ordain which if Imposition of Hands was Ordination had been no Irregularity at least no Essential defect as it is declared to be 3. For if Imposition of Hands be the Ordination then there was no Irregularity in these Ordinations the Bishop having laid his Hands on the Ordained as 't is testifyed in the Canon as well as that Presbyter who blest him 4. The Orders thus conferred were declared Null by the Council Hi Presbyteri Diaconi gradum sacerdotii Levitici Ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt amittant So that 〈◊〉 the whole it appears that in the Judgment of these Fathers and of the Church at that Time laying on of Hands was not properly Ordination and by 〈◊〉 though Presbyters impose Hands yet they do not Ordain which 〈◊〉 overthrows Mr. O's Major Proposition But let us see how Mr. O. confirms his Major He endeavours it by this Medium That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power But Imposition of Hands is an Ordaining Act. Therefore c. To the Minor I answer by denying Imposition of Hands to be an Ordaining Act 't is only an outward and Solemn Concomitant of it as is before Evinc'd though Warranted by Holy Scripture By the Imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters Hands is signifyed to the Congregation present that
the Bishop Ordains the Person with the advice Consent and Council of his Presbyters But Mr. O. adds I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles days of Persons laying on of Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If I should affirm that those mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. imposed Hands but had no Ordaining Power I am very sure he can't disprove me And if I should demand one Instance in the Apostles times of meer Presbyters laying on of hands or Ordaining without a Bishop I am sure Mr. O. cannot produce it But Mr. O. pleads How then comes the Bishops to urge the Scripture 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no Man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer that he was Bishop of Ephesus since he might lay on Hands and yet have no Ordaining Power nor be Bishop This difficulty is easily resolved If there were no other Argument for Timothy's Episcopal Power in the Church of Ephesus but that Text only it might thence be fairly inferred that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and had the Power of Ordaining because no other are joyn'd in Commission with him nevertheless though this prov'd it not it may be evinc'd from other pregnant Passages in those Epistles to Timothy which I need not repeat Nor do we acknowledge Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination That of Benediction belongs not to them at all But says he What does the Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie if not an Ordaining Power I have told him already it denotes their Approbation and that the Bishop 〈◊〉 with their Advice and Consent No he replys they could signifie their Approbation some other way without imposition of Hands as by saying Amen to the Ordination Prayers But this is to be wiser than God and his Apostles who have as I often have supposed though I need not grant it recommended this way which adds an agreeable Solemnity unto the Action at least the Church has thought fit to admit the Presbyters to lay on Hands and thereby to signify their Approbation of such as are taken into their own proper Ministry in a particular way and different from the Peoples testifying their Assent And this is the reason why at the Ordination of a Deacon Presbyters were not to impose Hands sc. Quia non ad Sacerdotium sed ad Ministerium Consecratur as the African Fathers declared In short this Canon 〈◊〉 with others which appropriate the Power of Ordaining Presbyters unto Bishops only as is above observ'd seems to me to shew that in the judgment of the Ancients Presbyters had no Inherent Original Power of laying on Hands but that 't was granted to them by Ecclesiastical Constitution only Otherwise probably they would have had Power of Imposition of Hands at the Ordination of Deacons also Briefly because in the Prosecution of this Argument Mr. O. appeals to the Scripture so oft for proof of certain things that fell in his way whilst he was managing this Point I do once more here desire what I have often call'd for one single probable proof or Example from Scripture of bare ordinary Presbyters Ordaining or laying on of Hands without some Superior presiding in the Action 5. And to conclude this Discourse about the Councils of Carthage I that am not much concern'd about Men's Opinions nor whether the Presbyters impose Hands tanquam Ordinantes or tanquam Approbantes only am very well content every one should abound in his own sense provided there be an Agreement in Practice and an occasion be not thereby taken to raise Schisms and Emulations in the Church Let this matter be bang'd in the Schools so long as Criticks shall please yet seeing there is no colour for asserting Presbyters to be Ordainers without the Bishop whatever they be with him I make no difficulty to affirm that their Ordinations without the Bishop are without Precedent either in Scripture or Antiquity and by consequence in themselves Null and Invalid A partial Cause can never produce the 〈◊〉 Effect Mr. O. being about to establish the Ordaining Power of the Presbyters instances in the 22d Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage wherein it is Decreed That Bishops must not Ordain without their Presbyters as Presbyters not without Bishops that therefore he may as well say Bishops have no Power to Ordain because they could not Ordinarily do it without their Presbyters As we affirm Presbyters have no Power to Ordain because they can't Ordain without Bishops Ans. Let us see the Canon at length Ut Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet ita ut c. It is hence apparent that the Bishop Ordain'd and not the Presbyters though he was to take along with him the Counsel and Advice of his Prebyters Let Mr. O. produce me a Canon to this Effect Presbyteri sine Concilio Episcopi sui Clericos non Ordinent and then it will be time for us to think of a further Answer unto this Cavil Mr. O. urges farther the following Canon The Bishop may hear no Man's Cause without the Presence of his Clergy Otherwise the Bishop's Sentence shall be void unless it be confirm'd in their Presence This we can assent unto without Prejudice to our main Cause But I read no where that the Presbyter's Sentence shall be void without the Presence of the Bishop The reason is because the Presbyters gave no Sentence at all Mr. O. to confirm his Maxim that Lay-Men were allow'd to Preach at the Request of the Clergy cites the Carthaginian Canon A Lay-Man may not dare to Preach whilst the Clergy are present unless they ask him Ans. I have given my Opinion of this Matter before It affects the Presbyters as well as the Bishops and is of as much force against Mr. O. unless he 'll turn Quaker as against the Rector But over and above I note this Canon is not taken into the universal Code and therefore was rejected in the Council of Trull CHAP. XIV Of Paphnutius and Daniel THE next thing Mr. O. urges in behalf of Presbyters Ordaining is the Story which Joannes Cassianus tells of one Paphnutius a Presbyter Abbot who made Daniel his design'd Successor a Deacon first and then Goaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotis honore festinavit Optansque sibi Successionem dignissimam providere eum Presbyterii honore provexit He adds That Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce the Ordination null that we read of nor any other in that time Had it been either irregular or unusual doubtless it had been Censur'd Ans. It must not be deny'd but that this Instance of Presbyters Ordaining appears the fairest of all others that Mr. O. has muster'd up in his Plea Nevertheless what I have to reply is as follows 1. It is but a single Instance of a for ought I know Humoursome Abbot who took upon him to do this contrary to the known and establish'd
Order of the Catholick Church and particularly of the Alexandrian whereof he is supposed to have been a part The Desert of Scetis where he usually resided adjoining to the Lake Maria or Maeris which borders on Egypt 2. Whereas 't is urged that Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce this Ordination void and null that we read of there is no great matter in this For it may with as great reason be argued that Theophilus would have Censured it if it had come to his knowledge there being no probability that Theophilus would have past by such a Disorder and Affront done to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions seeing Peter and Alexander of Alexandria his Predecessors would not bear with the Melitians 3. 'T is wonderful that Mr. O. should Insinuate that it was neither irregular nor unusual which in former Cases he has granted over and over again 4. Valesius tells me that Paphnutius was engaged in the Melitian Schism as Ephiphanius testisies de Haeresi Melitianorum He also observes that the Schism was then improv'd unto Heresie 'T is no wonder then that an Heretical Schismatick should presume to break through the Rules and Orders of that Church from which he divided and usurp a Power that nothing belonged to him And hence also may be drawn the reason why Theophilus took no notice of what Paphnutius did he being a Schismatick if not an Heretick and out of the Communion of the Church and what had the Patriarch to do to judge them that were without already As St. Paul speaks in somewhat a like Case But 5. I will not content my self with these Answers though I reckon them sufficient But add 't is no where affirmed by Cassianus that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel a Deacon or Presbyter but only Cum Daniel multis junior esset aetate ad Diaconii praelatus est Officium and then Festinavit coaequare made baste to equal Daniel with himself in the Honour of the Priest-hood And Lastly desiring to provide a most worthy Successor to himself whilst he was alive Provexit promoted him to the Honour of the Presbytership The Question is whether these Words signifie that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel That he did so can no ways be concluded from this Testimony of Cassianus For 1. It has been ordinary to attribute that unto a Person which indeed he only commanded or directed devised or procured to be done Thus Parents are commonly said to make their Sons Ministers but Ordain them not themselves Thus Patrons among us make and prefer Vicars and Rectors of Churches and the King Bishops though Bishops Ordain and Institute them Thus Joshua made him sharp Knives and Circumcised the Children of Israel Joshua 5. 3. Now I hope Mr. O. will not affirm that Joshua himself made the sharp Knives or Circumcised all these Israelites with his own hands But to come yet nearer to our purpose I read in St. Cyprian Novatus Felicissimum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione ambitione Diaconum constituit The enquiry is whether Novatus a Presbyter imposed hands and Ordained Felicissimus a Deacon and whether St. Cyprian is thus to be understood This doubt is to be 〈◊〉 from another passage of St. Cyprian in the same 〈◊〉 Qui Novatus isthic Carthagine Diaconum fecerat sc. Felicissimum illic Romae Episcopum fecit sc. Novatianum Novatus made Felicissimus a Deacon at 〈◊〉 and Novatianus a Bishop at Rome But how Not Ordaining him himself but procuring or encouraging him to be Ordained by Bishops as we read in Eusebius Novatianus a Presbyter of Rome by Eus. called Novatus also having from some remote parts of Italy invited three Bishops unto Rome forced them to Ordain him Novatianus Bishop This was the Contrivance of the African Novatus as we learn from Cyprian As then Novatus did not Ordain Novatianus but three Bishops procured for the purpose so neither can it be thought he Ordained Foelicissimus Deacon but by his Policy and Interest got him to be Ordained And yet Cyprian witnesseth that he made fecit constituit the one a Deacon and made fecit the other a Bishop In like manner 〈◊〉 made Daniel a Deacon and a Presbyter that is appointed and commanded him to take Orders For being the Abbot he had the Authority to determine his own Monk unto the Orders of Deacon and Presbyter But It may not be amiss to consider what Blondel has from this Testimony of Cassianus advanced for the establishment of Presbyterian Ordination He places this fact in the Year 390. when the Egyptian Church enjoyed a profound Peace and Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria and the Government of this Church was improved in a manner into a Secular Dominion If in these Circumstances He argues a Presbyter might Ordain Presbyters how much more before the ancient simplicity of the Gospel was shackled with Novel Constitutions Ans. It is is some prejudice against this Story of Cassianus that neither 〈◊〉 Sozomen Theodoret nor any of those Ecclesiastical Historians though they mention Paphnutius should have one Syllable of this Action nor so much as mention Daniel Besides the Egytian Churches were not in so perfect Tranquility as Mr. Blondel imagines and represents them The Melitian Schism still remained among them and this Paphnutius was one of them as I have before observ'd so that it is not be wondered at that Paphnutius presumed to Ordain and Theophilus overlook'd and neglected it For what had he to do with them that were already out of the Church and Excommunicated as the Melitians must needs be supposed This premised I frame an Argument against Blondel and as I conceit every whit as good as his 'T is this If in the most Turbulent State of the Egyptian Church when Alexander was Bishop of Alexandria the Ordinations of Melitius and Colluthus were declared invalid it is Morally impossible that the Ordination of Daniel by Paphnutius should be approved or connived at when Theophilus being Bishop of Alexandria the Episcopacy was raised to a higher degree of Grandeur and the Peace of the Church better established To conclude this Chapter let it be remembred what I have already noted out of Theodoret how that Bishops were wont to reside among the Monks in the Wilderness of Egypt and that seven of them are said to have done so from their Youth up to their extreme Old Age even when they were Bishops and a little Sense will perswade one to believe that Daniel was Ordained by a Bishop Paphnutius the Abbot commanding and directing his Monk to receive Holy Orders CHAP. XV. Of Pope Leo ' s Decree THE case was this There were was in the Diocess of Rusticus Bishop of Narbona as may be conjectured from Pope Leo's Epistle some Persons who toook upon 'em to Ordain and who are called by that Pope Pseudo Episcopi Rusticus complains thereof in a Letter to Leo which is not extant that I know of Leo's Answer is There is no reason they should
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
ones the Fathers and other Antient Ecclesiastical Writers and the practice of the most Flourishing Catholick Churches of old unto the 5th Century or thereabouts and to examine whether my Adversary has 〈◊〉 any one good Testimony for himself and Brethren out of these Monuments of Antiquity If he has not as I hope will be made appear there is an end of his Plea I suppose especially when such a Cloud of Witnesses which of necessity fall in our way as we Travel through the History of those times will rise up against him within the Compass of the 4 or 5 first Ages aforesaid Before I make an end of this Preface I thought it needful to prepare the Reader with a short account of my whole Hypothesis which if kept in Memory as he goes will be some ease and advantage to him He must remember then that all Authors I know of except haply the Rhemists who so far as I see spoke but at Random writing upon the Present Subject or commenting upon the first Epistle to Timothy have asserted or at least taken for granted till very lately that the time of St. Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia is somewhere to be search'd for in the Acts of the Apostles before St. Paul had the Ephesian Elders Farewel in Acts 20. v. 17. from whence our Dissenters conclude that the supreme Government of the Church of Ephesus was not in that Epistle committed unto Timothy For that the Apostle could not have so wholly overlook'd their Bishop in that Farewel Sermon and applied himself only to the Elders to whom he commended the care and oversight of that Church On the other hand I have shew'd that the first Epistle to Timothy was wrote long after Paul's said Farewel Sermon even after his enlargement out of his former Imprisonment at Rome and by consequence that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went unto Macedonia at another time than what has hitherto been believ'd and assigned And so that Objection just now mentioned quite vanishes Thus then my Hypothesis lies After that Schism at Corinth had been in some measure though not intirely allay'd by St. Paul he with all hast made towards Jerusalem taking Miletus in his way where he bad the Ephesian Elders Farewel At Jerusalem he was Imprisoned and thence sent to Rome in Bonds Here he continued two years and upwards writing Epistles to the several Churches of Ephesus of Philippi of Coloss of Judea and to Philemon Being at length set at Liberty and in his way as he went back Eastward to visit the foresaid Churches he laid the Foundation of a Church in Crete leaving Titus behind to finish and to govern it Thence as I suppose he prosecuted his Journey to Judea Heb. 13. 23. and thence as it were back again through Syria to Asâ—a Being at Troas 2. Tim. 4. 13. about to sail unto Macedonia he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus shortly after when in Macedonia haply or Greece or somewhere thereabouts he wrote this first Epistle to Timothy giving him the necessary Orders how he was to behave himself in the Charge lately committed to him and not long after from Nicopolis that Epistle to Titus upon the same Subject Hence forward we hear no more of him in Scripture saving that being once again got to Rome he thence wrote his second Epistle to Timothy as is undeniably evinc'd in these Papers The Corinthian Schism like the Leprosy seemed incurable and spread its self unto other Churches also particularly Ephesus as may be gathered from the Epistle to the Ephesians and the first to Timothy And the like I reckon to have happened in other places also Wherefore Paul in his Visitation of the Eastern Churches before spoken of his Principal design I presume was to compose the Contentions already risen and to prevent them for the future To which end he committed the Government of the Churches to single Persons of Crete to Titus of Ephesus to Timothy The like being to be believed of the Rest of the Apostles and Churches throughout the World For how else could there have been Bishops every â—where as Ignatius writes to the Ephesians and not one Church at that time governed by a Presbytery of Elders only without an Apostle or Bishop presiding over them that we can find in Ecclesiastical History Nor are we to imagin this a perfectly new device taken up by Paul and the other Apostles meerly upon the Occasion of the Schisms at Corinth and elsewhere For as I make account they came to this Resolution among themselves even at the beginning viz. to commit the Government of the Churches unto 〈◊〉 Persons Not that they immediately did so assoon as they had made the Decree For every Apostle 't is likely kept the Government and Care of the Churches by him founded in his own Hands so long as he thought fit and was able to manage them himself So that every Church was 〈◊〉 cast into this Platform nor furnish'd with a Bishop distinct from the Apostles at the same instant but 't was done paulatim as Jerom speaks in his Commentary on Titus James was Bishop of Jerusalem before the Corinthian Schism Titus of Crete at that Church's first Plantation though Timothy was not so of Ephesus till many Years after the Ephesian Church had been formed But at length because Schisms began now to increase and prevail the Apostles taking the Alarm 〈◊〉 to put their former Decree into Execution and more especially because at this time believers were multiplyed Churches were increased business grew on their Hands and they forced to be long Absent and unable to inspect all Churches As also because the time of their Departure now drew on apace 't was therefore high time and necessary to provide for the Peace and future Government of the Church as they had in the beginning contrived Whereas then I have frequently express'd my self as if the Church Government had been alter'd from what it was in the Infancy of Christianity and lest this should be taken for a rash and dangerous Concession to the Adversaries in prejudice of Episcopacy I thus explain my self 1. This was not a Change of the first Principle and Rule of Government but only a bringing it by Degrees to that Model and Frame which the Apostles as I said first pitched upon and afterward as Occasion required by degrees brought to perfection So that with respect to the Original design and Scheme of Government there was indeed no change or Innovation at all But then 2. If we consider matter of Fact there was an Alteration of Government in as much as the Apostles having left it for a while unto the Presbyters to discharge the Ordinary affairs of the Churches in their Absence but still reserving to themselves the Power of Ordination and other matters of greatest Moment at length constituted Bishops over them pursuant to their Prime Resolution and in Conformity to their own way of
