Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	worth_a	worthy_a	year_n	33	3	4.2121	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53662	Tutamen evangelicum, or, A defence of Scripture-ordination, against the exceptions of T.G. in a book intituled, Tentamen novum proving, that ordination by presbyters is valid, Timothy and Titus were no diocesan rulers, the presbyters of Ephesus were the apostles successors in the government of that church, and not Timothy, the first epistle to Timothy was written before the meeting at Miletus, the ancient Waldenses had no diocesan bishops, &c./ by the author of the Plea for Scripture-ordination.	Owen, James, 1654-1706.	1697 (1697)	Wing O710; ESTC R9488	123,295	224

of that Epistle on which Timothy's supposed Episcopal Power is grounded I do not pretend that my Arguments are Demonstrations as he calls his for the contrary Opinion but they carry with them the greatest probability That that Epistle was written earlier than the Rector pretends whose Arguments I have evinced to be weak and fallacious Tho' if it were written after it doth not prejudice my Argument from Acts 20. 4. In the Fourth Chapter he pretends to prove That Evangelists were fixed Church-Governours that is Bishops His main Argument by which he would Establish this fancy is a begging of the Question he takes it for granted that Timothy was a fixed Evangelist at Ephesus and Titus at Crete That they were Evangelists he cannot deny that they were unfixed I have prov'd in my Remarks on this Chapter I have prov'd Philip also to be no fixed Evangelist and vindicated Eusebius and Chrysostom 5. In the Fifth Chapter he makes a flourish as if he would answer J. O's Plea but leaves the greatest Part untouched and answers only the three first Arguments and that very slatterinly Thus you have a short Idea of his Book in which he discovers little of Argument less of Reading and nothing of Candor Tedious Digressions Nauseous Repetitions and Scornful Reflections on J. O. and the Dissenters make up very near one Third of his Book The Truth of this will appear to any intelligent and impartial Reader I should not have thought it worth while to have Answer'd it but for the clamorous Confidence of some weak People who reckon a Book unanswerable when no Reply is made unto it His Preface being large I must consider the main parts of it in a distinct Chapter and in the following Chapters shall Examine the several Chapters of his Book so as my second will answer to his first and my third to his second and so of the rest He must pardon me if I be more just to him than he has been to the Author of the Plea and if I follow him Paragraph by Paragraph in all that is material and may seem worth Answering throughout his Book For I judge it below a Scholar and a Man of Ingenuity to pick quarrels with a few Passages here and there in a Book and leave the greatest Part unanswer'd as he hath done by J. O. THE Reader may observe the Parallel between our Rector's and Dr. Manwaring 's Political Notions Condemn'd in Parliament 4 Carol. 1628. The Doctor 's Charge drawn up by a Committee of the Commons was this Rush Hist Collect. Vol. 1. p. 585. Edit 1659. 1. He labours to infuse into the Conscience of His Majesty the persuasion of a Power not bounding it self with Laws which K. James of Famous Memory calls in His Speech to the Parliament Tyranny yea Tyranny accompanied with Perjury The Rector goes beyond Manwaring in this Point for he saith That the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution And if a Prince should not give this Assurance the Rector conceives he is not obliged to Govern strictly by the present Law 2. Manwaring is charg'd to endeavour to persuade the Conscience of the Subjects that they are bound to obey Commands illegal The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though Five Hundred Men i. e. a House of Commons at once should forbid us and to this we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should happen to be an Usurper and a Tyrant 3. The third Charge against Manwaring was That he robs the Subjects of the Propriety of their Goods The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though five hundred Men should forbid because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription He complains that the Rights of the People were too much swell'd and affirms That it is one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Privileges 4. Dr. Manwaring brands them that will not lose this Propriety with most scandalous Speech and odious Titles The Rector is very liberal in odious Reflections on my Lord Shaftsbury and others who opposed the Arbitrary Proceedings in the latter end of King Charles II's Reign 5. To the same end not much unlike to Faux and his Fellows saith Mr. R. in the Name of the Committee he seeks to blow up Parliaments and Parliamentary Powers The Rector saith The Prince in effect is the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Usurp and Exercise it You see the Rector Confirms all Dr. Manwaring 's Positions and adds some grosser ones of his own especially that the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace to which he is not obliged This puts me in mind of the Words of a worthy Patriot spoken in Parliament March 22. 