Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire. Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709. 1699 Approx. 810 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 111 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A42789 Wing G782 ESTC R213800 99826073 99826073 30465 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42789) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 30465) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1760:2) Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire. Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709. Pearson, John, 1613-1686. [8], 84, 127, [1] p. printed by Tho. Warren, for Ephraim Johnson bookseller in Manchester, London : 1699. "The second part: wherein all Mr Owen's authorities for Presbyterian parity, and ordination by presbyters are overthrown" has separate dated title page and pagination; register is continuous. Errata on verso of final leaf. Reproduction of the original in the Bodleian Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Owen, James, 1654-1706. -- Plea for Scripture ordination -- Early works to 1800. Timothy, -- Saint -- Early works to 1800. Titus, -- Saint -- Early works to 1800. Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600 -- Early works to 1800. Ordination -- Biblical teaching -- Early works to 1800. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2001-08 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2001-10 TCP Staff (Oxford) Sampled and proofread 2001-11 Apex CoVantage Rekeyed and resubmitted 2002-04 TCP Staff (Oxford) Sampled and proofread 2002-04 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-05 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Tentamen Novum Continuatum . OR , AN ANSWER TO M r OWEN's Plea and Defence . WHEREIN Bishop Pearson's Chronology about the time of St. Paul's Constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus , and Titus of Crete , is confirm'd ; the second Epistle to Timothy Demonstrated to have been written in the Apostle's latter Imprisonment at Rome ; and all Mr. Owen's Arguments drawn from Antiquity for Presbyterian Parity and Ordination by Presbyters , are overthrown . Herein is more particularly prov'd , THAT The Church of England , ever since the Reformation , believ'd the Divine Right of Bishops . By THOMAS GIPPS , Rector of Bury in Lancashire . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Con. Gang. Can. 5. & 6. LONDON , Printed by Tho. Warren , for Ephraim Johnson Bookseller in Manchester , 1699. THE PREFACE TO THE READER . THere has been Two Books publish'd by Mr. James Owen Minister of a separate Congregation at Oswestry , 〈◊〉 I am under an Obligation and Promise of Replying unto . The Plea for Scripture Ordination , and the Tutamen Evangelicum alias Defence of the Plea. And though the time of their Publication might justly Require me to consider the Plea in the first Place , yet the Nature of the Argument forces me to Invert that Order , and to begin with the Defence . The Reason whereof is this . I had set out a small Book Entituled Tentamen Novum , or a new Essay proving the Divine Right of Episcopacy , the which engaged me to Answer some few things in the Plea , which concern that part of the Controversy between the Dissenters , and us of the Establish'd Church , viz. The Scripture Evidence . Hereupon Mr. O. Printed his Defence , endeavouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to overthrow my Hypothesis in the Tentamen Novum , and to Vindicate the 〈◊〉 one by the Word of God. It is therefore necessary I should first of all Reply 〈◊〉 the Defence , that is , clear my Point about the Divine Right of Episcopacy . 〈◊〉 also manifest the Inconsistency of the old Hypothesis with the Scripture ; and 〈◊〉 descend to his numerous Testimonies drawn out of the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 , in behalf of Presbyterian Parity which will be a full and proper Answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Accordingly I have cast this Book into two Parts : The first contains a 〈◊〉 to the Defence , except a few Testimonies of Antiquity , which are more 〈◊〉 reserv'd to the second Part , wherein I answer his Plea. In the management of this work the Reader must not expect that I should follow my Adversary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step , in all the Sallies he has made into points nothing at all 〈◊〉 to the Present Controversy , and involve my self into new Disputes before the Old one be done with . My purpose is to keep close to the Game , and not to run after every fresh Hare , Mr. O. is pleased to start . This would be an edless piece of Work , and swell this Book unto an Intolerable Bulk , which I design to draw into as narrow Compass as I possibly can , and as the unreasonable Cavils of my Adversary will permit . Nor will I trouble my self or my Reader to take notice of all those snarling and ill-natured Reflections which the Defence abounds with , without any Occasion given by me , that I am sensible of . 'T is much better to neglect them , than weary my self and others with Impertinent and Abusive Railery , which betrays the weakness of the Writer or his Cause , and hurts no Body , but the man from whom it proceeds . 〈◊〉 . 15. 18. Nevertheless it will be necessary to remove some little of the Rubbish of both kinds out of the way , lest haply the World may be tempted to suspect me as Ignorant , and my Performances as 〈◊〉 as my Adversary has all along represented ' em . But when I have Vindicated my self in a few of the most material things of that Nature ( if there be any such ) the Ingenious Reader will I hope 〈◊〉 perswaded that I am able , if I were as willing , to discharge my self of the most trivial matters that are to be met with in the Defence . Only let it be noted that I intend not to mix these By. Disputes with the main Argument , which would be perplext thereby , and become more obscure ; but to cast them into an Appendix by themselves at the end of every Chapter , as a separated Entertainment unto those , who shall have the Curiosity and Leisure to consult 'em , and which may be easily laid aside by such as have no Mind to trouble themselves with unnecessary Squabbles . In my Reply to the Defence and Vindication of my Hypothesis as also to the Plea , I will not 〈◊〉 my self with the Opinions of 〈◊〉 Authors , how Eminent soever they were or still are in the Church ; that is I will not be sway'd or governed by them farther than my own reason conducted by the Word of God shall convince me , I am sensible that most ( if not all ) of the former writers engaged in this Controversy about Episcopal Government , even many of the Episcopal party as well as the Dissenters for want of duly examining , and understanding the Time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus , have run themselves into such Labyrinths and Absurdities , that a Man might justly wonder they could ever sit down quietly and content themselves with their own Sentiments and Explications . I am verily perswaded there is not one Man in the World , that will allow himself the freedom of thinking , but would subscribe unto that Learned Prelate Dr. Pearson's Judgment in this cause , after 't is once fully and fairly represented to him , except only such as are captivated by some powerful Interest , secret Pride , 〈◊〉 prejudice , or the Design of upholding a party . Where these evil Affections Rule and 〈◊〉 , Truth will not be able to prevail Non suaseris etiam si persuaseris . Of this we 〈◊〉 had a Notorious Instance of another kind in the present Age , when Dr. Harvey had 〈◊〉 and learnedly Demonstrated the Circulation of the Blood , almost all the Naturalists and 〈◊〉 in the World , even those of the first Form with open Mouth decry'd both the Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrine : And when the truth had by Degrees forc'd its 〈◊〉 , and gained Ground upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part of them , then Envy stept in and would have snatch'd the Laurels from the Brow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immortal Philosopher and Physitian . How many of the Ancients were alledged to have 〈◊〉 the Circulation of the Blood ? And Solomon besure was not ignorant of it , as some have 〈◊〉 to prove from the 12th Chap. of his 〈◊〉 . So 〈◊〉 a thing it is to bring Men off their old Mumpsimus and reconcile 'em to the Truth , when it appears in the Shape of 〈◊〉 , or to do Justice unto those who have had the good hap to find her out . But to return to my business . Mr. O. in his Plea cited some Hundreds of Authorities in favour of Pres byterian Parity and Ordination . My design is not ( as I said ) to meddle with those , which are adduc'd out of Private and Modern Writers . All that is needful for me to do , is to consider the Primitive the Councils , especially the General ones , the Fathers and other Antient Ecclesiastical Writers , and the practice of the most Flourishing Catholick Churches of old unto the 5th Century or thereabouts , and to examine whether my Adversary has 〈◊〉 any one good Testimony for himself and Brethren , out of these Monuments of Antiquity . If he has not ( as I hope will be made appear ) there is an end of his Plea ( I suppose ) especially , when such a Cloud of Witnesses which of necessity fall in our way as we Travel through the History of those times , will rise up against him within the Compass of the 4 or 5 , first Ages aforesaid . Before I make an end of this Preface I thought it needful to prepare the Reader with a short account of my whole Hypothesis , which if kept in Memory as he goes will be some ease and advantage to him . He must remember then , that all Authors I know of ( except haply the Rhemists who so far as I see spoke but at Random ) writing upon the Present Subject or commenting upon the first Epistle to Timothy , have asserted or at least taken for granted ( till very lately ) that the time of St. Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus , when he went into Macedonia , is somewhere to be search'd for in the Acts of the Apostles , before St. Paul had the Ephesian Elders Farewel in Acts 20. v. 17. from whence our Dissenters conclude , that the supreme Government of the Church of Ephesus , was not in that Epistle committed unto Timothy : For that the Apostle could not have so wholly overlook'd their Bishop in that Farewel Sermon , and applied himself only to the Elders , to whom he commended the care and oversight of that Church . On the other hand I have shew'd that the first Epistle to Timothy was wrote long after Paul's said Farewel Sermon , even after his enlargement out of his former Imprisonment at Rome , and by consequence , that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus , when he went unto Macedonia , at another time , than what has hitherto been believ'd and assigned . And so that Objection just now mentioned quite vanishes . Thus then my Hypothesis lies . After that Schism at Corinth had been in some measure though not intirely allay'd by St. Paul , he with all hast made towards Jerusalem taking Miletus in his way , where he bad the Ephesian Elders Farewel . At Jerusalem he was Imprisoned and thence sent to Rome in Bonds . Here he continued two years and upwards writing Epistles to the several Churches , of Ephesus , of Philippi , of Coloss , of Judea , and to Philemon . Being at length set at Liberty , and in his way as he went back Eastward to visit the foresaid Churches , he laid the Foundation of a Church in Crete , leaving Titus behind to finish and to govern it . Thence as I suppose he prosecuted his Journey to Judea , Heb. 13. 23. and thence as it were , back again through Syria to As●a . Being at Troas ( 2. Tim. 4. 13. ) about to sail unto Macedonia , he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus . shortly after , when in Macedonia haply or Greece or somewhere thereabouts , he wrote this first Epistle to Timothy giving him the necessary Orders , how he was to behave himself in the Charge lately committed , to him , and not long after from Nicopolis , that Epistle to Titus upon the same Subject . Hence forward we hear no more of him in Scripture saving that being once again got to Rome , he thence wrote his second Epistle to Timothy as is undeniably evinc'd in these Papers . The Corinthian Schism , like the Leprosy , seemed incurable , and spread its self unto other Churches also , particularly Ephesus , as may be gathered from the Epistle to the Ephesians , and the first to Timothy : And the like I reckon to have happened in other places also . Wherefore Paul in his Visitation of the Eastern Churches before spoken of , his Principal design ( I presume ) was to compose the Contentions already risen , and to prevent them for the future . To which end he committed the Government of the Churches to single Persons , of Crete to Titus , of Ephesus to Timothy : The like being to be believed of the Rest of the Apostles , and Churches throughout the World : For how else could there have been Bishops every ●where , as Ignatius writes to the Ephesians , and not one Church at that time governed by a Presbytery of Elders only without an Apostle , or Bishop presiding over them , that we can find in Ecclesiastical History ? Nor are we to imagin this a perfectly new device taken up by Paul , and the other Apostles meerly upon the Occasion of the Schisms at Corinth and elsewhere . For as I make account they came to this Resolution among themselves even at the beginning , viz. to commit the Government of the Churches unto 〈◊〉 Persons : Not that they immediately did so assoon as they had made the Decree : For every Apostle ( 't is likely ) kept the Government , and Care of the Churches by him founded in his own Hands , so long as he thought fit and was able to manage them himself : So that every Church was 〈◊〉 cast into this Platform , nor furnish'd with a Bishop distinct from the Apostles at the same instant ; but 't was done paulatim , as Jerom speaks in his Commentary on Titus . James was Bishop of Jerusalem , before the Corinthian Schism , Titus of Crete , at that Church's first Plantation , though Timothy was not so of Ephesus , till many Years after the Ephesian Church had been formed . But at length because Schisms began now to increase , and prevail , the Apostles taking the Alarm 〈◊〉 to put their former Decree into Execution , and more especially because at this time believers were multiplyed , Churches were increased , business grew on their Hands , and they forced to be long Absent and unable to inspect all Churches : As also because the time of their Departure now drew on apace , 't was therefore high time , and necessary to provide for the Peace and future Government of the Church , as they had in the beginning contrived . Whereas then I have frequently express'd my self as if the Church Government had been alter'd from what it was in the Infancy of Christianity , and lest this should be taken for a rash and dangerous Concession to the Adversaries in prejudice of Episcopacy , I thus explain my self . 