his Authority I meddle not with cited by Mr. O. in these Words Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void by the Rigor of the Canons in use then because Ordinations sine Titulo were Null Concil Chalced. Can. 6. it belongs not to the time we are now speaking of the Council of Chalcedon being Held an Hundred and twenty Years after that of Nice Nor was the Qualification of a Title required till long after that Council of Chalcedon wherein also I meet not with a Syllable of annulling Ordinations for want of a Title That 6th Can. makes void Clancular Ordinations not given visibly in the Face of the Church the Rule which required the Candidate to be offered unto the suffrage of the Clergy and People in the Churches and Congregation being neglected as Justellus has observed from the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The method of Requiring Titles indeed grew up afterwards which the Canonists in the following Ages gathered from this sixth Canon of Chalcedon as fancying some Analogy or Agreement between them in Reason as Calvin teaches me However let us take the Argument as 't is propounded Ordinations by Presbyters were accounted void not in themselves but by the Rigor of the Canons in use then How does this appear Why because Ordinations sine Titulo were null by the sixth Canon of Chalcedon which is just as if one should pretend to prove the Lord's-Day not Holy by Divine appointment but by the Ecclesiastical Constitution because the other Holy-Days are not Is it not possible the Lord's-Day may be Holy by Divine Institution though Good Friday is not Or that Ordinations by Presbyters may be Null in themselves and by Scripture though Ordinations sine Titulo be uncanonical only But if Mr. O. intended this only as the Judgment of so Learned a Person as Dr. Field I let it pass as such being no ways obliged to account for the Opinions of private Doctors The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth if I rightly apprehend Mr. O. for I lift not to look after the Book its self intends to prove by the Nicene Canon which forbids Bishops to Ordain in one anothers Diocesses that the Irregular Ordinations by Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations by Presbyters Now there is no strength in this Reasoning I can scarce allow it to be sense He ought first to make out that Presbyters have power to Ordain and then indeed the irregular Ordinations of the one would be Null as well as of the other and both alike But we deny Presbyters to have Power to Ordain be sure That Nicene Canon gives them none and therefore the Comparison here is foolish and frivolous 'T is as if one should lay down this grave Maxim the Irregular Sentence of a Judge is as Null as that of a private Man whereas a private Man can give no decretory Sentence at all I own Bishops in their Ordinations were under many Canonical Restraints and some of their irregular Ordinations were decreed Null at least so as that the Ordained were not allowed to exercise their Function But to talk of the Irregularities of Ordinations by Presbyters is to suppose it proved they have Power to Ordain which is to beg the Question I am sure their power is not intimated in the Nicene Canons as that of Bishops is nor in any other that I am yet acquainted with If a Canon were any where to be found restraining Ordinations made by Presbyters and limiting the manner and circumstances of 'em 't were reasonable thence to gather that Presbyters had Power to Ordain But the Canonical Restraints laid upon Bishops will not convince me that Presbyters had that Power Finally one may by the same Reasoning conclude that Deacons yea that every Ordinary believer had power to Ordain as well as Bishops Thus I proceed in the Argument By the Nicene Canons Bishops Ordinations in others Diocesses without consent are forbid and hence we see the irregular Ordinations of Bishops are as Null as the irregular Ordinations of Ordinary believers and Deacons But this is no better than beating the Air out of nothing to gather something For all this while neither Deacons nor Believers have power at all to Ordain Haply Mr. O. has left the Reverend Authors Argument short So I dismiss it CHAP. X. Of Aerius THis was a Turbulent and Heretical Presbyterian the only one to be met with in all Antiquity It may not be amiss in few Words to present the Reader with his Character as 't is transmitted to us by St. Austin and Epiphanius The former tells us that being a Presbyter he is reported to have been troubled because he could not be Ordained a Bishop that he fell into the Arrian Heresie adding to it some of his own Conceits as that stated Fasts ought not to be observed and that a Presbyter ought no ways to be distinguished from a Bishop that the Aerians his followers admitted to their Communion only the Continent or such as embraced a Celibate Life and who had so far renounced the World as to account nothing their own And did not abstain from Flesh in the appointed times as Epiphanius writes This Epiphanius among many other Errors and some of the aforesaid particularly remembers that he sought to be a Bishop but could not obtain it He calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hairbrained and mad Doctrine sc. that of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters When Epiphanius had reckoned up a great many of his Errors and Heresies he proceeds to refute 'em and in the first place takes him to task for that about the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters In short he sets him forth as a very Wicked and Impious Fellow It is not material in the Dispute whether Aerius was an Heretick or is called so by Epiphanius and St. Austin on the account of his teaching Bishops and Presbyters to be equal I am sure St. Austin places this Error of his in the front and before that of Arrianism And both condemn him for his Opinion about Bishops and Presbyters which is sufficient to my Purpose For I am not concerned about private Persons Opinions such as Bishop Jewel though an excellent Man and one of the greatest Ornaments of our Church and of the Reformation or others mentioned by Mr. O. Whatever their Sentiments were I shall hereafter shew that it was ever the publick Judgment of the Reformed Church of England that Bishops were Jure Divino and I hope 't is no breach of Modesty to confront theirs with the Churches Authority CHAP. XI Of Hilary the Deacon IT is not agreed among the Criticks who was the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which are in the Works of St. Ambrose Vol. 5. and 't is as uncertain unto whom belong the Quaestiones veter is novi Testamenti in St. Austin Tom. 4. There are some excellent passages found in them and cited by Austin in his Tracts against the Pelagians under the Titles of
deceived us We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses but have brought no thing back worthy our pains but a Word and Empty Title Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry a Scene of Imposture and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides This must be confessed if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular as Mr. O. is pleased to say On the other Hand the History assures us that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles as they believ'd But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort But the mischief is the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation they will plead That they are Presbyters as well as others and have an Inherent Power to Ordain that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right which the Scripture gives them And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers which he has planted against our Bishops and with more Reason too For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination he had not respect to Age but to Ability 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young And Demas Bishop of Magnesia in Ignatius was a Young Man also 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself 't is all I ask I will suppose then that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters but limited it unto a few I will not say the Graver or Older sort but the Wiser and most Holy If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession Mr. O. adds and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed But this is what the Dissenters aim at that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised but the Whole Church consented unto and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God In short did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions I mean that of taking the Covenant But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter I shall therefore let it pass Of the Lollards 〈◊〉 has it is 〈◊〉 fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters and that every Priest or Presbyter has as good a Power to bind and loose and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give But to this it may be reply'd that 't is only the report of an Adversary and perhaps may be a Scandal It may again be answered that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised It may yet further be said that when People grope their way in a Dark Night it is no wonder if they now and then stumble They are to be both pittied and pardoned For lastly 't is manifest if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God It was one of their Maxims Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 566. that no Day is Holy not the Lord's-Day or Sabbath Day as People will call it but that on every Day Men may work eat and drink c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy Yea rather 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People and utterly Cancelled their Office at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution In short I think they were a well meaning but ignorant People who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel about Government and Discipline Finally note here that this Instance of the Lollards who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does especially not among the Protestants that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to at least under the Title of the Primitive Church But what all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion and the Primitive Church will never have an end so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline Concerning the Boiarians or Bavarians who as Mr. O. would have us believe were once Presbyterians I will only say thus much in short I find
yet every Pastor or Teacher is not an Evangelift or a Bishop Mr. O. engages me once more to enter the Lists with him in Philology a part of knowledge he values himself upon but without reason as will now appear as it has also before He Corrects me for writing Mark' s Successor at Alexandria Annianus which he says ought to be Anianus with a single n at the beginning Ans. I have the Paris Edition of Eusebius the best extant in the World as all agree I in my writing Annianus conformed my self to that Copy wherein I find him not once called Anianus And Valesius a Critick of the first Form vindicates himself for writing it with a double n from the Authority of the Mazarine and Medicean MSS. unto whom he adds Ruffinus and Jerom Subscribe For Annianus is a Latin Word deduced from Annius as Valerianus from Valerius and many other of the same Nature are obvious to any who read the Roman 〈◊〉 Particularly there was a Poet of good esteem in the Reign of Adrian the Emperor named Titus Annianus as I observed in Helvicus's Chronology accidentally when I was looking for another thing 'T is true other MSS. write him Anianus as Mr. O. does and 〈◊〉 has Hananias But what then When a Word is differently written may not one chuse to write it as he pleases Haply if I had chanced to have followed those who believe the right name to be Anianus Mr. O. could have amended it into Annianus But I do him too much credit by supposing he knew any thing of this different way of writing Annianus Mr. O. hopes the Rector will not make a settled Church Officer a Bishop of Priscilla a Woman This I suppose he intends for a little piece of Wit or a Jeer. Ans. Why not a Bishop as well as an Evangelist And why not a settled Church-Officer as well or rather than an 〈◊〉 one I am sure a 〈◊〉 and virtuous Woman is not very forward to gad abroad 't is her Character that she Loves home and not often appears in publick St. Chrysostom makes her an Evangelist Let Mr. O. look how well that suits with his professed Opinion of Evangelists being Extraordinary unfixt Officers Let Mr. O. acquit St. Chrysostom and his own dear self in the first place and the Rector will be safe I am confident But surely Mr. O. knows an Ancient Father of good credit with him tho' with no body else I mean Dorothaeus who among other of his Fables makes Priscilla a Bishop If his Authority be so good Mr. O. has the Mystery proved to him Mr. O. It is well observed by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon Four Hundred Years after Ans. By the Ministers good leave I must Question the Truth of what he here asserts though he backs it with never so good Authority Whoever shall tell me that The first who called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon must excuse me if I say he is grosly mistaken Eusebius who lived and Flourished above an Hundred Years before that Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must at least be understood of the Ecclesiastical History before Eusebius's Time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is recorded in History That Timothy first received the Episcopacy of the Diocess of Ephesus Jerom calls him Bishop of Ephesus and he was 60 Years before the said Council of Chalcedon Thus much I have adventured to say before I consult Mr. O's Testimony borrowed from the Irenicum But I am now going to consult the Learned Bishop of Worcester and examine whether he was guilty of this Oversight imputed to him by the Minister Well! I have deliberately as well as I can read the 〈◊〉 and 303 d pages of the Irenicum and I find Mr. O. has served that Reverend Author as he has done many a good one besides in downright Terms belying him Mr. 