or Interlopers that would thrust themselves in among 'em and against the Vipers which would arise out of their own Bowels was to take heed to themselves and to the Flock to feed the Church of God the other words over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers being only a reminding them by the way of their Power and Duty All Government of what kind soever it be 't is confest is in general a Remedy against Schism But these Elders are not said to have been Ordained Overseers by the Apostle as if that particular Government of Presbyterian Parity was especially intended for a Remedy against future Schism The proper and parcular Remedy here prescribed by St. Paul is To take heed c. and as it follows v. 31. To watch c. without which 't was impossible to provide Effectually against a surprize from their Enemies the Wolves and the Vipers there spoken of Being Overseers or Governours of the Church would not do the Work whether they acted in a Parity or in Subordination to some single Person was the same thing as to the Apostles Argument here and whether it were the one or the other still it was their taking heed and watching must secure 'em against Schisms and against Heresies But if afterward this Presbyterian Parity was by experience found inconvenient rather a Nursery and Occasion of Schism and therefore for that very reason altered into Prelatical form of Government for the security of the Church in Peace and Order as Jerom owns it is most proper to say that Prelacy was introduced into the Church as a designed Remedy against Schism and not Presbyterian Parity which was indeed the Occasion of it at least was not sufficient to prevent it Mr. O. further argues that God did not could not change the first instituted Church Government because he foresees all events and knows how to prevent Schisms by apt and effectual Remedies and with him is no variableness nor shadow of turning Ans. Such general Harangues though grounded on true Principles if rightly understood and explained prove nothing For on the other side we know that God oftimes Repents and takes new measures for the accomplishing his own great and good designs God imployed Noah a Preacher of Righteousness to perswade the then wicked World to Repentance and Reformation when this succeeded not it repented him that he had made Man and so he drowned all the World except eight Persons God who himself in a Peculiar manner governed Israel appointing what Prophets and Rulers should succeed at a vacancy the Government of Israel is hence called a Theocracy yielded to the importunity of the People and gave them a King Saul to govern them after the manner of the Nations But presently after it repented God that he had set up Saul to be King because he turned back from following God 1 Sam 15. 11. Where then is the absurdity in saying God upon the Occasion of Schisms directed the Apostles to alter the Government among the Christians Or rather as Bishop Pearson speaks to perfect and compleat it For the Apostles so long as it seemed good unto 'em retained in their own hands the Government of all the Churches by them founded as appears from Act. 14. 21 22 23. and Chap. 15. 36. but when the time of their departure drew on or when business encreasing on their hand by reason of their many conversions they were forced to be absent or distant from those Churches a long time they substituted in their Rooms Successors and single Persons to preside over the Churches Which indeed in exact speaking was not a Change but a continuance rather of the former Government all the difference being that whereas the Apostles were Governours of many Churches these their Successors were Rules but of one haply of which difference I speak afterwards Mr. O. after he had endeavoured to confirm his own Opinion by such weak Arguments as we have here mentioned proceeds in the next place to attack mine Many things are here repeated which have been answered already and many things offered which depend on the proof of the main Point and which to make a particular reply unto here were superfluous Mr. O. The 1 Tim. 1. 3. does not say that Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus that is Ruler Ans. Let the Text with the other Passages of this Epistle relating unto the Powers committed unto Timothy speak for it self I put 'em together in T. N. and Mr. O. has no other way to evade the force of the Evidence but pleading that Timothy was an Evangelist and extraordinary Officer as before is noted Mr. O St. John resided long at Ephesus after Paul's departure thence he returned thither after his Release from his Banishment at Paimos and lived there and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's days By consequence St. John was the Supreme Ruler of Ephesus and not Timothy Ans. Let us see what the Authors he quotes say in this matter Euseb. l. 3. c. 18. writes That in the Persecution rais'd by Domitian John was banished into the Island Patmos And out of 〈◊〉 that he received his Revelation at the latter end of Domitian ' s Reign No more than this is to be found in that Chapter of Euseb. Cited by the Minister and yet Mr. O. affirms Euseb. here writes that John returned to Ephesus after he was released c. There is here not a Syllable of returning nor of Ephesus nor of Released nor of living at Ephesus or among the other Asian Churches until Trajan ' s day This notwithstanding I do acknowledge that Euseb. in other places asserts these things But this signifies nothing Euseb. says not that John in particular governed Ephesus but the Asian Churches after the manner it may seem of a Metropolitan To the same purpose speaks Jerom C. S. E. Sub Nerva Principe redit Ephesum 〈◊〉 usque ad Trajanum perseverans totas Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias They affirm not that John governed these Asian Churches Immediately after St. Paul's departure into Macedonia but in the days of Trajan and after his release out of Patmos Nor do they tell us who governed Ephesus and the other Asian Churches from the time of Paul's going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. unto the Reign of Nerva or Trajan And therefore Timothy might in that Interval of time notwithstanding any thing here produced to the Contrary have been the Ruler or Bishop of Ephesus I do further grant that 〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 3. writes that John remained among the Asian Christians or Churches until Trajan but he says not that the Apostle remained there from the time of Paul's last departing from Ephesus into Macedonia when he constituted Timothy Ruler or Bishop there One thing must not be omitted that whereas Eusebius and Irenaeus confess what is indeed manifest in Scripture that Paul founded these Asian Churches yet Jerom makes John the 〈◊〉 and Ruler of them Totas Asiae
without necessity Nevertheless on extraordinary Occasions such as Apostacy Heresy and Schism the other Bishops made use of their general Power to rectify Disorders even in those Churches where Ordinarily they had no Jurisdiction Every Bishop then is a Bishop every where besides the constant care of some particular Church committed unto him But it will lastly be Objected That Apostles and Evangelists were not 〈◊〉 but Itinerant Officers shifting from place to place as the exigences of the Church and Interest of the Gospel required This the Bishops do not pretended to neither can Ans. 1. Some of the Apostles were fixt or at least fixt themselves Thus James the Apostle or at least an Apostle was the constant residing Prefect or Bishop of Jerusalem So was Simeon after him So was Peter at Rome for 25 years according to Jerom. So was John in Asia for a long time So was Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete But 2. Bishops are no otherwise fixt than were the Apostles I have shewed before that upon necessary occasions they interposed any where Besides a Bishop may in unconverted Nations pass from one City and Country to another and plant Churches as the Apostles did Thus Frumentius played the Apostle in India being Ordained Bishop at Alexandria in Egypt by Athanasius So did Aidan in Northumberland among the Angles and Mercians 3. It is so difficult a matter to define exactly what Residence is and when a Man may be said to be fixt how oft how long and on what Occasions he may be allowed to be Absent and yet at the same time be the settled Minister of a Church that I think no Man alive can with any tolerable certainty prononuce a Person not to have been the Resident Ruler or Bishop of a Church because he finds him employ'd in some other place upon some extraordinary Service of the Church I make no difficulty to affirm that when and as oft as any Emergent necessity requires it and his Superior Commands him a fixt Resident Officer may leave his Flock for some time and attend the Business which he is thus ' specially called to and yet still he is their fixt and settled Minister If Paul called Timothy to him at Rome from Ephesus and Titus from Crete it will not follow they were not the fixt and Resident Rulers Bishops of those Churches which the Apostle had before committed to 'em no more than that the British Bishops who by Order of the Emperor Constantius assisted at the Council of Ariminum were not the fixt Resident Bishops of the British Churches Or that the Members of the Assembly of Divines were not the settled Rectors Vicars or Lecturers of their respective Congregations though they were a good while absent from 'em and sitting at Westminster 4. One may be the fixt Minister of a Church and yet afterward remove to another place and settle there I suppose my Neighbour Mr. B. had been the fixt Minister of some Congregation in the West of England before he settled here among us So that if for some important Reasons Paul had quite removed Timothy from Ephesus and Titus from Crete appointing Tichycus in the Room of the former 2 Tim. 4. 12. And Artemas to succeed the latter Tit. 3. 12. This will not evince That Timothy was never the fixt Ruler Bishop of Ephesus or Titus of Crete To draw toward a Conclusion all alterable Circumstances such as Extraordinary divine Gifts different Titles Largeness or extent of Power over all or very many Cities and Countries and unfixedness as to any one City or Province or whatever else of this kind may be alledg'd make no difference between the Apostolical or Evangelistical and the Episcopal Power It is the Ordination which conferrs the Office and the Power not the fixedness or unfixedness of the Ordainer 'T is the Power of Ordination given unto Apostles Evangelists and Bishops which enables 'em to Ordain others not any alterable Circumstance which is observed in any of ' em In a word that Ordinary Officers may succeed Extraordinary Officers understand Extraordinary in the second signification before laid down must needs be confest by our Adversaries themselves I mean the Presbyterians They affirm and believe that they succeed the Apostles in the Office of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments of Ordaining Governing and exercising the Discipline of the Church With what Front then can any of 'em deny that Ordinary Officers and such at this day are they at the best may succeed Extraordinary ones in the exercise of an Ordinary Office Or with what Colour can they pretend that fixt Officers such are they themselves now as they believe cannot succeed those who were unfixt that is the Apostles So that these Quirks of Extraordinary and unsettled Officers are devis'd merely to disguise the Truth and gull the simple Part of Mankind into Schism and Errour The APPENDIX MR. O. thinks he presses very hard upon me when upon my supposing Evangelists to be a Species of Church-Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers in Eph. 4. 11. I must be forc'd to deny the Diocesan Bishops to be the Pastors of their 〈◊〉 Churches contrary to the Prayer in the Ember-Weeks Ans. The Good Man has I fear wilfully forgot what I discoursed about Pastors in T. N. to this effect that in Scripture Pastor is a common Name given to Superior and to Inferior Officers in the Church as Minister also is Here in the Epistle to the Ephesians it can mean none but the Ordinary Teachers Pastors and Teachers by the Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Importing the Ordinary Pres-byters for which reason Pastors is twice together left out 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. In after Ages it by degrees came to signify Bishops at least principally them and so as I reckon it is taken in this Sense in the Ember-Weeks Prayer Bishops and Pastors there signifying the same Church-Officers I say perhaps for tho' I will not assuredly affirm that by Pastors in that Collect is meant the Presbyters who assist at Ordinations and examine the Candidates for Orders and lay on hands with the Bishop yet the Prayer is capable of that Sense The Bishops and Pastors that is The Bishops and the Assisting Presbyters But Mr. O. adds If the Rector says they are both Pastors and Evangelists he confounds those Officers which the Apostle distinguisheth Ans. If what I said just now be not a sufficient Reply hereunto I add that one and the same Person may have distinct Offices and the distinct Titles belonging to those Offices John was an Apostle and an Evangelist Every Apostle was a Prophet was an Evangelist was a Pastor and Teacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles had all the Ministerial Powers And so had Evangelists all the Powers which their Inferior Officers had They were Pastors and Teachers Nor is this a Confounding the Officers because the Proposition is not convertible Though every Bishop or Evangelist is a Pastor also and Teacher
Apostolical Canon was in force before the Council of Nice then it was not the Nieene Council which altered the Alexandrian Custom as Eutychius and Selden suppose it having been a much more Ancient practise it seems for the Provincial Bishops to Ordain Bishops And so Eutychius is mistaken in this point also If ever there was such a Rule establish'd by Mark at Alexandria of Presbyters Ordaining Bishops or Presbyters it was changed before Alexander or the Nicene Council yea before St. Cyprian's time Eighthly Whereas Eutychius asserts there were no Bishops in Egypt till Demetrius it is proved to the contrary by that most Learned Prelate Bishop Pearson from several good Testimonies and particularly from the Vetus Vita Marci and Rabanus Maurus Abbot of Fulda of both which Mr. Selden likewise takes Notice The former writes thus Pentapolim pergit Marcus Ordinans Episcopos per Regiones illas Clericos iterum Alexandriam venit The latter thus Ordinaverat Marcus pro se Episcopum Annianum 〈◊〉 quoque longe lateque 〈◊〉 Episcopos Mr. Selden to avoid the force of these Testimonies has invented this Shift sc. that Mark made these Bishops in Pentapolis only and not in Egpyt If one ask'd why Mark should make Bishops in Pentapolis and not in 〈◊〉 also it would be hard for Mr. O. to give a satisfactory answer to it Besides 't is said that Mark made Bishops per Regiones illas doubtless the meaning is through all the Countries that he travelled between Alexandria and Pentapolis and surely Egypt was one of them And why should one Patriarch or Bishop suffice for Alexandria and all Egypt but not for Pentapolis Except Mr. O. would be so kind as to furnish us with so early an instance of a vast City and Province under the Government of one single Bishop It cannot then be questioned but that there were from the beginning Bishops in the Province of Egypt as well as one in the City of Alexandria Ninthly Whereas Eutychius says that Mark appointed the Twelve Presbyters to chuse their Patriarch and by Imposition of Hands and Prayers to Ordain him yet Bishop Pearson has produc'd several good Authorities to the contrary shewing they were not Ordained by the Presbyters as first the Apostolical Constitutions attest Of Abilius who succeeded Hananias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Jerom's Chronicle we read that Abilius was chosen ex Presbyteris 〈◊〉 Graecorum Traditionem a Sancto Luca Ordinatus est that is Abilius was chosen out of the Presbyters or from among them as Jerom has it not by 〈◊〉 and according to the Tradition of the Greek Church was Ordained by St. Luke Furthermore 〈◊〉 who wrote the Lives of the Alexandrian Patriarchs informs us that Cerdon who succeeded Abilius and Cerdon's Successors unto Demetrius were Ordained by the Bishops out of that Region that is Egypt I suppose By all which it appears that there were Bishops in Egypt before Demetrius who Ordained the Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria Tenthly It is not like that 〈◊〉 had any Authentick Records belonging to the Churches of Alexandria and Egypt the Saracens having destroy'd and burnt 'em all long before Eutychius was born so that where he wanders from the Truth or when he 〈◊〉 we must conclude he fram'd his Annals and Origines out of his own Brains or some uncertain Monkish Traditions and Legends then currant among them To conclude supposing the Alexandrian Presbyters by St. Mark' s appointment did Elect the Patriarch or Bishop yea and Ordain him too yet it must be confess'd that Bishops however chosen and Ordained are as early as he and by Divine Right St. Mark being a Person inspired and consequently having Authority from God at least from the Apostles to establish the Government of the Chuches which he founded with what Face then could Selden produce these Origines to justifie the Presbyterian design in the late Troubles I do not now say for altering the way of choosing and Ordaining them but for quite extirpating Episcopacy Or with what Colour of Reason can Mr. O. argue against Episcopacy and blame us for not observing the supposed Method of chusing and Ordaining our Bishops 〈◊〉 himself and his Partizans are undermining the Fabrick which St. Mark is confest to have built and levelling it to the very Foundation Let our Adversaries first conform themselves to this Rule of St. Mark let them in every City chuse and Ordain a Bishop for Life unto whom themselves and all the Faithful in the City and Country adjacent must be Subject and unto whose care and conduct the Administration of the Ecclesiastical Affairs may chiefly be committed and when they have done this then let them lay before us this special Author Eutychius It will be time enough then to consider farther of him Mean while it seems not fair nor honest to bring this Fabulous instance on the Stage against us which they themselves will not be guided by The 〈◊〉 is Eutychius of whom we have been speaking liv'd about 900 Years distance from the 〈◊〉 by him related without any intermediate Testimony to confirm his story He differs in many things from several good Authors of much more credit than himself He relates things against the Faith of all History he contradicts himself 〈◊〉 own story 〈◊〉 its self he intermixes many little Foolish and very improbable Remarks he is contradicted by more Ancient Writers yea and more unquestionable than himself Jerom whose design and Argument needed it makes no mention of that Constitution of St. Mark and lastly the Dissenters themselves observe it not By this instance therefore 〈◊〉 they do us harm they do themselves no good yea rather hereby they condemn themselves But Lastly against the Testimony of 〈◊〉 I lay that of 〈◊〉 Echellensis de Orig. Alexand. Ecl. which I borrow from the Bishop of Worcester Echellensis tells us out of Severns Alex. Bishop of the Asmonaeans and of the Sect of the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 that after the Death of the Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to Election The first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to chuse their Bishop and to the other Bishops in Egypt to consecrate him To which the Bishops then present assented only saying if he were worthy they would consecrate him whom they chose but not otherwise So then they had it seems a Negative Voice in the Election And Elmachinus makes this a Constitution of St. Mark in the first Foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the Nicene Council about which time it was ordered that the Bishop might be chosen from any place or Church whatever and this was all the Alteration in the Constitution of the Alexandrian Church at the Council of Nice whatever Selden or Eutycbius say to the contrary CHAP IV. Of the Syriac Translation of the New Testament MR. O. argues that the the Syriac 〈◊〉 which is so very Ancient that is comes nearest in time to the Original useth not two Words
I. 1. ch 13. That by the Pope Palladius was sent primus Episcopus ad Scotos Creden tes therefore the Scots were Christians before Palladius Ans. If this Testimony be adduced to any purpose 't is to prove that the Tramontane Picts received Palladius their first Bishop from 〈◊〉 the Roman 〈◊〉 that before that time they believed and had Presbytery only but no Bishops because Palladius was the first Now to shew the Disingenuity of this Suggestion it must be noted very briefly out of the Historical Account that by Scots are here meant the Scots in Ireland that Bede has not a word of their form of Government that some Copies read ad Scotos convertendos which would imply that they were not yet Christians that primus in Prosper whence Bede is thought to have taken his Narrative in some Copies is read primitus that is formerly that Palladius and Patricius were designed for the Primates only or the first Bishops in rank and finally that 't is true Palladius was the first Bishop sent into Ireland by the Pope Yet there were Bishops before that Time of which Number Archbishop Usher produces Four This was the first attempt of reducing Ireland to the Obedience of the Pope I 'll say nothing of Mr. O's confessing Palladius was sent into Ireland Plea 148. Mr. O. now promises us an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland 't is that of Segenius a 〈◊〉 and the Abbot of Hy who with other Presbyters Ordained Bishop Aidan and Finan Bede H. E. l. 3. 5 15 Ans. But Mr. O. acknowledges that there were Bishops at Hy and in that Province from Bede lib. 3. ch 4. and the Ulster Annals agree hereunto What need we say any more to resolve this difficulty Some Bishop with the Abbot and his Presbyters laying hands on as our Custom is at this Day Ordained Aidan For to what purpose were these Bishops among them if not to Ordain The Government was in the Abbots Hands the Presbyters were able to Minister in the Word and Sacraments The Bishops bufiness then was certainly to Ordain Mr. O. excepts against the Ulster Annals as not being attested by any Author of that Age And yet they agree in most things with Adamnanus and with 〈◊〉 and are a little relied on by Archbishop Usher Mr. O. urges a Bishop being supposed in the Monastery at Hy He was subject to the Abbot and thinks he has here sufficiently reply'd to My Lord of St. Asaph's Solution of that difficulty I do therefore add thereto Ans. Nothing is more certain than that Bishops were wont to be in Monasteries I read in Theodoret of eleven residing in those of Egypt from their Youth up to their Extreame Old Age and when they were Bishops too Theod. E. H. l. 4. ch 22. Now though the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot of Hy yet it must remembred also that the Abbots Jurisdiction extended it self throughout the Province No wonder then if the Provincial Bishops were 〈◊〉 to the Abbots Rule and Order required thus much If one of our English Bishops should 〈◊〉 into a College of Oxford and readmit himself a Member of the University He becomes thereby subject unto the Head of that College and to the Chancellor within the Precincts of the University And that I may not fain a case some of our Bishops have held a Prebendary of a Collegiate Church in Commendam He is thereby subject to the Dean therein all matters belonging to that Church even as 〈◊〉 says the Provincial Bishops were to the Abbots of Hy viz. within the Abbot's Jurisdiction But we know for all this the Chancellor of Oxford and the Dean of a Cathedral cannot Ordain Besides the Abbots of Hy though they retained an External Government over all in the Province the Bishops not excepted Yet as to the Episcopal and Ministerial Acts of Religion in that Age belonging to Bishops the Abbots gave place to Bishops as 〈◊〉 appear from the following story in My Lord of St. Asaph It was it seems the Custom at that time for the Priests being all equals to break the Lord's Bread in the 〈◊〉 together A certain Bishop being then at Hy and not discovering his Character was by Columba invited to break the Lord's Bread with him But Columba at length discerning him to be a Bishop would have the Bishop break the Bread alone as Bishops then used to do which shews that notwithstanding the Abbots Temporal Jurisdiction as I may call it Columba acknowledged the Episcopal Order to be Superior to that of a Presbyter Lastly Bede's inusitato more for the right understanding whereof I refer to the Historical Account implies that this was but one singular and unprecedented example One Swallow and such a one as was never seen before does not make a Summer One might then here justly cry out with 〈◊〉 Quid mibi profers 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae consuetudinem Cum 〈◊〉 Turba 〈◊〉 and the Whole World was Episcopal The first person sent into Northumberland from Hy was one described only but without a Name in Bede Returning back to Hy without 〈◊〉 Aidan is appointed and Ordained unto the Episcopacy in whose Ordination it is probable his Predecessor a Bishop was concerned for he was then present among them Mr. O. alledges he is called only 〈◊〉 a Priest but this is disputing a small point by Halves for if Aidan was a Bishop so was his 〈◊〉 And of Aidan 't is said Ipsum esse dignum Episcopatu and then in the next Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aidan at his Ordination 〈◊〉 Antistes So then in Bede's Language Antistes is a Bishop and the nameless Person we speak of is called so a little 〈◊〉 He was therefore a Bishop if Aidan was Lastly Aidan belike was a Presbyter before he was Ordained Bishop of Northumbria if so to what purpose was he Ordained if not to a distinct Office I do suppose all Mr. 〈◊〉 Material Objections are accounted for by this time and his Proofs of Presbyterian Ordination invalidated I will conclude this Chapter with two Observations First It cannot with any reason be imagined but that there were Bishops in the Province of Hy because Columba the first Abbot thereof came out of Ireland there we read of Bishops among whom he was educated convers't freely with them and was Ordained by them He was Ordained Deacon by Finian Bishop of Meath and was an Intimate Friend of Columbanus Bishop of Laghlin and Ordained Presbyter by one of them most probably by Columbanus from whom also he might take his Name as Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea did that of Pamphilus Hist. Account c. 5. After he was Abbot of Hy he propagated Bishops among the Northumbrians from whom our English Saxons derived On this account it was my Lord of St. Asaph argued that the Scotch Ordinations must needs be Episcopal meaning those at Hy which he confirmed by this Consideration because the Romans Austin the Monk and his Associates did not
