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
Mr. O. If the Apostle joined the Presbytery with him in the Ordination of Timothy it proves that Presbyters have an Inherent Power of Ordaining Ans. True it may safely be granted in Conjunction with the Apostle and with Bishops but not without them The House of Commons has an inherent Power to make a Vote of Parliament but not without the Lords and both Houses have an inherent Power to make a Law but not without the King 'T is he that inspires Life and Breath into it after the two Houses have formed the Carcass Lastly Mr. O. adds The Apostles are Distinguished from the Presbytery Act. 15. 23. Ans. This is not appositely observed for it was a Council not a Presbytery though the Presbyters of Jerusalem were in it haply other Presbyters also besides an Apostle or Apostles though he be the Head or Governour of a Presbytery may be aptly distinguished from that Presbytery whereof he is Head and yet at the same time he is a Member of that Presbytery Jesus Christ is by St. Paul called the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 22. 23. c 4 15 16. Col. 1. 18. and so is distinguished from the Body though we cannot properly call any thing a Body except we comprehend the Head also for a body is not a Body without the Head and the Head is a Member of the Body And yet St. Paul distinguishes between the Body that is the Church and Christ the Head of it when at the same time Christ the Head must be believed a Member of his own Body I expect then Mr. O. will in good time rally npon St. Paul and expose his Expression as he has mine Moreover though the Apostles are distinguished from the Elders yet it follows not that they are distinguished from the Council or Presbytery when the Members of a Body are distinguished from one another they are not to be understood as distinguished from the Body but from one another only St. Paul speaking of the Natural body 1 Cor. 12. tells us that though the Members of that Body are many yet'tis but one Body and he distinguishes also the Members from one another as the Hands from the Feet and both from the Eyes and all these from the Ears and the Hand from the rest of the Body but yet he affirms they are all of the Body and together make up the Body So St. Luke reckons the two Principal and Constituent Parts of the Council at Jerusalem and distinguishes between the Apostles and the Elders between the Head and the lower Members but not between the Head and the Body between the Apostles and Council for no one can think but the Apostles were a part of the Council or if you please call it a Presbytery I beg the Readers patience when I say a Body is not a Body without an Head Our late Presbyteries were such Bodies without visible Heads The Classical Body moved to the place of meeting I say moved without an Head A frightful Spectacle When it had sat a few moments without an Head it then made it self an Head a President or Moderator protempore who was before but an inferior Member but now mounted up for an hour or two to be the Head But it may be ask'd who was the Head when this 〈◊〉 was set up Herein the Body acted without an Head However the Business of the day being over the Artificial Head drops off from the Shoulders and thence 〈◊〉 is an Hand or a Foot as before So every Member of the Body in its turn becomes the Head and the Head dwindling again into a small Member The Body then continues for some Days or Weeks without an Head And would it not scare one to see a Body once more without an Head Hereby Mr. O. may see 't is possible to ridicule the Presbyteries if one will take the Liberty to confine Words to their Natural Signification when they are used Metaphorically As to my Exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am not sensible Mr. O. has advanced any thing considerable against me Only after his usual and Sophistical manner he draws in what is admitted in one place and opposes it to what is supposed in another which can with no Justice be done When ex gr I explain this Passage 1 Tim. 4. 14. supposing that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the concrete It is a miserable shift to make use of what I here assert against what afterward I propose when I have admitted the phrase to be understood in the Abstract and then assert Paul to be at least one and the Head or Governour of the Presbytery I had laid down several ways of Expounding the Text and had permited Mr. O. to chuse which he pleased that the Argument might be brought to a certain head But instead hereof he jumbles 'em all 〈◊〉 contrary to allLaws of Disputation And whereas I laid this clearly before the Reader p. 33. by summing up briefly what had been said he 〈◊〉 us off with calling it a Recapitulation of my long perplexed 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Text. Mr. O. has indeed perplex'd it but it has been judged pretty clear by others I wish Mr. O. would have furnished us with a better Carpere vel noli 〈◊〉 vel ede 〈◊〉 But the Minister is better at pulling down than building up and indeed it is in a great measure the true Character of the whole Party In the Conclusion of my Discourse upon the General History of the Apostolical Churches and their Government I examined that passage of St. Peter 1 Eph. 5. but do not find my Adversary to have said any thing to that purpose or which in the least affects the account I gave of it Some Cavils are to be met with but such as if any one suspects of Moment let him but compare 'em with what I said in the 〈◊〉 Nov. p. 37. to p. 42. and he will easily discern the shifts Mr. O. 〈◊〉 put to in framing but a Colourable Reply Among many other things I will only in short produce one and the rather because Mr. O. has repeated it I 〈◊〉 above 20 times and yet 't is nothing but what I granted more than once ' 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 and Titus says he are no where expresly called Bishops in the Scripture nor Constituted Diocesan Bishops Now I had oft enough 〈◊〉 in T. N. and cautioned against all mistake and 〈◊〉 cavil that 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 are never called Bishops only contended they were the Supreme Rulers of the Churches of 〈◊〉 and Crete that is in the Language afterwards prevailing in the Church they were Bishops And yet for all this we are at every turn told they are never in Scripture expresly called Bishops nor constituted Diocesan Bishops as if I or any other ever asserted it Nevertheless that which I affirm and which is sufficient to my purpose is that they had express Commission from St. Paul to
at which the Congregation Ordinarily received the Lord's-Supper And again that Ignatius's Bishop was but the Chief Pastor of a Church which Ordinarily assembled together for Personal Communion that the Bishop's Diocess in Ignatius's time and long after exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parish Finally up and down in the Defence that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishops so neither could the Bishops without their Presbytery which is an Argument of their Parity and that as elsewhere he and generally all other Dissenters make Ignatius's Bishops they were but the Moderators in the Presbyteries and those not for Life neither but temporary only as many of them have affirmed Ans. The Presumptions Mr. O. means are those He speaks of in his Plea and Defence as I suppose grounded upon some slight Passages in the Epistles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like of which enough has already been said unless their sense could be more certainly determined For He and I may talk and dispute till Dooms-Days that thus or thus those Phrases may or ought to signifie and at last leave the Matter as we found it undecided and every Man to choose what sense he pleases as his Interest sways him or as his Affections and adherence to a Cause shall Byass him Letting then these things pass the Answer which I make shall be to lay before the Reader some Reasons as will I hope evince the Truth and prevail with him to embrace the sense of this Father which we have already given and to believe that Ignatius his Bishops were truly Prelatical and Diocesan And 1. Were it as Mr. O. affirms yet the Dissenters are Universally departed even from this Form of Church Government What one Congregation among 'em has its Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and the Bishop the Supreme Manager without whom nothing ought to be done But 2. Whereas he tells us that Ignatius his Bishop was but the chief Pastor of a Church that is the Moderator of the Presbytery this cannot be if we will allow Ignatius to have been a Man of common Sense and Understanding For what more absurd and impertinent could have been written than all along in these seven Epistles to distinguish so carefully between the Bishop and his Presbyters and yet all the while the Bishop was but one of the Presbyters set up only to Moderate in their Presbyteries and debates for Orders sake Or how could Ignatius direct as Mr. O. pleads that the Presbyters should do nothing without the Bishop nor the Bishop without the Presbyters except he thought the Bishop a distinct Species of Officer from the Presbyters and the Presbyters from the Bishop The Bishop then and the Presbyter must needs be two different Orders in Ignatius's Opinion It is objected that since the Obligation was reciprocal i. e. the Bishop