〈◊〉 so I will make bold to call him that Book being wrote in his Youth and before he had received the Honours which were afterward deservedly bestowed on him speaking there of the Succession of Bishops tells us That the Succession at Ephesus is pleaded for with greatest Confidence by Leontius Bishop of 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon Mr. 〈◊〉 't is confest afterward has these Words No wonder then if Leontius makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derives the Succession down from him He does not affirm that Leontius first called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus But that 't is no wonder if he made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and thence proved the Succession of Bishops by the Succession of the Ephesian Bishops down from Timothy He made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus but he was not the first that did so for many had done it before him I will not deny perhaps this Learned Author at that time Questioned whether Timothy was so or no. However he did not assert that Leontius was the first that called him Bishop of Ephesus Mr. O. then who seems to value himself for the Hundreds of his quotations would do well if he more carefully examined his Authors and more sincerely represented their Opinions But 't is no hard matter for any one if he will make it his business for some little time to Collect an innumerable number of Authorities upon this Subject of Episcopacy 'T is but taking into his hand Blondel and 〈◊〉 Forbes and Stillingfleet Saravia and some others particularly Mr. Baxter from whom Mr. O. has borrowed at least two of his Arguments in his Plea almost verbatim and many of the Testimonies wherewith he has confirmed 'em and he shall be thought by Ignorant Readers Helluo Librorum a Devourer of Books a Man of infinite Reading and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and Ancient Writers when perhaps he never read one of 'em no nor so much as consulted the particular Testimonies which he cites out of ' em But 't is one thing to dabble in Authors and another throughly to understand and truly to represent ' em CHAP. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 6 th Chap. THE Principal Matter whereof may be reduced unto Four Heads 1. What has already been argued between us in the former Chapters which I quite lay aside 2. What will fall in my way when I Reply farther unto the Plea which I reserve to a more convenient Place the second part of this Book 3. What is here de novo started against the Rector which I make the Subject of this last Chapter And 4. The Cavils wherewith he has furnished out this last part of his Defence which are considered apart in the Appendix In Vindicating the Politie of the Church of England I asserted in T. N. That the Parish Priests have a share of Power in the Ecclesiastical Government for as much as all the Canons or
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
should have been the Companion of Paul or of Barnabas This last also is the Evangelist of whom the dispute is betwixt Mr. O. and me who is but once mentioned in Scripture and that at Babylon which being in Aegypt as many with reason hold he might be a Resident Evangelist at Alexandria though occasionally with Peter at the writing that Epistle at Babylon But 〈◊〉 any will contend St. Peter's Babylon was Rome be it so what absurdity is it to affirm with Eusebius that Peter sent him from Rome to Alexandria where he planted that Church and departing this life bequeathed the Government of it to Annianus Yet once more admitting Mark after he had formed and regulated that Church of Alexandria to have removed unto some other Cities and Countries for I am by no means obliged to maintain that he dy'd there nor does Eusebius expresly say so that I know of 't is enough for me to affirm with Eusebius that Annianus took the Administration of that Church of Alexandria after Mark left it To conclude if there was but one Mark who sometimes was with Peter at other times with Paul and Barnabas then with Barnabas alone after that with Paul again and lastly with Peter yet this hinders not but at last he settled at Alexandria Neither will his occasional removals thence at the Apostle's call destroy his Residence See part the First Chapter the Fifth whither I refer the Reader for Satisfaction 'T is high time now to consider Mr. O's Plea on this Argument I am referred to Page 126. St. Jerom is the only Ancient Author that has any thing of the particular manner of Church Government established by Mark 〈◊〉 Alexandria and on whose Authority the Presbyterians very much rely What he says is The Alexandrian Presbyters from Mark to Heraclas and Dionys. call'd one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree I say called him Bishop But he tells us not who chose him nor who Ordained him so that we are yet at a loss as to one main part of the Controversy for any thing Jerom has discovered to us Only one would have expected that if the Presbyters at any time had Ordained their Bishop this Father would not have failed to let us know it for the Honour of himself and those of his own Order He also informs us in the same Epistle that One Presbyter was set over the rest for a remedy against 〈◊〉 and this was done Postea that is after John's two last Epistles those of Paul to Timothy and Titus and the first of Peter were written for Bishop and Presbyter were all one till then as He supposes and we must be made to believe But 't is very hard to believe all this upon the credit of Jerom Nay Jerom himself did not believe it if we may believe him for he confesses that Paul made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus How then comes in this Postea after he had quoted St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy For if ever 〈◊〉 was made Bishop of Ephesus by Paul 't was before St. Paul wrote that Epistle And if so how comes Jerom to say that the devise was formed Postea c. that is after the Writing of that Epistle that is after Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus All that can be said the good Father writes somewhat confusedly and is inconsistent with himself But to let this pass at present One thing only is very observable that if St. Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus if James was Bishop of Jerusalem statim 〈◊〉 Apostolos and if Mark appointed a Bishop to be chosen and set over 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 at Alexandria then this Remedy against Schism was found out and establish'd in the Apostle's Days it being certain that Mark dy'd before Peter and Paul or 〈◊〉 I might argue to the same purpose from another Passage in Jerom who affirms that Mark himself was the first Bishop of Alexandria Therefore this Remedy against Schism was prescribed in the Apostle's Days and by the Apostles also and therefore Bishops must needs be of Divine Institution even in the Opinion of Jerom himself But still the difficulty remains who chose and Ordained the Bishop after Mark was gone Here Mr. O. thinks He has caught us having found an unquestionable Testimony that the Presbyters at Alexandria both chose their Bishop and Ordained him yea and Ordained one another So 't is testified by 〈◊〉 in his Origines 〈◊〉 set forth by Mr. Selden many Years ago His Words are Mark appointed Hananias or Annianus first Patriarch or Bishop of Alexandria and Twelve Presbyters his constant Assistants to the end that when the Patriarchship was vacant they should chuse one of their own Number should lay hands on his Head and bless him and create him their Patriarch then after that they should elect some Eminent Person and make him 〈◊〉 in the Room of him who was made Patriarch that so there should be always Twelve 〈◊〉 c. This Mr. O. calls a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer also of Presbyters making Presbyters Before I give a direct reply I will try what can he gathered from this Narrative of Eutychius in favour of Episcopal Government First 'T is Natural hence to gather that Mark not so much as dreamed of a Parity between the Bishop and his Presbyters His conceit was there should be Twelve Presbyters answerable to the Apostles and a Bishop 〈◊〉 them like Christ over his 〈◊〉 Secondly By this Constitution of Mark' s at Alexandria Episcopacy must be acknowledged the first Government set up in that Church and because Mark was an inspired Evangelist it was Divine also Thirdly Note that according to Eutychius the Presbyters were to chuse their Bishop and not the People which the Dissenters will not very well like of Fourthly That the Presbyters Ordained new Presbyters which will scarce go down with the Dissenting Congregations now a Days Fifthly That excepting accidents the Patriarch or as Mr. O. the Moderator of the Class was chosen for Life which the Presbyterians will not allow of Sixthly That the Dissenters are every whit as much departed from the Observance of St. Mark' s model as they can pretend we are yea and much more too Thus much being premised that which I would reply to 〈◊〉 his story is that he is the first that told it that he is an Author of no Credit and that there are considerable exceptions to be made against him and his Tale. They are as follows First He is acknowledged by Selden himself to have lived but in the Tenth Century about 900 Years after the pretended constitution of St. Mark He alledges no Writer or Records known unto us from whence he received this account nor is it known that there were any such Besides Jerom who was several times in Egypt knew nothing of this which is very strange 〈◊〉 should 500 Years after and
one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
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
