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
that They have power to rebuke and admonish and to suspend for a while from the Lord's Supper And so says Mr. O. have private Persons power to rebuke and admonish Lev. 19. 17. Col. 3. 16. As if Mr. O. never heard of that common and receiv'd distinction between fraternal private or charitable Admonition and that which is publick and Ministerial and Authoritative Well! but as for our power of suspending he alledges 't is but for fourteen days and after that the Sinner is left to the Ordinary Ay! Here we have the bottom of the Dissenting Ministers Design out They would be all so many little Popes from whom there lies no appeal The very Men who decry Tyranny are setting up for Arbitrary Government and will not endure that in another which they aspire to themselves All I shall reply unto him is to present him with the judgment of Calvin and Beza and I hope Mr. O. will lend both his Ears unto these two Presbyterian Oracles The former affirms That to trust Excommunication in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation is contrary to the Apostolick practice the latter declares what the Discipline at Geneva was viz. That the Parochiat Ministers proceed no further than Admonition but in case of contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City It is certain the power of excommunication is in the hands of the Magistrates of that City But Mr. O. further objects That we have no power to judge whom to Baptize but must Baptize all that are offer'd though Children of Jews Infidels Deists c. Ans. This is nothing to the present Question between us which is whether our Parish Priests have any Power of Discipline They may have some power tho' not this And that they have some power to wit of Ministerial Admonition and Suspension from the Lords Supper has been already asserted and prov'd I presume yea and granted also This then is a new and impertinent Subject thrust in here meerly to make a noise and dust with and to avoid the thorough discussion of the Point in hand 2. The Dissenting Ministers have a greater power than we have or pretend to 't is confest c. to refuse whomsoever they please even the Children of the most upright Believers They are responsible to no Law nor to any Superiour that I know of in case of refusal nor to any punishment Only perhaps the parties aggriev'd will withdraw their Contributions But upon these terms we also have a power to Judge whom we will and whom we will not Baptize ' tis-but venturing the loss of our Livings as they must of their Contributions 3. Mr. O. Supposes here what cannot easily be believ'd ever did or will happen viz. that Jewish or Gentile or Theistical Parents will offer their Children unto Christian Baptism or suffer others to bring 'em to that Holy 〈◊〉 4. Perhaps the Children of very wicked Christians are brought to be 〈◊〉 These we acknowledge we have not power to refuse for so we know that the Children of wicked Jews were to be admitted unto Circumcision in the room whereof our Lord introduc'd Baptism and we are perswaded the former is the Rule and Pattern of the latter 5. If it should so happen that the Child of a Jew or Turk or Infidel or Heretick Excommunicated or Theift or Atheift should be put into our Hands to be Baptized 't is confest we take our selves oblig'd to Baptize 'em but 't is with this Proviso that there be sufficient Susceptors or Persons who will undertake to bring 'em up in the Christian Religion And of the sufficiency of these Sureties we are the judges except an Appeal be made from us unto our Diocesian who may over-rule us if he sees just cause for it 6. and Lastly How the Apostles and Presbyters in the Apostles days manag'd themselves in the Point of Infant-Baptism Mr. O. should have done well first to have stated it out of the New Testament before he brought this exception upon the Stage Mr. O. further objects That we have no power to forbear giving the 〈◊〉 a Notorious Offender unless we prosecute him in the Bishops Court Ans. 1. The Reader may apply the Two first Answers to the former Objection unto this whereby he 'll see how Frivolous and Impertinent it is 2. Mr. O. Should have excepted thus save for fourteen days 3. It is a most false and wicked saying that of Mr. O's That if he be absolv'd in the Court we must give him the Eucharist though we know him never so Impenitent We cannot know a Mans impenitency except himself declares it either by his Words or Actions and continuing in his Sins In either case I can forbear giving him the Lords Supper and in fourteen days certify as before Nay by Canon 109 I am not to admit him to the Lord's Supper till he is reform'd and of this I am the Judge I cannot 〈◊〉 but this method is troublesome c. but it is not odious 〈◊〉 the Eyes of good Men nor is it possible to be fruitless if the Parish-Priest is resolute The Ordinary cannot relieve the Impenitent Sinner nor compel the Priest to admit him This course is indeed rarely undertaken and that because as I have experienc'd if one warn a Wicked Person one that is scandalously so he 'll besure not to offer himself left he be turn'd back and publickly disgrac'd in the Face of the Congregation The method is as I have said troublesom but better a mischief than an inconvenience Better many Sinners be admited than one good Man rejected If the Parish Priest should have it in his own Power and Breast to abstain whom he pleas'd and for as long time as he thought fit without Liberty to appeal his private Revenge or the influence of the Parties Enemies might engage him to deprive a good Man of the comfort of that Holy Ordinance I have an Instance of this kind ready at hand a late one and in my Neighbourhood A Member of the Congregation had given Evidence in behalf of a Church-Man against a Dissenter No Body objected against his Testimony as false 'T was thought rather favourable to the Dissenter At his return from the Assizes a Message was brought him by some of the Congregation that he was to forbear coming to the Communion he was also reprimanded by the Minister for giving Evidence against a Brother the Sub-poena being not actually though ready be to serv'd upon him in case he refus'd to go without it This was not Commutation I acknowledge which we hear of so oft but it was base Corruption and 〈◊〉 to be punish'd by the Judge Yet Mr. O. goes on and tells me We have no power to call persons to Repentance openly before the Church Ans. As much as Mr. O. has He or I may call 'em to Publick Penance but 't is at their choice whether they will obey us Such Penitents are but like Mr. Baxter's Christians meer
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
one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