1627. upon occasion of Sibthorp and Manwaring 's Sermons * Rush Ibid. P. 503. It is well known saith he the People of this State are under no other Subjection than what they did voluntarily consent to by the Original Contract between King and People and as there are many Prerogatives and Priviledges conferr'd on the King so there are left to the Subject many necessary Liberties and Priviledges as appears by the common Laws and Acts of Parliaments notwithstanding what these two ‖ Sibthorp and Manwaring Sycophants have prated in the Pulpit to the contrary The Commons form'd the Charge against Dr. Manwaring into a Declaration which being Ingross'd and Read was sent to the Lords for their Concurrence Mr. Pym 's Learned Speech at the delivery of the Charge before the Lords is well worth the reading Rush ubi supr p. 595 604. Not long after the Commons proceeded to give Judgment against Dr. Manwaring 1. To be Imprisoned during the Pleasure of the House 2. To be Fined 1000 l. to the King 3. To make such a Submission as the House shall prescribe 4. To be Suspended from his Ministry three Years 5. To be disabled to have any Ecclesiastical Dignity or Secular Office 6. To be disabled to Preach at Court hereafter 7. That his said Book is worthy to be Burnt and that His Majesty may be mov'd to grant a Proclamation to call in the said Books that they may be all burnt in London and both Universities Rush Ibid. p. 605. Mr. Fuller * Church Hist Lib. XI p. 130. saith That much of this Censure was remitted upon his humble Submission at both the Bars in Parliament the Form of which you have in him and in Mr. Rushworth But the King Issued out His Proclamation for the total Suppressing of the Sermons ‖ Rush Ibid. p. 633. I mention these things not to expose the Rector who is secured by several Acts of Grace pass'd since the Publishing of those Sermons but to expose his dangerous Doctrine that overturns the Foundations of our excellent Government THE Contents of the Chapters CHAP. I. THE Dissenters Vindicated in their

can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing

Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a● desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been

Mat 18.15 16 17. 1 Cor. 5.2 Cor. 3.6 His Fancy that our Ministers ask leave of the Lay-Elders to Suspend is a great mistake Though common Sense might teach him that two or three Experienced Persons of the Congregation whom he Stiles Lay-Elders in conjunction with the Ministers are more competent Judges of Offences within the Congregation than a Lay-Chancellor who lives at a distance and is a meer Stranger and usually makes the best advantage of his Office without any great regard to the Salvation of Souls He complains That the Dissenters call them Priests in contempt P. 13. though the Word he but Presbyter contracted 1. I know no Reason why this Gentleman should be offended that we call them by a Name which themselves are so fond of The Words Pri●sthood and Priests are used five or six times in the Form of Ordination And the Word Minister was chang'd by the Reformers of the Common Prayer in 1662. into that of Priest at least in five places in the Absolution in the Responses in the Litany and at the Communion c. 2. Admit it to be a Contraction of Presbyter we must consider Words non a quo sed ad quid as the School-men speak not as they did Originally signifie but as they do at Present It is certain that the Learned Translators of the New Testament never render the Greek Presbyter by Priest in English and they had reason for it because the Word Priest in common use signifies the Sacrificing Priests of the Law whose name is never in the New Testament given to Ministers of the Church as Dr. Fulk observes against the Rhemish Seminary Rhem. in Act 14. S. 4. who quarrel with our first Reformers for Translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder and not Priest The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are generally Translated Priest in our English Bibles and they properly signifie Sacrificing Priefts Our Author confesseth Pref. p. 14. That it is very requisite that we should not know of any interruption in the Succession of Holy Orders