Order or call it what you please For the Presbyters Minister unto the People as effectually as the Bishops in all the Offices and Conveyances of Divine Grace And on this account are the Successors of the Apostles as much as the Bishops are The Presbyters Administer the Sacraments Preach the Word interpret Scripture reprove exhort incourage and comfort publish and declare Authoritatively and Ministerially the promise of the Remission of Sin and Eternal Life by Jesus Christ not only in the Sermons but after Solemn Confession of Sin and in the Visitation of the Sick and of such as have been troubled in Mind and Conscience In short to them in the 〈◊〉 Administrations appertains that Principal Gift and Commission Receive the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. Thus far Bishops and Presbyters are the same or as St. Jerom has it pene Idem gradus This is not to be doubted of For so they the Presbyters are the same with the Apostles But the peculiar and distinguishing Character and Office of the Bishop is to inspect Govern and Ordain Presbyters and succeeding Bishops On this account the Presbyter as Jerom also speaks is secundus gradus Thus much we own and freely confess let our Adversaries make the best of it they can I do suppose the difference and Preeminence and Superiority of Bishops from and over Prebyters and their Ordaining Power is sufficiently cleared to have been the Doctrine of the reformed Church of England from the beginning though Blondel would pick out of this Treatise something to the Contrary which is not my business here to take to task Lastly I shall only produce the Testimony of the English Divines in the Synod of Dort held 1618. 1619. The Bishop of Landaff Joseph Hall afterwards Bishop of Norwich John Davenant and Samuel Ward having approv'd all the Doctrines in the Belgick confession except Three Heads concerning Ecclesiastical Orders protested That the Government of the English Churches by Bishops Priests and Deacons was of Apostolical Institution Particularly Landaff in a Speech ran through the three Heads or Chapters and then entred this Protestation that there was not in the Apostles Times nor ever had been in the Church an Equality of Ministers From the whole I gather 1. That it has ever been the Judgment of the Protestant Church of England from the Reformation that there was by the Scripture and ought to be an inequality of Ministers and that Bishops are distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters 2. That the Presbyterians and Particularly Mr. O. do a great injury unto the Memory of that Great Man Archbishop Laud and through his sides unjustly Wound all that defend and assert Divine right of Episcopacy impeaching them of Novelty and altering the Doctrine of the Church That Renowned Prelate came into Play and became a Leader in this Church not till after all the Instances which I have alledged in proof of the Divine Right of Bishops Even the Bishop of Landaff and his English Collegues at the Synod of Dort were not Inferior to him nor was it in Laud's Power to Influence their Opinions He was not Archbishop of Canterbury till the Year 1633. not of St. Davids till 1621. two Years after the Synod was broken up It cannot therefore with Reason 〈◊〉 thought that these excellent Persons who assisted at that Assembly were led by the Nose or aw'd by the Authority of Dr. Laud. Nor do I find that he was any ways interested in their Deliberations or that he sent to them any Letters or Dispatches upon that or indeed any other subject It can hardly be believed since so many of the Calvinistical Points were then established doubtless to the regret of this Prelate Besides Dr. Andrews had before Laud written a Book to prove the Divine Right of Bishops surely not sway'd thereto by Laud who was or had been his Chaplain But to remove all the invidious Calumnies and Reproaches that have been falsly laid upon that unfortunate Prelate and the rest who before and after him have maintained the Divine Right of Bishops it were sufficient to call to remembrance that it was the Doctrine of Ignatius whose Testimonies 't is needless to repeat any more also of St. Cyprian Jâm pridem per omnes Provincias Urbes Ordinati sunt Episcopi and what he means by his jam pridem he explains elsewhere Sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto Mundo Divina dignatione praepositos Once more I read Cum hoc igitur omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur divina 〈◊〉 fundamentum sit Lastly of Jerom himself Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus Mundi Principes Ecclesiae which also he calls Traditionem Apostolicam writing to Evagrius which have been remembred before Now if some of Laud's immediate Predecessors or Contemporaries can be produced granting this as being of another Mind not seeing or not openly confessing and contesting the Truth 't was surely for want of Understanding Courage or Integrity But why these failings and defects should be laid in the balance with the undoubted Testimonies of the Fathers or prejudice the Wisdom and Faithfulness of others yea the Publick and Authoritative Declarations of our Church too is beyond my Capacity to comprehend This is out of question I judge that Presbyterian Ordination the Identity and Parity of Bishops and Presbyters has never yet been pronounced lawful much less of Divine Right by any Publick and AuthentickSentence of the Church of England since the Reformation except haply by that pack't Assembly of Divines not one of whom were Legally chose to sit at Westminster Some private Writers may haply be found inclining to the Opinion whereby Presbyters are equal'd unto Bishops and thought to be of the same Degree but I make no reckoning of such private Authorities though they were otherwise Persons of singular Learning Wisdom and Piety And some Passages favouring the Presbyterian Pretences may possibly be found in the publick Deliberations and Conclusions whilst Hen. VIII was Vindicating this Church from the Tyranny of the Pope and in his stead assuming it to himself Thus far we chang'd our Rider not our Burthen but it ought to be considered that as in those difficult times the Episcopal Power was subjected to the will of the Prince and to the Law of the Land and so may be thought not by Divine Right but Humane Constitution even so was the Power and Office of Parsons Vicars and Priests or Presbyters and from thence also it 〈◊〉 with equal Force that these also are but by Humane Law and thence derive their Authority Let us for example but look back unto Cranmer's Answer to the King 's 9th Query and we may be convinced hereof The substance of it is That the whole care of the Church is immediately committed to the Prince That Parsons Vicars and other Priests were to be appointed by His Highness to their Ministrations To the 10 th Query
was no Ordination but conferring the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit which Philip could not do Mr. O. forgot to take notice of the whole Argument but Answers it by halves I urg'd that Philip had the extraordinary and Miraculous Gift of the Spirit which was usually conferred by Imposition of hands that though he had this Gift yet he could not give it that therefore they who have a Gift yet may not have power to conferr that Gift and by consequence that those Persons who are ordain'd to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments it does not follow that they can Ordain which was the thing to be prov'd There is nothing that I perceive meriting any Reply until we come to that piece of Discipline 1 Cor. 5. where we read of the Incestuous Corinthian Excommunicated as I contend by the Authority and Command of St. Paul But Mr. O. insinuates that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians for not excommunicating the Sinner themselves 1 Cor. 5. 2. Ans. This verse proves it not The expression is in the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Offender might be taken away By whom Why not by the Apostle He may as well be thought to chide 'em for not informing him of the misdemeanour to the end the Offender might be delivered unto Satan by St. Paul himself The whole Story as we shall shew Countenances this Interpretation Ay but says the Minister the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to avoid disorderly walkers v. 13. Ans. But this is by the Apostles express commandment still Besides to put away from among themselves that wicked Person is not to deliver him to Satan or to expel him the Church but Not to eat with him v. 11. that is not to have any Familiarity with him in civil Conversation In this the Apostle does indeed declare v. 12. that the Corinthians had power to Judge with whom they might be Familiar and with whom not But it does not hence follow they had power to Excommunicate Now that it was St. Paul who judged and decreed and gave theSentence of Excommuncation against the Offender will appear plainly if we read the first part of the 3 d verse with the 5 th v. for all the rest is a Parenthesis Thus then let us put 'em close together v. 3. For I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have determined already then v. 5. to deliver such an one unto Satan For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Excommunication most certainly proceeded from the Apostle It is also worthy consideration that the Corinthians did not receive again into their Communion this Excommunicated Person until the Apostle had absolved him and then besought them to confirm their Love towards him 2 C. 28. 10. In the next place I am accused of altering and perverting the Text. 〈◊〉 heavy charge which ought not to be passed over lightly The Accusation is that v. 4. I have put the Words thus Of my Spirit whereas the Translators leaving out of render the place thus My Spirit not Of my Spirit Ans. Since the Grammatical construction will bear it there is no reason of accusing me of perverting the Text. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put absolute and into a Parenthesis Upon this supposition then thus the Words may be laid In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and my Spirit or of my Spirit which is the same thing when ye are gathered together c. So that Mr. O. could not have any just pretense for his Accusation whatever becomes of my Interpretation of the Text. This perhaps he may call into Question and my purpose now is to vindicate it I cannot reconcile my self unto that Opinion which Couples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus more plainly in English When ye and my Spirit are gathered together Paul was now at Ephesus both Body and Spirit I can form no Idea of his Spirit assembling with the Corinthians at so great a distance True he tells 'em that he is present with 'em in Spirit but Corrects himself immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though I were present So that the Sense is St. Paul was present with 'em in Heart and Affections studying their welfare wishing them well and praying that their Souls might be Saved and their Church Edified in Peace and Purity Or why not present among 'em by his Authority As we say the King is every where present in his Dominions by his Influence and Providence But that the Spirit of Paul should be gathered or assembled with the Corinthian Congregation is a too harsh and improper Expression at least in my Fancy and Opinion especially since so Commodious and agreeable Sense may be given of the Words Nor let any one suspect me to have advanced this Interpretation to serve a cause which stands in no need of it For if it shall still be thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be coupled then the latter Words must import the Apostles Authority as I formerly expounded it And least the Apostle should seem too assuming in thus insisting on his own ' Authority with great caution he adds With the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he had said my Authority but in Conjunction with and subordination to the Power of Christ. For so the Apostle was wont oftimes carefully to prevent mistakes left he should be thought to haveUsurpt his Power Thus he 2 Cor. 10. 8. speaking of his Authority adds Which the Lord hath given us c. And Chap. 2. 10. which comes nearer to our purpose when he had granted the Absolution of the Excommunicated Person I forgave it says he in the Person of Christ. Upon the whole matter thus much at least may be said of this Instance of Ecclesiastical Discipline that St. Paul directed and commanded it which is all I need to be concerned for For then it can be no president for a College of Presbyters much less for a particular Minister of one single Congregation to Excommunicate which was the thing I intended to Evince I proceed now to the Story of 〈◊〉 's Ordination briefly related 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. of which in the first place I delivered this as my own settled Opinion That Timothy underwent two Ordinations the one for Presbyter the other for 〈◊〉 or Supreme Ruler of the Church of 〈◊〉 One of my Reasons for this was because Paul himself seemed to me to have been twice Ordained once Act. 9. 15 〈◊〉 17. and again Chap. 13. the first unto the Ordinary Ministry of the Word the second unto the Apostle of the Gentiles Against this Mr. O. Argues 1. That Paul was more than an Ordinary Minister of the Word Gal. 1. 1. meaning before he received that Imposition of hands Act. 13. that is from the time of his Conversion Ans. He might as well say that Paul was an