Christiana Quod Aaron filios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyterum noverimus 7. Jerom not 〈◊〉 and more than once insinuates that Bishops succeeded the Apostles Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi Bishops hold the place of the Apostles Habes pro Apostolis Episcopos filios Apostolorum you have instead of the Apostles Bishops the Sons of the Apostles Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 in Exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur Meritum and let Bishops and Presbyters take for their Pattern the Apostles and Apostolical Men whose honour they possess and therefore should endeavour to have their Merit Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri 'T is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul to possess the degree of Peter Omnes so Episcopi sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanais I may add from Jerom sive Divites sive Pauperes sive Sublimes 〈◊〉 Inferiores Apostolorum sunt Successores All Bishops whatever are the Apostles Successors And whereas in this very Epistle He is exalting his fellow Presbyters as high as with any colour of Pretence he was able yet no such thing as this drops from him sc. that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors If then Bishops are the Apostles Successors as if Jerom may be Judge they were then also the Office of a Bishop must needs be by Apostolical Institution For none could appoint Successors unto the Apostles but the Apostles themselves 8. The early establishment of Bishops in the very days of the Apostles or at least immediately after them will force any Ingenious Man to confess Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution This also Jerom has witnessed telling us that Clement of whom we read Phil. 4. was the 4th some said the 2d Bishop of Rome after Peter That Ignatius was the 3d Bishop of 〈◊〉 after Peter That Papias a Disciple of St. John the Apostle was Bishop of Hierapolis and Quadratus a Disciple of the Apostles Bishop of Athens To these add the Asiatick Bishops of whom we read in Ignatius's Epistles For because Jerom believed the Epistles genuine and approves of the subject Matter of them he has hereby given in his Testimony that there were Bishops in all those Churches Is it then possible to imagine Jerom beleived that Decree to be any other than Apostolical or that Episcopacy received its Date from a meer Ecclesiastical Canon sometime after It can never enter into my Head that the Church Government which some say was Presbyterian that is Administred by a College of Presbyters acting in a Parity when the Apostles were living should be thus quickly altered by a meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Decree upon a pretence of preventing Schisms whereas the Apostles themselves did not as the Presbyterians believe think this Reason sufficient to change the Church-Government in their time that is 't is most improbable and absurd to say so many Holy Men and Martyrs of Christ familiar with and Disciples of the Apostles sc. St. Clement Ignatius Papias Quadratus and an innumerable Company whose Names and whose particular Diocesses are not Transmitted unto us says Eusebius should dare not only to decree and consent to the Alteration of Church-Government but themselves to Usurp and Exercise an Authority over their Equals contrary to the Apostolical Rule and Practice From the whole then that has been said I may reasonably conclude 1. That Episcopacy which is by Jerom called The Remedy against Schism was Set up and Decreed 〈◊〉 the Apostles in their own days 2. That though he terms it an Ecclesiastical Custom and Constitution he is to be taken to mean in opposition to 〈◊〉 Veritati our Lord 's own Personal Appointment and not unto Apostolical Tradition or Institution 3. That what I have offer'd in this Chapter towards the reconciling Jerom with himself is most reasonable to be admitted And lastly That the Power and Authority allowed by Jerom unto Bishops particularly that of Ordination and the other of Confirmation belong'd to them by virtue of the Apostles Commission and were not Restraints laid upon the Presbyters by Ecclesiastical Canons That of Confirmation he deduces from Scripture in his Dialogue against the Luciferians But Mr. O. will perhaps say that all this is nothing to him and to the Objections he has laid in our way I am then obliged now to consider in particular what Observations he has mustred up out of Jerom and levelled against Episcopacy in favour of the Presbyterians Claim Mr. O. then Pleads that Jerom has shew'd the Presbyters of Alexandria 〈◊〉 their Bishops for almost 200 Years and that he would leave nothing out that was Material in Constituting them Ans. Jerom has not shew'd nor so much as directly asserted that the Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops But he has omitted several Circumstances not only Material but Advantagious to his main Design if they had been true Jerom both in his Commentaries on Titus and in his Epistle to Evagrius speaks constantly in the Passive Voice how that one was chosen and set over the rest but by whom he says not Why not by the Neighbouring Bishops Why not by the Predecessor as well as by the Presbyters Jerom has not expresly told us that the Bishop of Alexandria chosen out of the Presbyters received another and a new Consecration nor that the Presbyters Ordained him all which would have tended much to the Honour of himself and his Fellow-Presbyters True he expresly says the Presbyters nam'd him Bishop at his Instalment bnt this does not necessarily imply either that they Chose or Ordained him He ought and doubtless would have spoken out if either or both these things had been true Whereas then Mr. O. adds Jerom mentions no other way of Constituting them but by Presbyters it is certain he mentions no way at all This is manifest ' beyond all exception Jerom has assur'd us of it that the Apostles not the Presbyters Made and Ordain'd Bishops in most parts of the Christian World at Ephesus at Coloss at Philippi at Athens in Crete at Jerusalem and if Mark did not so at Alexandria it were very strange However Orbis Major est Urbe It should indeed seem by the Allusions wherewith Jerom explains himself that the Presbyters chose one of their own Number and set him over the rest So says he the Army chooses their General the Deacons their Arch-Deacons Admitting then this at present I reply 1. 'T is no where so much as hinted in Jerom that the Alexandrian Presbyters Ordain'd their Patriarchs But rather the contrary that the neighbouring Bishops impos'd Hands on him Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter In which words he must have an Eye unto the Custom of the Alexandrian Church from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius implying that Bishops not Presbyters Ordain'd all that while Well! But I