but it is infinite Satisfaction when we have a moral assurance that there has been none J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea that the Succession has been interrupted P. 168. to 178. and that it 's morally impossible by this Principle for any Man to know himself to be a true Minister of Christ But our Rector never takes notice of it not unlike some sort of Disputants who resolve to hold the Conclusion let what will come of the Premises He that has moral assurance that there has been no Interruption which begets in the Rector infinite Satisfaction must be sure that he who Ordain'd him was Ordain'd by a Canonical Bishop that that Bishop's Ordination was not void by Canon particularly he must be sure to know he came not in by Simony that he was not an Heretick or Erroneous in the Fundamentals or Ordain'd by a Bishop out of his own Province He must know that all the Bishops successively from the Apostles times by whom he derives his claim were thus Ordain'd one Interruption spoils the whole Line He must be able to disprove all the Interruptions mention'd by Historians He must prove that Sergius the II. not obtain the Popedom by Magie Naucl. p. 742. which he himself confessed he did that Liberius did not subscribe the Arian Confession in the Council of Sirmium that Pope Honorius in the second General Council was wrongfully condemn'd for a Heretick that Marcellinus was no Idolater nor Celestine a Nestorian Heretick that the Charge of Simony put in against the English Bishops Vide Fox Acts-ad A. D. 1405. scarce one excepted among King Henry IVth's Bishops was false If any one of these be true as all may be for ought we know to the contrary and a thousand the like the Succession of Ordaining Bishops is interrupted and the Ordinations of all that derive from them are a nullity See the Learned Reasons of the Bishop of Worcester against this Succession Iren. p. 299. The Scriptures no where mention this Succession Where was the Succession of the Jewish High-Priests when the Roman Governours set up whom they pleas'd and chang'd them annually without regard to the Divine Law See John 11.51 Joseph Antiq xviii 3. Where shall we find the Succession when the Woman is in the Wilderness and the Witnesses slain Gospel Ordinances are plain things and not clog'd with insuperable difficulties But so much is said to this Subject in J. O's Plea that it is needless to add more To justifie their Ordinations saith Mr. G. by the Example of the Lollards Pref. p. 15. is but to talk of Yesterday of those who appeared not in the World till about Henry III's Reign 1. J. O. gave about twelve Instances of Ordination by Presbyters Plea cap. x. p. 125. all more Ancient than this of the Followers of Wickliff Our Author according to his great Candor overlooks all the rest and attacks only this late Instance And why this That he might say it was but of Yesterday And yet his Yesterday is above four hundred Years ago for King Henry III. dyed in the Year 1272. 2. The Lollards as they were call'd in contempt were famous Witnesses against Antichristian Errors in their Time and abundance of them seal'd their Testimony with their Blood We cannot therefore judge so lightly of their Practise as the Rector doth It is true they labour'd under great Difficulties as he observeth but that was not the Reason of Presbyters Ordaining among them but their asserting an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to ordain as J. O. hath prov'd out of Walsingham's Hist p. 339. in the very Place which he animadverts upon but it was not his Interest to take notice of it 3. This Instance is the more considerable because the Lollards were the off-spring of the Ancient Waldenses as Perrin observes In England Hist Wald. lib. 1. c 3. saith he they were call'd Lollards from one Lollard who taught there The persecuted Waldenses being scatter'd fled into Provence and the Alps some into Calabria Bohemia Polonia and into Britain as Thuanus observes Lib. v. ad A. D. 1550. Pref. So that this is a further Confirmation that the Waldenses had no Bishops of the present English Species But saith our Author P. 15 and 16. As for Waldenses or Vaudois having had no other Ministers than Presbyters ordain'd by Presbyters for near five hundred Years past as J. O. affirms it may prove one and not the least of his mistakes when I shall here have set down what a Learned Neighbour of mine communicated to me He told me that he finds in the History of the Church of Bohemia That the Brethren of Bohemia suspecting the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters sent unto the Waldenses A. D. 1467. Michael Zamburgius their Rector with two others These find Stephen the Waldensian Bishop who with another Bishop and