World at first nor can we tell into how many more he might afterwards multiply or into how few reduce it For even the Romans were wont sometimes to increase and sometimes to diminish their Provinces As therefore God might for any thing we know in the beginning have divided the Nations into Seventy times seven Provinces and constituted so many Guardian Angels over them and afterward altered the number of both by adding or diminishing as he saw good So might he have appointed and varied the Number of Bishops as the Condition of the Church requir'd into sometimes more and sometimes less I will conclude the whole Argument with two or three Observations which will confirm what is before pleaded That there is an Hierarchy among the Celestial Spirits and Angels as I said according to the current Opinion in former times presiding as Guardians over Kingdoms and Provinces is Witnessed by Jerom who thus delivers himself Angeli qui Regnis Nationibus praesidebant That Angels in the Revelations is an Allusion to these Guardian Angels is countenanc'd by that noted Passage in Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Progressions of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are I think imitations of the Angelical Glory and of that Ordination As also by that other of Origen Per singulas Ecclesias c. There are two Bishops in every Church one visible the Man Bishop the other invisible the Angel Bishop I think there may be found both an Angel and a Man good Bishops of the Church and as it were Partners in the Work Lastly Optatus Milevitanus Stiles Bishops Angels and plainly alludes unto the Apocalyptical Angels Nor have I met with that Conceit about the Angel of the Synagogue the Charan or Bishop in the Primitive Fathers who make no use of that Notion to explain the Order of Bishops For indeed it is the Invention of the later Rabbins But sometimes as I have just proved they allude unto the Angels and frequently unto the High Priests in the Temple Mr. O. whereas I argu'd that the Synagogue-Rulers were subject to the 〈◊〉 High Priests Ch says he so are Presbyters to Jesus Christ our High Priest Ans. But we are inquiring about subjection unto visible Rulers and if Mr. O. will needs have the Synagogue a Pattern of the Christian Congregations then the Presbyters must be subject unto some visible Superiour as were the Rulers of the Synagogues which he is obliged to Name Till then my Observation is of Moment but his Reply meerly Delusory and Evasive Mr. O. Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High-Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit Ans. First It is sufficient I suppose that the Bishops Charter is a clear one as to the Power they Claim and exercise tho' not as to the Title of Bishop It makes no great matter what becomes of that Secondly Let Mr. O. bring as clear a Proof of Presbyterian Parity or Independency or of Presbyters exercising the Supreme Acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as are to be produced from the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. in behalf of Prelacy that is for a single Persons presiding over Churches and governing them and there 's an end of the present Controversy Thirdly I ask Mr. 〈◊〉 between him and me whether he does not submit to some Religious usages for which there is not so clear a Charter in the New Testament as there is in the Old for some of the Jewish Rites Whether he has as clear and express Commandments for Infant Baptism for the Observation and Divine Institution of the Lord's-Day for days of Publick and general Fasts or Humiliation for Singing David's Psalms in Metre as the Jews had for Circumcision for Saturday-Sabbath for their Fasting-Days and for their Singing the Book of Psalms in their way It is not then for want of a clear Charter as I fear that he refuses to submit to Bishops but for want of a clear Understanding and a peaceable and humble mind He that can sit down with reasonable Deductions and be prevailed with to make no scruple of doing what is thereby recommended unto him if he were steady to his own Principle ought to be satisfyed with the like Reasonable Conclusions in all other matters of Religion I said in the T. N. that a great deal of the Temple-Worship being Moral Religion it was as much the Pattern of the Christian as the Synagogue Worship was And on that account the Jewish Priesthood might be the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy Mr. O. says no because the Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial worship of the Temple though they performed the moral parts there also Ans. Though the Jewish Priesthood and the Temple worship were incumbred with Ceremonies yet they might be the Pattern of the Christian Priesthood and Worship An embroidered Garment may be the Pattern of a plain one They may both be like in shape and in substance though not in Ornament and their Trimming Besides though the Levitical Ceremonies were abolished yet some others were substituted by Jesus Christ in their room as Baptism and the Lord's-Supper But how could the Synagogue which had no Ceremony at all only the Moral parts of Religion performed in it according to Mr. O's reasoning be a pattern of the Christian Churches which have Ceremonies There is as much disagreement between a Synagogue which has no Ceremonies only Natural Religion exercised in it and a Christian Church which has Ceremonies besides the natural Religion as there is between the Temple which had Levitical Ceremonies and the Christian which has not Mr. O. argues that the Legal Priests and Altar and Priesthood were changed Ans. True as to the Levitical Ceremonies But not as to any thing which was Moral And Government I conceive is a part of Moral Religion though therefore a Levitical Ceremonial High-Priest was not ordained for the Christian Church yet in Imitation of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Government a Christian High Priest might be appointed the Ceremonies of the Law being laid aside Mr. O. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests Ans. And will Mr. O. therefore assert that any Man may in a Christian Publick Congregation perform the Moral parts of Worship This very Observation of Mr. O's shews that the Synagogues were not the Pattern of Christian Churches or Congregations because I take it for granted that none among us can perform even Moral Worship in Publick except Deacons Presbyters and Bishops It rather therefore imports that the Temple Worship is the Pattern of the Christian Because as none but the Priests and Levites could perform the Moral Worship in the Temple 2 Chron. 30. 27. Nehem. 9. 5. Joel 2. 17. Even so among us none can except Bishops Priests and Deacons I shall 〈◊〉 my Answer to Mr. O's Discourses about 〈◊〉 's Epistles to the Reply which I intend unto his Plea Judging that the most
Adversary 1. That they were an Order of Church Officers distinct from Apostles Prophets Pastors or Teachers 2. That in degree they were next under Prophets and above Pastors or Teachers I added my own Opinion 3. That they were not only Companions of the Apostles ready to serve in the Work of the Gospel where-ever whensoever they should be sent upon any special and Emergent business but sometimes likewise fix'd in some certain places as Resident Governours of those Churches in the Room of the absent or dying Apostles of which number I reckon'd Philip Timothy and Titus to have been Mr. O. Because Titus was to Ordain Elders in every City and every City must have a Bishop as Mr. O. phansies Titus therefore must have been the Archbishop of Crete and because the Power of Ordination was lodg'd in him alone as the Rector contends it will follow says he that Archbishops only have power to Ordain and the Diocesan Bishops are excluded Ans. There is no necessity that every City must needs have a Bishop At least in the Infancy of the Church and whilst Titus alone presided over it It was not so in Crete nor was there any occasion for it Admitting that in the next Age Christians and Churches multiplying and all the Apostles dead then haply there might be Bishops in many 〈◊〉 and some Person constituted the Archbishop of that Island I say admitting this it will not hence follow that the Power of Ordination was in him solely and not in the other Bishops also An Archbishop is not of a different species from a Bishop but was appointed and agreed unto by the Bishops among themselves for Peace and Orders sake although there might be plausible Reasons given out of Scripture it self for the Institution of Archbishops But that 's 〈◊〉 of my concernment This is certain among our selves when a Bishop is made an Archbishop he receives no new Ordination consequently no new Divine Power more than he had before that therefore as to the Office of Ordaining and Governing their Dioceses a Bishop and an Archbishop are the same thing and that the Archbishop cannot supersede the Episcopal Power of his Provincial Bishops Mr. O. will not allow that Philip was the fixt and settled Evangelist at Caesarea Ans. Nor am I positive it was so I gave my Reasons for it out of Scripture such as do I confess perswade me to believe it But the Minister is of another Mind I cannot help that nor do I wonder at it Where almost is there a Man to be found who is willing to renounce his former Sentiments or Errours Mr. O. requires it to be proved that Philip was settled and resided at Caesarea and that he was no where else c. Ans. 'T is hard Mr. O. should require me to prove a Negative all I can say is I read not of his being any where-else After an account given of his Labours in Preaching the Gospel whilst he was yet but a Deacon for any thing that appears I find him as it were sitting down at Caesarea Acts 8. 40. He preached in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea which words seem to Intimate that there he rested The next news we hear of him is that near upon Twenty Years after we find him still at Caesarea and then stiled an Evangelist a Title plainly there distinguished from Deacon who was or had been one of the seven Deacons but was now it seems an Evangelist and further 't is said of him that at 〈◊〉 he had an House and Family there and in Condition to entertain Paul and his Companions many days Acts 21. 8 9 10. I think that here is a tolerable proof that he dwelt and was the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea Mr. O. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Caesarea might be his Birth place or he might Marry there because he had four Daughters there Prophetesses Ans. These are bare Possibilities at most which cannot countervail those Circumstances and matters of 〈◊〉 whereon I build my Conjecture Herein I appeal to the Reader Besides tho' 't is possible an unsettled Officer may have a settled Family Yet a settled Officer must have a settled Family one would think if he has 〈◊〉 at all Caesarea might be his Birth place This is possible and it might not be which is most Probable 'T is great odds on my side I have all the Cities in Judea to say nothing of all the other in the Empire and elsewhere where Jews liv'd to set against Caesarea His name would make one think he was an Hellenist and born somewhere among the Greeks His being chosen a Deacon in favour of the Grecians argues something this way as also that at that time his Habitation was at Jerusalem for why else should he be chosen a Deacon there He removed thence meerly upon occasion of the Persecution After all imagine he was born at Caesarea this is no reason against his being an Evangelist there Once more He might Marry there True that 's possible but 't is as possible that he Marry'd at Jerusalem or any other of the Cities where he had preached the Word But Mr. O's Reason why he might Marry there is a very pleasant one sc. because he had Daughters there Prophetesses as if he might not have Marry'd in another place and yet his Daughters live with him at Caesarea Children are no evidence where a Man was Marry'd But what if he was Marryed there Might he not also have been the settled Evangelist there His Marrying at Caesarea could be no hindrance nor is an Argument against it Lastly 't is most absurd to suppose from Acts the 8. 40. That he Marry'd at Caesarea For 't was now about 20 Years since he arriv'd first at Caesarea There Mr. O. thinks he might Marry and so settle his Family I deny it He must in all likelyhood have been Marry'd before he ever came to Caesarea and that because he had four Daughters Prophetesses For if he was there and then Marry'd the oldest of these Prophetesses must have been but Nineteen Years old and the youngest but Sixteen It is not credible that at this Age they should be Prophetesses Lastly the most probable conjecture is that he Marry'd before he was converted or became a Minister of the Word Mr. O. He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea which the Minister confirms by Bishop Pearson's Testimony Ans. It is no wonder that Bp. Pearson should be of this Opinion who esteem'd an Evangelist to be not a distinct Species of Officer in the Church but to denote a bare Preacher of the Gospel But Mr. O. who believes it otherwise and I who have supposed it must seek for other proofs of Philip's being an Evangelist before he settled at Samaria Mr. O. Philip Preached up and down by virtue of an Extraordinary call Act. 8. 6 7 26 39. Ans. The places cited prove that Philip had extraordinary Gifts and Abilities and sometimes an Extraordinary call
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.