the thing affirmed by Mr. O. without any ground or Reason produced out of these Epistles Whoever will impartially read St. Cyprian must confess he is intirely Ours Among all others he is the most hearty and Zealous Assertor of Episcopacy tho' he used and exerted his Power with exemplary Humility and Moderation The Rector in T. N. observed that in the Epistles to Timothy and 〈◊〉 no share in the Government of these Churches was given to the Presbytery whereby is signified at least that these two were the Supreme or Principal Rulers of those Churches committed to their Charge After this the Rector granted nevertheless that the Presbyters were not ought not to be utterly precluded from all interest in the Government of the Church as appears from the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. Hereunto after some Cavils and charging me with contradicting my self I leave that to the Judgment of the Reader the Minister gravely admonishes us that Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters and without the Consent of the People Epistle 6. Erasm. Ans. 1. This Passage proves not that the Presbyters were equal unto St. Cyprian it may as well be said the People were equal both to the Presbyters and to St. Cyprian All that can hence be gathered is what I intimated and granted before that the Presbyters have a subordinate 〈◊〉 in the Government and are as a standing Council to the Bishop but the Bishop is the Supreme and Principal 'T is so in our Civil Government especially when we have a Wise and Good King He does nothing of moment without the advice of his Peers and Consent of his People in Parliament 2. It may be questioned whether St. Cyprian thought himself in strictness obliged to this or whether it was his own Voluntary and prudent Resolution and Condescention unto his Presbytery and People The whole passage runs thus Solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro Presbyterorum sine consensu plebis 〈◊〉 privatâ sententiâ gerere Wherein is intimated that he took this Course not as obliged thereunto by any Law but by a Rule he had of his own accord laid down to himself and so would not without necessity depart from it For 3. St. Cyprian did take upon himself sometimes on extraordinary Occasions to dispatch some Ecclesiastical Affairs without the Consent of his Presbyters and People as in the Ordination of Aurelius the Lector which notwithstanding were valid 4. The Council and Consent of the Presbyters and People were only required and admitted in Testimony of the Manners Age Merits and Qualifications of such as were to be Ordained of which we just now spoke the Power of Ordination still remaining 〈◊〉 the Hands of the Bishop as may be seen in the Epistles cited in the Margin CHAP. VII Of the Scythians MR O. very positively after Blundel asserts that The Power of Ordination and Government was in the Hands of Captive Presbyters under the Scythians beyond Ister for about 70 Years from the Year 260 to the Year 327. Now if this were as certainly true as Blundel and Mr. O. have confidently reported out of the Historian it would do them no Service at all forasmuch as it is not deny'd but that Christians in Captivity and under other necessities also may govern themselves and Worship God without Bishops yea without Presbyters and without Deacons so our Lord has determined in general God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice But not to insist on this let us see with what Artifice these two Gentlemen have misrepresented and corrupted Philostorgius on whom they Father the foresaid Story To this end I will make him speak English Philostorgius saith that Ulphilas one of the Transistrian Scythians who by the Ancients are called Getae but now Goths brought over into the Roman soil a very great multitude of Men who had been thrust out of their Native Country for the sake of Religion that the Nation of the Scythians formerly embraced the Christian Faith on the following Occasion When Valerianus and Gallienus were Emperors a vast multitude of Scythians living beyond Ister Cross'd that River into the Roman Empire and by their Excursions infested a great part of Europe After that having sailed over the Hellespont into Asia they invaded Galatia and Cappadocia And having made very many Captives among whom were some of the Clergy they returned into their own Country with much prey Wherefore those Captives and Holy Men thus mixt with the Barbarians brought over not a few of them unto true Piety and Godliness and perswaded them that instead of the Gentile Superstition they would embrace the Christian Religion Of the number of those Cap. tives were the Ancestors of Ulphilas This Ulphilas therefore was the Leader of those Holy Men who lately came out of Gothia or Scythia and was their first Bishop constituted after this manner When by the King of the Goths he was sent Embassador with some others unto the Emperor Constantine he was Ordained by Eusebius and other Bishops with him Bishop of those who became Christians in Gothia and were now past over the River Danube into the Empire this multitude of Refugees the Emperor plac'd in Maesia that is on the Roman side and Bank of Ister There is nothing more Material in this story as 't is delivered by Philostorgius Upon this passage then I observe as follows First That Philostorgius was by the Ancients noted for an Impudent Lying and Impious Historian and therefore his Relations not easily to be credited especially in the matter now before us Philostorgius's business was to advance the Name and reputation of Ulphilas being a profess'd Arian as well as himself was and therefore he remembers that Constantine called him Moses and caused him to be Ordained the first Bishop of the Christian Scythians or Goths The latter of which I shall by and by shew is not true not in the sense Blondel would have it Secondly That Philostorgius in the foresaid Relation is singular and by himself none of the Ecclesiastical Historians before or after him making any mention of the things related concerning Ulphilas and this is enough to bring him into suspicion when he commends Ulphilas as the first Bishop of the Goths or Scythian Christians Thirdly Not to insist on either of the former Observations but allowing Philostorgius to be a faithful Historian and taking the matter of Fact as granted I farther note that Philostorgius speaks of Clergy-Men in General carried into Captivity not mentioning the particular Species So that among the Captivated Clergy-Men there might be Bishops and there might not be Presbyters for any thing Philostorgius has said or Mr. O. can tell It is not to be gathered from him that Ulphilas himself was so much as a Presbyter when he first went unto Constantine Jeroms Adversaries therefore might with as much Truth and for the Honour of Deacons have hence concluded that the
because it was a Fundamental Law in the Church that there ought not to be two Bishops in one Diocess with plentitude of Power it being impossible to serve two Masters therefore these 〈◊〉 were intirely under the Jurisdiction of the City Bishops who were indeed the 〈◊〉 There is not any Monument of Antiquity that I am aware of from whence we may better understand the Nature of these Chorepiscopi than the Canon of the Council of Antioch which I will therefore transcribe at length into English They who reside in Villages and in the Country or are called Chorepiscopi although Ordained by Bishops it pleaseth the Holy Synod that they know their own Measures and govern the Churches subjected to them and rest content with that care and Administration that they constitute Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and be satisfy'd with this Power not daring to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon without the express consent of the Bishop of the City unto which both he the Chorepiscopus and the Country belong But let the Country Bishop be under the Bishop of the City to which he is Subject Now the main Question is whether these Chorepiscopi were real Bishops Superior to and distinguished from Presbyters and in whom was lodged the Episcopal Character and Power The Affirmative is proved by the following Arguments 1. I consider that the Title of Bishop and the Power of Ordaining Presbyters was then acknowledged to be in 'em which I can never be induced to believe would have been granted them at that time of Day if they were meer Presbyters They were under the same Bishop as the City Presbyters were How came they to have that Honourable Title bestowed on them which the City Presbyters had not Were the Country Presbyters such the Chorepiscopi were according to Mr. O. far more Honourable and better deserving the Title of Bishop then the City Presbyters were I can imagine no other reason of this but because they had received the true stamp and Character of Bishops had an inherent habitual Power to do whatever any Diocesan could and more than any meer Presbyter was able to do Only as yet they were not Diocesan Bishops having no Independent Diocesses of their own to Govern and by consequence were under some limitations which Diocesans were not 2. I remember that by the same Conncil of Antioch they were allowed to give Pacifick Letters to the Clergy to go into other Diocesses which in those Days the Bishops only could do and which was one of the Episcopal Prerogatives 3. Again the 10th Canon of Antioch decrees that the Chorepiscopi although they had received imposition of Hands by Bishops may not dare to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon the obvious meaning whereof is that although the Chorepiscopi were Ordained Bishops 〈◊〉 they might not Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without leave from the Diocesan If a Chorepiscopus received the real Character or Power of a Bishop he might be apt to think and conclude with himself that he might Ordain Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Diocesan being of the same Order with him No says the Canon And the Reason of this Prohibition is manifest because at present he acted only as a Comminister and Assistant in anothers Diocess where he might not exert his Episcopal Power without Licence from the Diocesan nor could do it without Breach of the Peace and Order of the Church We have something of this kind even among our selves at this day A Diocesan Bishop out of his own Diocess and whilst he abides in another Mans can't Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without 〈◊〉 from the proper Bishop and something of this Nature I find in the 18th Canon of Ancyra where a Presbyter being supposed to be Ordained Bishop for another Diocess but rejected is permitted to return to his former Post but still to as be a Presbyter though retaining his Episcopal Honour and Character One may then be a real Bishop and have the habitual Power and Intrinsick Character of a Bishop and yet can't put forth the Act and Ordain in anothers Diocess There is no reason he should it would breed Confusion 4. Chorepiscopi were real Bishops because they had an equal Right and Authority to assist vote decree and confirm Canons at Councils as Diocesan Bishops had Divers of them subscribed the Council of Nice It must be confess'd that meer Presbyters did so likewise but it was in the Name and stead of their Principals as their very subscriptions shew Thus Vito or Victor and Vincentius Presbyters and Pope Sylvester's Legates subscribed the Nicene Synod yet added to their common Names Romanus or Roma missus So in the Council of Carthage Anno 419. two Roman Presbyters and Legates of the Pope did Philippus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae Asellus Presbyter Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae But the Chorepiscopi subscribed in their own Names without mentioning any Delegation at all and therefore acted by their own proper inherent Authority and by consequence were real Bishops Having I presume proved that the Chorepiscopi had the True Episcopal Character impress'd on them I come to consider what advantage Mr. O. would make of ' em In the first place from the 10th Canon of Ant. A. D. 344 or 341 he lays it down that the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by that Canon I agree with Mr. O. so far that 't is very likely the Chorepiscopi presumed to Ordain Presbyters in another Bishop's Diocess until they were prohibted by this Canon It was necessary they should be restrained for the peace and good Order of the Church from having an uncontroulable Liberty of Ordaining in another Bishops Diocess and without his consent The rule is highly reasonable and observed to this Day However this be the Canon will do Mr. O. no service if the Chorepiscopi were real Bishops and more than Presbyters of which I have already produced sufficient proof Again Mr. O. gathers that if these Chorepiscopi were Bishops then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country villages This I grant also unto Mr. O. but it nothing concerns the Matter in Hand We must Distinguish between Diocesan Bishops whose seat and Principal Church was oft-times in Villages and the Chorepiscopi who were not Diocesans but the Comministri and Vicarii of the City Bishops Now how far the Delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus extended no one alive can tell at this Day 'T is nothing likely that it was confined to one Village only as Mr. O. contends though haply his Ordinary Residence and particular care might be in some Country-Town where he discharged the Ordinary Duty of a Presbyter and on that score may be accounted as a Country Presbyter under the City Bishop such at this day is even a Diocesan Bishop who is by Commendam possest of a Rectory in anothers Diocess He can Act there but as a Presbyter except he has leave from the proper Bishop For
called a Bishop when he was not so much as a Presbyter From all which we think the case as before stated is clear But Blondel contends That Colluthus was a real Bishop Ordained by Melitius though Shismatically which is only a Canonical Irregularity but however he was Episcopally Ordained and a real though Schismatical Bishop That if he had out-lived this storm raised against him by the Alexandrian Synod he must have been a partaker of the favour granted to such by the Nicene Fathers and by consequence would have been a Bishop though created Schismatically and therefore that Ischyras if at all Ordained by Colluthus was Episcopally Ordained and so could not be deposed for being Ordained by a Presbyter but as Schismatically Ordained by a Bishop in Schism The design of all which is to wrest out of our Hands this Weapon and to make it believed that the case reaches not Ordination by Presbyters For Blundel is very positive and thus expresses himself It is false and frivolous to assert that Ischyras was no Presbyter simply for this one reason that he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter Because Colluthus was a real Bishop after what manner created is little to the Point In Answer hereunto and to evince that this is a Clever Instance in Antiquity against Ordinations by Presbyters I will reduce the Whole case into three Questions 1. Whether Colluthus was ever Ordained Bishop by Melitius 2. Whether Ischyras was ever Ordained Presbyter by Colluthus 3. Supposing he was not whether Ischyras became a Laic for want of any Ordination or because Schismatically Ordained by a Schismatical Bishop or lastly because Ordained by a Presbyter only Qu. 1. 〈◊〉 Whether Colluthus was ever Ordained Bishop by Melitius Ans. Never For he is all along called Presbyter never Bishop nor Schismatical Bishop He is described as one that took upon him the Episcopacy personated and pretended to be what he was not a Bishop If he had been a real though Schismatically Ordained Bishop he could not have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have Acted the part of a Bishop which implys he was not really one No body ever called 〈◊〉 Bishop though Schismatical a counterfeit or Phantastical one there being a vast difference 〈◊〉 these two Lastly if Colluthus had been a real Bishop though Schismatical then Ischyras Ordained by him ought to have been partaker of the Nicene Indulgence as other 〈◊〉 Schismaticks were but Ischyras was not in the number of those recieved by Alexander and therefore Colluthus was not a Real Bishop Against all this is it will haply be replyed as Blundel has endeavoured to prove that Melitius in his Breviculum presented unto Alexander owned Colluthus as one of those Bishops which He had Ordained Ans. 1. Here lies the Knavery For 't is not Colluthus but Caluthus who is mentioned in the Breviculum And least this should be thought a mistake in Writing or in Printing I undertake to prove beyond all Contradiction that they were different Persons however if not different in Name also For 't is granted by Blundel and in its self manifest that our Colluthus died before the Synod of Nice broke up or Alexander returned into Egypt and demanded of Melitius this Breviculum But the Caluthus named in the Breviculum when Melitius brought it to Alexander now returned from Nice into Egypt was then alive So it follows in Athanasius immediately after the Breviculum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Persons then present Melitius brought unto Alexander the Bishop So that as the Accusers of Athanasius pretended he had Killed Arsenius though Arsenius was then alive Even so by a contrary Artifice Blundel will have our Colluthus alive Though he was already Dead whosoever then were Ordained by our Colluthus were Ordained by a meer Presbyter Qu. 2. 2. Whether Ischyras was ever Ordained Presbyter by Colluthus Ans. That he was no Presbyter is so often affirmed that we need not trouble our selves to enquire farther into that matter However that he was Ordained by Colluthus because Blundel is inclined to believe not will require a little proof And 1. I note that though Athanasius plainly enough denies he was at all a Presbyter yet still with respect to Melitius who 't is certain did not Ordain him Ischyras lays He is no manner of way a Presbyter because he was not mentioned in the Breviculum or Register of those whom Meltitus Ordained This Argument which he brings here shews Ischyras was not Ordained a Presbyter by Melitius But 't is no proof against Colluthus his Ordaining of him neither did or could Athanasius mean so Thus the Sardick Fathers He never was a Presbyter of Melitius 2. Ischyras gave out himself that he was a Presbyter of Colluthus his Ordainnig The Arrians and Melitians called him Presbyter on that account 3. Though none but himself the Eusebians and Melitians and a few of his Relations called Ischyras a Presbyter yet the Orthodox affirm he was Ordained by Colluthus The Council of Alexandria admitting that he had been Ordained by Colluthus conclude he was no Presbyter but deny not that he was Ordained by Collutbus the Presbyter and for that reason Ischyras though Ordained was indeed no Presbyter The Mareotic Presbyters and 〈◊〉 say plainly He was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus who counterfeited Himself a Bishop and moreover add that all Ordained by Colluthus and among the rest Ischyras became and were mere Laics 'T is evident then that Ischyras was Ordained by Colluthus and yet was not a Presbyter because Colluthus himself was but a Presbyter 4. Supposing Ischyras was not really Ordained by Colluthus the point will come to the same Issue For the Alexandrian Synod not troubling themselves to enquire into the matter of Fact but taking it for granted that he was Ordained it was the same thing with them they pronounced the Sentence against Him that he was not a Presbyter because he was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus and so he appeared a meer Laic Qu. 3. 3. Whether Ischycas was declared a meer Laic either because not Ordained at all or because Schismatically Ordained or else because he was Ordained by a Presbyter only viz. Colluthus Ans. It having been proved that Colluthus was no Bishop that Ischyras was Ordained by him at least supposed by the Synod of Alexandria to have been Ordained by him the first part of the Question is at an end it was not because he had not been Ordained at all and then I affirm he became a Laic not simply because he was Schismatically Ordained but because he was Ordained by a Presbyter who had no competent power to Ordain at all For 1. Colluthus is ever called Presbyter not once Bishop or Schismatical Bishop that I find or barely 〈◊〉 or Catholick Presbyter or one that counterfeited himself a Bishop as in the Synodical Letter of the Alexandrian Fathers and by the Presbyters and