could do nothing without the Presbyters as the Presbyters could not Act without the Bishop the Bishop therefore had no preheminence above the Presbyters I answer 1. That however the Bishop must be allowed to have been more than an Ordinary Presbyter yea at least equal to the whole Presbytery and to have himself made a distinct Order from it the very Reciprocal Obligation here objected of necessity implies as much 2. Not only so but as the King is the Supreme Monarch of this Nation and more than the Lords or Commons though He can enact no Law without the Parliament as the Parliament cannot without him as the King I say makes a distinct State of the Realm this I think Mr. O. will grant so was Ignatius his Bishop an Officer different from the Presbyters if the Father spake Sense in his Epistle and Superior to them If it be enquired wherein could his Supremacy consist I reply that after any Laws and Constitutions were resolved on between the Bishop and the Presbytery or whatever was known to have been ordained by the Apostles he had the care and oversight to see 'em executed and in matters of greatest moment he generally was the executor of 'em himself in Person as the King is in the Secular Affairs of this Nation For as the King does nothing that is makes no New Laws without the Parliament yet he sees to the Execution of 'em after they are once made and of all other the ancient Laws of the Realm and that without the Parliament so the Bishop though he did nothing that is made no New Constitutions without the Presbytery yet 't was he who had the care of their Execution and of the more Ancient and Apostolical Decrees and Traditions It must necessarily have been so if Ignatius his Epistles carry any Sense in them But perhaps a positive proof of all this will be demanded from me out of the Epistles To this purpose then observe 1. What Ignatius writes to the Ephesians Whom the Master Jesus Christ sends unto the Administration of his own Houshold the Church we ought so to receive him as we would receive the Master that sent him 'T is then manifest we ought to look upon the Bishop as we ought to look upon the Lord Jesus Christ Here it appears that Ignatius accounted the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Administrator of the Church or Houshold 2. That though Ignatius exhorts the Churches to be subject to and obey the Bishop and the Presbyters also And so He does to the Deacons too in the Epistles to the Trallians Philadelphians and Smyrneans yet he never thus prescribes Obedience to the Presbyters or the Presbyteries only or without mentioning the Bishop with and before ' em But he frequently admonishes the Church to obey the Bishop without express mention of the Presbyters 3. That though He advises the Church to be subject unto the Bishop and Presbytery and to the Deacons also yet he never advises them expresly to do nothing without the Presbyters or Presbytery Besides Mr. O's saying that the Bishop could do nothing without the Presbyters is without ground in these Epistles it being never said Do nothing without the Bishop and the Presbytery much less simply Do nothing without the Presbyters 4. 'T is not to be forgotten what Ignatius takes special notice of in his Epistle to the Magnesians You must not abuse or despise the Youth of our Bishop Demas but pay him all Reverence as I know the Holy Presbyters do who look on the Ordinance the Bishop as I take it or the Episcopacy not as a new Device but as Wise Men they submit unto him in the Lord or as the Institution of Jesus Christ. So then the Presbyters were subject and obedient to the Bishop But where will it be found that the Bishop is admonished or advised to obey the Presbyters 5. When Ignatius was in Bonds ravished from his People or Church H thus writes to the Romans Which the Church in Syria in my stead now 〈◊〉 the Lord only for its Shepherd But though the Church of Syria had lost its Bishop and was then at
old Hypothesis as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus constituted Timothy the Ruler Bishop of Ephesus yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that his Farewel-Sermon Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and that other to the Ephesians and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy takes no Notice of the Elders neither does John Peter or Jude in their Epistles nor lastly does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon but shall we thence conclude that those Churches had none of those Officers in them Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler Bishop of Ephesus might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government and one would think could not have forgot'em when he was discoursing on such an Argument Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself whose other Epistles so often and so fully remember Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in that to the Romans had not oneSyllable of any of 'em and yet he knew very well that Bishops as well as Presbyters were then established throughout the World as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians 'T is then no Proof that Timothy was not even at that time the established Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered and why let any one judge I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy Now whether as Mr. O. pleads Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution but Divine by the Power of the Holy Ghost v. 28. enough has been said of this already Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there or his Prelatical Power over them For it is not inconsistent to say that Timothy was appointed their Ruler Bishop and at the same time that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy We Presbyters of the Church of England do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock and that by Divine Authority too and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us by the same Divine Authority Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests viz. That we are Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord to teach premonish feed and provide for the Lord's Family and to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed abroad And at our Ordination the first Question is Do ye think in your Hearts that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God It follows not then from these words that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole intire and supreme Government of that Church They might even then be and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence as we are to our Diocesan Bishops If our Provincial Archbishop should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate exhort as ordinary Presbyters To take heed to our selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers to feed the Church of God not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering Before I conlude this Chapter there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis has suggested to me proving I am bold to say demonstrating that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome I will lay 'em as briefly and as plainly as I can before the Reader and so make an end 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment as Mr. O. affirms it must then have been written either before or at the same time or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy had sent Tychicus to Ephesus Chap. 4. 12 How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians if he was already gone to Ephesus before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians The second Epistle to Timothy therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians 2. Not at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written For Timothy who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 was sent for by Paul to Rome Chap. 4. 9. was even then with Paul at Rome and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon Chap. 1. 1. Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time as that to the Colossians was 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written For then Timothy who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul which 't is certain he did not Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome and once more gone back into Asia with him In like manner 〈◊〉 who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians from Paul and Timothy must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome and thence been sent back unto Ephesus 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment which is not in the least Probable 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase as no rational Man can admit Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy was not written after that to the Colossians If then it was written neither before nor at the same time nor after those to the Colossians and Philemon it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment therefore it must needs have been written in his Second 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to the Colossians and that other to Philemon I shall