Faith that City being so furiously zealous in their Superstition and Idolatry So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19. 19 20. Paul testifies sixthly that at Ephesus a great Door and Effectual was opened unto Him viz. a most advantagious opportunity of bringing in a mighty Harvest of Souls to Christ. 1 Cor. 16. 8 9. Put all these together how is it possible to imagine upon any solid 〈◊〉 that there were no more than one single Congregation in the Church of Ephesus These are the Assemblies and London Ministers Arguments which Mr. O. may do well at his leisure to confute if He can If He can't and as I am apt to suspect will not endeavour then my point is gained For if even in Paul's days there were many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus then much more in the times of Ignatius the Christian Religion doubtless getting ground continually in those parts upon the Gentile Superstition as is manifest afterwards from the Churches hereabouts planted and mentioned in the Revelations to which may be added Magnesia and Trallis out of Ignatius's Epistles none of which are to be found in the story of St. Paul except Laodicea that I can remember Now I will not contend that every of the Churches spoken of in Ignatius was 〈◊〉 Diocesan not knowing how early they were planted But thus much I repeat again they were intended to be cast into the same Model as Ephefus was as many be gathered from the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons fixt in them which was as I may say the Foundation of larger Churches to consist of many Congregations after more believers should by the Grace of God be added unto the Churches By this time I am in some Hopes 't is undeniably proved 1. That the Bishops of those Churches to whom Ignatius wrote were Prelatical that is were of a Distinct species of Church-Officers and Superior to the Presbyters who were subject to them 2. That they were likewise Diocesan that is Rulers over several Congregations and over the Presbyters and Deacons who Ordinarily Ministred in them from whence it must be concluded that the several Passages of whose Sense Mr. O. and I have disputed must be so expounded as to be made agreeable to Prelatical and Diocesan Episcopacy Whether I have done it is left to the Judgment of the Reader if He please to consult the T. N. To speak only of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar very briefly because He alledges the Testimony of no less a Man than the Famous Mr. Mede for one Numerical Altar and not a Specifical one as I expounded it Those Words in Ignatius's Epistle ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thought to favour one Numerical Altar which Mr. O. contends for of which thus Mr. Mede delivers Himself Here is a Temple with an Altar in it For in these Primitive Times they had but one Altar in a Church Ans. No more have we at this day Though we have many Churches in a Diocess yet every Church has an Altar and but one and so it might be at Magnesia for any thing that is yet said to the contrary But Mr. Mede goes on It should seem they had but one Altar to a Church taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful United under one Bishop in the City or place where the Bishop had his See or Residence as the Jews had one Temple and one Altar for the Whole Nation United under one High-Priest The Author endeavours to confirm this as Mr. O. truly says out of Justin Martyr and St. Cyprian Ans. But still Mr. O. misrepresents Mr. Mede as if He were positive herein which is not so For 1. Mr. Mede lays down his position very cautiously it should seem intimating it was not very clear from those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Words many imply only that every Temple had but one Altar as it is with us and yet there might be more Temples than one in the Bishop's Churches and therefore more Altars 2. Mr. Mede at the same time thinketh the Bishop's Churches to have been Diocesan For though they had not several Altars yet they had several Oratories or lesser Temples says He as the Jews had their Synagogues So that the one Numerical Altar in the Bishop's Church does not prove his Church to consist of one Congregation only in this Learned Gentleman's Opinion no more than the one Altar in the Temple of the Jews proves there were no Synagogues 3. Mr. Mede to back his Conjecture grounded on Ignatius produces two Testimonies the one out of Justin the other out of Cyprian and because he is not positive or certain of the Conclusion he draws from them it will be no breach of Modesty if I examine whether Mr. Mede has well grounded his Conjecture on those two Fathers Justin Martyr in his second Apology thus writes All that live in Cities or Countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plural meet togeher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place so Mr. Mede to Celebrate the Holy Eucharist This Passage does not evince that the Bishop's Church taken for the whole Company of Believers united under him had but one Altar for which I offer the following Reasons First Because Justin here intends not to give the Gentiles an Account of the Politie and Government of the Christian Churches nor how many sort of Church-Officers there were among them nor how many Congregations under one Bishop but of the manner of their Divine Worship and that not in one single Congregation but in all His meaning is that in all Towns and Countries throughout the World the Christians belonging to any one Congregation or certain district met together c. For all this there might be several Congregations under One Bishop If I for example should write to a Foreigner concerning the manner of our Worship here in England not intermedling with the Nature of our Government might I not ought I not to say All that live in Towns or Countries or where-ever there is a Congregation meet together in one place though at the same time there be many Churches and many Congregations united under one Bishop of the Diocess which thus meet together for Divine Worship Secondly Whereas Justin mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President who Celebrates the Divine Worship in these single Congregations there is no necessity of Understanding Him speaking of the Bishop only He may using one common Title for both speak of the Presbyters who preside over the Divine Worship in their particular Congregations So Mr. Mede expounds Antistes afterward not the Bishop only but the Bishop or Presbyter that is He who Ministers in the Congregation at that time Thirdly Supposing He means the Bishop He does but instance in and exemplify the Christian Worship by the most Honourable Assembly sc. that wherein the Bishop himself Ordinarily Presided in Person not excluding others wherein the Presbyters Ministred Fourthly Justin because he
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
Officii It had then been more Congruous according to our Adversaries Argument to have named all of 'em Bishops except the President who should have been called Presbyter as being the Eldest among them Afterwards Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians not to despise Demas their Bishop for his Youth Lastly 〈◊〉 assures us that the Presbyters of Alexandria by Mark' s Institution chose their Patriarch so that Merit and Election not Age determined the Competition By the way they also according to this Author Eutychius Ordained their Patriarch by Prayer and Imposition of Hands With what Truth then could Hilary assert Episcopi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 est Ordinatio But I have done this Fictitious Hilary his Questions and Commentaries too great an Honour in wasting thus much Paper about Him and Them CHAP. XII Of St. Jerom ' s Testimony BEfore I examine the Testimonies of this Father alledg'd by Mr. O. in favour of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters I will lay down my own Hypothesis such I am perswaded as is agreeable to the Word of God And I am of Opinion also will go a great way to reconcile Jerom with himself As for my own Opinion I make account with Bp. Pearson that the Christian Church strictly speaking began upon the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit descended upon the Holy Apostles and as I may say anointed them unto the Office of Preaching the Gospel and establishing the Christian Church throughout the World beginning at Jerusalem That they were for some small time the only Ecclesiastical Officers in the Church That when the Church increased and believers were multiply'd and by consequence the Apostles unable to manage the Whole Work by themselves they took in seaven Deacons to their Assistance devolving on them intirely one branch of their Power viz. dispensing the Publick Alms among the Poor as also admitting them to Preach the Word and Baptize when Occasion offered or necessity required or their Leisure from their own proper business would allow That not very long after the Church still encreasing more and more and believers multiplying not only at Jerusalem but at Samaria and in other parts of Judea the Apostles added another sort of Church Officers that is Presbyters Acts. 11. 30. ch 15. That to these Presbyters were committed by the Apostles the Principal Care and Trust of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments and in their Absence of Ruling the Flock in Matters of less Moment the Apostles still reserving to themselves the Supreme Power in the Highest and Important affairs of the Church which they discharged either by Messengers or by Letters or else visiting them and lastly that these Presbyters were indifferently called either Elders or Bishops and governed the aforesaid Churches in a Parity among themselves Of this Interval of time I reckon Jerom might speak when he contends for the Parity and Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Churches then hitherto were governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Colleges of Presbyters no other presiding over them in the Apostles Absence In process of time when the Apostles had determined among themselves to disperse in Order to the Preaching of the Gospel unto all the World they resolv'd that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest unto whom all the care of the Church should belong the seeds of Schism might be taken away and that this should be established and observed toto Orbe throughout the World The period of time when this Course was Taken by the Apostles I have spoken of in the Preface But Jerom in this Circumstance seems not at one with himself For whereas in his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus he supposes the Apostles to have taken up this Resolution after the Corinthian Schism yet making James Bishop of Jerusalem He must of Necessity suppose it done before or at the Council of Jerusalem at which time there was not any Church or so much as one Christian at Corinth By what name or Title the Persons thus chosen out of the Presbyters and intrusted with the Supreme Government of Churches were called is of little Moment to be enquired into Nevertheless if Theodoret is to be Credited as I know no reason to the contrary they also were at first stiled Apostles and it is with reason thought that Epaphroditus is therefore reckon'd or rather declared the Apostle of the Philippians Blondel himself acknowledges there were a Secondary sort of Apostles among the Churches Persons of the Highest Rank and most Eminent Gifts I take these things in some measure proved sufficiently before and in what follows and most reasonable in themselves to be supposed Nevertherless if the Adversaries shall reject them as 't is most likely they will I shall only say that I am not much concerned about them that is whether it be possible to make Jerom write consistently with himself If not his Testimony in the Controversy before us is not worth a Rush he having contradicted himself and overthrown in one place what he is made to have affirmed in another The Question then upon Jerom's Authority is not about the precise time when this Remedy against Schism was applyed by the Apostles that 's to say whether before or immediately after the Corinthian Divisions let Jerom look to that But more generally whether he believed or ever asserted or could consistently with himself assert that this Provision against Schism was devised and made not till after the Apostles decease The Presbyterians are oblig'd to hold the Affirmative or else give up the Cause My business then is to prove that Jerom did not believe nor ever asserted nor could intend to assert that the Decree about chusing one from among the Presbyters and setting him above the rest to preside and Govern the affairs of the Church was made after the Apostles days by some Ecclesiastical Constitution but that it was the Ordination and Appointment of the Apostles themselves This I pretend to make appear by the following Observations out of Jerom. 1. These Words of Jerom toto Orbe decretum est must denote it to have been an Apostolick Constitution For an Ecclesiastical Decree obliging all Christendom to its Observation could never have been made for above 200 Years after the Apostles decease and nothing less then an Oecumenical Synod had competent Power to prescribe this Remedy against Schism But there never was any such Universal Council before that of Nice too late to Father the Decree in the Judgment even of our Adversaries themselves Moreover this Apostles Canons as they are commonly called which are a Collection of the most Ancient Decrees of the Church take it for granted that the Government of the Church was lodg'd in the Hands of Bishops and only regulate some Circumstances about their Ordinations and the Methods of their Government If Bishops had been meerly by Ecclesiastical Constitution we should certainly have found them established in these Apostolical Canons It is not to be imagin'd the