have admitted that the Presbyters of Alexandria chose their Patriarch and then Mr. O. argues That Jerom makes this an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Ans. Whatever may be inferred from Jerom I am very sure this is no good Argument for the Identity and Equality of Bishops and Presbyters For it is plain that Ordinary Deacons were not the same nor equal to Arch-deacons nor the Army to the Emperor as I have occasionally observ'd elsewhere although the Deacons chose their Arch-deacons and the Army set up the Emperor For to what purpose is an Arch-Deacon chosen or a General if they be but still equal to the Army and to the Deacons if they have no power over them There is a memorable Story to our purpose of the Emperor Valentinian He had been chosen Emperor by the Army The Soldiers afterwards demanded of him to chuse and receive a Partner in the Government to which he reply'd It was in your choice fellow Soldiers whether you would chuse me Emperor or not but since you have chosen me what you require is in my power not yours and ye ought to rest contented as good Subjects But to return unto Jerom. I have shew'd before out of him that the Apostles made Bishops what then is become of this Argument for Parity in all the Churches of the World except Alexandria But if Jerom contradicts himself past all relief I cannot help it Yet again Why may not one imagine that Jerom's principal aim being to maintain the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons he noted that at Alexandria the Bishop was chosen not out of the Deacons but unum ex se viz. out of the Presbyters Ay but 't will be reply'd that Jerom in this Epistle design'd to prove that Bishops and Presbyters were at first the same and that to other Arguments for their Identity he subjoyns this Story of the Church of Alexandria I reply not so if Mr. O. will allow me to reconcile Jerom with himself I am not indeed able to account for Jerom when he proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters from sundry places of Scripture the Epistles of Peter and Paul and St. John and yet gives us a Catalogue of several Bishops in that time But this I say Jerom after he had advanc'd the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons in that Epistle to Evagrius telling us there was a time when Bishops and Presbyters were the same He proceeds to argue from the Church of Alexandria that there even to Heraclas and Dionysius for 200 Years the Bishops were chosen out of the Presbyters not out of the Deacons which Observation was not designed to prove the Presbyterian Identity nor the Parity but the Honour given to the Presbyters above Deacons because the Patriarch was for a long while chosen out of their Number only Lastly Let what will become of Jerom and his Arguments this is sure and confessed on all Hands there were always Bishops of Alexandria from the beginning of their Conversion by Mark. It no manner of way belongs to the present Controversy how or by whom chosen and set up If the Scripture shall be thought not to have determin'd this point I mean what way and bywhom the Bishops shall be Constituted it is then in the Church to determine but not utterly to lay them aside But Mr. O. goes on We read not of any other Consecration of the Bishops of Alexandria than the Presbyters Election and their placing him in an higher Degree and naming him Bishop No has Mr. O. forgot or did he not know till aster he had thus shot his Bolt that according to Eutychius cited this very 128th p. that by the Institution of Mark The Presbyters when the Patriarchship was vacant chose one of their Number on whose Head they laid their Hands and blessed him and created him Patriarch And if this be true Jerom forgot a very material thing that would have made for the Honour of Presbyters and their Identity with Bishops and Mr. O. forgot another that of the Presbyters imposing Hands on their new Patriarch which I take to be somewhat more than Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop Mr. O. proves there was anciently no other Consecration but Electing Placing and Naming him Bishop from the Testimony of Polydor Virgil who in his Book de Invent. rerum l. 4. c. 6. 〈◊〉 says Mr. O. that anciently in making Bishops there were no Ceremonies used c. Ans. Mr. O. has a Knack above all other Men to misrepresent Authors And though I resolved not to concern my self with late Writers Yet being Polydor was in his time a Learned Man and of no small Reputation in the Roman Church of Engl. I will with Mr. O. pay some deference to his Testimony and Character Let us then hear what Polydor has delivered in the place cited He tells That Jesus Christ created twelve Pontiffs whom he called Apostles also Seventy Disciples whom he made Sacerdotes Priests that from these latter the Order of Presbyters arose that the Apostles and Disciples were not admitted into their Office by any other Rites save only the Election or Institution of Christ. Which Polydor proves immediately after from the practice of the Apostles in taking Matthias into their Number and instituting the Seven Deacons Let us run through Polydor's Argument backward and see what it says The Apostles imposed Hands on the Seven Deacons therefore on Matthias and by consequence according to Virgil so did Christ lay Hands on the Apostles and Seventy Disciples So that this Authority out of Polydor recoils upon himself Indeed Mr. O. owns as much But then thereby he destroys his own propositition which is We know no other Ceremony but Election c. But is not Impositiof Hands a Ceremony and more than Electing placing and nominating him Bishop I am perswaded it is a Ceremony Thus Mr. O. confutes himself when he pretends to confirm his Opinion I cannot pass by one thing which Polydor very falsly tacks to his Discourse here concerning the Original of Imposition of Hands which he derives from our Lord and his Apostles but adds atque hinc olim factum c. hence it came about that 〈◊〉 it was an Old Ecclesiastical Practice in Consecrating a Bishop the Presbyters imposed Hands and for this cites Cyprian's fourth Epistle to Felix in the Oxford Ed. the 67. 'T is pity Mr. O. stumbled not upon this Hint of Virgils In appearance 't is better then any He has produced in his Plea But the comfort is there is nothing like this to be found in that Epistle and this I thought proper to Note to the End no new trouble should be created me upon Virgil's Authority Mr. O. Jerom saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius What Custom Not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People For that continued long after therefore it must be be the 〈◊〉 of Bishops which afterwards was done by Neighbouring Bishops in
the way of Consecration that is laying on of Hands as I apprehend Mr. O. Hence we must learn that before Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops were not consecrated by Imposition of Hands but barely elected c. that after 〈◊〉 and Dionysius the Custom was altered and then they were Consecrated by Neighbouring Bishops with Imposition of Hands Ans. Jerom teaches us no such thing He is here only falling upon a new Argument as I said before to advance the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons sc. that at Alexandria the Bishops were always chosen ex se out of the Presbyters says Eutychius not out of the Deacons though the Custom was afterwards changed about the time of Heraclas and Dionysius or not until Alexander as 〈◊〉 Nevertheless were Bishops from the beginning Consecrated by laying on of Hands for any thing Jerom intimates and which Eutychius has affirmed as may also be reasonably presumed and gathered from the practice of the Apostles recorded in the Epistles to Timothy yea and from Jerom himself in the following Period excepta Ordinatione Eutychius his Words are the Eleven Presbyters laid their Hands on the Bishop Elect and Blessed and Created him Patriarch This Rule was made by Mark himself Mr. O. after a long Quotation out of Eutychius thus Triumphs Here is a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer Ans. 1. And here is a full proof that Bishops were from the beginning and were Created also by Imposition of Hands which Mr. O. just before denyed upon the Authority of Jerom and was now to have proved if he had stuck close to his Argument But it must be confess'd Eutychius does assert the Alexandrian Presbyters chose and created their own Bishops by Imposition of Hands and Benediction Wherefore 2. not to insift any more on the incompetency of Eutychius his Authority a late obscure and false Historian I ask how Mr. O. will be able to reconcile Jerom with Eutychius the former affirming as Mr. O. understands him that the Presbyters chose and set up their Bishops unto Heraclas and Dionysius then it seems this Custom ceas'd the latter unto Alexander That is to say Eutychius will have this Custom to have continued 90 Years longer then Jerom assigned it Eutychius says the Presbyters all that while Ordained their Patriarchs by imposition of Hands Jerom no such matter but rather the Contrary They only as Mr. O. will have it chose placed and named him Bishop We must then dismiss them both as the Evangelist did the Witnesses against our Lord their Witness does not agree together I only add that the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council seems to overturn at least Eutychius his Testimony Let the Ancient Customs continue which I understand of all things established by this Synod and among the rest that of the Neighbouring Bishops in Egypt Ordaining the Patriarchs of Alexandria For if this Synod as Eutychius believed at the motion of Alexander the Patriarch had altered the Old Custom with what Face could they have laid down this Rule Let the Ancient Customs continue Or was it Wisdom to exasperate the Alexandrians with a New decree when they were already engaged in Schisms and Contentions about the Melitian Ordinations To shut up this Chapter whatever Jerom shall be made to say concerning the Alexandrian Presbyters chusing placing and nominating their Bishop he no where affirms they Ordained him by imposition of Hands and Prayer He acquaints us that the Apostles Ordained Bishops in their Time not the College of Presbyters If afterwards the Presbyters of Alexandria chose and created their Bishop by Imposition of Hands it was at best but an Ecclesiastical Indulgence for which there is no Rule or Precedent to be found in Scripture or in the Apostles Days But I am well satisfy'd that in truth there could be no such Liberty allowed them Neque 〈◊〉 aliquid cuiquam largiri potest Humana 〈◊〉 ubi intercedit Legem tribuit divina proescriptio This Principle of St. Cyprians who flourished about 250 shews also that in the Days of Heraclas and Dionysius that is Anno 222 the Bishops had not yet taken upon them to dispense with any Divine Precept and therefore could not have given or decreed unto Bishops the sole Inherent Power of Ordination or restrain'd the Presbyters if they had any Title to it from the Apostles CHAP. XIII Of the Carthaginian Councils IT were to be wish'd that when Men built an Argument upon the Testimony of an Author they would 〈◊〉 read and weigh him and be sure to understand him too before they pretend to bring him forth as a Witness unto the matter in Controversy And also that they would let him speak the Whole Truth But in the next instance Mr. O. seems to have overlook'd both these necessary Precautions and has at Adventures produc'd a Scrap of a Testimony in favour of himself as he thinks but which in the end will prove fatal to his Cause and will confirm the World in the Belief that he is either very rash and ignorant in his own Quotations or that he will stick at nothing so he may seem to support his own Opinion The Fathers says He in the second Council of Carthage Anno 428 did observe That until that time some Diocesses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Jure Divino I agree with Mr. O. in the Deduction he has made provided the Premises were true To make these good therefore he quotes that Canon aforesaid thus placet ut Dioceses quae 〈◊〉 Episcopos acceperunt non habeant Whoever first formed this Argument against Episcopacy has grosly abused his Reader and the the Council too Mr. O. perhaps borrowed it of Mr. Baxter or some such kind of Author whose Interest and Partiality will not suffer them to let the Reader see the whole Period least at the same time he should discern the Truth and themselves be found Guilty of Falsification which I doubt not to make out in a few Words To which end I will take the Liberty to lay the Canon before the Reader in its own Language For though the African Fathers used the Latin Tongue yet all the Latin Copies among us at this Day were derived from the Greek Version as Justellus tells us which is therefore the most Authentick and ought to be accounted of greatest Authority The said Canon therefore runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English thus It was determined that the People in the Diocesses not the Diocesses having formerly belong'd to Bishops but never having had a proper Bishop of their own should not have now for the Future their own proper Rectors that 's to say Bishops except by the Consent of that Bishop under whose Jurisdiction at present they are From whence it appears
Anglorum Ecclesia in qua solus tu Episcopus inveniris Ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi sine Episcopis potes Doubtless then the meaning of the Canons must be that in Ordinary and when it may be with convenience three Bishops are requir'd to the Consecration of a Bishop though even one in the case of Necessity be sufficient I will not affirm there was a necessity in the case of Pelagius because there was no necessity he should be Bishop of Rome yet after his Consecration the wise Italians might judge it necessary to overlook the later Canons and confirm his Consecration rather than create an Anti-Pope and a Schism in the Church Pelagius then was a Canonical Bishop according to the Apostolical Canon though not Canonically Ordained according to the strictness of the Nicene Canon But it will be demanded why did not Pelagius content himself with two Bishops but took in a Presbyter to assist in the Ordination The reason is plain because Pelagius being a wise Man as is to be presumed though not so good as were to be wished would give his Adversaries as little occasion as was possible to quarrel at his 〈◊〉 If therefore he could not get three Bishops he at least procured two and a third Person and so came as near to the Nicene Canon as he could He observed the number though not the exact Qualification of the Ordainers and so vary'd as little from the Rule as might be Hereby he made account to impose upon the ignorant Multitude who 't is likely were the principal Spectators of the Solemnity of his Ordination For the Clergy would not be present to countenance his Ordination whom they hated CHAP. XVIII Of the Waldenses the Boyarians the Lollards and some other People who separated themselves from the Roman Communion OF the Waldenses Mr. O. speaks in his Preface page 1. c. and in the Plea p. 156 to the effect following That the Vaudois or Waldenses have had no other Ministers for near 500 Years past than Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops that they maintain all Ministers to be in a state of Parity that their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination that the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers from these Waldenses And for the truth of all this he quotes Perrin's History of the Waldenses Of what Authority Perrin is may be hence guessed that the Synod which set him on work disapproved it as I am told or whether Mr. O. has given us an honest and fair Account of him I know not I am a Stranger to that Author nor can I hereabouts light on him neither am I very much concerned about any thing he says which is so late sc. according to Mr. O's Computation near 1200 Years after Christ and so obscure that no weight can be laid upon the Argument drawn from the Practice of these Waldenses I say obscure For they being a poor and illiterate thin scatter'd and harassed People and almost always under Persecution it is Morally impossible they should have an exact History of themselves transmitted unto these last Ages especially considering that their Enemies the Papists made it their business to destroy the most ancient Records of that People and as Sir S. Morland testifies the most that is known of them is supposed generally to be taken out of their Adversaries Writings who will sometimes make bold to load those who separate from them with Calumnies and fasten on them odd Opinions meerly to expose and render them the more odious Lastly although I do not delight to detract from their Merits yet I see no great reason for those excessive Commendations some think 〈◊〉 to bestow on them when I call to mind that at the time when the Fratres Bohemi became 〈◊〉 acquainted with them they found the Waldenses taking the Liberty of going to Mass and joyning with the Papists in their Idolatrous Worship Nevertheless these Exceptions set apart what I find in such Authors as are at hand shall here be produced to confront the others cited by Mr. O. to the end the Reader may judge whether Mr. O. and his Author Perrin have made a faithful Report of the Waldensian Churches at least whether it may not truly be affirmed that the History of that People is so uncertain that no Argument can thence be drawn to countenance the Presbyterian Government and Ordination by meer Presbyters Sir Sam. Morland in his History of the Waldenses shews that Claudius Archbishop of Turin was a great Promoter of true Doctrine against Roman Idolatry in his Diocess that the Waldenses succeeded this Archbishop that the said Archbishop delivered his Doctrine to his Disciples and these unto their Successors unto the ninth and tenth Centuries In the Year 1059. the Waldenses again separated from Rome In the Year 1223. the Albigenses in Bulgaria Croatia and Dalmatia had one Bartholomew whom they stiled their Pope The Pope's Legate called him Bishop Mat. Paris Anti-Pope adding that he drew over to him Bishops and others and that he Ordained Bishops In the Year 1254. Reinerius makes mention of their Bishops in Lombardy In the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Moravia and Austria had Bishops They asserted that they had Lawfully Ordained Bishops among them and an uninterrupted Sucession of that Order even from the Apostles although out of hatred to the Papists they chose to call them Seniores and Antistites In their Responsio Excusatoria Anno 1500. they declare Nec summum 〈◊〉 Romanum nec nostrum nec quempiam alium caput esse 〈◊〉 plainly intimating that they had Bishops among them as well as the Romanists Anno 1655. Leger was Moderator of the Churches of the Valleys which Office was for Life with power to call Synods to preside in them and to lay on Hands Thus much is delivered as Matter of Fact let us now see what were their Principles concerning Church-Government Wolfius saith They held there were but three Degrees of Church-Officers sc. Bishops Priests Sacerdotes and Deacons the same is delivered by Guido But Aeneas Sylvius that a Bishop is not Superior to a Presbyter either in Dignity or in Power as Alphonsus de Castro also observed and most of the Popish Writers charge them with that Opinion But one of them viz. Reinerius does set forth their Doctrine and Practice to the effect following The Cathari or Puritans meaning the Waldenses have four Ecclesiastical Orders viz. the Bishop the elder Son the younger Son something like the Chorepiscopus or Suffragan Bishop and the Deacon The Office of the Bishop is always tenere Prioratum to possess the Supremacy in every thing done in the Imposition 〈◊〉 Hands in Celebrating the Lord's-Supper and in beginning the Prayers as does the elder Son in the Bishop's absence The said Orders are created by the Bishop or by the Sons with the Bishops 〈◊〉 When the Bishop is dead the younger Son Ordains the elder a
About 1556. a Synod was held in the middle of Moravia where were present more than 200 of the Clergy Then were fifteen Ministers Ordain'd two Bishops and six Conseniors The two Bishops were George Israel for the Polonian Churches and Johannes Blaboslaus for the Moravian At the same time Joannes Nigranus was Bishop in Bohemia Now it was that the Arrians afterwards called Socinians disturbed the Peace Order and Unity of the 〈◊〉 Bohemi asserting that the Pastors alias the Ministers or Presbyters had power to do all things in the Church And this Paradox they pretended to advance left any thing that smelt of Popery should remain among them who had renounced that Communion Therefore they were so true to their Principle as not only to disallow of Bishops called Seniors or Superintendants but to deny even the Godhead of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 forsooth the Papists maintain'd that Doctrine But for the same reason they might as well have denyed the Being of God himself At the same time in 〈◊〉 Polonia the Fratres Bohemi had five Bishops for so many Diocesses vix the Crasovian the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 the Russian and the Belsensis Diocess Anno 1571. Joannes Calephus was their Bishop in Bohemia Joannes Laurentius in Poland Stanislaus and Andreas Stephanus Bishop of the Fratres in Bohemia And lastly Johannes Adam Comenius a Moravian and another a Polonian their Elect Bishops Annno 1632. Comenius after this History of which I have given a Summary Account so far as belongs to the present Argument has furnished us with another Tractate which he stiles Ratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Unitate fratrum Bohemorum The Pontifical of the Bohemian Brethren as I may call it the substance whereof is as follows He tells us That in their Church whereof himself was a Bishop Elect there were four Orders of Ministers sc. the 〈◊〉 sen Antistites or the Prepositi Ministrorum sometimes called Vigiles or Speculatores Superintendentes or Superattendentes that is as he explains himself in our Language Bishops 2 Conseniores which he expounds Coepiscopi or Chorepiscopi or the Bishops Fellows 3. Pastors who were also Ordinarily called Ministers the same as with us are stiled Presbyters Priests or Elders 4. Deacons called 〈◊〉 Administratores or Adjutores Among the Bishops there were besides a Praeses or Primate or the first Bishop The President 's or Primate's Office among other things was to appoint and call Synods The Office of the Bishops besides other things was to Ordain all Ecclesiastical Degrees as Deacons Pastors Conseniors and Seniors or Bishops All other Degrees were obedient and subject to the Bishops The Conseniors were Coadjutors to the Seniors or Bishops had power with the Seniors or without them but by their Direction and Command to be Members of the Ecclesiastical Senate and were above the Pastors or Deacons Their business was to provide for good Order to acquaint the Seniors with Misdemeanors to admonish the Ministers to observe the Ecclesiastical Statutes and Customes to provide fit Persons for the Ministry to exercise Discipline over the Ministers together with the Bishops or without them yet by their Direction to examine the Candidates for Holy Orders and to present them to the Bishops diligently to observe how the Pastors discharged themselves in their Office to reprove their smaller Offences and to acquaint the Bishop with their more Scandalous ones I do not find they had power to Ordain and 〈◊〉 in his Annotations says That in minoribus negotiis Episcopi vices obirent as the ancient Chorepiscopi did If they be chosen Seniors they are new Ordained with Imposition of Hands as Pastors or Ministers are The Seniors Ordain all Orders The Seniors are chosen by the Seniors Conseniors and Pastors and are Ordained in a General Assembly with Imposition of Hands At the Solemnity is sung that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The former or the Ordaining Seniors offer the new created Bishop their right Hands in token of Fellowship The Conseniors theirs in token of Obedience The Conseniors being Ordained with Imposition of Hands give their right Hands to the Seniors in token of Obedience to the former Conseniors in token of Fellowship The Ministers offer theirs to the new created Conseniors in token of Obedience Ministers are Ordained by the Seniors with laying on of Hands of the Seniors so many as are present At the Solemnity they sing that Hymn come Holy Ghost c. The new Ordained Ministers give their right Hands unto the Seniors and Conseniors in token of Obedience to the Pastors in token of Fellowship and the Deacons offer their Hands to them in token of Observance To conclude it most be confessed that Comenius says Bishop and Presbyter are one I suppose he means have the same Power and Authority to Minister in the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and this is out of all doubt but withal he intimates that a Bishop is one who is moreover an Inspector or Superintendent and for this cites Acts 20. 28. His mind is I suppose that St. Paul in the 17th verse addressed himself generally to all Presbyters whether meer Elders or those who moreover had the oversight of the rest But in the 28th 〈◊〉 he turns his Speech unto those especially who had been made Bishops And this is but what the Syriac Version seems to imply wherein as has already been noted verse the 17th Elders is rendered by Kashishaa which properly and only signifies Elders but verse the 28th Episkupea is used which denotes Overseers However this be if any one carefully observes what has been before related concerning the Government of the Church of the Bohemians it is impossible to conceive but that Bishops or Seniors were somewhat more than meer Presbyters The Division of Ecclesiastical Officers into three or four Orders the Power of Ordaining appropriated to Bishops the great care they had about getting a right Succession of Orders 〈◊〉 Bishops and many other remarkable passages before mentioned render this point uncontestable From the whole I think it follows that the Waldenses and the Fratres Bohemi were governed by Bishops superior to Ministers or Pastors long after they were separated from the Roman Idolatrous Communion yea that the Waldenses had Bishops within 150 Years and less the Fratres Bohemi within 160. that therefore Mr. O. is utterly mistaken who avers that the Waldenses had no other Ministers than Presbyters for near 500 Years last past and that Presbyters Ordained Presbyters without Bishops The contrary is most certain if my Authors have not deceived me Mr. O. was not insensible of this Matter of Fact of the Bohemians deriving their Bishops from the Waldenses but he shuffles us off with saying That the Waldensian Bishops were only Titular Bishops That is indeed meer Presbyters honoured with the bare Title of Bishops If Mr. O. had not known that remarkable Story about Zambergius and two others being Ordained Bishops by Stephen and another Waldensian Bishop he might possible have been pardonable