1. This was not a Change of the first Principle and Rule of Government , but only a bringing it by Degrees to that Model and Frame , which the Apostles ( as I said ) first pitched upon , and afterward , as Occasion required , by degrees brought to perfection . So that with respect to the Original design and Scheme of Government there was indeed no change or Innovation at all . But then , 2. If we consider matter of Fact , there was an Alteration of Government , in as much as the Apostles having left it for a while unto the Presbyters , to discharge the Ordinary affairs of the Churches in their Absence , but still reserving to themselves the Power of Ordination , and other matters of greatest Moment , at length constituted Bishops over them , pursuant to their Prime Resolution and in Conformity to their own way of Government , which was Prelatical . In this latter Sense I would always be understood ; and this Change was nothing else but an improvement and completing the Church Government , as it had been from the beginning projected by themselves or rather suggested to them by the Holy-Ghost . I must also here take notice of one thing more , which is not sufficiently explained in its proper place . It being acknowledg'd that Presbyters were subject and accountable unto the Apostles , and by 〈◊〉 ( as I argu'd ) not Supreme Governours of the Churches , Mr. O. retorts that Timothy and Titus , and all Bishops also in the Apostles Days were so , and by the same consequence not Supreme Governours . But I answer . 1. 'T is true Timothy and Titus ( Paul being alive ) were subject and accountable to him , and so not absolutely Supreme Rulers , if we look up towards the Apostles , but if we look downward to the Presbyters they were Supreme , or which is the same to my purpose Superiour to the Presbyters , who were subject to the Bishops . 2. Timothy and. Titus were not ( in Paul's life time ) actually Supreme Governours , as if they had no Superiour ; for Paul was over them : True ! Yet they were Supreme intentionally even whilst the Apostle was alive and actually after his decease . For so they must needs of course be . 3. There is a great difference between Timothy and Titus subjection , and accountableness unto the Apostles , and that of the Presbyters . The Presbyters ( as I have shew'd and as far as we know ) did nothing without the express command and special direction of the Apostles , I mean in the higher and most important business of the Churches : But Timothy and Titus ( and so the rest ) had general Rules only prescrib'd 'em , and were Ordinarily left to their own Discretionary Power in the Execution of them , as is evident from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus , except the Apostle in an extraordinary manner interposed sometimes , as we may reasonably admit . But there is nec vola nec vestigium , no footsteps in the whole Scripture of any such general Rules and discretionary Power committed to the Presbyters as is evinc'd in T. N. and these Papers . Jan. 1. 1697 / 8. THE CONTENTS . PART I. Chap. I. SEveral Cavils against the Church of England considered Page 1 Chap. II. Id. p. 6 Chap. III. Id. p. 19 Chap. IV. The Old Chronology about the time of St. Paul ' s settling Timothy Ruler of the Church of Ephesus overthrown , the Pearsonian Hypothesis more firmly established , and the second Epistle to Timothy demonstrated , to have been written in the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rome p. 29 Chap. V. Sundry Objections are Answered , and particularly 't is here proved , that the Convocation is and ought to be allow'd as a just Representative of the Church of England p. 57 Chap. VI. Being an Answer to Mr. O's 6th Chap. p. 72 PART II. Chap. I. OF Clemens Romanus p. 3 Chap. II. Of Ignatius ' s Epistles p. 10 Chap. III. Of Mark and the Church of Alexandria p. 20 Chap. IV. Of the Syriac Version p. 30 Chap. V. Of the beginning of Christianity in the most remote North-West parts of Scotland p. 32 Chap. VI. Of some passages in St. Cyprian p. 43 Chap. VII . Of the Scythian Church p. 47 Chap. VIII . Of the Chorepiscopi p. 50 Chap. IX . Of the first 〈◊〉 of Nice . p. 55 Chap. X. Of Aerius p. 69 Chap. XI . Of Hilary the Deacon p. 70 Chap. XII . Of Jerom p. 74 Chap. XIII . Of the Carthaginian Councils p. 84 Chap. XIV . Of Paphnutius and Daniel p. 89 Chap. XV. Of Pope Leo. p. 91 Chap. XVI . Of the Church in the Island Taprobane p. 93 Chap. XVII . Of Pelagius his Ordination p. 95 Chap. XVIII . Of the Waldenses , Boiarians , &c. p. 98 Chap. XIX . Of the Church of England at and since the 〈◊〉 p. 108 PART I. CHAP. I. In Answer to Mr. O' s 1 st Chap. THE Rector in his Preface to the T. N. complained of the unfair way which the Dissenters have taken up in managing Controversies , that is , of their bringing in other matter , nothing at all belonging to the Point in debate ; which is as when a Lawyer , when he is pleading the Cause of his Client , and setting forth his Title unto the 〈◊〉 in Question , should fall foul upon his Clients Adversary , exposing his Person and upbraiding him with his private , perhaps , but suppos'd Faults and Infirmities . I instanc'd in three things , which are the common Topicks of the Dissenters railing against the Episcopal Clergy , and which they will be sure to hook in , whatever the Matter in Controversy be . But if recrimination be but cavilling ( as one of their own Authors speaks ) much more 〈◊〉 Accusing . My Instances were , That the Episcopal Divines are Arminians , That the Church of England Symbolizes with the 〈◊〉 ; That the Bishops are proud Lords , and Lordly Prelates . And if all this were true , what does it signify in the Question about Church-Government ? Mr. O. In the Contents of his first Chap. at the beginning , Advertises his Reader , that , The Dissenters are justified in their way of mannaging Controversies . Indeed he should have edeavour'd it , if he would have answer'd to the purpose , and his way of Vindicating the Dissenters , should have been ( I conceive ) either to deny the charge laid against 'em , or else to justify the fitness and reasonableness of that way of controverting . But instead of this , he falls upon the old strain of accusing us ( the Rector ) of Arminianism , of Symbolizing with 〈◊〉 , and the Bishops for being Lords , which is nothing to the Question between him and me here , viz. Whether it be fair to charge ones Adversary with supposed faults , which have no relation to the Question in hand , unless he is so vain as to imagin , that his own repeated practice , is a sufficient justification of the Dissenters managing Controversies . In giving an Account of the Nature of our Church-Government , I observ'd in general , That our Episcopal Government is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws , made and consented unto by the Convocation , consisting of Bishops and Presbyters , and by the multitude of Believers ; That is , by their Representatives in Parliament , and that , thus it was in the Council of Jerusalem , Acts 15. This is plain matter of Fact , and one would have thought incapable of being cavill'd at ; and yet Mr. Owen who is a Master at that knack , has many things to oppose me in it , and has found many disparities in the Resemblance . As , 1. He affirms that , The Apostles , &c. 〈◊〉 Jerusalem enjoined the Def. P. 24. necessary for bearance of 〈◊〉 few things : but the Convocation has made canons enjoining the practice of unnecessary things , to create offence . Ans. These last words are as Malicious , as false , and without ground . How can Mr O. at this distance tell , or how could the Dissenters of those times know , that the Design of the Convocation was to 〈◊〉 offence ? Has he , or had they the gift of 〈◊〉 Spirits ? Or dare they presume to lay claim to one of the Transcendent Attributes of God ; his Omniscience and knowing the Secrets of Mens Hearts ? The things enjoyn'd by the Apostles ( excepting Fornication ) were not necessary before they were enjoyn'd , but only Charitably and Prudentially necessary : And so our few Ceremonies too were and still are , Charitably and Prudentially necessary , which was the Reason of their being enjoin'd at first , and still continu'd amongst us . The Council of Jerusalem did not widen the door of Church-Fellowship ( as Mr. O. asserts ) but made it straighter , if the matters here spoken of , can be said to belong unto Church-Fellowship . The Gentile Believers had a Natural right to eat bloud , things strangled , and things offer'd unto Idols , when sold in the Market : But the Apostles depriv'd 'em of this Liberty , commanding them to Symbolize with the Jews in the forbearance of ' em . And I would know a Reason , why in a few matters of Indifference , Decency and Solemnity , it is not Lawful for the Church-Governours , now to restrain the Liberty of Believers . I say in some few things out of Charity to many Foreign Protestants , who have Ceremonies , and to the Primitive Christians , which were not without 'em , even as the Apostles restrain'd the Liberty of the Gentile Believers in Charity to the Jews ? And why is it not as Lawful for us to Symbolize with the Primitive Christians , and our Foreign Brethren-Protestants , as the Apostles with the Jews . 2. Mr. O. goes on , The Council of Jerusalem freed the Christians from the Yoke of Circumcision . Ans. But it put on them those three Yokes aforesaid . Besides as the Apostles freed the Christians from Circumcision , or rather declar'd them free from it : for they were never under that bondage : so did the Convocation free us from all Superstition and Idolatry . 3. The Apostles ( he adds ) asserted that Christian Liberty , which Jesus Christ purchased and obliged us to maintain , Gal. 5. 1. Ans. And yet the Apostles took away the Gentiles Liberty in the things aforemention'd . The Text of Scripture here cited , has a false construction put upon it . The Liberty there spoken of , is not a Liberty not to do any thing , which is in its own Nature indifferent , no not a Liberty from all the smaller Observations of the Law ; for then the Apostles could not have enjoin'd the forbearance of the three things , nor could Paul have Preach'd and Urg'd , the observation of those Decrees , as he did , Acts 16. 4. But 't is the Liberty from the bondage of Circumcision , which made Men Debtors to the whole Law , and to every Ceremony thereof . 4. He complains of the number of our Canons , whereas ( says he ) the Apostles at Jerusalem made none new , and continued but a few which were obliging before . Ans. That these three Canons made by the Apostles at Jerusalem , were new to the Gentile Believers , is out of all question , tho' Mr. O. affirms the contrary ; not new ; as if they had never been known or heard of before ; but they were , I say , new to the Gentile Believers , who were not before oblig'd to the observation of 'em , tho' Mr. O. says they were . But whereas the Apostles at Jerusalem continued ( made ) but a few Canons ; 't is true : nevertheless at other times , and at other places , they might have made more than threescore for any thing we know . The code of the Universal Church , consists of two Hundred and seven Canons : yet they were made at several times , and in several Places : Even so , though the Apostles at this time and at Jerusalem , made but three Canons , yet at other times , and in other places they might have made more , and did so , as we may Learn from 1 Cor. 7. wherein ( I think ) we meet with several Canons , as from those words of St. Paul , The rest will I set in order when I come , 1 Cor. 11. 14. And again , Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word or our Epistle . 2 Thes. 2. 15. That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting , Tit. 1. 5. But 5. The Apostles ( says Mr. O. ) Annexed no 〈◊〉 nor Excommunications against the breaker of their Canons , they only concluded 'em with these gentle words , from which if you keep your selves , ye shall do well . Ans. Well! and the Gentile Believers readily obey'd the Apostles Decrees without more ado , not stubbornly clamouring for 〈◊〉 Liberty wherewith Christ had made 'em free . For Christ had made the Gentile Christians free from the three Canons of the Apostles , as well as from Circumcision . But doing well was an effectual motive in those days unto Obedience , though not in these Licentious Times of ours . If the punishment annext unto Canons be now more severe than ordinary , it is because some Men are more Stiff and Refractory , more Disobedient and Unpeaceable than the Gentile Believers were of old . 