Collectors of them would have omitted so important a Decree as this whereon so many of their other Canons are built as on a Foundation Jerom's toto Orbe decretum est must then imply that Episcopacy was an Apostolical Constitution 2. The same may be 〈◊〉 from those Words Remedium Schismatis Episcopum nominabant in Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius The Remedy then against Schism must be as Ancient as the Presidents who according to Jerom were called Bishops Now they were stil'd Bishops before Ignatius was Martyred as abundantly appears in his Epistles therefore this Remedy against Schism was divised in the Apostolick Age except any one will affirm that Ignatius and all the other Followers Disciples Fellow-Labourers and Fellow-Soldiers of the Apostles who gave Testimony to the Gospel of Christ even unto Bloud prepared this new Remedy against Schism so soon as the Apostle St. John's Eyes were Shut and took upon them to set up a Government in the Church which the Apostles were altogether strangers to as our Adversaries suppose 3. Jerom. Witnesseth over and over again that Bishops were established in the Churches whilst the Apostles lived and flourished Upon those Words Quae est in to per impositionem manuum mearum he thus glosses scilicet ad Episcopatum Upon those other Words cum Episcopis Diaconis he thus comments hic Episcopos Presbyteros intelligimus non enim in una Urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent intimating that though Bishops and Presbyters were the same in that place yet there was then an Higher Degree of Bishops of whom there could be but one in a City Now Jerom here must of necessity speak of the Apostles days else his Comment had been altogether vain and absurd For to expound St. Paul's 〈◊〉 by an usage which sprang up in the Church long after were sensless Besides he thinks Epaphroditus was at that time Bishop of Philippi as is plainly implyed when he glosses on the other passage in this Epistle Epaphroditum Commilitonem meum Commilito propter honorem Quia ipse acceperat in illis Apostolatus Officium Epaphroditus then was the Apostle of the Philippians according to Jerom that is in the Ecclesiastical Language he was their Bishop Again whereas Jerom questions Archippus to have been a Deacon of the Church of Coloss. ch 4. 17. yet elsewhere he puts the question to Himself Quid est ministerium quod Archippus accepit a Domino And Answers Legimus Archippo Commilitoni Nostro exquo puto aut Episcopum eum fuisse Colossensis Ecclesiae aut si ita non est c. hereby though not positively asserting him the Bishop of Coloss yet implying plainly by the Disjunctive there were Bishops in those days Moreover Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers reckons up James made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and Simeon after him Timothy of Ephesus Titus of Crete by Paul and Polycarp of Smyrna by John On the 45 Psalm he thus speaks Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus Mundi Principes Ecclesiae i. e. Episcopos And that by Princes he here meant single Supreme Governours of Churches appears from his Comment on the 1 st of Titus where he has this Observation that Paul was then forming a Prince of the Church of Crete This Institution then being by Jerom attributed unto Christ himself must be understood as done at least by the Apostles of Christ. Lastly Jerom Notes that all who saw the Lord and Preached the Gospel were called Apostles paulatim vero tempore procedente others also were Ordained Apostles by them whom the Lord had chosen as Epaphroditus We can understand no less by Ordained Apostles here than those who were set over Churches to Rule them called afterwards Bishops And the paulatim here being to be understood of the Apostles time will let us in to the understanding Jerom's paulatim and his postquam in his Commentaries on 〈◊〉 and that the Decree there spoken of was put in Execution by the Apostles themselves but by Degrees If then Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi Archippus of Coloss James of Jerusalem Timothy of Ephesus and Titus Bishop and Prince of Crete Polycarp of Smyrna and in a Word if there were Bishops and Princes appointed by Christ in all Quarters of the World and all whilst Paul was alive in the Opinion of Jerom then Jerom's toto Orbe 〈◊〉 est is to be understood of an Apostolical Constitution 4. The occasion of setting up one above the 〈◊〉 to take the care and charge of the Churches of necessity implies that the Apostles themselves instituted Episcopacy It was according to Jerom the Corinthian Schisiu And yet more particularly because our 〈◊〉 contend that Jerom only alluded to the Corinthian Schism not that that Schism in particular was the occasion of the Decree Which is but mere 〈◊〉 at best I farther note the Schism which gave occasion to the Decree was according to Jerom founded on such a Principle and pretence as is not to be met with in any other Church than that of Corimh nor in any other Age than that of the Apostles The pretence as Jerom believ'd was posiquam unusquisq eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. alluding to the 1 Cor. 1. 13 14. 15. If then the toto Orbe decretum was occasioned by the Corinthian Schism which in Jerom's Judgment sprang from that false and foolish Principle that every Minister might challenge to himself all those Christians whom he had Baptized to be Members of his own separate Congregation the Remedy against this disease must of necessity be confess'd to have commenced soon after this Corinthian Schism and by consequence in the Apostles days 5. Jerom's instancing in the Church of Alexandria confirms what I am proving viz. that Bishops were appointed in the Apostles Days A Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Presbyteri unum ex se electum excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Here we have a Bishop of Alexandria name and thing acknowledg'd by Jerom from Mark the Evangelist Therefore Jerom must have believed the 〈◊〉 Orbe decretum est happened in the Apostles days since many of them survived St. Mark 6. The Character and Commendation Jerom gives of this Institution of Bishops I observed before what he has written on the 45 Psal. constituit Christus in omnibus mundi finibus Principes 〈◊〉 If then it was an Institution of Christ it must needs be at least Apostolical so he calls it Ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento The Apostolical Traditions or Institutions were borrowed from the Old Testament And that Episcopacy and the three Distinct Orders of Church Officers Bishops Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 included yea principally meant here by the Apostolical Traditions is evident from what follows Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt 〈◊〉 sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vindicent in Ecclesia
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 Bishop Ordains the Person with the advice Consent and Council of his Presbyters But Mr. O. adds I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles days of Persons laying on of Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If I should affirm that those mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. imposed Hands but had no Ordaining Power I am very sure he can't disprove me And if I should demand one Instance in the Apostles times of meer Presbyters laying on of hands or Ordaining without a Bishop I am sure Mr. O. cannot produce it But Mr. O. pleads How then comes the Bishops to urge the Scripture 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no Man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer that he was Bishop of Ephesus since he might lay on Hands and yet have no Ordaining Power nor be Bishop This difficulty is easily resolved If there were no other Argument for Timothy's Episcopal Power in the Church of Ephesus but that Text only it might thence be fairly inferred that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and had the Power of Ordaining because no other are joyn'd in Commission with him nevertheless though this prov'd it not it may be evinc'd from other pregnant Passages in those Epistles to Timothy which I need not repeat Nor do we acknowledge Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination That of Benediction belongs not to them at all But says he What does the Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie if not an Ordaining Power I have told him already it denotes their Approbation and that the Bishop 〈◊〉 with their Advice and Consent No he replys they could signifie their Approbation some other way without imposition of Hands as by saying Amen to the Ordination Prayers But this is to be wiser than God and his Apostles who have as I often have supposed though I need not grant it recommended this way which adds an agreeable Solemnity unto the Action at least the Church has thought fit to admit the Presbyters to lay on Hands and thereby to signify their Approbation of such as are taken into their own proper Ministry in a particular way and different from the Peoples testifying their Assent And this is the reason why at the Ordination of a Deacon Presbyters were not to impose Hands sc. Quia non ad Sacerdotium sed ad Ministerium Consecratur as the African Fathers declared In short this Canon 〈◊〉 with others which appropriate the Power of Ordaining Presbyters unto Bishops only as is above observ'd seems to me to shew that in the judgment of the Ancients Presbyters had no Inherent Original Power of laying on Hands but that 't was granted to them by Ecclesiastical Constitution only Otherwise probably they would have had Power of Imposition of Hands at the Ordination of Deacons also Briefly because in the Prosecution of this Argument Mr. O. appeals to the Scripture so oft for proof of certain things that fell in his way whilst he was managing this Point I do once more here desire what I have often call'd for one single probable proof or Example from Scripture of bare ordinary Presbyters Ordaining or laying on of Hands without some Superior presiding in the Action 5. And to conclude this Discourse about the Councils of Carthage I that am not much concern'd about Men's Opinions nor whether the Presbyters impose Hands tanquam Ordinantes or tanquam Approbantes only am very well content every one should abound in his own sense provided there be an Agreement in Practice and an occasion be not thereby taken to raise Schisms and Emulations in the Church Let this matter be bang'd in the Schools so long as Criticks shall please yet seeing there is no colour for asserting Presbyters to be Ordainers without the Bishop whatever they be with him I make no difficulty to affirm that their Ordinations without the Bishop are without Precedent either in Scripture or Antiquity and by consequence in themselves Null and Invalid A partial Cause can never produce the 〈◊〉 Effect Mr. O. being about to establish the Ordaining Power of the Presbyters instances in the 22d Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage wherein it is Decreed That Bishops must not Ordain without their Presbyters as Presbyters not without Bishops that therefore he may as well say Bishops have no Power to Ordain because they could not Ordinarily do it without their Presbyters As we affirm Presbyters have no Power to Ordain because they can't Ordain without Bishops Ans. Let us see the Canon at length Ut Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet ita ut c. It is hence apparent that the Bishop Ordain'd and not the Presbyters though he was to take along with him the Counsel and Advice of his Prebyters Let Mr. O. produce me a Canon to this Effect Presbyteri sine Concilio Episcopi sui Clericos non Ordinent and then it will be time for us to think of a further Answer unto this Cavil Mr. O. urges farther the following Canon The Bishop may hear no Man's Cause without the Presence of his Clergy Otherwise the Bishop's Sentence shall be void unless it be confirm'd in their Presence This we can assent unto without Prejudice to our main Cause But I read no where that the Presbyter's Sentence shall be void without the Presence of the Bishop The reason is because the Presbyters gave no Sentence at all Mr. O. to confirm his Maxim that Lay-Men were allow'd to Preach at the Request of the Clergy cites the Carthaginian Canon A Lay-Man may not dare to Preach whilst the Clergy are present unless they ask him Ans. I have given my Opinion of this Matter before It affects the Presbyters as well as the Bishops and is of as much force against Mr. O. unless he 'll turn Quaker as against the Rector But over and above I note this Canon is not taken into the universal Code and therefore was rejected in the Council of Trull CHAP. XIV Of Paphnutius and Daniel THE next thing Mr. O. urges in behalf of Presbyters Ordaining is the Story which Joannes Cassianus tells of one Paphnutius a Presbyter Abbot who made Daniel his design'd Successor a Deacon first and then Goaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotis honore festinavit Optansque sibi Successionem dignissimam providere eum Presbyterii honore provexit He adds That Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria did not pronounce the Ordination null that we read of nor any other in that time Had it been either irregular or unusual doubtless it had been Censur'd Ans. It must not be deny'd but that this Instance of Presbyters Ordaining appears the fairest of all others that Mr. O. has muster'd up in his Plea Nevertheless what I have to reply is as follows 1. It is but a single Instance of a for ought I know Humoursome Abbot who took upon him to do this contrary to the known and establish'd