represent it first according to Mr. O's Hypothesis and secondly according to my own According to Mr. O's Hypothesis Demas had forsaken Paul loving this present World and was departed to Thessalonica before the Apostle wrote that second Epistle to Timothy Paul in the same second Epistle after Demas had forsaken him sent for Timothy from Asia unto Rome v. 9. Timothy being come to Rome joined with Paul in the Epistles to the Colossians Chap. 1. 1. and to Philemon v. 1. and yet Demas was still with Paul at Rome even though he had forsaken Paul and he is by the Apostle and Timothy mentioned with Honour in both Epistles Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. after he had forsaken the Apostle This is absurd enough For here are several Inconsistences yea Contradictions in the Story as 't is laid by Mr. O. 1. Demas had forsaken Paul 2 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 and yet had not forsaken him Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. 2. Demas had forsaken Paul and was departed to Thessalonica and yet was still with Paul at Rome 3. Demas was at Thessalonica and at Rome at the same time 4. Demas at once was an Apostate and yet a 〈◊〉 Labourer with Paul 〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 10. Philem. 24. Mr. O. may try if he please whether he can surmouut these Difficulties But according to my Hypothesis Demas continued with Paul at Rome all his first Imprisonment there being little or no danger at this time Paul wrote the Epistles to the Colossians and that to Philemon and therein Commends Demas there being then no reason to the Contrary But in the Apostle's second Imprisonment when the Christian Religion and the Apostle in particular was more violently persecuted then the Apostle wrote the second Epistle to Timothy and then Demas had deserted Paul and withdrawn himself into Macedonia as indeed all Men then forsook him 2 Tim. 4. 16. Let the Reader judge whether this is not a plain and coherent Account but Mr. O's confused false and utterly irreconcilable with it self In a word here is an end I suppose unto that part of the Controversy about the time of Paul's writing the second Epistle to Timothy It must need be in his second Imprisonment And thus Mr. O's main Bulwark raised for the defence of the Old Chronology 〈◊〉 Paul's writing the first Epistle to Timothy before his leaving Miletus Act. 20. is demolished and levelled with the Ground THE APPENDIX I Must not deny as I once before acknowledged that I borrowed my Hypothesis about the time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus from Bishop P. and that I believed him to have been the first publick Author of it I am very sure he cited none And that passage out of the Rhemists produced by Mr. O. 't is confest I was not aware of And what then They stumbled upon and had a suspicion of something which they were not able to make out distinctly But the Bishop of Chester has done it with the approbation of the most Learned Men except such as are led aside with the 〈◊〉 of Interest and have espoused a cause which will not allow it And yet I hope I may say without Breach of modesty that I did add some further proofs and Confirmations of this NewChronology though they 〈◊〉 absolutely necessary those of Bishop Pearson's being sufficient without 'em as I freely own Mr O. is not mistaken when he say Miracles are grown very common in this last Age. But he has not proved his Proposition by a proper Argument He should have alledged those Miracles of this Age who cast out the Devil at Surey and that Miracle of this Age who undertook the Defence of the pretended Exorcists and yet acknowledged the Imposture at the same time It is indeed a surprizing Miracle that the Devil should be cast out where he never entered and much more that two Confident Ministers should assume to themselves the Glory of Dispossessing Dicky when 't is well know that several other good Men pray'd for that unhappy Wretch If Mr. O's displeased that I called Bishop Pearson the Miracle of his time I cannot help it but would be glad he would shew me his equal from among the Dissenters Of all others I would advise him not to instance in that great Man Mr. Baxter I cannot believe his own Testimony of himself sc. That he and 〈◊〉 Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages All the World knows Mr. Baxter did not understand Latin very well Haply he understood English and that 's all I verily believe he was Master off But this Boast of his puts me in Mind of a certain Bishop's Chaplain Who told his Lord that they two had been during the Civil Wars in all the Prisons in England The Bishop Modestly reply'd being unwilling to load his Enemies with an untruth I was never in more than one and there indeed he had been near upon twenty Years Ay but the Chaplain answered I have been in all the rest Thus perhaps Mr. Baxter and his Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages Mr. Baxter understood English and his Scribe the remaining Eighteen and here we have two other Miracles of this Age. A Man of no Learning making as great a Figure at least Noise as any other even in this Learned Age And his Amanuensis who understood Eighteen Languages much more than Solomon did as I believe or any Man will ever do again But the greatest Miracle of all is that Mr. Baxter and his Scribe understood Ninteen Languages yet no use is made of any of 'em to any purpose except the English in all the Voluminous works of that Great Man Mr. O. informs us that St. Paul had Preached the Gospel in 〈◊〉 at that time when being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he wrote his Epistle to the Romans I will convict him of a great mistake to say no worse by laying the Testimony before the Reader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum I have fully 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Christ. Not in but unto Illyricum which spoils the Ministers Argument in that place Concerning Paul's Preaching the Gospel in Spain and the Western parts of Europe I chanced to express my self thus All the 〈◊〉 say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went to Spain and to the remotest parts of the West c. And at this he takes occasion to reproach me in general for my crude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because I said All c. 〈◊〉 I must needs own that every Father has not affirmed this But I have this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self that 't is ordinary to express a Notion thus Universally 〈◊〉 nevertheless there are many restrictions and exceptions unto the Universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. O. with some Instances out of Scripture Rom. 5. 18. By the Righteousness of one the free Gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life John 12. 32. And I if I be lifted up from the Earth will draw all Men unto me Titus 2. 11. For the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation 〈◊〉
who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly Brethren c. All that needs be answered hereunto is 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere that the Schism arose on the account of one or two Persons p. 62. 'T is says He a shame an arrant shame and unworthy a Christians Conversation that the ancient and most firmly established Church of Corinth should raise Sedition against the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one or two Persons that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop that Generous Person it must needs follow that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy and by Consequence that some of 'em were deserted and laid aside by those of the People who had an aversion to the Bishop that Generous Person so oft mentioned as well as to some of the Presbyters who stuck close to him 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of were the Bishop in Possession and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 In short if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning of the Epistle which to us at this distance is dark enough be of any moment it may then be allowed that Clement has intimated that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him but was forced himself to interpose in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters and People had conceived against their Bishop who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words or at least to mention two Orders only when yet they acknowledge a Third This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self The three Officers of the Jewish Church are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest who without controversy was a Third is included 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice That the Priests and Levites came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 meaning the High-Priest also as I presume will not be denyed For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham Clemens Alexand in his 〈◊〉 cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian Church and yet elsewhere he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two In the former place 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops at least they ought not to be excluded though the Author there omits them So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders yet once he contents himself to express 'em in two Words only Bishops and Deacons There are says he in the place cited on the Margin quatuor genera 〈◊〉 Four Orders of Men in the Church but he sums 'em up in three Words viz. Bishops Deacons and the Faithful It may deserve observation that at this time of the Day and with Optatus ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment because forsooth He here mentions 'em not distinctly It cannot be fairly Collected hence as every one 〈◊〉 This is manifest that Optatus in those two Words Bishops and Deacons must understand the three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church Besides saying here sicut supra dixi he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Wherefore the Premisses considered 't is reasonable to believe that Clemens Romanus likewise did in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons It ought not here to be forgot what St. Chrysostom has observed 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both They Minister like Deacons unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates and are subject unto him as the other are But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments as well as the Bishop does and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops But Blundel and his Followers I remember to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church asserts that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age At other times to their own Customs and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks Bishops and Priests and Deacons But this device will not do their Work and must be laid aside for the following Reasons 1. St. Cyprian against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed though He often falls into the Dichotomy yet asserts the Divine Right of Bishops Cum hoc igitur sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur divina lege fundatum sit The Government of the Church by Bishops is says He founded upon a Divine Law That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle He begins it thus Our Lord whose precepts we ought to Reverence and Observe establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs says c. And again he adds Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions so that the Church is established on Bishops and every Act of the Church is governed per eosdem Praepositos by the same Praepositi that is Bishops If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age where the Divine Right ends as well as his own when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi be understood of Presbyters for Cyp. whatever any may fancy of Praepositi never calls Presbyters Bishops Nor could he conformably to his own Writings He professes thus of himself and other Bishops Neq enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops But if the Presbyters were Bishops then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops 2. Optatus in the same Breath in one
present without one yet surely they had not lost all their Presbyters And if the Church of Syria retained yet her Presbyters as by the quiet that Church even then had must be thought they might easily have made to themselves a Chief Pastor or Moderator out of their remaining Number and not been destitute of a Shepherd as Ignatius bewails whole loss or absence at present could only be supply'd by the chief Shepherd and Bishop of their Souls Here by the way the conceit of a temporary Moderator must be thrown out of Doors Ignatius was Bishop of Syria for life nor could they have another whilst He was living tho' absent in Bonds This was the Reason he so Passionately resented the unhappiness of that Church of Syria that they were forced to be without a Bishop which they needed not to have been if another 〈◊〉 Pastor and Moderator might have been constituted in his absence and Life-time which by the Presbyterian Principles might easily have been done 6. Ignatius over and over prescribes that the Churches should do nothing without the Bishop and not only so in these General Terms which haply will be understood of his presiding in Presbyteries and moderating in their Debates for Order's sake but also in particular that Marriages should not be Celebrated the Lord's-Supper should not be administred nor Baptism given unto Believers without him without his appointment and approbation This shews that Ignatius his Bishop was not only the President in their Synods and Deliberations but the Supreme Director of the Execution of the Laws and Rules of the Church without whose leave the 〈◊〉 could not Marry nor Administer the Sacraments 'T is all we desire of the Dissenters if we might prevail with 'em that they would not presume to do any thing without the Bishop and particularly not to Ordain Presbyters Lastly Although he often calls the Presbytery the Council of God and College of the Apostles yet to keep up the Authority of the Bishop He then at the same time resembles him unto God himself or to the Lord Jesus Christ. If then God the Father was Superior to the Apostles and if Jesus Christ must be confest greater than the Council of the Apostles so was the Bishop than the Presbyters or Presbytery in the Opinion of this Father and according to the Analogy and Resemblance in this Author From the whole 't is I hope clear to a Demonstration that Ignatius his Bishops were more than what Mr. O. means by chief Pastor or Moderator in their Assembles pro tempore They were Prelatical and in the nature of their Office Superior to Presbyters It remains that we shew they were Diocesan Bishops that is had the oversight of more than one Congregation for this is another Objection Mr. O. has raised against our established Diocesan Episcopacy For Proof hereof let it be remembred 1. That if there were not in Ignatius his time de facto Diocesan Bishops they were at least formed and designed for such when ever the multitude of Believers should be encreased It has already been observed that Titus left by St. Paul in Crete to Govern that Church was particularly directed by the Apostle to Ordain Elders in every City in all or as many Cities as should afterward receive the Faith or in Order to convert more of ' em I gather hence that Titus was intended to be the Ruler of all these Congregations Let Mr. O. make him a Bishop or an Archbishop 't is all one to me he was constituted to be Ruler over many Cities and Congregations Thus at least it was I conceive in these Asiatick Churches to whom Ignatius wrote as will hence appear viz. that every of these Churches was furnished with a Prelatical Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons under him To what purpose else so many Presbyters and such distinct kinds of Orders One or two at most might have sufficed 'em at present especially if it be considered that the Christians at that time were not in so flourishing a condition as to be able to maintain so many Church-Officers for one Congregation nor was there business enough to employ 'em all in the service of that one Congregation 'T is then most rational to believe that so many Presbyters and Deacons were provided at least for carrying on the Conversion of the Infidels and multiplying them into several Congregations But if every Congregation must have had or was intended to have a Bishop we should doubtléss have read of Bishops ex gr at Ephesus as well as Presbyters in the Plural Let us then suppose what is most reasonable to admit that some at least of these Churches had been in Ignatius's time multiply'd into several Congregations yet still there was but one Bishop I do not remember that ever we read of two Bishops of any one City in all Antiquity excepting when the Christians of that City were harrassed and disturbed with Schisms and Divisions Now who can imagin that no one City in the World even in Ignatius's time ever had more Believers in and near it than did Assemble for Divine Worship in one place Especially in those times of Persecution when the Christians skulked and could not with safety meet in great numbers nor had Rooms capacious enough and therefore cantoned themselves into several Meetings Let any one put all these things together and impartially weigh them and he will not easily grant that Paradox that there was no more than one single Congregation in any City nor will he make any scruple to believe that Ignatius's Bishop was at least designed to preside over several Presbyters and Congregations Lastly the Negative that there was but one Congregation in any of 'em has not been proved neither can by any express Testimony I conćeive it behoves our Dissenters to make this out before they can throughly justifie their Congregational Churches But let us now come to particulars and therefore 2. Note that Ignatius stiles himself Bishop of Syria in his Epistle to the Romans Now how large a tract Syria contained I need not say neither will I affirm he was Bishop of all Syria taken in its utmost Latitude But seeing he calls himself and was Bishop of Syria 't was more than of the bare City Antioch as any one will confess His Episcopal Power must have extended unto some considerable compass of Ground in the adjacent parts of the Country else it had been foolish to have pretended himself to be the Bishop of Syria when he was only Bishop of Antioch and of one Congregation there Will any one then suffer himself to believe 〈◊〉 was Bishop but of one Congregation only It cannot enter into my head so much as to think it possible because it must be supposed there were Congregations in Syria as well as at Antioch in Country as 〈◊〉 as City 3. I reckon also that the Church of Ephesus consisted of more than one Congregation and my Reasons are 1. As I argued in T. N. p. 145.