in some measure for this his rash and groundless Assertion But seeing he has thus against Knowledge and 〈◊〉 perverted the 〈◊〉 Truth by a gloss of his own making without any ground how any one should excuse him I can't tell and whether he will be able to defend himself I much question In the mean while I 'll endeavour to demonstrate that what he has laid down concerning the Waldensian Bishops as if they were such in Title only is a senseless Surmize altogether false and no manner of way reconcileable with the Faith of History For let us but run over the Story once more very briefly and the truth will appear bright as the Sun at Noon-day Let it be rembered then that the Bohemians after their Separation from the Church of Rome were a good while supplied from thence with Bishops and Presbyters who forsaking the Romish Communion joyned themselves to that of the Reformed Bohemians and by consequence had been Episcopally Ordained But the Bohemians considering with themselves that it was a very uncertain thing to depend upon such a casual way of having rightly Ordained Ministers and very much doubting whether Ordination by Presbyters alone was good and valid after much deliberation among themselves Solemnly ask'd 〈◊〉 of God by Prayer and Fasting upon that Question Now if they believed a Presbyter could validly Ordain Presbyters there had been no need for any thing of this kind Why should they be deliberating from time to time near Six Years about having Episcopal Orders and that in a true Succession If a Presbyter having the bare Title of Bishop was sufficient to Ordain there had been no need to have sent Zambergius unto the Waldensians It had been but affirming that Bishop and Presbyter is all one and that the one has Power to Ordain as well as the other Why all this Fasting and Praying and seeking direction from God about a thing of nothing a Name and Title What was this but to abuse themselves and the World and to mock God also with Pretences unto Religion and Tenderness of Conscience when 't was nothing but meer Hypocrisie Let it be farther considered what a device they formed about resolving themselves concerning the Will of God whether they should seek for a Right Succession of Bishops for the continuance of Holy Orders among them Is it likely they would have us'd so much Precaution against any fraud in the delivery of the Lots and in the Designation of the Persons And all this only that they might have a true Succession of the Title of Bishop when they had the Power before Zambergius at least was a Pastor or Minister or Presbyter before he was created Bishop by Stephen Could not he have Ordained Presbyters as many as there was need of and so transmitted the Succession of Holy Orders unto future Generations I am perswaded if any one should presume to say that 〈◊〉 was only a Titular Apostle but indeed no more than a Disciple Mr. O. would be ready to rebuke so 〈◊〉 a Conceit Can any one imagine the Apostles would have put the Multitude upon chusing one into the place of Judas telling them it was necessary his Bishoprick should be filled by another and because they chose two that they should by prayer and 〈◊〉 of Lotts decide which of the Competitors should succeed and be declar'd Apostle And after all this Apostle was nothing but a Word a Title was not different from Disciple The fratres Bohemi were but in a low and Poor Persecuted Condition They had no need to have been at the pains and Charge of Three Persons and perhaps more taking a long and dangerous and expensive Journey unto the Waldenses and all for an empty and unnecessary Title of Honour and which they might have as well assumed unto themselves as the Waldenses had done before 'em according to Mr. O. Well but perhaps Mr. O. has not so good an Opinion of the Bohemians as he has of the Waldenses The Bohemians perhaps were fond of Bishops and disirous of a right Succession and some of the dregs of Roman Superssition yet remain'd among them But the Waldenses were nothing so Their Titular Bishops were nothing but Presbyters 〈◊〉 another Name Neither will this do Mr. O's Work For the Bohemians declared to the Waldenses all that had past among them their Scruples about Presbyterian Ordination and a true Succession of Orders the way they took to know the Mind of God The Waldenses approved of all they had done assur'd the Bohemians that the Succession of Bishops among them was from the Apostles And so Stephen and his Collegue Ordained Three Bohemians Bishops Can these Good Men the Waldenses be excused in all this if Bishop was but a Word a. Title 〈◊〉 no more than Presbyter They should rather have told them as Mr. O. has assured us that there 's no difference between Bishop and Presbyter that among them Presbyters Ordain Presbyters though under another Title That the Bohemians were mistaken and that it was 〈◊〉 Rag of Popery still cleaving to 'em to Advance an Order of Bishops above Presbyters unto whom the Power of Ordaining belong'd The Waldenses ought plainly to have thus undeceived the Bohemians and let them know their Error about the Necessity of Bishops They ought not to have assured 'em that they had a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles and bolstered them up in their Error by creating Bishops If the Waldenses play'd the Bohemians this Trick I cannot esteem 'em what Mr. O. would have us believe 'em Presbytorian Saints but as rank Hypocrites as I ever read of For no Man can 〈◊〉 the Waldenses except by allowing 'em to have been of that perswasion that a Presbyter can't Ordain a Presbyter and that Orders and the Succession of the Power of Ordaining must pass through Bishops not Titular but really distinguish'd from Presbyters and Superior to them Nor were the Bishops and Ministers all one except in Title How then came the Ministers by joining Hands at their Ordination to promise Canonical Obedience unto the Bishops Lastly let it be considered that the whole Rationale of the Bohemian Hierarchy was in all probability taken from the Waldenses from whom their Episcopacy was derived Besides if Stephen was by Title only a Bishop but really a Presbyter and no more how could the Bohemians be able hereby to defend their Orders and the Succession of them against their Adversaries abroad meaning I believe the Papists when as indeed their Ordinations were meerly Presbyterian though in Title Episcopal And what sorry comfort was this to the Bohemians that the Three Titular Bishops being returned to their own People could only Acquaint 'em that they had indeed been Ordain'd by two Titular Bishops who nevertheless were but Presbyters such as they themselves were before and to tell you the truth we have deliberated long upon this business we have prayed and fasted in vain and God by answering our sign in the Affirmative has but at last
deceived us We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses but have brought no thing back worthy our pains but a Word and Empty Title Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry a Scene of Imposture and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides This must be confessed if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular as Mr. O. is pleased to say On the other Hand the History assures us that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles as they believ'd But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort But the mischief is the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation they will plead That they are Presbyters as well as others and have an Inherent Power to Ordain that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right which the Scripture gives them And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers which he has planted against our Bishops and with more Reason too For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination he had not respect to Age but to Ability 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young And Demas Bishop of Magnesia in Ignatius was a Young Man also 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself 't is all I ask I will suppose then that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters but limited it unto a few I will not say the Graver or Older sort but the Wiser and most Holy If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession Mr. O. adds and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed But this is what the Dissenters aim at that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised but the Whole Church consented unto and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God In short did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions I mean that of taking the Covenant But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter I shall therefore let it pass Of the Lollards 〈◊〉 has it is 〈◊〉 fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters and that every Priest or Presbyter has as good a Power to bind and loose and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give But to this it may be reply'd that 't is only the report of an Adversary and perhaps may be a Scandal It may again be answered that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised It may yet further be said that when People grope their way in a Dark Night it is no wonder if they now and then stumble They are to be both pittied and pardoned For lastly 't is manifest if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God It was one of their Maxims Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 566. that no Day is Holy not the Lord's-Day or Sabbath Day as People will call it but that on every Day Men may work eat and drink c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy Yea rather 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People and utterly Cancelled their Office at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution In short I think they were a well meaning but ignorant People who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel about Government and Discipline Finally note here that this Instance of the Lollards who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does especially not among the Protestants that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to at least under the Title of the Primitive Church But what all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion and the Primitive Church will never have an end so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline Concerning the Boiarians or Bavarians who as Mr. O. would have us believe were once Presbyterians I will only say thus much in short I find
in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian but will not trouble my self or Reader with them He that is curious and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People may take Aventinus into his Hands and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops and governed by Presbyters only It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly but however as he goes along he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops even before they were brought into subjection to Rome CHAP. XIX Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors and continued down to our own Times This Doctrine says Mr. O. meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop hath been maintained also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors both of the Roman and Protestant Communion both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us All I am concerned for is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records at or since the Reformation For 't is nothing to me if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer much less of the Dissenters whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea My design is upon Mr. O. himself and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government Mr. O. has alledged three against us the little Treatise commonly called The Bishops Book another called The Institution of a Christian Man and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet the late Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Irenicum all which as I shall prove belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII and whatever Opinions are there to be met with are not to be imputed to our first Reformers at least not as their fixed and settled Judgment for I reckon that in Hen. VIII's Days the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb newly conceived not brought forth that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born and in its Swadling Cloths and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity that it has yet been able to attain unto during which Queens Government something also is objected to us which shall be examined in its Order The Bishop's Book was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments the Creed and the Grounds of Religion fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction 'T was composed by sundry Bishops of whom Cranmer was chief by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII in the Year 1537. established by Parliament and Printed by Tho. Barthelet with this Title The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man Out of this Book Fox has furnished us with this following Passage That there is no mention made neither in the Scripture nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor or Author of the Church being within the Times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or constitute any Distinction or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves and the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power c. and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church From hence Mr. O. has gathered for he refers to Fox's Martyrology that these Bishops the Authors of that Book affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Ans. This Deduction is downright false and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words The design of that Prince at that time was to throw off the Pope and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed that as the Apostles were equal among themselves so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times or according to Jerom that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Archbishops and particularly the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops particularly not over the English only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake But from the beginning it was not so Here is not one word of Presbyters or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops Now that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book I appeal to what I find elsewhere taken thence by Mr. Strype How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope but to the King's Laws That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel in matters Civil and Moral but by Grant and Gift of Princes that it was always and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes with the Consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call again into their Hands or otherwise to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given and permitted by their Authority and Assent and Sufferance without which if the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop whatsoever should take upon them any Authority or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil that Bishop is not worthy the Name is an Usurper and Subverter of the Kingdom That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church as well as that of Rome That there is no difference in Superiority Preeminence or Authority of one Bishop over another But they be all of equal Power and Dignity and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome The Equality here spoken of in the beginning and in the latter end of this Period is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church but between Bishop and Bishop Church and Church and particularly that no Church that of England especially is subject to Rome And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops such Priests
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
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
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
and after also Chap. 16. 25 17 15 18 5. Lastly that if nothing of this will be allowed then it must be said that the Presbyters by Special Revelation and Prophecy appointed thereunto Ordained Timothy And I give Mr. O. his choice of any of these Expositions If he accepts the last as most likely he will it is however no precedent or warrant for Ordinary Presbyters by Virtue of their Ordinary Power and Office to Impose hands and Conferr Orders Mr. O. in reply to this 〈◊〉 not offer'd one Syllable but he has interposed some as he thinks witty descants upon the Rector's words and notions merely to evade the Argument and to perplex it which I account not worth my particular Notice But whereas he thus Paraphrases on my Words Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given by Prophets with the laying on of the Hands of Prophets intimating it to be Nonsense observe me once more and Remember that the Rector proposed two ways of Interpreting this Passage in Timothy First That by Prophecy may be meant Prophets in the Concrete distinct from the Presbyters spoken of in the same Period and then the sense must be Neglect not the Gift which was given thee by Prophets directed and determined unto that Action by some Extraordinary and Express Command of God with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters as assistants in the Solemnity Either this is sense or I have none and being admitted confirms my Point That Ordinary meer Presbyters Ordained not Timothy by their ownsole Power Secondly Or else the Passage may thus be understood That Prophecy is to be taken in the Abstract as it lies in the Text and the Presbyters were the Persons unto whom the Prophecy came appointing them to Ordain Timothy who therefore were Prophets and not Ordinary Presbyters in that particular Action On this supposition the Words must run Neglect not the Gift which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters unto whom the Prophecy came And this ought to pass with Mr. O. for sense if he is Master of any and shews that meer Ordinary Presbyters did not Ordain Timothy by Virtue of their Ordinary Power but by Special Commission from God But Mr. O. confounds these two different Interpretations putting them together which ought to be considered separately contrary to all Laws of Disputation and then pretends to have found out some Absurdity or Nonsense in the Rector's Gloss. Moreover the Gloss is not absurd even as Mr. O. has laid it For supposing that by Prophecy is meant Prophets and that the Presbyters were those Prophets 't is proper enough to say That Timothy was ordained by Prophets with the laying on of the Hands of the Prophets the former Clause donoting who ordained him the latter by what Ceremony or Solemnity it was performed Nor is it a degrading Paul when we make him a Prophet which is an order inferior to Apostle as Mr. O. weakly enough argues It s not unusual to give Persons an Inferior Title St. John and St. Peter are called Presbyters Saul and David Prophets Balaam a Prince was a Prophet so was Daniel and so was Caiaphas the High-Priest and so was Paul sometimes who had Visions and Revelations I say 〈◊〉 For sometimes also he spake and wrote with the Spirit of a Reasonable Man only though at the same time with Apostolical Authority For the Power of an Apostle was permanent and 〈◊〉 his Character indelible though that of a Prophet was not so See concerning this Jerom's Comment on Malachy and his Prooem to Comment on the Epistle to Philemon But Mr. O. questions whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Presbyteries in the Churches by them planted because then the Churches by them planted must have had two or more Heads Ans. If ever any Man lov'd to Trifle and Embroil matters with Trivial and Sensless Difficulties the Minister is He. For what if 〈◊〉 was inferior to Paul and as I may say a Subaltern Apostle then the Objection is gone And what if several Persons in equal Power mav make up not Heads but one Political Head in a Society Then the Wonder is over In Dioclesian's Days there were several Emperours Socii Imperii There were lately two Czars in Moscovy and two Princes in England 'T is indeed Monstrous when a Natural Body has two or more Heads But that a Political Body or Society should be governed by two or more Persons jointly in a Parity nothing is more Ordinary Casar indeed was of another Mind and his Maxim was Imperium non capit duos but 't was his Pride and Ambition which Prompted him to say so For matter of Fact and his Successors Practice has abundantly confuted him But if Mr. O. will not allow two or more Governours of a Body Politick to be called the Head of that Society then are the Presbyterian Churches and the Independent Congregations so many Bodies without an Head And I think a Body without any Head is altogether as Monstrous as a Body with two or more Mr. O. adds The Presbyters at Jerusalem had many Apostles to govern them besides Prophets and Evangelists unto whom they were Subject and not to any one in particular Ans. 1. All the Twelve Apostles were Instrumental in planting this Church which therefore was Subject to all for a good while as to one Head Secondly James afterwards was made the Ordinary Resident Church-Governour as is very probable Thirdly The Elders spoken of Acts 15. were not those of Jerusalem only as I conceive but such also as came thither from others parts Judea Syria c. and were Members of the Council and on that score not so much Subject but Assistants to the Apostles 〈◊〉 The Apostles and Elders now Assembled intermedled not in the Government of this Church at this time but met here it might have been in any other place if they had so pleased to determin a Question which concerned all Churches wherein there were any Jewish Converts as may be gathered from Acts 16. 4. But Paul the Apostle says the Minister had Power over all Churches why is he then made the Governour of Ephesus in particular though he planted it Ans. Why not I require a Reason It was his particular care for the Reason assigned A Colonel has Power over the whole Regiment but ' specially over his own Troop Every Apostle had a Transcendent Power over every Presbytery grant it yet he was the Ordinary Governour of those Churches which he had formed Camerarius Comments upon the 2 Cor. 10. 15. thus Disignat 〈◊〉 c. Paul means in this place that a District as it were a Plat of ground was given him whereon he might build a Church Still the care of all the Churches lay upon the Apostles as to right and Power although for the better Government of them they divided the 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 of Propagating the Gospel required