6. Mr. O. adds , The Canons of Jerusalem were made by the Apostles , Elders and the whole Church : But ours by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation , which are the true Church of England by representation , by which he thinks to destroy the parallel , because the Multitude of Believers were not present at the making our Canons , as they were at the making of those at Jerusalem . To obviate this Exception , I observ'd that our Canons were consented unto , or confirmed and receiv'd , by the Multitude of Believers , that is , by their representatives in Parliament . But Mr. O. having nothing else to cavil at , or wherewith he might invalidate the Parallel , which is so much to the advantage of our Church , and fatal to the Dissenters , corrupts my words , and by way of gloss adds , To the Multitude of Believers , that is ( says he ) the Church . I say , and say it again , that the Parliament represents the Multitude of Believers , but I never said , That is the Church , nor any thing like it . This Invention was hammer'd out at Mr. O's own Forge , whence an abundance of the same kind have been uttered . All the colour he has for thus misrepresenting me , is , that I make the Bishops to answer the Apostles , the Presbyters , the Elders ; therefore I must make the Parliament to answer the whole Church . And so I do : yet this will do Mr. O. no service . For that expression , The whole Church , in the 15 th of Act. 22. is not so exact , but will need a little explanation on this Occasion . These words then the Whole Church cannot be understood strictly : for the whole Church here must be distinguish'd from the Apostles and Elders : but surely these also were part of the whole Church properly speaking . The words then are meant of the Multitude of Believers ( they are call'd the Multitude , v. 12. ) and in contradistinction to the Apostles and Elders , and therefore I avoided saying , The whole Church , and chose to express my self thus . The Multitude of Believers , I am , then I flatter my self pretty safe from Mr. O. and my Diocesan too , were he ( what he is far from being ) the most severe and haughty Prelate in Christendom . Because it is a common Objection against the Church of England's Constitution , that Parish Priests have no power of Discipline , I asserted that , They have power to rebuke and admonish , and to suspend for a while from the Lord's Supper . And so ( says Mr. O. ) have private Persons power to rebuke and admonish , Lev. 19. 17. Col. 3. 16. As if Mr. O. never heard of that common and receiv'd distinction between fraternal , private , or charitable Admonition , and that which is publick and Ministerial , and Authoritative . Well! but as for our power of suspending , he alledges 't is but for fourteen days , and after that the Sinner is left to the Ordinary . Ay! Here we have the bottom of the Dissenting Ministers Design out . They would be all so many little Popes , from whom there lies no appeal . The very Men who decry Tyranny , are setting up for Arbitrary Government , and will not endure that in another , which they aspire to themselves . All I shall reply unto him is , to present him with the judgment of Calvin , and Beza ; and I hope Mr. O. will lend both his Ears unto these two Presbyterian Oracles . The former affirms — That to trust Excommunication in the hands of every Parochial Minister , and his particular Congregation , is contrary to the Apostolick practice : the latter declares what the Discipline at Geneva was , viz. That the Parochiat Ministers proceed no further than Admonition : but in case of contumacy , they certify the Presbytery of the City . It is certain the power of excommunication is in the hands of the Magistrates of that City . But Mr. O. further objects , That we have no power to judge whom to Baptize , but must Baptize all that are offer'd , though Children of Jews , Infidels , Deists , &c. Ans. This is nothing to the present Question between us , which is whether our Parish Priests have any Power of Discipline . They may have some power , tho' not this . And that they have some power , to wit of Ministerial Admonition , and Suspension from the Lords Supper , has been already asserted and prov'd , I presume , yea , and granted also . This then is a new and impertinent Subject , thrust in here meerly to make a noise and dust with , and to avoid the thorough discussion of the Point in hand . 2. The Dissenting Ministers , have a greater power than we have , or pretend to , 't is confest , &c. to refuse whomsoever they please , even the Children of the most upright Believers . They are responsible to no Law , nor to any Superiour that I know of , in case of refusal , nor to any punishment . Only perhaps the parties aggriev'd will withdraw their Contributions . But upon these terms we also have a power to Judge whom we will , and whom we will not Baptize : ' tis-but venturing the loss of our Livings , as they must of their Contributions . 3. Mr. O. Supposes here , what cannot easily be believ'd ever did , or will happen , viz. that Jewish ; or Gentile , or Theistical Parents , will offer their Children unto Christian Baptism , or suffer others to bring 'em to that Holy 〈◊〉 . 4. Perhaps the Children of very wicked Christians are brought to be 〈◊〉 . These we acknowledge we have not power to refuse : for so we know , that the Children of wicked Jews were to be admitted unto Circumcision , in the room whereof our Lord introduc'd Baptism : and we are perswaded the former is the Rule and Pattern of the latter . 5. If it should so happen that the Child of a Jew , or Turk , or Infidel , or Heretick Excommunicated , or Theift , or Atheift should be put into our Hands to be Baptized , 't is confest we take our selves oblig'd to Baptize 'em : but 't is with this Proviso , that there be sufficient Susceptors , or Persons who will undertake to bring 'em up in the Christian Religion . And of the sufficiency of these Sureties we are the judges , except an Appeal be made from us unto our Diocesian , who may over-rule us if he sees just cause for it . 6. and Lastly , How the Apostles and Presbyters , in the Apostles days manag'd themselves in the Point of Infant-Baptism ; Mr. O. should have done well , first to have stated it out of the New Testament , before he brought this exception upon the Stage . Mr. O. further objects — That we have no power to forbear giving the 〈◊〉 a Notorious Offender , unless we prosecute him in the Bishops Court. Ans. 1. The Reader may apply the Two first Answers , to the former Objection unto this , whereby he 'll see how Frivolous and Impertinent it is . 2. Mr. O. Should have excepted thus , save for fourteen days . 3. It is a most false and wicked saying , that of Mr. O's — That if he be absolv'd in the Court , we must give him the Eucharist , though we know him never so Impenitent . We cannot know a Mans impenitency except himself declares it , either by his Words or Actions , and continuing in his Sins . In either case I can forbear giving him the Lords Supper , and in fourteen days certify as before . Nay , by Canon 109 , I am not to admit him to the Lord's Supper , till he is reform'd , and of this I am the Judge . I cannot 〈◊〉 but this method is troublesome , &c. but it is not odious 〈◊〉 the Eyes of good Men , nor is it possible to be fruitless , if the Parish-Priest is resolute . The Ordinary cannot relieve the Impenitent Sinner , nor compel the Priest to admit him . This course is indeed rarely undertaken , and that because ( as I have experienc'd ) if one warn a Wicked Person , one that is scandalously so , he 'll besure not to offer himself , left he be turn'd back and publickly disgrac'd in the Face of the Congregation . The method is as I have said troublesom : but better a mischief than an inconvenience . Better many Sinners be admited , than one good Man rejected . If the Parish Priest should have it in his own Power and Breast to abstain , whom he pleas'd , and for as long time as he thought fit without Liberty to appeal , his private Revenge , or the influence of the Parties Enemies , might engage him to deprive a good Man , of the comfort of that Holy Ordinance . I have an Instance of this kind ready at hand , a late one , and in my Neighbourhood . A Member of the Congregation , had given Evidence in behalf of a Church-Man against a Dissenter . No Body objected against his Testimony as false , 'T was thought rather favourable to the Dissenter . At his return from the Assizes , a Message was brought him by some of the Congregation , that he was to forbear coming to the Communion , he was also reprimanded by the Minister , for giving Evidence against a Brother , the Sub-poena being not actually , though ready be to serv'd upon him , in case he refus'd to go without it . This was not Commutation , I acknowledge , which we hear of so oft , but it was base Corruption , and 〈◊〉 to be punish'd by the Judge . Yet Mr. O. goes on , and tells me — We have no power to call persons to Repentance openly before the Church . Ans. As much as Mr. O. has . He or I may call 'em to Publick Penance : but 't is at their choice , whether they will obey us . Such Penitents are but like Mr. Baxter's Christians , meer Volunteers . Lastly , he urges that , we have no power to judge any Man to be Excommunicated , nor to absolve ' em . Ans. Mr. O. is so fond of the Power of judging , that 't is a Thousand pities he was not bred a Lawyer , that so in good time he might have been My Lord Judge : for I suppose he has no exception against a Temporal Lordship . But it falls out to his great mortification , that in the Post he is in , though he pretends to be a Judge , yet he is but a Cryer , the Mouth of his Congregation , and ecchos their Sentence of Excommunication , and that of Absolution also . How can he do less , since he eats their Bread , wears their Livery , and is their Stipendiary . I produc'd him an Example of this kind just now . But that we have power to judge and absolve , is manifest in the case of Dying Persons , confessing their Sins and desiring Absolution . In a word , we are not asham'd of the name Priest , though we are sensible the Dissenters , oft call us so out of contempt : and we are asham'd of their folly in upbraiding us with a Title , which the holy Scripture has given us . CHAP. II. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 2 d Chap. IN thè first Chapter of the Tentamen N. my design was to consider in their Order , all those Passages of Scripture which seem any way to concern Ordination , or any other Act of Ecclesiastical Government , excepting what belongs to the Church of Ephesus in particular ; which is Treated of by it self afterward . Here I take notice of Matthias constituted an Apostle in the place of Judas , Act. 1. of the Deacons being appointed and ordain'd unto their Office , Chap. 6. of Peter and John's laying on of hands upon some of the New Converts of Samaria , Chap. 8. of Ananias imposing hands upon Saul . Chap. 9. of Barnabas and Saul's Separation unto the Ministry of the Gentiles . Chap. 13. of the Ordinations mention'd . Chap. 14. of St. Paul's laying hands on twelve at Eph. Chap. 19. of Timothy's Ordination spoken of , 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Epis. 21. 6. and not known when nor in what place given him : of the delivering the Incestuous Person unto Satan . 1 Cor. 5. and of the Council of Jerusalem , Ast. 15. Now 't is all one to me , and to my design in this Chapter , what becomes of the four first Instances , and of that other in the 19 th of Acts , whether they were Ordinations or not . If not , let Mr. Prinn look to it , or Mr. O. in his behalf . As they will do me no good , so they can do me no harm . Though if they should prove Ordinations , the advantage I made of ' emis of some moment in the Question before us , they being perform'd either by Apostles , or Prophets , no other inferior and ordinary Church Officer joining with 'em , which was what I level'd at against Mr. Prinn . But the first uncontroverted Ordination unto the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments , is that of Barnabas and Saul , Act. 13 th . This Ordination was had by Prophets and Teachers , who receiv'd an express and extraordinary Commission from God , to separate these two unto the work whereunto ( says the Holy Ghost ) I have called them . Seeing then Prophets , as Superiour , and extraordinary Species of Church Officers , influenc'd by the immediate and express Command of the Holy Ghost ; presided over this work of Separating Barnabas and Saul , it can be no sufficient warrant nor Precedent unto meer Presbyters , to Ordain by Virtue of their Ordinary Power and Office. Herein lies the force of my Observation , which ought to have been fairly answered . But Mr. O. instead of this falls a cavilling , at my expounding Prophets and Teachers , the same Persons that is , ordinary Ministers ( or Presbyters ) endu'd at that time with the Gift of Prophesy , or receiving a Special Commission from Heaven . Whereas He will needs have 'em distinct Persons and Officers : Prophets and Teachers in Sensu Diviso . Ans. I will not here deny but Mr. O's interpretation may be true , yet neither can I see any thing hinders but mine may be so . For Caiaphas was but an ordinary ( though the supreme ) Officer in the Church of the Jews , and yet he prophesy'd , and by Consequence pro hâc vice was a Prophet . If a Man would have describ'd him , it had not been improper to have said , he was a Prophet and the High 〈◊〉 . Now , how to compromise this small difference between us , I know not . I 'll therefore suppose what Mr. O. takes for granted , ( though at the same time I think the contrary is most evident , Saul and Barnabas , at least being both Prophets and Teachers ; ) the Prophets there spoken of , were Persons different from the Teachers . Yet if it be so , my Argument is not alter'd , nor ever the worse : still the Teachers were presided over by the Prophets , and still the Ordainers acted by Special and extraordinary Commission from Heaven , which cannot warrant ordinary Presbyters and Teachers , to Ordain by Virtue of their ordinary Power . If Mr. O. himself , or any Layman , should ordain some Person by Special Command from God appointed thereunto , no body could with Reason call his Ordination into Question . But then this could not rationally be drawn into example , nor justify every private Believer in England , to ordain at his own Pleasure . It is not Material , whether the Revelation was immediately given to the Teachers , or to the Prophets only , and by them unto the Teachers : nevertheless I think Mr. O. ought not to deny the former . The words run thus — And they ( the Prophets and Teachers ) Ministred unto the Lord and fasted , and the Holy Ghost said , Separate me Barnabas and Saul , &c. and when they had fasted , and prayed , and laid their 〈◊〉 on them , they sent 'em away . They who sent Barnabas and Saul away , were the same that separated them by imposition of hands , and they who separated Barnabas and Saul , were the Persons to whom the Holy Ghost spake , and they to whom the Holy Ghost spake , were the Persons , that Ministred unto the Lord and fasted ; and they who Ministred unto the Lord and fasted , were the Teachers as well as the Prophets . Therefore the Revelation was communicated immediately to the Teachers , therefore the Teachers were Prophets also : therefore this is no Precedent unto common Presbyters , to ordain by virtue of their ordinary power ; by consequence my Argument holds good . Concerning the Ordinations spoken of Act. 14. 