writes in the Plural Towns and Countries and of Christian Worship in General or indefinitely must here intend all Christian Assembles in the World And therefore it may as well hence be concluded that there was but one Numerical Congregation or Altar in the World as that there was but one in the Bishop's Church Upon the whole matter the Point is no manner of way proved from Justin Martyr As for St. Cyprian who condemns the setting up Altar against Altar it can't thence be gathered that a Diocesan Bishop had but one Numerical Altar What this Father blames is setting up an Altar against the Bishop's Altar in opposition to it not in Subordination to and Communion with it It is true here what our Lord spake on another occasion He that is not against the Bishop is for him and He that is not with the Bishop is against Him In St. Cyprian's Time there were several not Oratories only but 〈◊〉 stately and magnificent Churches in the same Cities and within the limits of one Bishop's Jurisdiction So Optatus Milevitaâ—us relates post Persecuit onem apud Cirtam quia Basilica necdum sueram restituta in DOmum Urbani Carisi consederunt c. Many TRaditors afterward turning Donatist Bishops met the House of Urbanus 〈◊〉 after the Persecution 〈◊〉 Cirta because the Temples were not yet restored c. Now Cirta was an Episcopal See in Cyprians'ss Time and Crescens was Bishop of it and the Persecution here spoken of was that of Dioclesian wherein these Temples were taken away from the Christians They must then have been built before that Emperor's time It follows hence that at Cirta the Christians had several Churches before Dioclesian Reigned that is not long after Cyprian even in the Third Age therefore there were in the Cyprianic Age several Congregatâ—â—â—â—â—in in the same City and Episcopal Church and consequently several 〈◊〉 For no man can think that among these Basilicae these Magnificent Churches that one only had an Altar And so from the whole it may be gathered that the erecting Altar against Altar condemned by Cyprian was not the erecting more Numerical Altars than one in an Episcopal Church but erecting them or any one of them in Opposition to the Bishop This Father then does not favour Mr. Mede's Conjecture at all The Premises duly considered I think Igantius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar was rightly interpreted by me since it is made so manifest that his Bishop was both Prelatical and Diocesan I need not then trouble my self any further about the meaning of the other slight Passages objected 〈◊〉 me out of that Father since they must all some way or other be reconciled with this Hypothesis and I hope I was not very wide of the Truth in the Tentamen Novum CHAP. III. Of St. Mark the Evangelist Founder of the Church of Alexandria I Having produced the testimony of Eusebius Hist. lib. 2. ch 16 17. in proof of a multitude of Christians at Alexandria about the time that Philo the Jew wrote his Treatise de vita Contemplativa which was in the Days of Claudius the Emperor or beginning of Nero's Reign near fifty Years after Christ Mr. O. excepts against the Testimony as follows That this Passage of Eusebius overthrows the notion of the Learned Assertors of Episcopacy that a Diocess is the lowest species of a Church that Eusebius speaks of Churches in the plural that therefore there must be Bishops of Alexandria and not one Bishop only that Mark was an Evangelist that is an extraordinary Officer in that Church that Annianus Mark' s Successor was not a Bishop of a Superiour Order but an Honourable President in their Assemblies and a Moderator in their Synods without Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues Ans. I am not concerned in the private Opinions of Modern Authors who assert a Diocess to be the lowest species of a Church nor will I trouble my self to shew how they limit their Notion and explain themselves in that point nor whether Mr. O. fairly deduces his consequence from that Passage of Eusebius 〈◊〉 therefore there must be Bishops not one Bishop only of Alexandria Let the Assertors of this Notion see to it Mr. O's Reasoning such as it is affects not me nor my Hypothesis it being my firm perswasion that a single Congregation as well as Diocess is even in Scripture called a Church Only let it be observed Mr. O. grants that there were according to Eusebius several Churches or Congregations in Alexandria but how He will Evince there were several Bishops there I am yet to seek 'T is moreover supposed that Mark was an Evangelist or an Extraordinary Officer And what then still Annianus an Ordinary one might succeed him in the Ordinary Office of Governing a Diocesan Church See Part the first Chapter the fifth And tho' Mark was an Evangelist an Extraordinary Officer which Mr. O. must confess and had Power over all the Presbyters there yet says Mr. O. Annianus was not a Bishop of a Superior Order with Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues but an Honourable President or Moderator in the Synods But this is only Mr. O.'s singular conceit we are in the present Controversy to be guided by what Eusebius tells us that Annianus succeeded Mark in the Administration of the Church of Alexandria Can any one understand less thereby than that Annianus received the same and all the Power of Jurisdiction that Mark had In short I cannot discern Mr. O. has advanc'd any thing against me or laid his own sentiments so close together as to be consistent with themselves from the Acts. Fourthly The Therapeutae composed Hymns of divers kinds in Metre which the Christians did not till afterwards in the Days of the Antanini Fifthly The Therapeutae spread themselves throughout the World and were many in Aegypt but the Cristians few Whereunto it may be replyed First the Christians expounded the Law Allegorically as is manifest from the Epistle to the Hebrews and some Passages in St. Paul's other Epistles and besides though the Jews did endeavour to improve the Law by some Allegorical deductions from it yet they held Primarily unto the Literal sense and accordingly observed the Law whereas the Christians rejected it in the Literal Sense and adhered only to the Allegorical This then proves the Therapeutae to be Christians rather than Jews Secondly it must be confess'd that the Christian Religion was then New and the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of a later date they could not in any reason be called Ancient Nevertheless Philo here meant the Writings of the Old Testament which were out of controversy Ancient and which the Christians even the Apostles and Evangelists made frequent use of They may properly enough be called the Christians Ancient Authors Besides tho' Philo this must be owned believed the Therapeutae to be a Sect of the Jews and because they were conversant in the Writings of the Old Testament thence Collected that they
I. 1. ch 13. That by the Pope Palladius was sent primus Episcopus ad Scotos Creden tes therefore the Scots were Christians before Palladius Ans. If this Testimony be adduced to any purpose 't is to prove that the Tramontane Picts received Palladius their first Bishop from 〈◊〉 the Roman 〈◊〉 that before that time they believed and had Presbytery only but no Bishops because Palladius was the first Now to shew the Disingenuity of this Suggestion it must be noted very briefly out of the Historical Account that by Scots are here meant the Scots in Ireland that Bede has not a word of their form of Government that some Copies read ad Scotos convertendos which would imply that they were not yet Christians that primus in Prosper whence Bede is thought to have taken his Narrative in some Copies is read primitus that is formerly that Palladius and Patricius were designed for the Primates only or the first Bishops in rank and finally that 't is true Palladius was the first Bishop sent into Ireland by the Pope Yet there were Bishops before that Time of which Number Archbishop Usher produces Four This was the first attempt of reducing Ireland to the Obedience of the Pope I 'll say nothing of Mr. O's confessing Palladius was sent into Ireland Plea 148. Mr. O. now promises us an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland 't is that of Segenius a 〈◊〉 and the Abbot of Hy who with other Presbyters Ordained Bishop Aidan and Finan Bede H. E. l. 3. 