govern those Chuches and the particular Acts of Supreme Power are expresly committed to them which is enough I think to prove 'em the Supreme Rulers of those Churches and is all I contend for Besides Mr. O. should Remember that he himself acknowledges 'em Evangelists which where Officers in the Church Superiour unto Ordinary Presbyters according to the supposition agreed upon between him and me but on the other hand whether the Presbyter spoken of 1 Pet. 5. and Act. 20. were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's not to be disputed but whether they had the Supreme Power committed to them is the Question and is I hope resolved in the Negative to Satisfaction in the formentioned Pages of T. N. viz. that it does not appear so from those Expressions Feed the Flock of Christ taking the oversight thereof Take heed unto the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God For it can not be denied but that these Exhortations might be properly given to the Rectors and Vicars of the Church of England though subject to a Diocesian Bishop Yea might be given to every ordained Presbyter though but a Curate APPENDIX MR O. excepts many things against my Instance of the Jews Ecclesiastical Government by an High-Priest inferiour Priests and Levites concerning whom I noted That the Fathers and particularly Clem. Roman seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian 〈◊〉 c. To the Authority of Clemens I added in the Margin Jerom's Epistle to Euag. That which deserves to be consider'd is that he observes the Jewish High-Priest to have been a Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession and says he We follow the Jewish Typical precedent that is we acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our High-Priest Ans. For all this the Jewish Oeconomy was a Type of the Christian at least the Pathers though they make not the Jewish High-Priest a Type of the Christian Bishop Yet they make him a Precedent or Pattern of him and Clemens does so in particular as also many others as I shall shew in its proper place viz. my Answer to his Plea But why has not Mr. O. after so much pains taken in Vindicating Clemens from what is imputed to him endeavoured to take off the force of my other Testimony out of Jerom There was something in the wind that he who undertakes to reply so fully to the Authority of Clemens leaves poor Jerom in the lurch and has not one Syllable to plead in his behalf But the 〈◊〉 of this is plain 't was too hard a Knot for the Minister at 〈◊〉 to Unty or so much as to cut Blundel promised to account for it but was not as good as his Word Walo put us in hopes of it from Salmafius But he deceived the World of their expectation and honest Ludovicus Capella was afraid to take the least notice of it I know nothing that can excuse Mr. O. and the other Gentlemen 〈◊〉 a Parting-blow upon this Argument Mr. O. entertains us with a piece of Drollery The Rector says he calls the 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ministers and at the same time saith they were Prophets that is extraordinary Ministers One would think if they were Ordinary Ministers they were not extraordinary If Extraordinary not Ordinary Now the Rector undertakes to reconcile this Contradiction and to expose Mr. O. as a meer Trifler The same Man may be an Ordinary and an Extraordinary Person on several Accounts not Secundum idem I 'll give him one single Instance and so 〈◊〉 this Point Mr. O. is as I reckon but an Ordinary Minister and yet I account him an Extraordinary Wrangler I had said in T. N. according to my present apprehensions that James was not the Apostle but Mr. O. will needs have him the Apostle that is one of the Twelve for that was my meaning Ans This I am sensible has of old and is still a Controversy among the Learned and Bishop Pearson whom the Minister gets on his side as ost as he can is not very Positive in it though he 〈◊〉 that Way However I 'll comply with Mr. O. for once and let James pass for one of the Twelve Apostles but then I must accquaint him that one of the Twelve Apostles was the fixt and constant Prefect or Ruler that is Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem We read of him being at Jerusalem Act. 12. 17. Gal. 1. 19. Act. 15. 13. Gal. 2. 9 12. Act. 21. 18. All which time to his Death takes up near Thirty Years as is computed It seems then that he was fixt and resident at Jerusalem Salmasius thinks that he never was absent from Jerusalem nor mov'd a foot once from thence to his Dying Day Now that he was Prefect or Bishop there is proved from Clem. Alexandrinus from the Council of Constantinople from Hegesippus and from Jerom besides a Cloud of Witnesses more and among them Calvin that might be adduced in confirmation of this Whoever pleases to be so curious may be directed to 'em in the fourth Chapter of the Learned Mr. Burscough's Treatise of Church-Government from whom I have borrowed all this and several other things in these Papers APPENDIX IN this Chapter Mr. O. has mov'd two Controversies in Philology his Master-Piece on which he seems to value himself the first whereof is that I call the Government of the Church by the Apostles an Oligarchy which he says is a mistake I had prepared a pretty large and exact Account of this Word but have thought good to contract it and 't is in short this that tho' Plato disparages Oligarchy in comparison with Monarchy and Aristotle calls it not Oligarchy for with him that 's the Corruption of the Government but Aristocracy yet that the word Originally signifies a lawful and honest kind of Government and sets forth the true and distinct Nature of it as is manifest from its Etymology which Aristocracy doth not for this word according to the Philosopher denotes any of the Three sorts of Government well managed that 〈◊〉 in Herodotus commends this form of Government by the very name of Oligarchy that Plutarch speaks of it under the same name describing it also by two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and calling its Corruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 that Hesychius reckons up Three kinds of Government one of which is Oligarchy and Lastly that Aristotle himself confesses when a few govern well and for the Common good it is a right and just Government plainly implying there was no harm in the Word Oligarchy or in the Government though in his time and Country custom had disparaged it The next thing he quarrels about is my writing Sanedrin and that I seem to make it an Hebrew word Ans. The Rector neither makes nor seems to make Sanedrin an Hebrew word but if Mr. O had any good Nature
Men who are not I believe a fiftyeth part of the People of England And these latter in respect of the Body of the Nation I can scarce admit to be elected they may more fitly be said to come in by Privilege Of the one hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation about fifty two or a third part are chosen Proctors by the Parsons Vicars and Rectors who are two thirds of the Clergy about an hundred and fourteen come in by vertue of their Dignities as Deans and Arch-Deacons or by the Election of the Chapters only Let any one then judge whether the lower Houses of Convocation are near so much cramp'd with Members by Privilege as the House of Commons is four parts of the House of Commons being chosen by not a fiftieth part of the Pople and the fifth part of 'em by about an eighth part of the People But a third part of the Convocation is chosen by two thirds of the Clergy and the rest by privilege If then the House of Commons notwithstanding what has been observed are by all Wise Men look'd upon as a just Representative of the People with respect unto their choice as well as their number I would know a Reason why the Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Now least what has been said shall not be thought clear enough and sufficient to evince what it is intended for there being a great uncertainty in such Calculations I shall compare the Convocation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who if I am not much mistaken will be found on both the forementioned Accounts that is of Number and of Choice to have been not so just a Representative of the Clergy as the Convocation is This will be dispatched in a very few Words In the Year 1643. the Parliament called that Assembly consisting of one hundred twenty and two Persons Of whom let it be noted 1. That they fell short of the two Houses of Convocation forty four in number besides that there were some Scots among 'em 2. That not one of 'em was chosen by the Clergy but all Nominated by the Parliament Either then let Mr. O. give over taxing the Convocation as if it were not a just Representative of the Clergy or confess the Westminster Assembly to have been packed to serve a Turn contrary to all Law and Justice In short and to retort Mr. O's Reflections the Assemby of Divines were all of 'em except a few Nominated for a Colour the Parliaments Creatures chosen by them alone The rest if they had joined in the Westminster Deliberations had been meer 〈◊〉 there were enough to out-vote 'em besides those Lords and Commoners who were taken into the Assembly like so many Lay-Elders to Influence their Counsels and prevent any Decree that might be offered contrary to that Parliaments Inclinations or Designs Mr. O. If the Rector can find no proof in Scripture that Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all how dare they the Episcopal-Clergy do it for a Fortnight If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending Ans. We suspend not by virtue of our own sole inherent Power but in conjunction with our Diocesan with his knowledge and consent There is a great Difference between an Inherent Power for Presbyters to suspend a precedent for which I require out of Scripture and to suspend for a time according to the Constitutions of the Church and in Subordination to the Bishop unto whom the Party Suspended may appeal Mr. O. Whereas I affirmed that the Ordinary Elders had not Supreme Authority in the Churches at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East the Minister inferrs that herein is imply'd that Ordinary Presbyters had the Supreme Authority before that time and Challenges the Rector to prove they were ever deprived of it afterward Ans. There is no such thing imply'd by the Rector but only supposed at most to avoid all unnecessary Disputes with his Adversaries But if it were out of question that the Ordinary Elders had once the Supreme Authority yet the Apostle committing afterward the Supreme Authority unto single Persons ex gr unto Timothy and 〈◊〉 and making no mention at all of the Ordinary Presbyters must be understood to supersede the Power that was before in the Presbyters and to subject them unto those single Persons for the future But this is the Point in Controversy throughout these Papers and needs not here to be insisted on Mr. O. Here the Rector fairly confesses there were no Bishops when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds Ans. The Rector supposes it only as is said before but does not grant it Nay he is quite of another mind But it sufficeth to his Hypothesis that single Persons were afterward at least Constituted Rulers Bishops in the Churches Mr. O. 〈◊〉 could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ans. Here Mr. O. if I take him right grants that 〈◊〉 was Ordained by 〈◊〉 taking the 〈◊〉 into his Assistance This is as much as I desire and the exact Pattern of our Ordinations Presbyters therefore did not by their own sole Power Ordain but in Conjunction with the Apostle On the other hand if the Revelation concerning Timothy's Ordination came to the Presbyters as well as to St. Paul they then acted not as Ordinary 〈◊〉 but as Prophets and so cannot warrant Ordinary Presbyters Ordaining by Virtue of their Ordinary Power 〈◊〉 it no where appears that Paul joined the Presbyters in Commission with Timothy it may then be reasonable to conclude that Timothy received the sole Power though 't is sufficient for me to say He had the Supreme Mr. O. But Paul joined 〈◊〉 with him in the Ordinations Acts. 14. 23. Ans. Be it so yet still if Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul as is manifest from Acts 14. 4 14. Gal. 29. And if Barnabas was equal to Paul as many believe and Mr. O. will not deny then we are but where we were before This is nothing to Ordinary Elders Ordaining That Barnabas was tho' not equal to Paul yet independent on him may be probably hence gathered that in the sharp Contest between 'em Barnabas submitted not to Paul but separated from him Acts 15. 39. Besides Barnabas received the same Commission that St. Paul did and at the same time Acts 13. 1 2. However admitting Barnabas was but a Secondary Apostle which I rather believe or 〈◊〉 yet Mr. O. will not I hope deny he was more than an Ordinary Elder what then is this to Ordinary Elders Ordaining by their own sole Power and inherent Authority And how will it hence 〈◊〉 that because Paul admitted Barnabas an Apostle at least a Secondary Apostle to join in the Ordinations Acts 14. 23. that therefore Timothy joined the Ordinary Presbyters with him All this notwithstanding I give Mr. O. what he cannot prove sc.
when their Records had been destroyed by the Saracens It must then rest upon the credit of 〈◊〉 himself alone and what that is will appear by and by In the mean time this Tale of 〈◊〉 must not pass being wrote by one who lived at so great a distance of time from the matter of Fact delivered by Him without any other known Ancienter Author to support him besides He is an Obscure Writer Pop't up into the World to serve a cause and therefore cannot Merit belief Secondly 〈◊〉 differs from many Authors of more Unquestionable Authority than himself He differs from Ignatius who affirms that Presbyters ought to do nothing without the Bishop not Baptize not Marry not Celebrate the Eucharist without the Bishop but according to 〈◊〉 they Ordained without him He differs from Eusebius so far at least as to relate what Eusebius knew nothing of It is very strange that Eusebius so diligent and so exact an Historian so curious and inquisitive a Searcher into the Antiquities of the most Eminent Churches from their first Plantation particularly this of Alexandria should not have discovered any thing of the Presbyters Ordaining their Bishop and one another that he that has acquainted us with the Names of all the Patriarchs from Mark to Alexander the precise Order of their Succession the Year when every Bishop succeeded in what Emperor's Reign it was and sundry other remarkable things which happened in that Church should be wholly silent and ignorant of this Constitution of St. Mark More over 〈◊〉 says that Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his Name in the first Year of Nero's Reign but Eusebius affirms it was done in the Days of Claudius Nero's Predecessor Eutychius tells us that Mark was slain in the first Year of Nero Eusebius not till the Eighth at soonest He differs from St. Jerom too who reports that all the New Testament was wrote in Greek except the Gospel of Matthew but Eutychius will have it that Mark wrote his in the Latin Tongue Briefly then he differs from some Authors quoted by Selden himself in whom he read of three Presbyters Seven Deacons and Eleven other 〈◊〉 Officers of what Character is not said whereas Eutychius mentions Twelve only and all those Presbyters on these accounts then he is of very little credit Thirdly He relates many things in his Annals whereof these Origines are a part against the Faith of all approved History He makes the Council of Nice to have consisted of 2048. Bishops which is not credible He says Peter was crucified in the Twenty Second Year after Christ and he reckons Origen a Bishop Fouthly Even in these Origines he is not at one with himself He writes that Mark went unto Barca to preach the Gospel that then Claudius Caesar dy'd and Nero succeeded him that in the Reign of Nero Peter the Prince of the Apostles wrote the Gospel of Mark with Mark in the Roman Tongue and in the City of Rome and yet that Mark was slain at Alexandria in the first Year of Nero. But if Mark was Martyr'd at Alexandria in the first Year of Nero it cannot be that he was at Rome with Peter in Nero's Reign and joyned with him in Writing the Gospel Fifthly Eutychius's story seems most improbable and in my Judgment overthrows its self For if the Presbyters had the Power first of chusing and then Ordaining one from among themselves to be Patriarch and after that Ordained the new Presbyter also to what purpose was a Bishop created was he to be a Bishop of Clouts to sit in his Chair and gravely to look on whilst the Eleven Presbyters Chose and Ordained the Twelveth and he have no Hand in it Sixthly The Origines consists of so many Childish Ridiculous and Absurd Relations that no wise Man can given any credit to so trifling an Author That story of Mark' s going to a Shoe-Maker or Cobler to have his Shoe-Latchet mended of Hananias pricking his Finger with the Awl and thereupon growing Angry of Mark' s 〈◊〉 him with a Promise to heal his Finger if He would belive in Christ of Hananias believing and being cured and Lastly of Mark' s Baptizing him thereupon and making him Patriarch of Alexandria is to me incredible Another of the like Nature is that of Alexander's desiring that the Patriarch of Alexandria should not be called Papa whereas it had been decreed before in the Days of Heracles I suppose for distinctions sake Bishops being stiled Fathers therefore it was judged fit that the Patriarch should be Honoured with the Title of Grand-Father But-why Alexander should be so Self-denying as to refuse an Honourable Title which several of his Predecessors had had beforehim is to me a Mystery Again that wonderful design of Mark as 〈◊〉 reports it to have always the exact Number of Twelve Presbyters in Alexandria appears to me not very Solid Lastly of the same stamp is that request of Peter to be crucify'd with his Head downward that he might not have the Honour to die in the same manner as Jesus Christ did I fancy that Peter never requested such a thing or if He did that Nero never granted it Seventhly Whereas Eutychius would make us believe that Mark' s Rule about the Presbyters of Alexandria not the Neighbouring Bishops of Egypt chusing and Ordaining the Patriarchs and Presbyters continued unto the Days of Alexander who must therefore be the last that was Ordained by the Presbyters about the Year 310. Yet St. Cyprian who flourish'd above 60 Years before Alexander has something that makes me suspect the contrary and that Mark establish'd no such Order at Alexandria St. Cyprians's Words are these Propter quod diligenter de Traditione divina Apostolica observatione servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per Provincias Universas tenetur ut ad Ordinationes rite Celebrandas ad eam plebem Cui Praepositus Ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur plebe presente c. This is part of a Letter written by the Bishop of Carthage to the Churches of Leon Asturica and Emerita in Spain from whence 't is manifest that this was a Divine Tradition an Apostolical Practice that the Bishops of the Province should Assemble Chuse and Ordain a new Bishop and that it universally obtained apud nos says the Father among us in Africa and almost in all the Provinces in the World in the Roman Empire besure And I take Cyprian to be a much trustier Author than Eutychius or Jerom either To support this Testimony of St. Cyprian I produce the First of the Apostolical Canons which were collected before St. Cyprian at least a good while before the Nicene Council as Dr. Beverigde has shewn wherein as is by Selden pretended the Custom of Alexandria was alter'd but 〈◊〉 cannot be as may be gathered from the first Canon aforesaid which runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then this
dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church as being Episcopal though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain they could not dislike the Orders of Hy because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy and doubtless were the same and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal as were the Romans and all the World beside Mr. O. adds if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy be intended as not disliked by the Romans yet says he the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which are allowed by that Church Decret Greg. Abbas si sit Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial nor the Diaconal Order but the Inferior Orders only such as the Sub-Deacons Acoluthists Exorcists Psalmists Lectors and Door-keepers But that the Episcopal Order is not meant is to me past dispute For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of Secondly If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter Abbots It was allowed to such of them only who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See But not unto those who refused subjection to it as did the Abbots of Hy Mr. O. knows very Well This Privilege then whatever it was could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders Thirdly The Decretals mentioned were made or put together by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome in the Thirteenth Century about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy almost as many after Austin the Monk and therefore not appositely here alledged Fourthly Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders by Popish 〈◊〉 and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height But I like them never the better for that The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters 'T was their Principle that all Church-Officers derive from and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will even to a Deacon But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant as I fancy But Secondly I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland over the Monks and Culdees if any such were yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves for all or many of them at least were Presbyters and lastly over the Bishop also if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland which himself had formerly erected and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note which sprang out of these two both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity unless Mr. O. will assert that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn pro Tempore What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings ruling over many Churches and Congregations exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters as he thinks and that for life too All this did Columba and his Successors who are pretended by Mr. Baxter to have restored the Culdees or Presbyters strength against the incroachments of Palladius But all this while the Tyrants only were changed not the Tyranny the name altered not the thing Instead of Palladius the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter Moreover I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters If not as I believe all will and must grant our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination I should here have concluded this Chapter but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy and asserted that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire had their Platform from the Heathen who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens and I know not what Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion subordinate to one another it will not follow the Christians took it from them Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion wherein the Patriarch Jews Gentiles all agree But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius which I do not find in the places directed to cries out Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs Whereas any one may know that will but read or understand that Epistle which Mr. O. never did I preceive that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men that do not or will not understand what they say who so they may cast dirt upon us care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it But to let this pass The Question here is whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles or the Gentiles from them This latter I undertake to make out First From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests Priests and Levites All the World knows this I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one but of this I have spoke before Secondly Although the Druids according to Caesar had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East where Episcopacy was first established the Gentiles had no such Government as appears from what Eusebius has noted of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor who observing the way of Church Government