23. I noted that Paul and Barnabas acted not therein , by any Special Revelation , but by their Apostolical Power , being not assisted therein by any Presbyters ; that therefore these cannot be good Presidents for Presbyterian Ordination . Mr. O. Replies that , this Instance makes little for me . Ans. It makes thus much for me , that it makes nothing for the Dissenters , nor against me , which is what I design'd by it : though I might say it is a plain Instance of Ordination , by Church Officers , Superiour to Presbyters . As for Mr. O's reason why Philip did not lay hands on with Peter and John , viz. because it 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 Apostle from his Birth or from his Mother's Womb , Gal. 1. 15. For then ( as we there read ) God separated him . Besides this Testimony of Scripture , Gal. 1. 1. proves not what 't is alledged for ; because Paul wrote this Epistle to the Galatians , after he had been Ordained , ( Acts 13. ) then confessedly on all sides , an Apostle . 2. He argues from , 2 Cor. 12. 2. Act. 9. 17. that Paul was honoured with Visions and Revelations , and received extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost . Ans. Neither will this prove Mr. O's point : for Philip had extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit , and was Honoured with Revelations , Acts 8. Cornelius a Roman Centurion , not yet a Christian , only a Jewish Proselite , had a Vision , Act. 10. 13. and the Gentiles before they were Baptized , received the Holy Ghost , and spake with Tongues , v. 44. 46. why not Paul then , even when he was but a meer Minister , or Presbyter ? He still pleads , that Paul was more than an Ordinary Presbyter , at Ananias's laying on of hands upon him , 1 Cor. 15. 8 ; 9. where ( says Mr. O. ) Paul reckons himself one of the Apostles , from the time of his Miraculous Conversion . Ans. This I deny . Paul does not there reckon himself an Apostle from his Conversion . He tells the Corinthians that he had seen Christ , which qualified him for being an Apostle and Witness of Christ's Resurrection , but conferred not the Gift , or Office. And he tells 'em he was born out of due time , and was ; as it were , a 〈◊〉 in comparision with the twelve ( who were Apostles before him ) , and therefore 〈◊〉 least of the Apostles , which words do not imply , that he was an actual Apostle , so soon as he was converted , but , that when he wrote that Epistle , he was then an Apostle , though the least , and the last of ' em . Mr. O. Yet alledges . Gal. 1. 15 , 16 ; 17. Neither went I ( says Paul ) up to Jerusalem , to them which were Apostles before me , which ( says the Minister ) implies , he was an Apostle himself at that time . Ans. At what time ? The natural sense is , that at the time of St. Paul's writing this Epistle to the Galatians , he was then an Apostle , that 's undeniable . But was it not true , and might not Paul appositely say , that the twelve were Apostles before he was , meaning before he was called by the Holy Ghost , and Solemnly separated thereunto by the Prophets and Teachers , at 〈◊〉 , Act. 13. 1 , 2 , 3 ? Moreover , to confirm my Point , I offer to consideration , that if Paul was an Actual Apostle , in foro Ecclesiae , from his Conversion , why then was he separated 〈◊〉 , by the Prophets and Teachers , Act. 13. If it be askt what then is the meaning of that Text , Gal. 1. 1 ? And was not Paul called to the Apostleship of the Gentiles by Christ , 〈◊〉 . 9. 15 ? Ans. I said enough of this in the 〈◊〉 . Nov. In short , then in Acts 9. Paul is only designed for the Apostleship , not actually admitted to it . In 〈◊〉 . 13. Paul is actually , effectually and solemnly 〈◊〉 into the Apostleship , and there expresly called thereunto by God. v. 2. Separate me Barnabas and Saul , for the work , whereunto I have called them , that is , to the Apostleship of the Gentiles . Hereunto Paul ( I conceive ) alludes , Gal. 1. 1. and in other places , where he speaks of his being called to the Apostleship by God. For the further confirmation , therefore , of my own Opinion , I offer unto consideration , that there is little recorded of his success in Preaching the Gospel , from the time of his Conversion , to that of his Separation ( which was about Eleven Years ) that his old name of Saul was all that while continu'd unto him , and he is never once called Apostle . That after his separation , Act. 13. all his Labours are Remembred exactly , and his wonderful success recorded , his name was immediately changed into Paul Act. 13. 9. and the Title of Apostle given him . Act. 14. 4. 14. Yet I am prest with that Passage , Act. 22. 18. 21. where our Lord appeared unto him in the Temple at Jerusalem , saying — Make haste , get thee quickly out of Jerusalem , v. 18. for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles : and this was before his Ordination , mentioned , Act. 13. Ans. But this was long after his Conversion , and therefore shews , that he was not the Apostle of the Gentiles from the beginning , God having not as yet sent him . This interview between Jesus Christ and Paul , was at his being at Jerusalem , spoken of , Act. 9. 26. Gal. 1. 18. as I conceive , and happened ( I do acknowledge ) before his Separation , Act. 13. But let us mind the Words — I will send thee : The Lord did not then actually send him , but promised that he would hereafter send him to the Gentiles . And the performance of this promise Paul doubtless waited for , as the other Apostles did , another promise of the like Nature , Act. 1. 4. 8. As this latter promise was afterward made good to the Twelve , on the Day of Pentecost , so was the former unto Paul , Act. 13. It remains then very probable , that Paul was a Minister of the Word , before he was an Apostle , that he was twice Ordained , first to the ordinary Office of a Presbyter , secondly to the Apostleship of the Gentiles , which is a good reason therefore to believe Timothy twice Ordained , first to the Office of a Presbyter , 1 Tim. 4. 14. secondly , to the Prefecture ( or Bishoprick ) of Ephesus . 2 Tim. 1. 6. So Jerom himself expounds that , 2 Tim. 1. 6 — ad Episcopa●um scilicet . Before I dismiss this , I will for once take notice of a most disingenuous and deceitful Remark of my Adversaries , when he thus informs his Reader — The Rector ( says he ) allows that Timothy was made a Presbyter by Presbyters , which Mr. O. cannot but know , is false ; By Presbyters . ( when I say so ) 't is manifest , and I oft enough declared , that I understood such Presbyters as Ordained Timothy , but had Special , Divine and Extraordinary Commission from God thereunto , or else in Conjunction with , and Subordination to some extraordinary Prophet presiding over them : but not by Virtue of their own single ordinary Power : That , therefore this Instance cannot be drawn into Consequence ; I observe this for once ( as I said ) to shew what an Adversary I have to do with , and to give the Reader a Taste of the way of his Controverting . I have pretermitted , and will pass over some hundreds of this kind . In the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I observed , that by Prophecy might be understood Prophets , the Abstract for the Concrete , as Presbytery is put for Presbyters : that , if Timothy was Ordained but once , then must he have been Ordained by Paul ( 2 Tim. 1. 6. ) , who also was specially determined thereto by Revelation , and so acted therein as an Apostle and Prophet , that is , Ordained Timothy by Prophecy , the Presbyters joining with him : that if there were more Prophets than one concerned in this Ordination , Silas might have been another , who is stiled a Prophet , Act. 15. 32. he having been Paul's Companion before , Timothy v. 40. and after also Chap. 16. 25 , 17 , 15 , 18 , 5. Lastly , that if nothing of this will be allowed , then it must be said , that the Presbyters by Special Revelation , and Prophecy appointed thereunto , Ordained Timothy . And I give Mr. O. his choice of any of these Expositions : If he accepts the last ( as most likely he will ) it is however no precedent or warrant for Ordinary Presbyters , by Virtue of their Ordinary Power and Office , to Impose hands and Conferr Orders . Mr. O. in reply to this , 〈◊〉 not offer'd one Syllable : but he has interposed some ( as he thinks ) witty descants upon the Rector's words and notions , merely to evade the Argument , and to perplex it ; which I account not worth my particular Notice . But whereas he thus Paraphrases on my Words , Neglect not the Gift that is in thee , which was given by Prophets , with the laying on of the Hands of Prophets , intimating it to be Nonsense , observe me once more , and Remember that the Rector proposed two ways of Interpreting this Passage in Timothy . First , That by Prophecy may be meant Prophets in the Concrete , distinct from the Presbyters , spoken of in the same Period ; and then the sense must be , Neglect not the Gift which was given thee by Prophets , ( directed and determined unto that Action , by some Extraordinary and Express Command of God ) with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters , as assistants in the Solemnity . Either this is sense , or I have none , and being admitted , confirms my Point , That Ordinary meer Presbyters Ordained not Timothy by their ownsole Power . Secondly , Or else the Passage may thus be understood , That Prophecy is to be taken in the Abstract , as it lies in the Text , and the Presbyters were the Persons , unto whom the Prophecy came , appointing them to Ordain Timothy , who therefore were Prophets , and not Ordinary Presbyters in that particular Action . On this supposition the Words must run , Neglect not the Gift , which was given thee by Prophecy , with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters , unto whom the Prophecy came . And this ought to pass with Mr. O. for sense , if he is Master of any , and shews , that meer Ordinary Presbyters , did not Ordain Timothy , by Virtue of their Ordinary Power , but by Special Commission from God. But Mr. O. confounds these two different Interpretations , putting them together ( which ought to be considered separately ) contrary to all Laws of Disputation , and then pretends to have found out some Absurdity , or Nonsense in the Rector's Gloss. Moreover , the Gloss is not absurd , even as Mr. O. has laid it . For supposing that by Prophecy is meant Prophets , and that the Presbyters were those Prophets , 't is proper enough to say , That Timothy was ordained by Prophets , with the laying on of the Hands of the Prophets , the former Clause donoting who ordained him , the latter by what Ceremony or Solemnity , it was performed . Nor is it a degrading Paul , when we make him a Prophet , which is an order inferior to Apostle , as Mr. O. weakly enough argues . It s not unusual to give Persons an Inferior Title . St. John and St. Peter are called Presbyters , Saul and David Prophets , Balaam a Prince , was a Prophet , so was Daniel , and so was Caiaphas the High-Priest , and so was Paul sometimes , who had Visions and Revelations . I say 〈◊〉 . For sometimes also he spake and wrote with the Spirit of a Reasonable Man , only , though at the same time with Apostolical Authority . For the Power of an Apostle was permanent and 〈◊〉 , his Character indelible , though that of a Prophet was not so : See concerning this Jerom's Comment on Malachy , and his Prooem to Comment , on the Epistle to Philemon . But Mr. O. questions whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Presbyteries , in the Churches by them planted , because then the Churches by them planted must have had two or more Heads . Ans. If ever any Man lov'd to Trifle , and Embroil matters with Trivial , and Sensless Difficulties , the Minister is He. For what if 〈◊〉 was inferior to Paul , and ( as I may say ) a Subaltern Apostle ? then the Objection is gone . And what if several Persons in equal Power , mav make up ( not Heads , but ) one Political Head in a Society ? Then the Wonder is over . In Dioclesian's Days , there were several Emperours Socii Imperii . There were lately two Czars in Moscovy , and two Princes in England . 'T is indeed Monstrous , when a Natural Body has two or more Heads : But that a Political Body or Society , should be governed by two or more Persons jointly in a Parity , nothing is more Ordinary : Casar indeed was of another Mind , and his Maxim was , Imperium non capit duos : but 't was his Pride and Ambition , which Prompted him to say so . For matter of Fact , and his Successors Practice , has abundantly confuted him . But if Mr. O. will not allow two or more Governours of a Body Politick , to be called the Head of that Society , then are the Presbyterian Churches , and the Independent Congregations , so many Bodies without an Head. And I think , a Body without any Head , is altogether as Monstrous , as a Body with two or more . Mr. O. adds , The Presbyters at Jerusalem had many Apostles to govern them , besides Prophets and Evangelists , unto whom they were Subject , and not to any one in particular . Ans. 1. All the Twelve Apostles were Instrumental , in planting this Church , which therefore was Subject to all , for a good while , as to one Head. Secondly , James afterwards was made the Ordinary Resident Church-Governour , as is very probable . Thirdly , The Elders spoken of , Acts 15. were not those of Jerusalem only ( as I conceive ) but such also as came thither from others parts , Judea , Syria , &c. and were Members of the Council , and on that score , not so much Subject but Assistants to the Apostles . 〈◊〉 , The Apostles and Elders now Assembled , intermedled not in the Government of this Church at this time , but met here ( it might have been in any other place , if they had so pleased ) to determin a Question which concerned all Churches , wherein there were any Jewish Converts , as may be gathered from , Acts 16. 