5 15 Ans. But Mr. O. acknowledges that there were Bishops at Hy and in that Province from Bede lib. 3. ch 4. and the Ulster Annals agree hereunto What need we say any more to resolve this difficulty Some Bishop with the Abbot and his Presbyters laying hands on as our Custom is at this Day Ordained Aidan For to what purpose were these Bishops among them if not to Ordain The Government was in the Abbots Hands the Presbyters were able to Minister in the Word and Sacraments The Bishops bufiness then was certainly to Ordain Mr. O. excepts against the Ulster Annals as not being attested by any Author of that Age And yet they agree in most things with Adamnanus and with 〈◊〉 and are a little relied on by Archbishop Usher Mr. O. urges a Bishop being supposed in the Monastery at Hy He was subject to the Abbot and thinks he has here sufficiently reply'd to My Lord of St. Asaph's Solution of that difficulty I do therefore add thereto Ans. Nothing is more certain than that Bishops were wont to be in Monasteries I read in Theodoret of eleven residing in those of Egypt from their Youth up to their Extreame Old Age and when they were Bishops too Theod. E. H. l. 4. ch 22. Now though the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot of Hy yet it must remembred also that the Abbots Jurisdiction extended it self throughout the Province No wonder then if the Provincial Bishops were 〈◊〉 to the Abbots Rule and Order required thus much If one of our English Bishops should 〈◊〉 into a College of Oxford and readmit himself a Member of the University He becomes thereby subject unto the Head of that College and to the Chancellor within the Precincts of the University And that I may not fain a case some of our Bishops have held a Prebendary of a Collegiate Church in Commendam He is thereby subject to the Dean therein all matters belonging to that Church even as 〈◊〉 says the Provincial Bishops were to the Abbots of Hy viz. within the Abbot's Jurisdiction But we know for all this the Chancellor of Oxford and the Dean of a Cathedral cannot Ordain Besides the Abbots of Hy though they retained an External Government over all in the Province the Bishops not excepted Yet as to the Episcopal and Ministerial Acts of Religion in that Age belonging to Bishops the Abbots gave place to Bishops as 〈◊〉 appear from the following story in My Lord of St. Asaph It was it seems the Custom at that time for the Priests being all equals to break the Lord's Bread in the 〈◊〉 together A certain Bishop being then at Hy and not discovering his Character was by Columba invited to break the Lord's Bread with him But Columba at length discerning him to be a Bishop would have the Bishop break the Bread alone as Bishops then used to do which shews that notwithstanding the Abbots Temporal Jurisdiction as I may call it Columba acknowledged the Episcopal Order to be Superior to that of a Presbyter Lastly Bede's inusitato more for the right understanding whereof I refer to the Historical Account implies that this was but one singular and unprecedented example One Swallow and such a one as was never seen before does not make a Summer One might then here justly cry out with 〈◊〉 Quid mibi profers 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae consuetudinem Cum 〈◊〉 Turba 〈◊〉 and the Whole World was Episcopal The first person sent into Northumberland from Hy was one described only but without a Name in Bede Returning back to Hy without 〈◊〉 Aidan is appointed and Ordained unto the Episcopacy in whose Ordination it is probable his Predecessor a Bishop was concerned for he was then present among them Mr. O. alledges he is called only 〈◊〉 a Priest but this is disputing a small point by Halves for if Aidan was a Bishop so was his 〈◊〉 And of Aidan 't is said Ipsum esse dignum Episcopatu and then in the next Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aidan at his Ordination 〈◊〉 Antistes So then in Bede's Language Antistes is a Bishop and the nameless Person we speak of is called so a little 〈◊〉 He was therefore a Bishop if Aidan was Lastly Aidan belike was a Presbyter before he was Ordained Bishop of Northumbria if so to what purpose was he Ordained if not to a distinct Office I do suppose all Mr. 〈◊〉 Material Objections are accounted for by this time and his Proofs of Presbyterian Ordination invalidated I will conclude this Chapter with two Observations First It cannot with any reason be imagined but that there were Bishops in the Province of Hy because Columba the first Abbot thereof came out of Ireland there we read of Bishops among whom he was educated convers't freely with them and was Ordained by them He was Ordained Deacon by Finian Bishop of Meath and was an Intimate Friend of Columbanus Bishop of Laghlin and Ordained Presbyter by one of them most probably by Columbanus from whom also he might take his Name as Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea did that of Pamphilus Hist. Account c. 5. After he was Abbot of Hy he propagated Bishops among the Northumbrians from whom our English Saxons derived On this account it was my Lord of St. Asaph argued that the Scotch Ordinations must needs be Episcopal meaning those at Hy which he confirmed by this Consideration because the Romans Austin the Monk and his Associates did not
dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church as being Episcopal though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain they could not dislike the Orders of Hy because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy and doubtless were the same and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal as were the Romans and all the World beside Mr. O. adds if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy be intended as not disliked by the Romans yet says he the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which are allowed by that Church Decret Greg. Abbas si sit Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial nor the Diaconal Order but the Inferior Orders only such as the Sub-Deacons Acoluthists Exorcists Psalmists Lectors and Door-keepers But that the Episcopal Order is not meant is to me past dispute For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of Secondly If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter Abbots It was allowed to such of them only who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See But not unto those who refused subjection to it as did the Abbots of Hy Mr. O. knows very Well This Privilege then whatever it was could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders Thirdly The Decretals mentioned were made or put together by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome in the Thirteenth Century about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy almost as many after Austin the Monk and therefore not appositely here alledged Fourthly Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders by Popish 〈◊〉 and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height But I like them never the better for that The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters 'T was their Principle that all Church-Officers derive from and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will even to a Deacon But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant as I fancy But Secondly I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland over the Monks and Culdees if any such were yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves for all or many of them at least were Presbyters and lastly over the Bishop also if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland which himself had formerly erected and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note which sprang out of these two both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity unless Mr. O. will assert that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn pro Tempore What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings ruling over many Churches and Congregations exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters as he thinks and that for life too All this did Columba and his Successors who are pretended by Mr. Baxter to have restored the Culdees or Presbyters strength against the incroachments of Palladius But all this while the Tyrants only were changed not the Tyranny the name altered not the thing Instead of Palladius the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter Moreover I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters If not as I believe all will and must grant our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination I should here have concluded this Chapter but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy and asserted that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire had their Platform from the Heathen who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens and I know not what Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion subordinate to one another it will not follow the Christians took it from them Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion wherein the Patriarch Jews Gentiles all agree But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius which I do not find in the places directed to cries out Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs Whereas any one may know that will but read or understand that Epistle which Mr. O. never did I preceive that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men that do not or will not understand what they say who so they may cast dirt upon us care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it But to let this pass The Question here is whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles or the Gentiles from them This latter I undertake to make out First From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests Priests and Levites All the World knows this I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one but of this I have spoke before Secondly Although the Druids according to Caesar had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East where Episcopacy was first established the Gentiles had no such Government as appears from what Eusebius has noted of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor who observing the way of Church Government
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
〈◊〉 Sanctus Hilarius whence some conclude they cannot be ascribed to so ill a Man as the Deacon But that either Hilary Bishop of Poictiers or Hilary of Arles must have them Yet Vossius contends that those Titles of Beatus Sanctus were by Custom and in Civility given to all Clergy-Men whether they deserved them or not as at this Day Reverendus Venerabilis are That the Commentaries were written when Damasus was Rector Ecclesiae Pope of Rome and that Hilary of Poictiers dying in the second Year of Damasus was too Old to have either time or strength to perform such a Work whilst that Pope was living And lastly that Hilary of Arles came too late to write in Damasus his Pontificate or to be quoted by St. Austin And thus the Commentaries and Questions will fall to the Deacon's share Ans. 1. 'T is certain to me Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of the Questions and Commentaries as we now have them But not for the reason assigned Those words 〈◊〉 bodie Rector est Damasus are on 1 Tim. 3. from whence to the end of the Commentaries are but 52 leaves in Folio which he might have time and strength to finish in that Popes first Year The Commentaries moreover break off abruptly at the 10th Ch. of the Hebrews and the work is left unfinished whence it may be thought that there his Life or his strength might fail him But still it is confessed Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of them They are too mean to be Fathered upon so great a Man 2. The Particular Testimonies spoken of before cannot be attributed unto Hilary of Arles For he flourished Twenty Years after Austin 3. Neither can they belong to the Deacon a Reason of no credit or Authority as I shall shew Wherefore 4. They were cited out of some Work of Hilary of Poictiers not now extant which may be confirmed by another Testimony in Austin not yet observed by any that I know of writing still against the Pelagians Ecclesiae Catholicae adversus Haereticos acerrimum Defensorem Venerandum quis ignorat Hilarium Episcopum Gallum Which can be understood of no other Hilary then the Bishop of Poictiers as is manifest from what has been said 5. Neither 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 allowed this Deacon so much as a place in their Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Writers being it seems unworthy that Honour Bellarmine indeed incidentally mentions him in his Observations on Ambroses's Works yet makes no reckoning of him But Jerom falls foul on him calling him in derision Orbis Deucalionem and adds libellos adversus nos de Haereticis rebaptizandis edidit It can't then be thought St. Austin would build upon this Deacons Authority Thus much I thought fit to say concerning the Passages of St. Austin borrowed out of Hilary supposed by some to be the Deacon and Author of the Commentaries and Questions of which I will now say something considering them in the Lump 1. I do suppose the same Person or Persons whosoever they were wrote these Commentaries and Questions Blondel Himself is of this Opinion and so is Bellarmine in his Observations on Ambrose's Works 2. I also Judge they were written long after Hilary of Poictiers yea after Jerom and Austin by some ignorant idle and knavlsh Fellow who mixed truth and falshood good and bad together Collecting some Notions out of the Fathers and adding many of his own silly conceits The Testimonies which I have spoken of were its likely collected out of Austin The Discourse about the Ambition of the Roman Deacons exalting themselves above Presbyters was borrowed from Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius But to make short Work on it Let us hear Erasmus's Censure of the Questions The Author says he repeats many the same things in several places propounds the same Questions and treats of 'em over and over again is not constant in his Opinions Some scraps out of other Mens Works are often inserted He repeats what he had said 〈◊〉 but in a quite different stile He is very idle in starting Questions which he ought not There is a perfect confusion in the Work Sometimes he writes Commentaries sometimes Controversie Sometimes he Preaches and sometimes disputes very Foolishly and Meerly Prates He is often Scurrilous and Abusive and yet has said many things worthy to be read and known but gathered out of others He cites not his Authors he cheats the Reader with counterfeit Titles By the repetitions and the disorder in his matter he writes of by his Tumultuous and Womanish Talkativeness he even kills his Reader The first part seems to be the Work of some Greek affecting to speak Latin c. Erasmus is more favourable to the Commentaries yet confesses the Prefaces are not St. Ambroses's but some busy and illiterate Fellow tack'd 'em to the Commentaries I make account then these Commentaries and Questions are of no Credit or Authority in any Controversy whatever 2. The compiler of them has intermixt several things favouring Episcopacy and so is Jack O' both-sides 1. He expounds the Angels spoken of 1 Cor. 11. 10. Bishops grounding himself on the Revelations And gives the Reason why Women ought to be covered in the Church because of the Angels that is Bishops quia Episcopus personam habet Christi vicarius est Domini sustains the Person of Christ and is the Vicar of the Lord. The which must be understood of the Days of Paul Else the Explanation is altogether fruitless and impertinent 2. He resembles the Deacons to the Levites Presbyters to the Priests whereof one was the High-Priest unto whom the Bishop answers see Question 101. 3. He grants Timothy had the Power ofOrdaining committed to him by Paul in these Words unde Quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet Timotheus ostendit Paulus But he no where expresly allows this to the Presbyters Many other Observations if it were worth while might be Collected out of this Author tending to the same purpose 3. He contradicts himself the Holy Scripture and the most Ancient Writers in the Church He affirms that at first all might Preach Baptize and explain Scripture but after Churches were Establish'd and Distinct Offices were appointed and the Church began to be govern'd another way so that no Man should presume to Officiate in Holy things except he were Ordained Whereas nothing is more manifest than that there were at the Council of Jerusalem besides Deacons two Species of Officers at least Apostles and Elders to say nothing of Prophets of whom also we read Act. 15 That when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians there were set in the Church by God himself Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers c. The same are to be met with in his Epistle to the Ephesians In that to the Philippians we read of their Apostle of their Bishops or Presbyters and their Deacons Timothy and Titus had their Elders and Deacons under them To omit sundry other examples hereof in