Anglorum Ecclesia in qua solus tu Episcopus inveniris Ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi sine Episcopis potes Doubtless then the meaning of the Canons must be that in Ordinary and when it may be with convenience three Bishops are requir'd to the Consecration of a Bishop though even one in the case of Necessity be sufficient I will not affirm there was a necessity in the case of Pelagius because there was no necessity he should be Bishop of Rome yet after his Consecration the wise Italians might judge it necessary to overlook the later Canons and confirm his Consecration rather than create an Anti-Pope and a Schism in the Church Pelagius then was a Canonical Bishop according to the Apostolical Canon though not Canonically Ordained according to the strictness of the Nicene Canon But it will be demanded why did not Pelagius content himself with two Bishops but took in a Presbyter to assist in the Ordination The reason is plain because Pelagius being a wise Man as is to be presumed though not so good as were to be wished would give his Adversaries as little occasion as was possible to quarrel at his 〈◊〉 If therefore he could not get three Bishops he at least procured two and a third Person and so came as near to the Nicene Canon as he could He observed the number though not the exact Qualification of the Ordainers and so vary'd as little from the Rule as might be Hereby he made account to impose upon the ignorant Multitude who 't is likely were the principal Spectators of the Solemnity of his Ordination For the Clergy would not be present to countenance his Ordination whom they hated CHAP. XVIII Of the Waldenses the Boyarians the Lollards and some other People who separated themselves from the Roman Communion OF the Waldenses Mr. O. speaks in his Preface page 1. c. and in the Plea p. 156 to the effect following That the Vaudois or Waldenses have had no other Ministers for near 500 Years past than Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops that they maintain all Ministers to be in a state of Parity that their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination that the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers from these Waldenses And for the truth of all this he quotes Perrin's History of the Waldenses Of what Authority Perrin is may be hence guessed that the Synod which set him on work disapproved it as I am told or whether Mr. O. has given us an honest and fair Account of him I know not I am a Stranger to that Author nor can I hereabouts light on him neither am I very much concerned about any thing he says which is so late sc. according to Mr. O's Computation near 1200 Years after Christ and so obscure that no weight can be laid upon the Argument drawn from the Practice of these Waldenses I say obscure For they being a poor and illiterate thin scatter'd and harassed People and almost always under Persecution it is Morally impossible they should have an exact History of themselves transmitted unto these last Ages especially considering that their Enemies the Papists made it their business to destroy the most ancient Records of that People and as Sir S. Morland testifies the most that is known of them is supposed generally to be taken out of their Adversaries Writings who will sometimes make bold to load those who separate from them with Calumnies and fasten on them odd Opinions meerly to expose and render them the more odious Lastly although I do not delight to detract from their Merits yet I see no great reason for those excessive Commendations some think 〈◊〉 to bestow on them when I call to mind that at the time when the Fratres Bohemi became 〈◊〉 acquainted with them they found the Waldenses taking the Liberty of going to Mass and joyning with the Papists in their Idolatrous Worship Nevertheless these Exceptions set apart what I find in such Authors as are at hand shall here be produced to confront the others cited by Mr. O. to the end the Reader may judge whether Mr. O. and his Author Perrin have made a faithful Report of the Waldensian Churches at least whether it may not truly be affirmed that the History of that People is so uncertain that no Argument can thence be drawn to countenance the Presbyterian Government and Ordination by meer Presbyters Sir Sam. Morland in his History of the Waldenses shews that Claudius Archbishop of Turin was a great Promoter of true Doctrine against Roman Idolatry in his Diocess that the Waldenses succeeded this Archbishop that the said Archbishop delivered his Doctrine to his Disciples and these unto their Successors unto the ninth and tenth Centuries In the Year 1059. the Waldenses again separated from Rome In the Year 1223. the Albigenses in Bulgaria Croatia and Dalmatia had one Bartholomew whom they stiled their Pope The Pope's Legate called him Bishop Mat. Paris Anti-Pope adding that he drew over to him Bishops and others and that he Ordained Bishops In the Year 1254. Reinerius makes mention of their Bishops in Lombardy In the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Moravia and Austria had Bishops They asserted that they had Lawfully Ordained Bishops among them and an uninterrupted Sucession of that Order even from the Apostles although out of hatred to the Papists they chose to call them Seniores and Antistites In their Responsio Excusatoria Anno 1500. they declare Nec summum 〈◊〉 Romanum nec nostrum nec quempiam alium caput esse 〈◊〉 plainly intimating that they had Bishops among them as well as the Romanists Anno 1655. Leger was Moderator of the Churches of the Valleys which Office was for Life with power to call Synods to preside in them and to lay on Hands Thus much is delivered as Matter of Fact let us now see what were their Principles concerning Church-Government Wolfius saith They held there were but three Degrees of Church-Officers sc. Bishops Priests Sacerdotes and Deacons the same is delivered by Guido But Aeneas Sylvius that a Bishop is not Superior to a Presbyter either in Dignity or in Power as Alphonsus de Castro also observed and most of the Popish Writers charge them with that Opinion But one of them viz. Reinerius does set forth their Doctrine and Practice to the effect following The Cathari or Puritans meaning the Waldenses have four Ecclesiastical Orders viz. the Bishop the elder Son the younger Son something like the Chorepiscopus or Suffragan Bishop and the Deacon The Office of the Bishop is always tenere Prioratum to possess the Supremacy in every thing done in the Imposition 〈◊〉 Hands in Celebrating the Lord's-Supper and in beginning the Prayers as does the elder Son in the Bishop's absence The said Orders are created by the Bishop or by the Sons with the Bishops 〈◊〉 When the Bishop is dead the younger Son Ordains the elder a
in some measure for this his rash and groundless Assertion But seeing he has thus against Knowledge and 〈◊〉 perverted the 〈◊〉 Truth by a gloss of his own making without any ground how any one should excuse him I can't tell and whether he will be able to defend himself I much question In the mean while I 'll endeavour to demonstrate that what he has laid down concerning the Waldensian Bishops as if they were such in Title only is a senseless Surmize altogether false and no manner of way reconcileable with the Faith of History For let us but run over the Story once more very briefly and the truth will appear bright as the Sun at Noon-day Let it be rembered then that the Bohemians after their Separation from the Church of Rome were a good while supplied from thence with Bishops and Presbyters who forsaking the Romish Communion joyned themselves to that of the Reformed Bohemians and by consequence had been Episcopally Ordained But the Bohemians considering with themselves that it was a very uncertain thing to depend upon such a casual way of having rightly Ordained Ministers and very much doubting whether Ordination by Presbyters alone was good and valid after much deliberation among themselves Solemnly ask'd 〈◊〉 of God by Prayer and Fasting upon that Question Now if they believed a Presbyter could validly Ordain Presbyters there had been no need for any thing of this kind Why should they be deliberating from time to time near Six Years about having Episcopal Orders and that in a true Succession If a Presbyter having the bare Title of Bishop was sufficient to Ordain there had been no need to have sent Zambergius unto the Waldensians It had been but affirming that Bishop and Presbyter is all one and that the one has Power to Ordain as well as the other Why all this Fasting and Praying and seeking direction from God about a thing of nothing a Name and Title What was this but to abuse themselves and the World and to mock God also with Pretences unto Religion and Tenderness of Conscience when 't was nothing but meer Hypocrisie Let it be farther considered what a device they formed about resolving themselves concerning the Will of God whether they should seek for a Right Succession of Bishops for the continuance of Holy Orders among them Is it likely they would have us'd so much Precaution against any fraud in the delivery of the Lots and in the Designation of the Persons And all this only that they might have a true Succession of the Title of Bishop when they had the Power before Zambergius at least was a Pastor or Minister or Presbyter before he was created Bishop by Stephen Could not he have Ordained Presbyters as many as there was need of and so transmitted the Succession of Holy Orders unto future Generations I am perswaded if any one should presume to say that 〈◊〉 was only a Titular Apostle but indeed no more than a Disciple Mr. O. would be ready to rebuke so 〈◊〉 a Conceit Can any one imagine the Apostles would have put the Multitude upon chusing one into the place of Judas telling them it was necessary his Bishoprick should be filled by another and because they chose two that they should by prayer and 〈◊〉 of Lotts decide which of the Competitors should succeed and be declar'd Apostle And after all this Apostle was nothing but a Word a Title was not different from Disciple The fratres Bohemi were but in a low and Poor Persecuted Condition They had no need to have been at the pains and Charge of Three Persons and perhaps more taking a long and dangerous and expensive Journey unto the Waldenses and all for an empty and unnecessary Title of Honour and which they might have as well assumed unto themselves as the Waldenses had done before 'em according to Mr. O. Well but perhaps Mr. O. has not so good an Opinion of the Bohemians as he has of the Waldenses The Bohemians perhaps were fond of Bishops and disirous of a right Succession and some of the dregs of Roman Superssition yet remain'd among them But the Waldenses were nothing so Their Titular Bishops were nothing but Presbyters 〈◊〉 another Name Neither will this do Mr. O's Work For the Bohemians declared to the Waldenses all that had past among them their Scruples about Presbyterian Ordination and a true Succession of Orders the way they took to know the Mind of God The Waldenses approved of all they had done assur'd the Bohemians that the Succession of Bishops among them was from the Apostles And so Stephen and his Collegue Ordained Three Bohemians Bishops Can these Good Men the Waldenses be excused in all this if Bishop was but a Word a. Title 〈◊〉 no more than Presbyter They should rather have told them as Mr. O. has assured us that there 's no difference between Bishop and Presbyter that among them Presbyters Ordain Presbyters though under another Title That the Bohemians were mistaken and that it was 〈◊〉 Rag of Popery still cleaving to 'em to Advance an Order of Bishops above Presbyters unto whom the Power of Ordaining belong'd The Waldenses ought plainly to have thus undeceived the Bohemians and let them know their Error about the Necessity of Bishops They ought not to have assured 'em that they had a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles and bolstered them up in their Error by creating Bishops If the Waldenses play'd the Bohemians this Trick I cannot esteem 'em what Mr. O. would have us believe 'em Presbytorian Saints but as rank Hypocrites as I ever read of For no Man can 〈◊〉 the Waldenses except by allowing 'em to have been of that perswasion that a Presbyter can't Ordain a Presbyter and that Orders and the Succession of the Power of Ordaining must pass through Bishops not Titular but really distinguish'd from Presbyters and Superior to them Nor were the Bishops and Ministers all one except in Title How then came the Ministers by joining Hands at their Ordination to promise Canonical Obedience unto the Bishops Lastly let it be considered that the whole Rationale of the Bohemian Hierarchy was in all probability taken from the Waldenses from whom their Episcopacy was derived Besides if Stephen was by Title only a Bishop but really a Presbyter and no more how could the Bohemians be able hereby to defend their Orders and the Succession of them against their Adversaries abroad meaning I believe the Papists when as indeed their Ordinations were meerly Presbyterian though in Title Episcopal And what sorry comfort was this to the Bohemians that the Three Titular Bishops being returned to their own People could only Acquaint 'em that they had indeed been Ordain'd by two Titular Bishops who nevertheless were but Presbyters such as they themselves were before and to tell you the truth we have deliberated long upon this business we have prayed and fasted in vain and God by answering our sign in the Affirmative has but at last