4. But Paul the Apostle ( says the Minister ) had Power over all Churches , why is he then made the Governour of Ephesus in particular , though he planted it ? Ans. Why not ? I require a Reason . It was his particular care for the Reason assigned . A Colonel has Power over the whole Regiment , but ' specially over his own Troop . Every Apostle had a Transcendent Power over every Presbytery ( grant it , ) yet he was the Ordinary Governour of those Churches , which he had formed . Camerarius Comments upon the 2 Cor. 10. 15. thus , Disignat 〈◊〉 , &c. Paul means in this place , that a District , as it were a Plat of ground , was given him , whereon he might build a Church . Still the care of all the Churches lay upon the Apostles , as to right and Power , although for the better Government of them , they divided the 〈◊〉 , as the 〈◊〉 of Propagating the Gospel required . Mr. O. If the Apostle joined the Presbytery with him , in the Ordination of Timothy , it proves that Presbyters have an Inherent Power of Ordaining . Ans. True , it may safely be granted , in Conjunction with the Apostle , and with Bishops , but not without them . The House of Commons has an inherent Power to make a Vote of Parliament , but not without the Lords ; and both Houses have an inherent Power to make a Law , but not without the King. 'T is he that inspires Life and Breath into it , after the two Houses have formed the Carcass . Lastly , Mr. O. adds — The Apostles are Distinguished from the Presbytery , Act. 15. 23. Ans. This is not appositely observed : for it was a Council not a Presbytery , though the Presbyters of Jerusalem were in it : haply other Presbyters also , besides an Apostle ( or Apostles ) though he be the Head ( or Governour ) of a Presbytery , may be aptly distinguished from that Presbytery , whereof he is Head : and yet at the same time he is a Member of that Presbytery . Jesus Christ is by St. Paul called the Head of the Body , ( the Church ) Eph. 22. 23. c 4 , 15 , 16. Col. 1. 18. and so is distinguished from the Body , though we cannot properly call any thing a Body , except we comprehend the Head also : for a body is not a Body without the Head ; and the Head is a Member of the Body . And yet St. Paul distinguishes between the Body , that is the Church , and Christ the Head of it ; when at the same time , Christ the Head , must be believed a Member of his own Body . I expect then Mr. O. will in good time rally npon St. Paul , and expose his Expression , as he has mine . Moreover though the Apostles are distinguished from the Elders , yet it follows not that they are distinguished from the Council ( or Presbytery ) when the Members of a Body are distinguished from one another , they are not to be understood as distinguished from the Body , but from one another only . St. Paul speaking of the Natural body , 1 Cor. 12. tells us , that though the Members of that Body are many , yet'tis but one Body : and he distinguishes also the Members from one another , as the Hands from the Feet , and both from the Eyes , and all these from the Ears , and the Hand from the rest of the Body , but yet he affirms , they are all of the Body , and together make up the Body . So St. Luke reckons the two Principal and Constituent Parts of the Council at Jerusalem , and distinguishes between the Apostles and the Elders , between the Head and the lower Members , but not between the Head and the Body , between the Apostles and Council : for no one can think but the Apostles were a part of the Council , or , if you please , call it a Presbytery . I beg the Readers patience , when I say , a Body is not a Body without an Head. Our late Presbyteries were such Bodies without visible Heads . The Classical Body moved to the place of meeting , I say moved without an Head. A frightful Spectacle ! When it had sat a few moments without an Head , it then made it self an Head , a President or Moderator , protempore , who was before but an inferior Member , but now mounted up for an hour or two , to be the Head. But it may be ask'd who was the Head , when this 〈◊〉 was set up ? Herein the Body acted without an Head. However the Business of the day being over , the Artificial Head drops off from the Shoulders , and thence 〈◊〉 is an Hand or a Foot , as before . So every Member of the Body in its turn , becomes the Head ; and the Head dwindling again into a small Member . The Body then continues for some Days or Weeks without an Head. And would it not scare one to see a Body once more without an Head ? Hereby Mr. O. may see , 't is possible to ridicule the Presbyteries , if one will take the Liberty to confine Words to their Natural Signification , when they are used Metaphorically . As to my Exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am not sensible Mr. O. has advanced any thing considerable against me . Only , after his usual and Sophistical manner he draws in what is admitted in one place ; and opposes it to what is supposed in another , which can with no Justice be done . When ex . gr . I explain this Passage , 1 Tim. 4. 14. supposing that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the concrete . It is a miserable shift to make use of , what I here assert against what afterward I propose , when I have admitted the phrase to be understood in the Abstract , and then assert Paul to be at least one , and the Head or Governour of the Presbytery . I had laid down several ways of Expounding the Text , and had permited Mr. O. to chuse which he pleased , that the Argument might be brought to a certain head . But instead hereof he jumbles 'em all 〈◊〉 , contrary to allLaws of Disputation . And whereas I laid this clearly before the Reader , p. 33. by summing up briefly what had been said , he 〈◊〉 us off with calling it a Recapitulation of my long perplexed 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Text. Mr. O. has indeed perplex'd it : but it has been judged pretty clear by others . I wish Mr. O. would have furnished us with a better . Carpere vel noli 〈◊〉 , vel ede 〈◊〉 . But the Minister is better at pulling down than building up : and indeed it is in a great measure the true Character of the whole Party . In the Conclusion of my Discourse upon the General History of the Apostolical Churches and their Government , I examined that passage of St. Peter , 1 Eph. 5. but do not find my Adversary to have said any thing to that purpose , or which in the least affects the account I gave of it . Some Cavils are to be met with , but such , as if any one suspects of Moment , let him but compare 'em with what I said in the 〈◊〉 . Nov. p. 37. to p. 42. and he will easily discern the shifts Mr. O. 〈◊〉 put to , in framing but a Colourable Reply . Among many other things ; I will only in short produce one , and the rather because Mr. O. has repeated it , I 〈◊〉 above 20 times , and yet 't is nothing but what I granted more than once . ' 〈◊〉 this , 〈◊〉 and Titus ( says he ) are no where expresly called Bishops ( in the Scripture ) nor Constituted Diocesan Bishops . Now I had oft enough 〈◊〉 in T. N. and cautioned against all mistake and 〈◊〉 cavil , that 〈◊〉 . and 〈◊〉 . are never called Bishops , only contended they were the Supreme Rulers of the Churches of 〈◊〉 and Crete , that is , in the Language afterwards prevailing in the Church , they were Bishops . And yet for all this we are at every turn told , they are never in Scripture expresly called Bishops , nor constituted Diocesan Bishops , as if I , or any other ever asserted it . Nevertheless that which I affirm ( and which is sufficient to my purpose ) , is that they had express Commission from St. Paul to govern those Chuches , and the particular Acts of Supreme Power , are expresly committed to them , which is enough ( I think ) to prove 'em the Supreme Rulers of those Churches , and is all I contend for . Besides Mr. O. should Remember , that he himself acknowledges 'em Evangelists , which where Officers in the Church , Superiour unto Ordinary Presbyters , according to the supposition agreed upon between him and me : but on the other hand , whether the Presbyter spoken of , 1 Pet. 5. and Act. 20. were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that 's not to be disputed , but whether they had the Supreme Power committed to them , is the Question , and is ( I hope ) resolved in the Negative , to Satisfaction in the formentioned Pages of T. N. viz. that it does not appear so from those Expressions — Feed the Flock of Christ , taking the oversight thereof : Take heed unto the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers , to feed the Church of God. For it can not be denied but that these Exhortations might be properly given to the Rectors and Vicars of the Church of England , though subject to a Diocesian Bishop . Yea , might be given to every ordained Presbyter , though but a Curate . APPENDIX . MR O. excepts many things against my Instance of the Jews Ecclesiastical Government by an High-Priest , inferiour Priests and Levites : concerning whom I noted , That the Fathers , and particularly Clem. Roman . seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian 〈◊〉 , &c. To the Authority of Clemens , I added in the Margin Jerom's Epistle to Euag. That which deserves to be consider'd is , that he observes the Jewish High-Priest to have been a Type of Jesus Christ , the High-Priest of our Profession , and says he , We follow the Jewish Typical precedent , that is , we acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our High-Priest . Ans. For all this , the Jewish Oeconomy was a Type of the Christian , at least the Pathers , though they make not the Jewish High-Priest a Type of the Christian Bishop . Yet they make him a Precedent , or Pattern of him : and Clemens does so in particular , as also many others , as I shall shew in its proper place , viz. my Answer to his Plea : But why has not Mr. O. after so much pains taken in Vindicating Clemens from what is imputed to him , endeavoured to take off the force of my other Testimony out of Jerom ? There was something in the wind , that he who undertakes to reply so fully to the Authority of Clemens , leaves poor Jerom in the lurch , and has not one Syllable to plead in his behalf . But the 〈◊〉 of this is plain , 't was too hard a Knot for the Minister at 〈◊〉 to Unty , or so much as to cut . Blundel promised to account for it , but was not as good as his Word . Walo put us in hopes of it from Salmafius : But he deceived the World of their expectation : and honest Ludovicus Capella , was afraid to take the least notice of it . I know nothing that can excuse Mr. O. and the other Gentlemen 〈◊〉 a Parting-blow upon this Argument , Mr. O. entertains us with a piece of Drollery . The Rector ( says he ) calls the 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ministers , and at the same time , saith they , were Prophets , that is extraordinary Ministers . One would think if they were Ordinary Ministers , they were not extraordinary , If Extraordinary , not Ordinary . Now the Rector undertakes to reconcile this Contradiction , and to expose Mr. O. as a meer Trifler . The same Man may be an Ordinary and an Extraordinary Person , on several Accounts , not Secundum idem . I 'll give him one single Instance , and so 〈◊〉 this Point . Mr. O. is ( as I reckon ) but an Ordinary Minister , and yet I account him an Extraordinary Wrangler . I had said in T. N. according to my present apprehensions , that James was not the Apostle , but Mr. O. will needs have him the Apostle , that is , one of the Twelve , for that was my meaning . Ans , This I am sensible , has of old , and is still , a Controversy among the Learned : and Bishop Pearson , whom the Minister gets on his side , as ost as he can , is not very Positive in it , though he 〈◊〉 that Way . However , I 'll comply with Mr. O. for once , and let James pass for one of the Twelve Apostles : but then I must accquaint him , that one of the Twelve Apostles , was the fixt and constant Prefect or Ruler , that is , Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem . We read of him being at Jerusalem , Act. 12. 17. Gal. 1. 19. Act. 15. 13. Gal. 2. 9 , 12. Act. 21. 18. All which time to his Death , takes up near Thirty Years , as is computed . It seems then that he was fixt and resident at Jerusalem . Salmasius thinks that he never was absent from Jerusalem , nor mov'd a foot once from thence to his Dying Day . Now that he was Prefect or Bishop there , is proved from Clem. Alexandrinus , from the Council of Constantinople , from Hegesippus , and from Jerom , besides a Cloud of Witnesses more ( and among them Calvin ) that might be adduced in confirmation of this . Whoever pleases to be so curious , may be directed to 'em in the fourth Chapter of the Learned Mr. Burscough's Treatise of Church-Government , from whom I have borrowed all this , and several other things in these Papers . APPENDIX . IN this Chapter Mr. O. has mov'd two Controversies in Philology his Master-Piece , on which he seems to value himself ; the first whereof is , that I call the Government of the Church by the Apostles an Oligarchy , which he says is a mistake . I had prepared a pretty large and exact Account of this Word , but have thought good to contract it : and 't is in short this , that tho' Plato * disparages Oligarchy in comparison with Monarchy , and Aristotle † calls it not Oligarchy ( for with him that 's the Corruption of the Government ) but Aristocracy : yet that the word . Originally signifies a lawful and honest kind of Government , and sets forth the true and distinct Nature of it , as is manifest from its Etymology , which Aristocracy doth not ; for this word , according to the Philosopher , denotes any of the Three sorts of Government well managed : that 〈◊〉 in Herodotus * commends this form of Government , by the very name of Oligarchy : that Plutarch † speaks of it , under the same name , describing it also by two Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and calling its Corruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not 〈◊〉 : that Hesychius * reckons up Three kinds of Government , one of which is Oligarchy : and Lastly , that Aristotle himself confesses † when a few govern well , and for the Common good , it is a right and just Government , plainly implying there was no harm in the Word Oligarchy , or in the Government , though in his time and Country custom had disparaged it . The next thing he quarrels about is my writing Sanedrin , and that I seem to make it an Hebrew word . Ans. The Rector neither makes nor seems to make Sanedrin an Hebrew word : but if Mr. O , had any good Nature , or Observation in him , he would rather have concluded that the Rector seems to derive the Word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as himself also believes . For my writing Sanedrin without the Aspirate h in the middle , might reasonably have been judged , done , in Conformity to the Greek Language , which frequently casts away the Aspirat h in the middle of Compound words , the Conjugates at least of many derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this especially Synedrium . Wherefore since Mr. O. will needs have 〈◊〉 borrowed from the Greeks , 't is more conformable to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or to writ it Sanedrin , not Sanhedrin with the Aspirat . And to speak the very Truth in writing that Word , my thoughts were ever upon the Greek Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without 〈◊〉 into the Orthography . But when all is said concerning this Word Sanhedrin , I must acknowledge , I have some scruple , and suspition about it . 