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
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
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
Scripture Clemens Romanus tells us that the Lord appointed who were to Minister in Divine Offices among the Christians and Ignatius needs not here to be brought in for Evidence But let us consider the several Instances Mr. O. gives in Confirmation of this Paradox that there were no Ministers in the Church at the beginning The first is of Philip. But Philip had been Ordained by Imposition of Hands and besides was a Person endued with extraordinary and supernatural Gifts that is was a Prophet and of such I readily grant it true that they were not strictly and indispensably ty'd to common Rules of Order but might do what the Spirit moved 'em to But 't is remarkable what Hilary himself says of Philip Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut Philippus So then here were Ministers thus Early besides the Apostles As for Apollos Act. 18. 24. to pass by other Observations that might be useful I much question whether when he preach'd at Ephesus he was yet a Christian or rather am positive he was none For he knew only the Baptism of John v. 25. unto whom therefore Aquila and Priscilla expounded the way of God more perfectly v. 26. And tho' after this he still Preach'd at Corinth v. 28. it may be said that by this time he had been Ordained to it for any thing appears to the contrary And we must not think none were Ordained but such of whom 't is expresly testify'd in Scripture We ought rather to conclude all were Ordain'd because many were Of Aquila and Priscilla their instructing Apollos I have shewed elsewhere that it was private not Ministerial Instruction In short I know not one Example of a Person unordained and of ordinary Gifts only that took upon him to Preach in any Christian Assemblies much more to administer the Holy Sacraments nor can I fancy when that time was of which Hilary speaks when every Man that would did Administer in the Word and Sacraments But the story of Vrigen is urg'd who was made Catechist in the School of Alexandria and taught the Catechumens in the Rudiments of Christianty as Dr. Cave relates it and what is yet more Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem invited him to Preach before them As Africa has always been noted for a Country abounding with strange and Monstrous Creatures so are we continually pester'd with some surprizing and extraordinary fact in the Egyptian Church as if that differed from all the World besides But to this Example of Origen I first say that Mr. O. is as much obliged to reconcile it with the Presbyterian Principles as I am with the Episcopal That Origen though he instructed the Catechumens at Alexandria in the principles of Christianty so do our School-Masters though not Ordained Haply once or so he preach'd at Cesarea before he had been Ordained so do our Fellows of Colleges at the University Yet this is nothing to the Sacraments which he did not presume to Administer and lastly though Theoctistus and Alexander of Jerusalem out of Curiosity desirous to hear the great Origen Discourse upon some profound point in Christianty invited him into the Pulpit yet Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria condemn'd it and it became a Scandal and occasion of offence among them Mr. O. speaking of Evangelists would prove them to have been unfixt Officers from this observation out of Hilary that Evangelists that is Deacons as Hilary thinks did Preach sine Cathedra which he expounds without a fixt Residence Ans. This is more absurd then any thing I have met with in my Adversary Sine Cathedra without a fixt Residence He might as well have rendred it without fear or Wit The meaning doubtless is that whereas Presbyters had their Stalls as well as the Bishop and sate in his Presence and perhaps according to Hilary Preach'd out of them the Deacons always stood nor had their Stalls so that when permitted they Preach'd sine Cathedra Stantibus Diaconis we often meet with in St. Cyprian and Hilary himself took Notice that the Roman Deacons did not assume the Privilege of sitting in the Church had 〈◊〉 Cathedra no seat in it Jerom has also observ'd the same Sedent Presbyteri stant Diaconi So that Hilary's meaning was hereby to distinguish the one from the other and intimated that Deacons were inferior to Presbyters being not suffer'd to sit or to have a Stall in the Church as the other had In short no one surely will dare to say that Deacons were unfixt Officers in the Church either in the Apostles or in Hilary's Days Mr. O. and before him Blondel in Order to prove that Bishops were meerly the first Presbyters and had only precedency but no Power or Jurisdiction over the rest argue from Hilary that in the beginning the oldest Presbyter in Years succeeded into the Episcopacy and so became the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President of the Presbytery and that this Apostolical Custom or 〈◊〉 continued till it was by experience found that undeserving or disabled Old Men were advanced to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Affairs and the dishonour of the Church 'T was therefore chang'd into Election to the end not Order but Merit might take place Ans. 1. The Controversy is not about the manner of succeeding into the 〈◊〉 The Method is either prescrib'd in Scripture or not If it be let the Presbyterians shew where and we promise to observe it for the future If not 'tis left to the Church to Order this Circumstance as shall be thought fit In the mean time we may not lay aside Bishops because we have not a Divine Rule about their Succession Many things are appointed in the Word of God the particular Circumstances being left at large unto Humane Prudence We are commanded to read the Scriptures but not how much at a time whether one or more Sections whether one or more Chapters nor in what Order Shall we therefore abolish the Command it self because these Circumstances are not expresly delivered to us in Scripture God forbid Supposing then that there have been different Customs taken up about the way of Succeeding into the Episcopacy this is no prejudice against Episcopacy its self 2. It is some matter of wonder to me how the Affairs of the Church could be prejudiced by the Oldest Presbyters succeeding as of right to the first Chair or Presidency if he received thereby no Power or Jurisdiction as our Adverrsaries pretend 3. It is false and nothing can be falser then this conceit of the Oldest Presbyter succeeding into the Episcopacy Timothy was a Young Man and promoted by St. Paul and that not for his Age but his Merit For surely none can believe he was the Oldest among the Ephesian Elders What occasion then for the Apostles Admonition let no Man despise thy Youth if all the Presbyters were Younger than himself And Jerom who affirms that Paul Ordained Timothy Bishop of Ephesus his Maxim was Presbyter aetatis Nomen est Episcopus