advise them to call Fortunatianus before them to try and to condemn or depose him but only to warn the Church of Assurae to think no more of their former Bishop who had 〈◊〉 into Idolatry and was therefore no Bishop at all And this was agreeable to the Rule which the Churches of Rome and of Africa and of the Whole World had formerly made as the Learned 〈◊〉 has observed That such as had Sacrificed should be deprived of their Ordination and Sacerdotal Honour and upon their Repentance should be admitted unto Lay Communion only The Observation is taken out of the 67 th Epistle of which I am to speak by and by in these Words Jam pridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Collega noster Cornelius Sacerdos pacisicus ac justus ac martyrio honoratus decreverit ejusmodi homines ad poenitentiam quidem agendam posse admitti ab Ordinatione autem 〈◊〉 atque sacerdotali honore prohiberi It is not then to be denyed but that as the Presbyters and the People of a Diocess when 't is Notorious that their Bishop has Apostatized and fallen into Idolatry and for some time deserted them and another is substituted in his place which was I presume the Case before us have a Power by the Law of Reason and of Scripture too to refuse him when he offers to obtrude himself again upon 'em so more especially since there is a solemn 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Law provided in the Case But I demand of Mr. O. to give me an instance when ever the Presbyters and People called their Bishop into Judgment before them censured and rebuk't acquitted or condemned him either when the Fact was in Question or the matter objected against him was in Controversy about its lawfulness Until Mr. O. produces an Instance of one of these kinds he is far short of proving that Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop as Timothy had Power to do against Elders For Timothy had Power to receive an Accusation upon information of Witnesses and to rebuke the offender accordingly and if need were to reject him Titus 3. 10. We are then safe as yet notwithstanding any thing St. Cyprian has written in this Epistle The Case of Basilides and Martialis is much what the same as that of Fortunatianus and is to be found in the 67 th Epistle of St. Cyprian 'T was wrote by St. Cyprian in his own name and in the name of 36 other African Bishops to Felix Presbyter and the People of Leon and Asturia also unto Lelius Deacon and the People of Emerita all in Spain in answer to a Letter of Sabinus Successor to Basilides and of another Felix Successor of Martialis whom the Bishop calls Coepiscopos Nostros our fellow Bishops What may fairly be Collected from this Epistle follows As First It may from this Epistle be gathered that Basilides and Martialis after they had been proved guilty of Idolatry were deposed from their Bishopricks Secondly That Sabinus and Felix were substituted in their Rooms Thirdly That the Idolatrous Bishops were deprived and the new ones Chosen and Ordained by the Provincial Bishops in the Presence and with the Concurrence or consent of the People For thus Cyprian speaks The People have Power either of chusing good Bishops or refusing unworthy ones Again the People ought to separate from a Wicked Bishop that Episcopal Ordinations ought to be Celebrated sub populi assistentis Conscientia with the knowledge and assent of the People present to the end that by the People the Crimes of bad Men may be detected the Merits of good Men may be testified and so a right and regular Ordination may be made which shall have been examined by the judgment and suffrage of all St. Cyprian goes on That is to be observed which is held among us in Africa and almost in all Provinces that to the end Ordinations be rightly made all the next Bishops of the same Province meet together with the People for whom the Bishop is design'd and let the Bishop be chosen in the presence of the People which knows and has been acquainted with the Lives and Conversations of the Candidates This we understand has been done among you in the Ordination of Sabinus our Collegue how that the Bishoprick was given him and hands laid on him with the Suffrage of the whole Fraternity and by the Judgment or decree of the Bishops who were present at the Meeting and who had sent their Letters of Consent concerning the Bishop to be chosen That which I would deduce from all this is that because the Power of chusing and Ordaining a Bishop was lodg'd in the Provincial Bishops together with the People of the Diocess it must follow that the Power of depriving consequently of receiving Accusations against the Bishop was 〈◊〉 in the same Provincial Bishops and and the People of the Diocess And if this be so then Basilides and Martialis were deposed by the Provincial Bishops in the presence and with the Consent of the People and so Mr. O's inference from this story will not hold sc that the Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop that 's to say in a Judiciary way Moreover it seems to me very probable by some passages in this Epistle that the People's Power in chusing or rejecting their Bishop consisted only in the Testimony which they gave to the Provincial Bishops concerning the Lives and Conversations of the Bishop propounded by the Provincial Bishops to succeed I gather this from those words 〈◊〉 ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi the which is more clearly explained in the same Paragraph where Cyprian adds Ordinationes Sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis Conscientia fieri oportere ut plebe presente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita predicentur Ordinations ought to be with the knowledge of the People that the Crimes of bad Men might be discovered and that the deserts of good Men might be made known unto 〈◊〉 Provincial Bishops who were indeed the proper Electors The same is shortly after again explained Episcopus deligatur Plebe Presente quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit 〈◊〉 actum de ejus Conversatione perspexit Let the Bishop he chosen by the next Bishop of the Province the People being present who knew the lives of each Candidate and saw every Man's Works and Conversation So that the Peoples business seems but to have been only to give testimony for or against the Candidate for the Bishoprick whilst the Synod of the Provincial Bishops chose and Ordained him However this be it is manifest from the whole that the Presbyters and the People did not without the Provincial Bishops by virtue of their own sole and proper Power hear or receive Accusations in a Judiciary way much less take upon 'em to give Sentence upon their own Bishops which is
limited district and even Ordain Presbyters and Deacons when expresly delegated thereto by the Diocesan that they refided in some Country Villages where their Ordinary and constant Work was no other than of Presbyters and so were look'd on as the Diocesans Presbyters which can by no means prejudice their Episcopal Character One may be a Bishop yet without a Diocess as one may be a Presbyter without a Title or Parish The Council of Laodicea thought fit to put an end unto this Order so did the Romans and Spanish Churches as also the English Haply the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Archdeacons might have the Title of Chorepiscopi for some while continued to them being substituted in their room but this is no proof that they were Presbyters at their first Institution when the real Episcopal Character was 〈◊〉 on them though no Diocess was yet actually allotted them This is what I thought needful and enough to be offered in Answer to the Difficulties started about the Chorepiscopi As for that Epistle to 〈◊〉 it shall suffice to note that 't is one of those which are accounted Spurious as may be Collected from Bellarmin himself whose Judgment is ejus scripta non extant exceptis paucis Epistolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suns inter Epistolds S. Hieronymi aliique in Hiftorid 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 22. l. 5. c. 10. 11. The rest therefore and this in particular are Apocryphal It was possibly counterfeited by some that lived after the Council of Hispalis there being a very great Agreement between this Epistle and that 7th Canon of the Council as who ever will read them must confess We shall not need therefore to be concerned at any thing brought against us out of this connterfeit Epistle CHAP. IX Of the Council of Nice MRO. as if all Antiquity were on his side omits not to argue even from the Council of Nice its self in favour of the Power of Presbyters Ordaining which is a discovery so new and surprizing that one would 〈◊〉 the Whole Chriftian Church had been blind above these 1300. Years last paft till he with the help of Mr. Baxter has been pleas'd to open all our Eyes at last and to assure us that the Council of Nice decree'd concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius at 〈◊〉 as follows Hi autem Qui Dei Gratia nostris lege vestris precibus adjuti ad 〈◊〉 Scbisma deflexisse compersi sunt sed se intra Catholica Apostolicae 〈◊〉 fines ab erroris Labe vacuos continuerint Authoritatem 〈◊〉 tum Ministros 〈◊〉 c Mr. O. has taken this Passage out of Mr. Baxter and he out of some Translator that did not or would not understand the Historian aright The Words are part of a Letter wrote by the Nicene Fathers to the Church of Alexandria wherein they gave an Account to that Church of what had been propounded and examined in the Synod and what had been decreed and confirmed therein as first That the Impiety of Arrius and his Accomplices had been brought into Question and condemned c. that as for Melitius it pleased the Synod to deal more gently with him than with Arrius viz. that he should remain in his own City but that he should have no Power to Ordain or to propose the names of the Candidates to the holy Function only he might retain the bare Title of his Honour that is of Bishop that those who had been constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him being first confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more solemn and Religious Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop of Alexandria might be allowed to joyn in matters properly belonging to them but that until they had obtained their Honour and Ministry again they should be second unto all those who in every Diocess and Church have been before proposed under the Authority of our most beloved Collegue Alexander And moreover should have no Power to propound the Names of those who are subject to Alexander nor in short to do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop of the Catholick Church of Alexandria This is all the Nicene Synod wrote concerning the Melitians or those who had been constituted and Ordained by Melitius Here 's not a Syllable of Presbyters or of Ordaining Ministers the passage may as well and is to be 〈◊〉 of Bishops and of Ordaining Bishops But for the more thorough understanding it we must remember that Melitius whilst Peter was Patriarch of Alexandria had been Bishop of Lycus a City in Egypt subject to the said Patriarch that during the Persecution under Maximinus Peter absconding Melitius had taken upon him to constitute or Ordain Bishops which belonged unto the Patriarch to do 'T is not indeed doubted but that he Ordained Presbyters and Deacons also nevertheless his first and Principal Crime as I believe was his Constituting or Ordaining Bishops which was a manifest invasion of the Patriarch's Right And that 〈◊〉 constituted and Ordained Bishops is proved by Valesius out of Epiphanius Nay the said Learned Annotator Evinces that Melitius constituted or Ordained Twenty Eight Bishops besides Five Presbyters and Three Deacons as he gathers from the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians from whence he makes no scruple to affirm that Socrates in this place speaks chiefly of Bishops constituted or Ordained by 〈◊〉 yet so as that Presbyters and Deacons also were 〈◊〉 by him 〈◊〉 says he if the Nicene Fathers hid herein decreed nothing against the Melitian 〈◊〉 they had left their work very lame and imperfect Besides 〈◊〉 became Schismatical not by Ordaining Presbyters but by Ordaining Bishops Hence Sozomen observes that Melitius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had usurp'd the Power of Ordaining which did not all belong unto him The Power of Ordaining whom Why not Bishops For till by this means he was fallen into 〈◊〉 he had certainly as Bishop Power to 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons but not of Ordaining or 〈◊〉 Bishops without the 〈◊〉 leave And this was I suppose if not his only fault yet his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore when the Nicene Fathers decreed that the 〈◊〉 who had been constituted and Ordained by 〈◊〉 might not intermeddle in the constituting or Ordaining others until themselves had been confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more Solemn imposition of Hands they must thereby mean that the Melitian Bishops being Ordained Schismatically were suspended from Ordaining until they had been confirmed by the Patriarch and some of the Egyptian Bishops subject to him And this is all that the Synod declar'd concerning the Melitians But neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Baxter for any thing I can see in the Plea have taken any Notice of this Passage 〈◊〉 whereof we are amus'd with something less Pertinent to the matter in Hand as I am now about to shew For the Nicene Fathers go on in that Epistle to speak of the Alexandrians that is such as had not withdrawn themselves from Alexander the
them but by Ecclesiastical Constitution only and not by any inherent Right There is nothing in this Letter that argues any thing for their Intrinisick power to Ordain The most that can be said is that they had an Ancient Right by Ecclesiastical Constitution and Custom to Ordain with Bishops and if so then their Ordaining without Bishops was a Nullity as well as an Irregularity because they transgress'd that very Law which alone gave them their Power 3. It is a great mistake to think every thing established or rather reinforc'd by Ecclesiastical Constitution has no better Foundation than that very Ecclesiastical Constitution or Reinforcement A Divine and Scriptural Law may and has been oftentimes confirmed and renewed by a Synodical Decree and subjected to Ecclesiastical Penalties The Lord's-Day which Mr. O. will not deny to be Holy by Divine Institution has been made so by Humane appointment also and punishments decreed against those that prophaned it This is manifest among out selves here in England and Constantine Ordained the first Day of the Week for Divine Worship Shall we say the Lord's-Day was not Holy and Appropriate to Divine Worship before that Emperor's Constitution Of the same Nature are the 38. 41. 42 49. 50 51. c. Can. Apostol The Decree then of the Synod of Nice hinders not but that it might have been a Divine Institution that Presbyters Ordain and Govern only with and under Bishops And if this be so as I have formerly t is hoped made good then Presbyters Ordaining without Bishops will prove a Nullity and contrary to the Divine and Scripture Rule as well as an Irregularity or contrary to the Ecclesiastical Laws But how does the Ecclesiastical Constitution shew that Ordination belongs to the Presbyters Office His meaning I suppose is that the Nicene Synod could not appoint Presbyters to Ordain with Bishops except the Presbyters had a Prior and an intrinsick power to Ordain But I ask why may not the Synod shew thereby that the Presbyters intrinsick power what ever it was belonged to them only in Conjunction with Bishops And not separately from ' em If a Prince Commands the General of his Army to do nothing of Moment without the advice of the Principal Field-Officers this shews that the Field-Officers have a Power to Act with the General and under him but not that they have a power to Act seperately and without Him And if the General or other the Kings Ministers declare this part of the Commission to the Field-Officers they may and ought to Act in Conjunction with their General for the Commission so appoints but it would be presumption and Mutiny to Act without the General which if they presumed to do their Orders would of them selves be Null and invalid Briefly Mr. O. must first prove that the Nicene Fathers supposed the Presbyters to have an Intrinsick power to Ordain alone before he can make out that their separate Ordinations are irregular only and not invalid in themselves But Mr. O. again argues that If it be said these Nicene Constitutions condemn Schismatical Ordinations which he grants yet answers that Schism as such cannot make Ordinations Null though it implys an Irregularity Hereunto I return that Schism as such does make the Ordination Null It is Null as to the Exercise of the Office so conferred though not as to the habitual Power or intrinsick Character given This seems to have been the very Sense of the Nicene Fathers in this their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria The Melitian Bishops because they had been Schismatically Ordained were suspended from the Exercise of their Office yet their Character was not declared utterly void and annull'd There was Room left for their exercising it again upon some certain Conditions and the Title of Bishop was still continued unto 'em which could not be if the Character had been intirely lost or Null Hitherto belongs the Case of Colluthus and Ischyras which some Episcopal Divines have urged against the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters for say they Ischyras Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter is in Athanasius constantly called and declared no Presbyter but a meer Laic and not suffered so much as to have the Honor and Title of Presbyter as all others of the Melitian Schism Episcopally though Schismatically Ordained were allowed So the Nicene Fathers had decreed The reason why Ischyras was rejected is this he had been Ordained by a Presbyter only viz. Colluthus Blondel has taken much pains to perplex this Fact with sundry difficulties and Objections thrown in our way on purpose to render it useless unto us in the present Controversie and Mr. O. also has made his observations on it I shall consider them both and to that end shall in the first place produce the Principal passages that occur in Athanasius's second Apology relating to the said Colluthus and 〈◊〉 There I read of Ischyras who neither was Ordained by the Church nor when Alexander received the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius was reckoned among them that 's to say in Melitius his 〈◊〉 so that he was no Presbyter How then or by whom was he created a Presbyter By Colluthus For that alone remains to be pretended But 't is granted on all hands that Colluthus died Presbyter all his Ordinations were void and all Ordained by him in the Schism reduced into the Order of Laicks But they the Eusebians and Melitians called a private Fellow Presbyter Ischyras was not acknowledged a Presbyter by Athanasius Ischyras was not so much as a Presbyter he never was a Presbyter of Melitius not Ordained by him Ischyras was in no wise a Cleric though the Eusebians and Melitians gave it out that he was a Presbyter 'T is remarkable that Ischyras in his submissive Letter unto Athanasius disowned not his being a Presbyter Ordained by 〈◊〉 which I note here by the by Ischyras our accuser is no manner of way a Presbyter because he is not mentioned in the 〈◊〉 or Register of those who had been Ordained by Melitius Ischyras never was a Minister of the Church but boasted himself to be a Presbvter of Colluthus though no Body believed him so that He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was deposed by the Alexandrian Synod and number'd among the Laics Ischyras a Fellow that called himself a Presbyter but was no Presbyter for he was Ordained by a Catholick Presbyter Colluthus who himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but an Imaginary or Counterfeit Bishop and was Commanded in the General Council of Alexandria by Hosius and the other Bishops to be a Presbyter as he had been before So that by consequence all Ordained by him went back into their former place and Ischyras appeared a Laic The Eusebians and Melitians called this Fellow Bishop who was not at all a Presbyter but they made the Emperor to write unto Colluthus for nothing 〈◊〉 amiss to them that a Church be provided for Ischyras and immediatly caused him to be