'T is very odd in my Thoughts , that the Name of this great Council , which began with Moses , should descend from the Greek Tongue , a long while unknown to the Jews : And that it should have no other Title in the Hebrew Language , that I ever heard of . But 〈◊〉 , or too much , of this Trivial matter . CHAP. III. Being an Answer to Mr. O' s 3 d Chap. MR O. in this Chapter , undertakes , first to 〈◊〉 his own Hypothesis , scil . that Paul at his taking final leave of the Ephesian Elders ( Act. 20. ) appointed them the sole Governours of that Church , in a Parity , and that this Constitution was , and was intended to be unchangeable . I will briefly run through his Arguments , and as I go along , make my Answer to every one of 'em singly . Mr. O. The Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter Supreme , to preside over the rest : For Timothy ( and Titus ) were not Ordinary Presbyters , but extraordinary Officers , that is , Evangelists : There is no hint in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. that they were Ordained to be the Apostles Successors , in Ephesus , and Crete . Ans. I shall consider in the following Fifth Chapter , this pretence of their being extraordinary Officers , and Evangelists , whereby Mr. O. would evade our Argument , for Timothy's being made the Prefect or Ruler , of Ephesus , in the Apostles stead , mean while , granting there is no hint in the Epistle to Tim. that he was Ordained to be the Apostle's Successor in Ephesus ( though the second Epistle 1. 6. is a shrewd Intimation of it , according to Jerom ) yet it follows not hence , that he was not the Apostle's Successor . The Reverend Dr. Stratford was not Ordained Presbyter , with 〈◊〉 design to be afterward Bishop of Chester , and yet for all that , he is Bishop of this See. Mr. O. The Apostle did , and it was the proper Season , and his Duty , at his taking final leave , to settle the Government of that Church : But he then committed it to the Presbytery , in a Parity , and not to any single Person , Act. 20. 28. Ans. 1. For any thing to be found in that , Act. 20. 28. St. 〈◊〉 might have before this time , appointed a single Person , over the Ephesian Elders , and so have left it . These words — Take heed therefore unto your selves , and to all the Flock , over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers , to feed the 〈◊〉 of God , might , and may properly enough at this day , be spoken unto Presbyters , subject to a President ( or Bishop ) set over them . But 2. If the Supreme Power was here committed to the Elders , however , it s not proved , nor can be , that it was in a Parity : the words might have been spoken to 'em , divisim , severally , which divests one part of the Dissenters , of their Presbyteries . 3. However it was , suppose the Government lodged in the Presbytery , St. Paul might afterwards , by Divine Authority , intrust it with a single Person . As to the matter of fact , whether he did so , is the present controversy ; the Issue whereof will depend on what follows . Mr. O. We may with better reason affirm , that Timothy's Power at Ephesus was temporary , than that of the Elders . Ans. Not so . If Timothy's Supreme Power followed that of the Elders , ( as shall be proved ) and if it cannot be proved , that the 〈◊〉 of Government committed to Timothy was ever changed , afterwards by any subsequent Act of the Apostles , the Objection vanishes . Mr. O. Paul gives not the least hint , Act. 20. of any Ruler set ; or to be set over them : That he must needs know what Government God would have setled in the Church , &c. Ans. What hint is there to be observed , in the 1st Epistle to lim . concerning Presbyterian Parity ? Or indeed of the Presbyters having the least share in the Church Government ? It was as necessary he should mention the Presbytery in his first Epistle to Timothy ( supposed by Mr. O. written before the farewel Sermon ) as to make mention of their Prelatical Bishop , in his Farewel Sermon . Nor did the Apostle know beforehand , all the mind and Intentions of God concerning his Church . He knew not so much as what would befal himself , save , what other Prophets told him ( v. 23. ) and yet still he was left in the dark as to many things ( v. 22. ) . I see no reason for believing , Paul must needs know at that time , God's Intention of altering the Church Government afterwards . If so , 't is not to be wondred , he did not acquaint the Presbyters with it . Besides , there 's good reason to think , that Paul , though he knew it , would not acquaint 'em with it , at that time . Happy he saw they would not then brook , nor endure to hear of the alteration , and of being subject to any other single Person , except the Apostle himself : especially when no Occasion was , as yet , given for it . But in process of time , after some of themselves were risen , and had spoke perverse things , and turning Schismaticks , 〈◊〉 drawn away Disciples after them . v. 30. then was the time for changing the Government , and charging Timothy to silence those that taught false Doctrine , 1 Tim. 1. 3. and then it was , that at least the Humble , and Peaceable , and Obedient , and Holy Presbyters , would readily submit to the Change. Mr. O. Asks , whether there were no Prophecy of Timothy's being the suture ( Bishop ) Ruler of Ephesus : If there was , why did Paul suppress it , in Act. 20. Ans. I have given a reason of this already : But further note , that there was such a Prophecy , as I believe , 1 Tim. 1. 18. though it might not have been . given , till after Paul's farewel Sermon . I add , it is very probable also , that he was Ordained unto it , 2. Epist. 1. 6. So St. Jerom thought , as I have already observ'd . Mr. O. to overthrow the common reason given of the change of Church Government , asserts , That the establishment of the Presbytery at Ephesus , was for a remedy against Schism , therefore the Elders were admonished , to Oversee the Flock , v. 28. Ans. The Minister here , is not at all fair in his reasoning ; for the Remedy , which the Apostles prescribes against the Wolves , or Interlopers , that would thrust themselves in among 'em , and against the Vipers , which would arise , out of their own Bowels , was , to take heed to themselves , and to the Flock , to feed the Church of God , the other words , over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers , being only a reminding them , by the way , of their Power and Duty . All Government , of what kind soever it be , 't is confest , is in general a Remedy against Schism : But these Elders , are not said , to have been Ordained Overseers by the Apostle , as if that particular Government of Presbyterian Parity , was especially intended for a Remedy against future Schism . The proper and parcular Remedy here prescribed , by St. Paul , is , To take heed , &c. and as it follows v. 31. To watch , &c. without which 't was impossible to provide Effectually against a surprize from their Enemies , the Wolves , and the Vipers , there spoken of . Being Overseers , or Governours of the Church , would not do the Work , ( whether they acted in a Parity or in Subordination to some single Person , was the same thing as to the Apostles Argument here , and whether it were the one or the other still ) it was their taking heed and watching , must secure 'em against Schisms and against Heresies . But if afterward this Presbyterian Parity , was by experience found inconvenient , rather a Nursery , and Occasion of Schism , and therefore for that very reason , altered into Prelatical form of Government , for the security of the Church in Peace and Order , as Jerom owns , it is most proper , to say , that Prelacy was introduced into the Church , as a designed Remedy against Schism , and not Presbyterian Parity , which was indeed the Occasion of it , at least , was not sufficient to prevent it . Mr. O. further argues , that God did not , could not change the first instituted Church Government , because , he foresees all events , and knows how to prevent Schisms , by apt and effectual Remedies , and with him is no variableness nor shadow of turning . Ans. Such general Harangues ( though grounded on true Principles , if rightly understood , and explained ) prove nothing . For on the other side , we know that God oftimes Repents , and takes new measures for the accomplishing his own great and good designs . God imployed Noah , a Preacher of Righteousness , to perswade the then wicked World to Repentance and Reformation ; when this succeeded not , it repented him that he had made Man , and so he drowned all the World , except eight Persons . God , who himself in a Peculiar manner , governed Israel ; appointing what Prophets and Rulers should succeed at a vacancy ( the Government of Israel , is hence called a Theocracy ) yielded to the importunity of the People , and gave them a King , Saul to govern them , after the manner of the Nations . But presently after , it repented God that he had set up Saul to be King , because he turned back from following God. 1 Sam 15. 11. Where then is the absurdity in saying , God upon the Occasion of Schisms , directed the Apostles to alter the Government among the Christians ? Or rather ( as Bishop Pearson * speaks ) to perfect and compleat it . For the Apostles , so long as it seemed good unto 'em , retained in their own hands the Government of all the Churches by them founded , as appears from , Act. 14. 21 , 22 , 23. and Chap. 15. 36. but when the time of their departure drew on , or when business encreasing on their hand , by reason of their many conversions , they were forced , to be absent , or distant from those Churches a long time , they substituted in their Rooms , Successors and single Persons to preside over the Churches : Which indeed in exact speaking was not a Change , but a continuance rather of the former Government , all the difference being , that whereas the Apostles were Governours of many Churches , these their Successors were Rules but of one haply , of which difference I speak afterwards . Mr. O. after he had endeavoured to confirm his own Opinion , by such weak Arguments , as we have here mentioned , proceeds in the next place to attack mine . Many things are here repeated , which have been answered already , and many things offered , which depend on the proof of the main Point , and which to make a particular reply unto , here , were superfluous . Mr. O. The 1 Tim. 1. 3. does not say , that Paul constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus , that is Ruler . Ans. Let the Text with the other Passages of this Epistle , relating unto the Powers committed unto Timothy speak for it self . I put 'em together in T. N. and Mr. O. has no other way to evade the force of the Evidence , but pleading that Timothy , was an Evangelist , and extraordinary Officer , as before is noted . Mr. O St. John resided long at Ephesus , after Paul's departure thence , he returned thither after his Release from his Banishment at Paimos , and lived there , and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's days : By consequence St. John was the Supreme Ruler of Ephesus , and not Timothy Ans. Let us see what the Authors , he quotes , say in this matter , Euseb. l. 3. c. 18. writes . That in the Persecution rais'd by Domitian , John was banished into the Island Patmos . And out of 〈◊〉 , that he received his Revelation at the latter end of Domitian ' s Reign . No more than this is to be found in that Chapter , of Euseb. Cited by the Minister : and yet Mr. O. affirms — Euseb. here writes that John returned to Ephesus , after he was released , &c. There is here not a Syllable of returning , nor of Ephesus , nor of Released , nor of living at Ephesus , or among the other Asian Churches until Trajan ' s day . This notwithstanding , I do acknowledge that Euseb. in other places asserts these things . But this signifies nothing . Euseb. says not that John in particular governed Ephesus , but the Asian Churches ( after the manner it may seem of a Metropolitan . ) To the same purpose speaks Jerom , C. S. E. Sub Nerva Principe redit Ephesum 〈◊〉 usque ad Trajanum perseverans totas Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias . They affirm not that John governed these Asian Churches , Immediately after St. Paul's departure into Macedonia , but in the days of Trajan , and after his release out of Patmos . Nor do they tell us , who governed Ephesus , and the other Asian Churches , from the time of Paul's going into Macedonia , 1 Tim. 1. 