in the New 〈◊〉 there is no mention of other degrees and Distinctions of Persons in Orders that is of Persons Ordained by Imposition of Hands except Deacons and Presbyters For Bishops were not consecrated again by any express appointment in Scripture according to the prevailing opinion of those times 'T is lastly to be observed that in the necessary doctrine c. that we read that Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor ever had Power Authority and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Scripture 't is in the Latin Translation added cetrosque Inferiores Episcopos aut Presbyteros which makes no alteration For who is there that believes not that the Archbishop of York has no Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Chester nor over the Presbyters of this Diocess but what is given him by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Law of the Land for Peace and Orders sake But 't is worthy our Notice that in the K's Book as is before at large set down Orders or Ordination is taught to be A Divine Gift or Grace given by the Imposition of the Bishops Hands That the Apostles gave this Grace and appointed the Bishops after them to do the like What need we any more Here are Bishops having the Power of Ordaining distinguished from the Ordained sc. Priests and Deacons But when all is said and whatever Sense any Man shall think fit to put upon these passages out of the King 's and Bishop's Book I make little account of At best they express the Mind and Opinion of Hen. 8th Cranmer and other Bishops who were all still ingag'd and held fast in the Toils of Popish Errors and Superstitions all their Design hitherto in these Books being only to cast off the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope For the Rest they continued yet Papists all over Cranmer himself who was chiefly imployed in drawing up these Books still retained his old Errors and Prejudices suck'd in with his Milk and continued Zealous for the Corporal Presence even to the last Year of Hen. 〈◊〉 In the necessary Doctrine publish'd 1543. 't was taught that in the Ave Mary the Blessed Virgin is Honoured and Worshipped that the reading the Old and New Testament is not so necessary as of Duty the People ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Polity of the Realm shall think convenient that the Publick Law of the Realm had so restrained it The seven Sacraments are in the Book its self asserted and explained Prayers for the dead recommended upon the Authority of the Book of Maccabees and of the Ancient Doctors in Masses and Exequies Now this is an hopeful Book to establish Protestant Doctrines by and thence to affirm the Protestant Church of England was of the Mind there were no more Officers in the Church than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons At best the Reformation was but now on the Anvil and Cranmer and the other Reformers were but Hammering it out by Degrees Nor can we believe they always or at that very time declared their own Opinions fully and freely Hen. VIII was an Haughty and Sturdy Prince impatient of any Oppósition and resolved to assume unto himself all the Popes Usurped Powers Cranmer and his Associates thought it a good step towards their Design if they could but shake off the Tyranny of the Pope hoping after this point once gain'd they might in good time compass their whole Design and establish the Church upon the sure Foundations of Truth To please then the Humour of the King and gratify his Pride it must be declar'd and acknowledged forsooth by the Bishops when they took out their Commissions as Cranmer himself did more than once that all Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical flowed from the King that the Bishops Exercised it only by the Kings Courtesie that the King impowred them to Ordain to give Institution and to do all other parts of the Episcopal Function of which Opinion Cranmer himself was Anno 1540 and even in the first of Edward the 6 th or pretended to be In short this Character Dr. Burnet gives of the Archbishop that his greatest weakness was his over Obsequiousness to Hen. VIII There is then no Colour to ascribe any thing we meet with in these Books as the free and settled Judgment of Cranmer much less as the the Doctrine of the English Protestant Church And if any Man shall pretend by these Testimonies to overthrow the Divine Right of Bishops he will be oblig'd to lay aside the Divine Right of Presbyters also who were at the same time and in the same manner subjected to the Will of the King and to the Laws of the Land as any intent Reader may observe from the aforesaid Passages out of the Kings and Bishops Books And so much of this matter The Third Testimony objected against us is the Celebrated MS. in the Irenicum from whence we are informed That Cranmer and other Bishops set forth this to be their judgments that Bishops and Priests were one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion alledging Jerom in Confirmation Ans. I have said enough of Jerom already and need not repeat or apply it here I chuse 1. to present the Reader with some particular account of that MS. before I directly reply to the Objection The King called a Select Convention of Bishops and Learned Doctors at Windsor Castle who were to give their Resolutions of several Questions relating to Religion every one under his own Hand They did so and Cranmer's are particularly 〈◊〉 in the said MS. Those which belong to Our present purpose are Quest. 9. Whether the Apostles lacking an higher Power as not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by necessity or by Authority given them of God Ans. Cranmer All Christian Princes have committed to them immediatly of God the Whole care of all their Subjects concerning the Administration of God's Word for the care of Souls That the Prince has sundry Ministers under him as Bishops Parsons Vicars and other Priests who are appointed by his Highness unto that Ministration That the said Officers and Ministers as well of one sort as of the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and Orders of Kings and Princes That in the Apostle's time when there were no Christian Princes the Ministers of Gods Word were appointed by the consent of the Christian Multitude among themselves That sometimes the Apostles sent and appointed Ministers of God's Word sometimes the People did chuse them and those sent and appointed by the Apostles the People of their own will accepted not for the Supremacy or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to Command as their Princes and Masters but as good People ready to obey the advice of good Consellors Quest. 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first If Priest then the Priest made the Bishop Cr. Ans. The Bishops and Priests were at one time and
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
the Controvery For though he has so frequently and unreasonably at every turn declared against Ecclesiastical Restraints yet here he allows 'em and supposes it in the Power of the Church to restrain some from the exercise of their Power and to reserve the Cheif care and Government of the Church to a few of the most Eminent Here I say then the Cudgels are in effect laid down and Episcopacy is sufficiently vindicated and approved of by the Adversary himself though before he is aware No! it will be replyed for still care must be taken that it be not however admitted as of Divine Right Well! But if an Ecclesiastical Right be sufficient to oblige us unto Obedience to our Superiors as in the concession its self he must suppose then have our Reverend Bishops a good Title to their own Power and to our subjection to ' em Besides how easy is it to improve this Concession even to the Vindication of the Divine Right of Bishops For if Mr. O. who when he suffers himself to think is I am hereby convinc'd a Wise Man and sees far before Him will but turn himself about and look the other way that is behind him I mean will but admit St. Paul and the Apostles heretofore to have been as wise as himself is now it would be no hard matter one would imagine to convince him presently of the Divine that is Apostolical Constitution of Bishops If it is now it was also in the Apostles Days fit and reasonable to commit the care and Government of the Churches unto some Grave and Worthy Presbyters And if so can we possibly believe the Apostles did not appoint what their own Reason and Prudence suggested to them But let us pass to another Instance Mr. Stoddon in his Pastoral Charge has confessed that there were Rulers in the Church who were not Teachers as appears plainly to me says he from 1 Tim. 5. 17. although I suppose the power of Preaching was committed to them Something of this kind I have in the precedent Papers offered my self and could farther confirm it out of Mr. Mede if it were worth the while and suited my Design But Mr. Stoddon again distinguishes between what is primarily and what is secondarily jure Divino as Bishop Sanderson long before him has done And to be short is of Opinion that the Clergy has as much need to have a Governour set over them as the Common People themselves and that if the Scripture has not expresly appointed it yet the reason and necessity of the thing does absolutely require it or to this effect for at present I have not the Book by me And surely the Apostles knew this and by Experience too as well as Mr. Stoddon Now I cannot comprehend what should hinder this Gentleman coming over to us but the inveterate Prejudices which he cannot part with or a stiffness and aversion to change his Opinions for which his Old Friends would be sure to reproach him without 〈◊〉 In a word then 't is to very little purpose to pretend by the dint of Argument to make Proselites One may happily comfort incourage and confirm some in the Truth which they already know and profess But to convert any there are very little hopes seeing most Men have an overweening Opinion of themselves and the Party which they have espous'd There I leave them not expecting they will be reclaim'd from the evil of their way till God shall open their Eyes and by some secret and powerfull Influence dispose their Hearts unto the knowledge and acknowledgment of the Truth or else by some visible Judgments and Afflictions constrain us unto Unity which is the only thing some Men are afraid of They have not stuck to declare that an Agreement would certainly destroy the Liberties of the People and introduce Tyranny among us A Paradox which Jesus Christ and his Apostles were 〈◊〉 Strangers to and which all Good Men I hope do utterly abhor But pray we for the Peace of Jerusalem They shall prosper that Love it Peace be between it's Walls and Plenteousness within its Palaces And if there be any Man that is not a Son of Peace let him be Anatkema 〈◊〉 ADDENDA to the 19 th Chapter THere is an Objection which escaped me in its proper place and therefore must here be considered 't is that Presbyterian Orders have been allowed here in England that Peter Martyr Bucer P. Fagius c. were suffered to exercise their Ministry among us Ans. 1. Allowances against an Establish'd Law are not very defensible especially when that Law was believed to be of Divine Right which is the Case here before us of Ordination by Bishops let this then be put among the Infirmities and mistakes of our first Reformers 2. Our first Reformers might think it justifiable in Charity to Foreign Protestant Churches which had not the opportunity of Episcopal Ordination the present necessities and Service of the Church required it The Reformation otherwise would have received some stop or Prejudice by bringing this Point into Controversy For some such like Reason as this it was that the Church of England in the Reign of K. James I. sent Delegates unto the Synod of Dort and contented her self after the Conclusions there made only to enter her Protestations against the Parity of Ministers 3. Our first Reformers haply went upon this Principle He that is not against us is for us and such were Peter Martyr Bucer Fagius c. But our Dissenters were always against us making it their whole business to overturn the Ecclesiastical Government of this Nation by railing and reviling and representing it as Popish and Anti-Christian 4. The Indulgence spoken of had in it perhaps more of State Policy than true Divinity and is to be reckon'd as the Act of the Civil Government rather than of the Church Thus the 〈◊〉 and Huguenot Ministers have ever even to this day been permitted to Officiate in Divine Things without Episcopal Orders 5. All these Indulgences 〈◊〉 not amount to the destroying the Truth of that Principle concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy Forasmuch as the Relaxation of the Execution of a positive Law cannot in Reason be accounted the annulling or abolition of that Law as we see at this Day when Liberty is given to the very Dregs of Enthusiastical and Fanatical Sectaries which is no more Prejudice unto Episcopacy than 't is to other acknowledg'd Truths of the Gospel 6. As for those particular Persons allowed to exercise their Minstry here in England we may note that Peter Martyr was in Episcopal Orders and it may be others of them were also But there is a story which I am obliged to take notice of because Mr. B. my first Adversary objected it to us He affirmed the Protestant Bishops of England formerly approved of Presbyterian Ordination as he inferred from a Passage about the Ordination of Bishop Spotswood and Others The Case was this In the Year 1609 some Scotchmen were