which properly belongs to us here is to prove it to have been the Principle and Practice of the Church in the beginning of the Fourth Century when the Alexandrian and Nicene Synods were Assembled which we think also is hitherto made good But Blondel goes on Ischyras was deposed by the Alexandrian Bishops whence it appears he was taken for a Presbyter not a meer Laic For else 't is absurd to affirm he was deposed A Man cannot be said to be knock'd down except he stood on his Feet before Ans. This is what we utterly deny and is indeed a Meer quirk no better than fooling Ischyras and many others were not properly deposed but only declared no Presbyters as being Ordained by a Presbyter which may reasonably be gathered from the Expressions used in the foresaid Synodical Epistles concerning such as Colluthus had Ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote no more And therefore when the Synod of Jerusalem complained how the Eusebians caused Ischyras to be called Bishop they aggravated the Insolence in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas he was not so much as a Presbyter viz. at that very time that 's to say When 〈◊〉 was alive and in some Credit and when the Eusebians gave him out for a Bishop before the Alexandrian Synod was assembled or had declared him a Laic even then he was not so much as a Presbyter So that he was a meer Laic in the Nature of the thing and before the Alexandrian Fathers had so pronounced him Nor do I see any impropriety in saying Ischyras tho' no Presbyter was deposed For though he was really no Presbyter as being Ordained by a Presbyter only yet he took upon him the Office and Title of Presbyter supported and upheld himself by Stilts by Confidence and Hypocrisy He was believed a Presbyter by many and by many countenanced and kept up as such Now though a Man lying prostrate on the floor can't be Knock'd down qui jacet in terrâ non habet unde cadat yet he who stands on Crutches or is held up by others 't is not absurd to say He may be Knock'd down which is sufficient to shew the Weakness of Blondel's fancy And the false Colours put on this Argument But Blundel gives it yet a siner Turn thus It was usual in that Age says he to reduce real Bishops and Presbyters transgressing the Canons of the Church ad Laicam Communionem and yet it cannot be deny'd but they had been real Bishops Ans. This is very true But is just such another piece of Sophistry as before and reaches not the Merits of the Cause For 1. this will not evince that ever 〈◊〉 was a Presbyter though some real Presbyters for Crimes proved upon them were allowed only Lay-Communion He has not 〈◊〉 us that they were declared meer Laics They were only suspended from performing the Office of Presbyters and admitted to Lay-Communion their Character still as I may say lying dormant in them If any such Instance were to be found it can't thence be gathered that Ischyras also was so dealt with 'T is absurd to argue from one or a few particular Instances unto all others or to any other single Case especially which differs from them For 't is one thing to misdemean ones self in an Office another to counterfeit it The former is deprived from performing what he is orherwise rightly qualify'd for the latter is not what he pretends to be The instance of the former kind is of a pure Ecclesiastical Punishment whereas the latter labours under a defect and Error of the first Concoction which in the Nature of the thing annuls all his following Ministerial Acts he having never received the Power which he pretends to Though therefore a Real Presbyter is for his misbehaviour sometimes condemn'd to Lay-Communion yet the suspension taken of as he once was so he again becomes a real Presbyter to all intents and purposes 'T is no good Consequence hence drawn that a Counterfeit Presbyter such was Ischyras who is declared a meer Laic must needs have been a Presbyter Neither will it follow that he who has usurp'd the Seat of a Presbyter from whence he is thrust down and deposed was ever a real Presbyter For a Man may well enough be said to be deposed from an Office which he usurps and discharges for a while but never had a Right and Title to A Real King though deposed was once a real King that 's undeniable but one that personates and is called a King and Acts all the parts of the Royal Character for a time must be acknowledged never to have been a real King 'T was Ischyras his Case He Acted the part of a Presbyter and was afterwards Kick'd off the Stage shall it hence be concluded He was once a real Presbyter Under Blondel's favour I think not But Let us see now what Mr. O. who has a Knack at improving Arguments 〈◊〉 offered about the Case of Ischyras He acknowledges Colluthus was but a pretended Bishop and therefore was Commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter I am of this Mind and 't is all I demand should be grantedme The Reader of himself will discern hereby that he has given up the Whole Cause But perhaps Mr. O. means that Colluthus pretending to be a Bishop though he was not one and under that false Colour to Ordain therefore not his Power of Ordaining as a Presbyter was called in Question but his Dissimulation in taking upon him to be what he was not was condemned and so he was publickly declared to be a Presbyter that is a pretended Bishop only Ans. But I ask then why was Ischyras laid aside as a meer Laic Surely not because his Ordainer falsly assumed the Character of Bishop which belonged not to him But then say I is it not hard my Ordainers Dissimulation supposing him otherwise to have the Power should annul my Orders But Colluthus his Ordinations were vacated not because he pretended to be a Bishop and was not but because he was a Presbyter without Power to Ordain Well! But Mr. O. tells us Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by the Authors Colluthus belike not owning he had Ordained Ischyras So that it not appearing 't was taken for granted He was never Ordained and so He became a Laic no Presbyter not because he was Ordained by a Presbyter but for want of any Ordination that appeared The meaning of all which as I apprehend is that the instance makes nothing against Ordination by Presbyters seeing here was no Ordination at all Ischyras's Ordainers not owning that they had imposed hands on him For answer hereunto I referr the Reader to what is above replyed unto something of this kind The sum whereof is that Ischyras was either really Ordained by Colluthus the Presbyter or at least by his Judges taken for such which is the same thing As for Dr. Field's Argument
Officii It had then been more Congruous according to our Adversaries Argument to have named all of 'em Bishops except the President who should have been called Presbyter as being the Eldest among them Afterwards Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians not to despise Demas their Bishop for his Youth Lastly 〈◊〉 assures us that the Presbyters of Alexandria by Mark' s Institution chose their Patriarch so that Merit and Election not Age determined the Competition By the way they also according to this Author Eutychius Ordained their Patriarch by Prayer and Imposition of Hands With what Truth then could Hilary assert Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 est Ordinatio But I have done this Fictitious Hilary his Questions and Commentaries too great an Honour in wasting thus much Paper about Him and Them CHAP. XII Of St. Jerom ' s Testimony BEfore I examine the Testimonies of this Father alledg'd by Mr. O. in favour of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters I will lay down my own Hypothesis such I am perswaded as is agreeable to the Word of God And I am of Opinion also will go a great way to reconcile Jerom with himself As for my own Opinion I make account with Bp. Pearson that the Christian Church strictly speaking began upon the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit descended upon the Holy Apostles and as I may say anointed them unto the Office of Preaching the Gospel and establishing the Christian Church throughout the World beginning at Jerusalem That they were for some small time the only Ecclesiastical Officers in the Church That when the Church increased and believers were multiply'd and by consequence the Apostles unable to manage the Whole Work by themselves they took in seaven Deacons to their Assistance devolving on them intirely one branch of their Power viz. dispensing the Publick Alms among the Poor as also admitting them to Preach the Word and Baptize when Occasion offered or necessity required or their Leisure from their own proper business would allow That not very long after the Church still encreasing more and more and believers multiplying not only at Jerusalem but at Samaria and in other parts of Judea the Apostles added another sort of Church Officers that is Presbyters Acts. 11. 30. ch 15. That to these Presbyters were committed by the Apostles the Principal Care and Trust of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments and in their Absence of Ruling the Flock in Matters of less Moment the Apostles still reserving to themselves the Supreme Power in the Highest and Important affairs of the Church which they discharged either by Messengers or by Letters or else visiting them and lastly that these Presbyters were indifferently called either Elders or Bishops and governed the aforesaid Churches in a Parity among themselves Of this Interval of time I reckon Jerom might speak when he contends for the Parity and Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Churches then hitherto were governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Colleges of Presbyters no other presiding over them in the Apostles Absence In process of time when the Apostles had determined among themselves to disperse in Order to the Preaching of the Gospel unto all the World they resolv'd that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest unto whom all the care of the Church should belong the seeds of Schism might be taken away and that this should be established and observed toto Orbe throughout the World The period of time when this Course was Taken by the Apostles I have spoken of in the Preface But Jerom in this Circumstance seems not at one with himself For whereas in his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus he supposes the Apostles to have taken up this Resolution after the Corinthian Schism yet making James Bishop of Jerusalem He must of Necessity suppose it done before or at the Council of Jerusalem at which time there was not any Church or so much as one Christian at Corinth By what name or Title the Persons thus chosen out of the Presbyters and intrusted with the Supreme Government of Churches were called is of little Moment to be enquired into Nevertheless if Theodoret is to be Credited as I know no reason to the contrary they also were at first stiled Apostles and it is with reason thought that Epaphroditus is therefore reckon'd or rather declared the Apostle of the Philippians Blondel himself acknowledges there were a Secondary sort of Apostles among the Churches Persons of the Highest Rank and most Eminent Gifts I take these things in some measure proved sufficiently before and in what follows and most reasonable in themselves to be supposed Nevertherless if the Adversaries shall reject them as 't is most likely they will I shall only say that I am not much concerned about them that is whether it be possible to make Jerom write consistently with himself If not his Testimony in the Controversy before us is not worth a Rush he having contradicted himself and overthrown in one place what he is made to have affirmed in another The Question then upon Jerom's Authority is not about the precise time when this Remedy against Schism was applyed by the Apostles that 's to say whether before or immediately after the Corinthian Divisions let Jerom look to that But more generally whether he believed or ever asserted or could consistently with himself assert that this Provision against Schism was devised and made not till after the Apostles decease The Presbyterians are oblig'd to hold the Affirmative or else give up the Cause My business then is to prove that Jerom did not believe nor ever asserted nor could intend to assert that the Decree about chusing one from among the Presbyters and setting him above the rest to preside and Govern the affairs of the Church was made after the Apostles days by some Ecclesiastical Constitution but that it was the Ordination and Appointment of the Apostles themselves This I pretend to make appear by the following Observations out of Jerom. 1. These Words of Jerom toto Orbe decretum est must denote it to have been an Apostolick Constitution For an Ecclesiastical Decree obliging all Christendom to its Observation could never have been made for above 200 Years after the Apostles decease and nothing less then an Oecumenical Synod had competent Power to prescribe this Remedy against Schism But there never was any such Universal Council before that of Nice too late to Father the Decree in the Judgment even of our Adversaries themselves Moreover this Apostles Canons as they are commonly called which are a Collection of the most Ancient Decrees of the Church take it for granted that the Government of the Church was lodg'd in the Hands of Bishops and only regulate some Circumstances about their Ordinations and the Methods of their Government If Bishops had been meerly by Ecclesiastical Constitution we should certainly have found them established in these Apostolical Canons It is not to be imagin'd the
determination of this Question which the Infallible Church has made by her Example To this purpose therefore we are put in Mind of the Ordination of Pelagius Bishop of Rome which happened about the Year 555 and is remembred by Anastasius who wrote the lives of the Popes Anastasius then relates as Mr. O. tells me how that Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by John Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia Whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Before I make a direct Answer to this and to the Argument which Mr. O. builds upon the Fact it is requisite that I tell the story a little more largely For some Men have got a Scurvy Trick to leave out whatever is to their Disadvantage or In validates the Force of their Argument it being not the Truth but the Interest of the Cause which they labour to support The story then is thus Vigilius the Immediate Predecessor of Pelagius had been severely Treated at Constantinople by Justinian or rather Theodora his Empress and returning back to Rome fell Sick and died Pelagius was suspected to have had an Hand in his Death at least had been his Enemy and a cause of his Sufferings for which Reason the Clergy hated Pelagius so that he could not procure three Bishops to consecrate him He therefore in the place of the third admitted Andreas the Presbyter of Hostia and what will not such a Man as Pelagius do to establish himself in so considerable a Post as the Bishoprick of Rome But if such as these shall pass for good Precedents any Irregularity in the World may at this Rate be Justifyed Thus much being premised let us see what use Mr. O. makes of this Ordination of Pelagius He argues thus Either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop c. or else a Presbyter has Intrinsick Power of Ordination c. that is either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and then the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and Consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession Or c. Ans. I reply that though Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop i. e. not Canonically Ordained yet this notwithstanding the English Bishops have true Canonical Succession For 1. We need not pretend to derive the Succession of our Bishops from the Popes of Rome 't is more probable that they are the Successors of St. Paul or some other Apostolical Men who first planted the Gospel here in the Days of the Apostles or soon after So that we are not concerned at any Irregularity supposed in the Roman Succession 2. We had Bishops here in England or Britain long before Pelagius was Pope of Rome it being certain that some British Bishops assisted at the Council of Arles held in the days of Constantine the Great and at that of Ariminum called together by Constantius his Son above 200 Years before Pelagius And this Race of Bishops continued even unto Austin the Monks coming hither Whatever then becomes of Pelagius his Consecration 't is no matter to us His Irregularity affects not our English Bishops 3. Supposing what nevertheless is not true that the Heathen Saxons the Angli and the Danes quite extirpated Christianity in this Land until Austin the Monk coming from Rome with the Pope's Commission once more reduced and brought back the Inhabitants of this Isle unto the belief of the Gospel and gave us a new line of Bishops Yet still the Irregularity of Pelagius's Consecration will not at all disparage our Succession of Bishops as Mr. O. knows very well if he would not dissemble For I ought to believe that he has read the known History of Venerable Bede o'er and o'er and thoroughly digested him because he so oft and familiarly quotes him in the Plea c. He may then please to remember that Austin was not Created Bishop by Pope Gregory but by Etherius Archbishop of Arles in France Interea vir Domini Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem Civitatis Etherio juxta quod jussa Sti. Patris Gregorii acceperant Archiepiscopus Genti Anglorum Ordinatus est So that from henceforth Mr. O. and the Papists may take notice that the English Bishops as to the Succession of their Orders are nothing beholden to the Bishops of Rome at least not unto Pelagius that if Etherius was a Canonical Bishop as I must believe till the Contrary is prov'd so was Austin a Canonical Bishop and so are our English Bishops unto this day whatever becomes of Pelagius his Consecration Without any farther fear of danger therefore I may Conclude that Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop that is was not Canonically Ordained and yet we have a true Succession of Canonically Ordained Bishops in England But Mr. O. goes on Or else he was a Canonical Bishop and what then Why then it follows a Presbyter has a Canonical Power to Ordain for so Andreas had if Pelagius was Canonically Ordain'd and then by another consequence that Presbyters have an Intrinsick Power to Ordain Because no Ecclesiastical Laws can give to any Order of Men a Canonical Power to that which they have not an Intrinsical Power to do Supposing this for I need not contend the truth of it the Answer then to the whole Argument is as before that Pelagius was not Canonically Ordained But now I think on 't what if a Man should affirm that Pelagius was Canonically Ordained and yet assert that a Presbyter has not an Intrinsical Power to Ordain The first Apostolical Canon decrees Let a Bishop be Ordain'd by two or three Bishops Pelagius's Consecration therefore was Canonical being performed by two Bishops according to this Canoh and Presbyter Andreas may stand for a Cypher True the Nicene and other Synods afterwards said by three Bishops Nevertheless the Apostolical Canons being always reckoned as part of the Code of the universal Church the Nicene and all other Canons ought in conformity to this to be favourably interpreted I mean that it did not intend peremptorily to command but rather prudentially advised that if it could be a Bishop should be Consecrated by three Bishops It is not improbable but Pelagius's Consecration was upon this very Account afterwards allow'd of For this is manifest that Pelagius what ever his Ordination was is not reckoned amongst the Schismatical Bishops of Rome but was acknowledged and peaceably submitted to Mr. O. then is too positive when he affirms that by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Without all peradventure fewer might serve in cases of Necessity as this haply afterwards might be judged If God himself is pleas'd that his own Laws shall submit to those of Necessity much more the Canons of the Church shall Wise Men have so determin'd even in this particular case Gregory declared that Austin notwithstanding the Canons might himself alone Consecrate Bishops quidem in
Bishop then the Bishop Ordains the younger Son to be the elder and lastly another younger Son is chosen by Prelatis Subditis the Ministers and People and Ordain'd But by another part of these Cathari near the Sea thus The Bishop before his death Ordains the elder Son Bishop to succeed him and then as before All the aforesaid Ordinations are made with Imposition of Hands and the Honour of Ordaining and giving the Holy Ghost is attributed unto the Bishop or unto him that is the elder Son who holdst he Book of the New-Testament upon the Head of him on whom the hands are laid Thus much their Adversaries said of them wherein doubtless there is a mixture of Truth and I alshood at least this miserable People scattered up and down did somewhat vary in their Rites and were never at all times and in all places steady to themselves I have mentioned before how that about the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Austria and Moravia had Bishops and from these it was that the Fratres 〈◊〉 drew the Succession of their 〈◊〉 Orders which History will deserve here to be more particularly Transcribed In order whereunto I must now tell the Story of the Fratres Bohemi as Comenius and the History of the Persecut Bohem have made it ready to my Hands fetching it from the very beginning of Christianity The Sclavonian Nations were Converted in the Apostles times Rom. 15. 19. 2 Ep. to Tim. 4. 10. By Sclavonians Comenius means all the Nations from Macedonia Northward even to Russia Polonia and Germany Some proof of their early embracing the Gospel he fetches from St. Jerom who was Born at Strydon a City of 〈◊〉 or Dalmatia In the sixth Synod of Constantinople in the Year 680. the Lombards and Sclavonians are acknowledged to be Christians About the Year 861. Cyrillus and Methodius two Graecian Bishops made the People inhabiting about the Danube Christians and then passing into Moravia and Bohemia propagated the Faith among them After this Comenius mentions Ditmarus Saxo Bishop of Prague * The History of the Bohemian Persecution tells of Waytichius II. Bishop of Prague in the Year 907. of Boleslaus Pius another Bishop of Prague Anno 965. of Priests and Prelates Anno 1197. who opposed the Usurpations of the Popes and of Conrade Bishop of Prague who leaving the Romish Errors remained Bishop there Anno 1421. About 20 Years before this hap'ned viz. Anno 1400. the Bohemian Churches separated from the Roman upon the account that the Publick Prayers were made in the Latin Tongue that the Clergy were obliged to Celibacy that Transubstatiation was made an Article of Faith and that the People were deprived of the Cup in the Lord's-Supper This occasioned the dispersion of the Bohemians and their Settlement in Austria from whence they sent unto the Greek Church for the Ordination of their Ministers and had hopes given them of their obtaining it They removed after into Silesia Now it was that Gregory an Holy Man was by the Persecutors tortured but falling into a Trance felt no pain and was believed dead Recovering he told his Friends of a Vision wherein among other things he saw three Men standing about a Tree laden with Fruit and defending it from the Birds and about the same time the Fratres Bohemi were under some trouble of Mind how they should for the future be provided with a Succession of rightly Ordained Ministers For they considered that though several of the Roman Priests came over to them it was too uncertain to hope for them 〈◊〉 Rome They doubted also whether the Ordination was valid when a Presbyter and not a Bishop Ordained a Presbyter and that if the Question was once mov'd about it whether they should be able to defend such an Ordination either at Home or Abroad At length after some Years deliberation viz 1467. and about 6 Years after the said Vision of Gregory having Fasted and Pray'd for Direction from God they resolved upon the following Course They chuse nine of the most deserving Brethren and fittest for the Ministry They wrap up twelve Tickets nine whereof were Blanks and three full ones having writ on them est that is to say as they meant it should signifie it is the Will of God but the Blanks were to denote it was not the Will of God they should have Bishops These twelve Tickets being mixed were delivered to a young Boy not knowing what he did to be distributed one to every one of those nine Persons 'T is manifest that the nine Blank Tickets might every one have been given out unto those nine Persons from whence it would have been concluded that what they were about to do was not the Will of God But it so hap'ned that the three full Tickets were delivered to three of the nine sc. to Kunwaldius Praelausius and Crenovius And hence they gathered assuredly that what they were designing was the Will of God sc. to seek for Episcopal Orders and the means of continuing a right Succession of them and that to that end those three Persons were to be Ordained Bishops Accordingly they sent three Persons unto the Church of the Waldenses who were at that time planted in the Confines of Moravia and Austria acquainting them with what was done and asking their Advice One of these three was Michael Zambergius so called because he was Pastor Zambergensis his true Name being Michael Bradacius How it came to pass that he was sent in the room of one of the other three chosen by lot is not said But Zambergius and the other two coming to the Wâldenses find one Stephen their Bishop who calling to him another Waldensian Bishop and some Ministers they create these three Bishops with imposition of Hands thereby conferring on them the Power of Ordaining Ministers 〈◊〉 three new Ordained Bishops of the Fratres Bohemi were the three which 〈◊〉 saw in his 〈◊〉 Guardians of the Tree that is of the Bohemian Churches Note that the Waldenses affirmed themselves to have had a lawful and uninterrupted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles days and derived their Original from the time of 〈◊〉 This hap'ned I reckon about 1420. or 1430. About the Year 1500. my Author witnesseth that there were 200 Churches in Bohemia and Moravia In the History of the Bohemian Persecution after their having received Bishops from the Waldenses I read of Lucas Pragene Bishop of the Bohemians of Sanctuariensis an Italian Bishop who for Conscience sake embraced the Bohemian Communion Anno 1482. and of Philip Bishop of Sidon being among them Anno 1493. Afterwards in the Year 1499. the Bohemians sent as far as Armenia for Ordination their Succession perhaps by some accident failing Anno 1542. I find Joanes Augusta was their Antistes or Bishop The next year after I meet with a great number of the Bohemians retired into Prussia whom their Bishop Mathias Sionius followed soon after