3. unto the Reign of Nerva , or Trajan : And therefore Timothy might in that Interval of time ( notwithstanding any thing here produced to the Contrary ) have been the Ruler ( or Bishop ) of Ephesus . I do further grant that 〈◊〉 , l. 3. c. 3. writes that John remained among the Asian Christians , or Churches until Trajan : but he says not that the Apostle remained there , from the time of Paul's last departing from Ephesus into Macedonia , when he constituted Timothy Ruler ( or Bishop ) there . One thing must not be omitted , that whereas Eusebius , and Irenaeus confess ( what is indeed manifest in Scripture ) that Paul founded these Asian Churches , yet Jerom makes John the 〈◊〉 and Ruler of them . ( Totas Asiae fundavit & rexit Ecclesias ) which how to reconcile may deserve a few words . That Paul founded the Asians Churches , cannot be deny'd , and settled their Government , ought not to be Questioned : That these Asian Churches were to decay , by the time of John's Banishment into Patmos , is manifest from the Epistles unto the Seven Churches in the Revelations . That John after his Release , returning into 〈◊〉 new form'd , regulated and reformed 〈◊〉 Churches , is most probable , and therefore is said by Jerom , to have founded and governed them . Perhaps he removed some of the Angels or Bishops of those Churches , who had misbehaved themselves , in their Offices , whether for a while he personally govern'd 'em all himself , without continuing or placing over them Bishops : or whether as a Metropolitan having a subordinate Bishop in every Church under him , cannot with certainty be determined , but 't is out of Question , that he appointed Bishops in them , before he dyed , as appears from 〈◊〉 Epistles , and from those remarkable words , in Tertullian , * Ordo Episcoporum ad Originem recensus in Joannem stabit Authorem . Mr. O. that he may shake off the Argument , for Bishops drawn from the Angels in the Revelations Argues . 1. That Angels Minister to the Heirs of Salvation , Heb. 1. 14. which imports a Ministery not Superiority . Ans. He abuses the Text : 't is Ministring for not to the Heirs of Salvation . They Minister to God for us . So the King is the Minister of ( or to God ) Rom. 13. 4. for us : Nevertheless he is our Superior , even as the Angels are . Briefly by this Argument neither Jesus Christ , nor the Apostles , nor Bishops , nor Presbyters , nor Dissenting Ministers , have any Authority : for all these Minister for our Salvation , or pretend it . 2. That Angel singular is often taken Collectively for Angels plural , as are Stars also . Ans. Mr. O. has not produced one example hereof . If any one is at leisure , to examine the Text cited by him , he 'll find this true : For of Mal. 2. 7. I treat by and by . 3. That the Epistles were directed to all the believers of the Asiatick Churches ( so I understand him ) and not to the Angels only . Ans. Not so : But to the Angles only for the use of the Believers . 4. That 't is uncertain whether there is an Hierarchy among the Angels , that the Pseudo-Dionysius makes them the lowest Order : that therefore they cannot represent the highest Order in the Church . Ans. 'T is meer jangling to alledge the Opinion , of an Author confessedly spurious . But 't is manifest that there is an Angelical Hierarchy from * Scripture , and that Angels are the Superior Order may be gathered from , Rom. 3. 38. where they reckoned in the first place before Principalities and Powers . Lastly , the Superlative Excellency of Angels , supposing them the lowest Order makes them a fit Representation of the Highest degree among Men. We may say of the meanest Angel , He that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven , is greater than the mightyest Potentate of the Earth . Even Jesus Christ himself is called an Angel , Mal. 3. 1. 5. That the Holy Ghost in the Epistles alludes to the Minister , of the Synagogue , in Conformity to the Language of the Old Testament , Job . 33. 23. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 1 , 7. ch . 3. 1. Ans. In these Texts there is no mention of Synagogues , nor any where else in the Old Testament . Nor do we meet with Angels of the Synagogue , but Ruler in the New : nor any where else but in the late Rabbins . Job's Messenger was either a real Angel , or extraordinary Prophet , Interpreter and one of a Thousand , v. 23. Hagga was a Prophet , so was the Baptist , not Ministers of Synagogues . When Mr. O. appeals unto Malachy , he is gone from the Synagogue , to the Temple , and so quitted his Argument . Nor doth Priests , Mal. 2. 1. signify all , even the Secondary Priests in the Temple , but the High Priests only in Succession , who are therefore , v. 7. exprest in the singular and indefinitely , or if Mr. O. will have it so , Priests here signfies Collectively , all High Priests . For it must be confest , when the Subject of a Proposition is put indefinitely , in the singular number , and the Predicate belongs to the whole Species , then the Subject may be taken Collectively , and is equivalent to an Vniversal Proposition , as when we say , Man is a rational Creature , we mean all Men are so . But it will be said that the Predicate , viz. his Lips should keep knowledge , &c. appertains to the whole Species of Priests , even the Secondary . I reply , 1. Supposing this , yet still there was an High Priest in the Temple : And therefore agreeably hereunto , though all the Elders were called Angels ( admitting this ) yet there was an Arch-Angel in every Church , unto whom the Epistles were directed , who was , The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For 2 Angel in the Epistles , is not described by a Specifical , but an individual Character , ex . gr . the Angel of the Church of Ephesus . If it be said this is a Specifical Character , because all the Elders were Angels of that Church , I return that cannot be . For no body ever directed a Letter , thus indefinitely to all , and to every one , or any one of the same Denomination . The Title may haply belong to many Persons , for different Reasons , and yet the Letter is intended for some one more Eminently called so . As if a Letter were directed , To the Speaker of the House of Commons , though every Member is Speaker , if he pleases , and though of the Topping and forward Commoners , we usually say , They are Speakers , because they often Speak to matters in Debate , yet every Foot-Boy will apprehend the Letter is sent , to a particular determinate Person commonly called , The Speaker . Wherefore if all the Elders of Ephesus were in some sense Angels , yet The Angel must mean some single Person , known in Special manner stiled Angel , who could be no other than the Prelatical Ruler of that Church . A great deal is argued in defense of the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. against that of the Seventy . But besides what has been elsewhere offered in the Vindication of the latter , I here add , That Clemens Romanus * , that Origen * , and Jerom * , himself the fierce Stickler for the Hebrew , reads the place according to the Seventy . It may then with Reason be suspected , that the proud conceited Jews , corrupted this Scripture , to magnify themselves and their Nation , as if God in dividing the Nations , had his Eye ' specially on the Sons of Israel , modelling the World according to the number of them , that went down with Jacob into Aegypt , as the Rabbins imagine . As for the precise number of Provinces , and their Guardian Angels , though the Rabbins , and the Hebrew Reading of Deut. 32. 8. seem to determine them by the number of Jacob's Children , who went with him into Aegypt , yet neither the Seventy , nor I have adventured so punctually to define it , but have left that point uncertain and indefinite . It is not known into how many Provinces God cast the 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 proper place . We are then now to Treat of Titus , and enquire whether he was the Supreme Ruler of the Church in Crete , by the appointment of Paul. I had affirmed in T. N. and ( I think ) prov'd it . But , Mr. O. tells us , 〈◊〉 no where said that Paul made Titus Bishop of Crete . Ans. It is sufficient to me , that Paul committed to him , the Supreme Governing Powers over that Church . I 〈◊〉 not about the word Bishop . On the other side , I retort , that 't is no where said , that Paul ordained or constituted any one Presbyter in Crete : will it follow that he made none at all . Mr. O. Titus was left in Crete , but for a Season , perhaps not above half a Year , Paul charging him to come to him unto Nicopolis , &c. Tit. 3. 12. Ans. According to my Hypothesis , it might be some Years after Paul's leaving Crete , that he sent for him unto Nicopolis . The Apostle , as I suppose , left him at Crete , as he sailed from Italy to Judaea , after his release from his first Imprisonment at Rome : and long after , as he was returning to Italy , he sent for him to Nicopolis . If this be once proved ( as I promise ) then Titus was not left in Crete for a Season . But according to Mr. O's Hypothesis , I cannot imagine that Titus could have been left in Crete half a Month , far enough short of half a Year , and too short a time to set in Order the things that were lacking , To ordain Elders in every City , To stop the Mouths of false Teachers , To rebuke 'em , and that with all Authority : In a Word , To reject 〈◊〉 , after a second Admonition . This surely was above a Months Work , or indeed half a Years . It implies a permanent and continued Employment . I said , according to Mr. O's Hypothesis , Titus had not sufficient time for the Work whereunto he was appointed . For he attended Paul from Achaia unto Macedonia , and so into Asia , till they arrived at Jerusalem ; of all which I shall have occasion to treat more punctually in the Fourth Chapter . However it cannot ( I own ) be denied , that Paul called Titus from Crete , and , by consequence , it will be said , he was not the fixt Ruler ( or Bishop ) there . Ans. The resident Governors of Churches , in the Apostles days , were not so tyed to their Posts , that they might not , on any account whatever , stir thence . It is not to be doubted , but that they removed for a while , at the Apostle's call , and for the furtherance of the Gospel , unto other places , and afterwards returned to their Residence again . I do suppose , Titus went to St. Paul at Nicopolis , and thence with him unto Rome : That as he returned back unto Crete , by the Apostle's direction , he took Dalmatia in his way to plant the Gospel there , or to confirm the Churches : What became of him afterward , cannot be known from Scripture , the Divine History of the Church of Crete reaching no further . But if we will hearken ( as in Reason we ought ) unto what is delivered in the Church-History , we must acknowledge that Titus returned into Crete : For there he died and was buried . And I hope Mr. O. who seems to have a due Regard unto the Fathers , and so frequently quotes 'em , for the support of his own Opinions , will take notice of this Evidence . Mr. O. here tells us , That , the Elders in Crete were chosen by the 〈◊〉 , before they were ordained by Titus , grounding himself upon , Act. 14. 23. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used , and is rendered Ordained , but implies choosing . Ans. Although this is not to the Point here debated , yet , lest I should be thought to over-slip a Difficulty , I answer , That there is not in the Epistle to Titus , the least intimation of the Multitudes chusing the Elders , but the contrary rather , the Qualifications and fitness of the Candidates ; unto that good Office , being left unto the judgment of Titus . Nor does it appear , in Acts 14. 23. that the Multitude chose those Elders , there spoken of . 〈◊〉 if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place signifies Ordaining ; then here 's not one word of choosing 'em ; but if it signifies choosing , then were the Two Apostles , Paul and Barnabas , the Electors , as well as the Ordainers . Why not ? So God first without the suffrage of the People , chose the Twelve Apostles ( Act. 10. 41. ) where the same word is used , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and then Ordained 'em , Act. 2. by anointing 'em with the Spirit . Nor is Mr. O. mistaken , when he imagines me Dreaming , that after Ordination , Titus assigned those Elders some new Powers , which I think is intimated in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which does not properly signify to Ordain , but pre-supposes Ordination , and imports the placing of those Elders in their particular Stations . And this , I believe , is distinct from their Ordination . Mr. O. after a tedious Discourse about Evangelists ( of which number he reckons 〈◊〉 and Titus ) having contended that were unfixt Officers of the Church ( of which more hereafter ) believes it a degrading them , who had a general Power over all the Churches , to tie 'em to Residence in one particular Church , making Ordinary Officers of ' em . Ans. I do not apprehend this to be a degrading them . For whilst they continued the Companions and Fellow Labourers of the Apostles , and unfixt Officers of the Church , they cannot properly be said to have had a general power over all Churches , but were continually at the beck and Command of the Apostles , to dispatch such Orders , as were from time to time given them . As they had no certain place of Residence , so neither had they any certain work , but were like Reformades in an Army , who have nothing to do , but what the General by a special Order employs 'em in upon sudden Occasions . If it be allowable , magnis componere parva , to explain the Condition of the unfixt Evangelists , by an Instance well known in this County Palatine of Lancaster , they were like to our Itinerant Preachers , founded by Q. Elizabeth of Famous Memory . These have a Power from the Bishop of the Diocess , to Preach , &c. in any Church , or Chappel within the said County , as his Lordship shall direct them , or they know is necessary and convenient to the Service of the Reformation . They have a general Power to Preach in the Churches in Lancashire . Now if the Bishop fixes them in some Rectory or Vicarage , no Man will say they are degraded , though the Exercise of their Ministery is brought into a narrower Compass than before . But I have spent more Words on this slight Objection , than it deserves . APPENDIX . MR O. Whereas I affirm'd , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought properly to have been rendered , appoint , or constitute , and settle , or place them , pre-supposing at the same time their Ordination , he hence concludes , I give up one of Titus ' s main Powers , adding , if this Text proves not Titus his Ordaining Power , no one in that Epistle doth . Ans. But Mr. O. forgets that himself , as well as the Rector , have all along taken it for granted , that whatever Powers were committed to 〈◊〉 , were also given unto Titus , and reciprocally , what to Titus , were committed to Timothy . Besides , I take it to be out of Controversy , that he , to whom any one Part of Supreme Power is given , is to be understood as invested with all : Consequently if Titus was to appoint where every Presbyter was to officiate , he then had the Power of Ordination also . As in like manner , though Timothy had no express Commission to reject Hereticks after the second Admonition , yet because Titus had that Power , so had 〈◊〉 likewise . In short , Titus had Authority to receive Accusations , and to rebuke openly , as well as Timothy , had 1 Epist. to Tim. 5. and Timothy to excommunicate the Contumacious , as well as Titus had , Ch. 3. 10. and both had power to ordain , because one had . CHAP. IV. Being An Answer to Mr. O's 4 th Chap. THE Question here is , whereas St. Paul gave Timothy those ample Commissions and Instructions , that we read of in his first Epistle , concerning the Government of the Ephesian Church , some time after he had besought him to abide still at Ephesus , when he went into Macedonia , 1 Epist. 1. 3. What was that precise time of Paul's going into Macedonia , and beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus ? In the Tent. Nov. following Bishop Pearson , I resolved this Question thus , That Paul's Journey , here spoken of , could not be meant of any of those mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ; that therefore it must be some other , after his bidding the Elders of Ephesus Farewel : That coming to Jerusalem , he was there made Prisoner , and thence carried to Rome , where he continued about 2 Years in Bonds : That being at length released , he returned into the Eastern Parts again , visiting the Churches ; and then as he passed out of Asia , into Macedonia , besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus , as the fixt Ruler , or Bishop of that Church ; And shortly , after dispatched the 1st Epistle to him . That Paul himself , some while after , went back into Italy , and unto the utmost parts of the West , Preaching the Gospel , and being at length once more got unto Rome , was there Imprisoned a second time , when he wrote the second Epistle to Tim. a little before he was Beheaded . We are now to consider Mr. O's Objections against all this . Mr. O. To abide still , doth not imply a continued Residence : But may signify a short stay , Act. 17. 14 , 15. by Consequence he was not the fixt Bishop ( Ruler ) of Ephesus . Ans. There is a great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 14 , 15. The former implies a continued stay at Ephesus , the latter only signifies Silas and Timothy's halting , that is , tarrying behind Paul at Beraea . Besides , we have no account of Timothy's sudden remove from Ephesus : But we have of Timothy's leaving Beraea soon after , Act. 18. 5. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Lastly , the Orders given unto Timothy , at Ephesus , were many and Important , which also required time to be executed , which does not appear to have been the Case of Timothy at Beraea . Mr. O. Timothy's stay there ( at Ephesus ) was but short , that is , until the Apostle came to him , 1 Tim. 3. 14. ch . 4. 13. Ans. There is no Colour of Argument in this . It is not said , he must tarry no longer there , than till Paul came to him ; Nor can that be the meaning ; For then it would follow , that Timothy was to give attendance to Reading , to Exhortation , and to Doctrine , but till the Apostle came to him : Which ( I hope ) Mr. O. will not affirm . Besides , Paul was not certain of his going to Ephesus shortly ; Therefore he adds , 1 Tim. 3. 15 — If I tarry long , &c. from which Passages I gather , That Paul , at his first beseeching of Timothy , to abide at Ephesus , thought his Instructions not full enough , and therefore intended to see Timothy , shortly at Ephesus , and to furnish him with further Orders , how he ought to behave himself in the House of God , the Church of Ephesus committed to him : But because he suspected he might tarry long , he therefore in the mean while sent him this Epistle : All which shews , that Timothy was designed for the fixt Ruler of Ephesus . Although the Apostle resolved to visit him there shortly : Not to remove him thence , but to give him fuller Directions about the management of the Government of the Church . Mr. O. He was not fixt as Resident at Ephesus , because , the Apostle afterward called him to Rome , 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. Ans. I will take an Opportunity by and by , to Discourse about Residence , where the weakness of this Objection will fully appear . In the Interim I 'll only acquaint the Reader , that according to Mr. O's own Hypothesis , it could not be less than between three and four Years , after the writing of the first Epistle , that Paul sent for 〈◊〉 unto Rome , and according unto mine , about six Years . which is a considerable stay , or Residence in one Place . I say , further that Paul's sending for Timothy to Rome , is no Argument that Timothy for ever quitted that Post : That he returned back to Ephesus , must be made appear from Ecclefiastical History , the Scripture going no further , in the Account of Paul and Timothy , than that , in the second Epistle Sophronlus , or Jerom * Witness that he was Martyr'd at Ephesus , and Photius † acquaints us , with the time and Occasion , viz. At the detestable Festival called the Catagogium , which Timothy would have had abrogated . Lastly , supposing Timothy never returned back to Ephesus , it 's no consequence , that he was not by Paul constituted resident Bishop ( Ruler ) of Ephesus , as will afterwards , in these Papers , appear . Mr. O. Objects against the time assign'd ( in T. N. ) of Paul's going into 〈◊〉 , after his Release from his first Imprisonment at Rome , that is , after the History of the Acts of the Apostles , wherein no mention is made of this Voyage , as I assert ; against this ( I say ) Mr. O. Objects , That nothing can be concluded from Luke's silence in this Point : For 't is certain that he doth not mention all the Journies of Paul and Timothy . Ans. I readily grant that bare silence is no good Proof , without some other considerations to support it ; and I also grant , that Luke mentions not all Paul and Timothy's Journeys : But I contend that he Omits none of Paul's from the 13 th Chapter unto the end of the Acts of the Apostles , as any impartial Man will believe , if he carefully reads that part of the History . And for proof of this , I shall at present content my self with the acknowledgement and. Testimony of Beza himself , who thus writes particularly as to Paul's Journeys into Macedonia — Ter omnino vidit Macedoniam Paulus , ut ex historiae filo apparet . Quamvis enim non omnia perscripserit Lucas , ita tamen contextam historiam esse apparet , ut non plures profectiones in Macedoniam possint constitui . Paul saw Macedonia , but thrice , as is manifest from the History , as 't is closely laid together by Luke . For though he remembers not all things , and every little movement of the Apostle , yet his History appears so contrived , that more Journies of his into Macedonia cannot be assigned or allow'd . I do not indeed believe that St. Luke has set down within the time mention'd , every Step the Apostle made by the by , unto Towns , and Villages near at hand . While Paul was at Corinth , 't is to me out of Controversy , that he went into the Neighouring places , Preaching the Gospel , though Luke has not told us so . There were Christians , and a Church at Cenchrea , Rom. 16. 1. where doubtless the Apostle had taught the Word of God : but Luke omitted this . Nevertheless , 't is senseless to think , the Historian should forget so considerable a Voyage , as this of Paul's going from Ephesus , unto Macedonia , and leaving Timothy behind him . But that which I further add , is , That I do not rely barely on St. Luke's silence , but observe , that in his History , he has left no room for St. Paul's placing Timothy at Ephesus , at any of those three times , when he went into Macedonia . And if this be well prov'd , as has been , and shall be once more , then another Journey of Paul's into Macedonia must be searched for , and I do believe may be , and has been found out . In order to make out all this , let us first examine the Ministers Hypothesis . Mr. O's Hypothesis is this , That St. Paul at Ephesus , sent Timothy to Macedonia , and Corinth . Act. 19. 21 , 22. expecting him back at Ephesus , 1 Cor. 16. 10 , 11. that 't is most likely , Timothy went back to Paul , at Ephesus , where the Apostle left him , when he went into Macedonia , Act. 20. v. 1. which ( as Mr. O. thinks ) is the meaning of that , 1 Tim. 1. 3. My business then is to prove , That this could not be . In order whereunto I must give here an exact Narrative of Paul from the time of his two Years stay at Ephesus , unto his bidding the Elders farewell , at Miletus , in his Passage towards Jerusalem ; from whence it will appear plainly , that Paul could not leave Timothy at Ephesus , at that time , when he went into Macedonia , mentioned , Act. 20. 1. Paul having Resided at Ephesus two Years ( Act. 19. 10. ) ( and perhaps more ) purposed in Spirit to pass 〈◊〉 Macedonia , to 〈◊〉 , thence to Jerusalem , and so to Rome ( v. 21. ) . Some while 〈◊〉 he departed from Ephesus , news came to him of the Schism at Corinth , which occasioned his first Epistle to the Corinthians . That the Apostle sent this Letter from Ephesus , is manifest from 1 Cor. 16. 8 , 19. That Timothy carried this Letter , appears from Chapter 4. 17. Ch. 16. 10. and that Timothy at the same time , had received Orders from the Apostle , to go into Macedonia , may be seen Act. 19. 22. St. Paul resolving to 〈◊〉 at Ephesus , or in Asia , for a Season , that is , till Pentecost , 1 Cor. 16. 8. Now because Paul designed to tarry in Asia but for a Season , that is , till 〈◊〉 , and because in his Letter to the Corinthians , he promises to come to them shortly , Ch. 4. 19. it cannot be doubted , but Timothy set forth on this Journey from Ephesus to Macedonia , and so to 〈◊〉 in the Spring about Easter , in the Month of March. Paul's stay therefore at Ephesus , after Timothy's Departure , was about six Weeks . The Apostle 〈◊〉 leaving Ephesus at Whitsontide , came to Troas ( 2 Cor. 2. 12. ) thence unto Macedonia ( ch . 7. 5. ) where the long expected Titus met him , ch . 7. 6. Timothy also came to him in Macedonia , and joined with him in the second Epistle to the Corinthians ( ch . 1. 1. ) Paul and Timothy , having spent some Month , in Macedonia , gathering the Contributions , and exhorting the Brethren ( Act. 20. 2. ) unto Liberality , as I suppose , set forward for Greece , where they tarried all the three Winter Months , Act. 20. 2 , 3. that is Wintered at Corinth , as the Apostle had promised , 1 Cor. 16. 6. During his stay here , Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans , ch . 15. 25 , 26. Timothy being then with him , ch . 16. 21. Early in the Spring , as the Apostle was about to 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 to Syria , and so to pass forward unto Jerusalem , as he had before laid his Journey , he suddenly altered his Purpose ; the Occasion whereof was the Jews lying in Wait for Him. So he returned into Macedonia , sending Timothy before him , whom nevertheless he overtook at Troas . Hence Paul and his Company hasted unto Miletus , where the Apostle calling to him the Elders of Ephesus , bid em Farewel . Act. 20. 3 , 5 , 6 , 15 , 17. The Arguments I raise hence against Mr. O's 〈◊〉 are as follow . 1. Here is not sufficient time for Timothy's Journey from Ephesus to Macedonia , so to Corinth , and back again to Paul at Ephesus , before the Apostle departed thence . According to Mr. Berry's Maps , Corinth is distant from Ephesus , above 500 * Italian , or English Miles , if one travel by Troas , and through Macedonia : So that backward and forward , Timothy must have gone more than a Thousand Miles in six weeks time , besides crossing the Sea , that 's to say , 30 † Miles a day , which is incredible , especially if it be considered , that he had much Business to dispatch , both in 〈◊〉 and at Corinth : And Mr. O. will not , I suppose , allow that he travelled on the Lord's-Days . Against this it will be objected , That Paul looked for Timothy back at Ephesus , 1 Cor. 16. 11. and that the length of the Journey ought 〈◊〉 to be pleaded against so good an Evidence of the Matter of Fact. Ans. I deny that St. Paul expected Timothy back at Ephesus , but in Macedonia rather : The Words are — That he may come unto me , for I look for him . But whether at Ephesus where he then was , or in Macedonia , where he hoped shortly to be , is not said . Now Paul had just before advertised the 〈◊〉 , I do pass through Macedonia , v. 5. and doubtless he had told Timothy as much before : He departed from Ephesus , Acts 19. Besides when Paul at Ephesus wrote his first Epistle to the Cor. he at that very time resolved to tarry in Asia but for a Season . Acts 19. 22. and to go unto Corinth shortly , 1 Ep. 4. 19. 'T is then most probable that Timothy was to meet Paul , in Macedonia , and that the Apostle expected him there , and there we find 'em together at the writing of the second Epistle to the Corinthians . 2. There was no occasion for Timothy's going back unto Paul at Ephesus , and tarrying there after the Apostle was departed unto Macedonia . St. Paul had himself settled that Church of Ephesus , and left it in good Order . He had furnished it with Presbyters and able Ministers . There were among them as yet no Wolves , no Vipers , no false Teachers , who deserved to be brought before Timothy , and Rebuked openly for their disorderly walking . Thus it was at Paul's departure , and thus it continued some time after : Even when the Apostle the next year called together the Elders at Miletus , all was still well among ' em . The Apostle makes no complaint to the contrary , nor had he any reason for it . Why then 〈◊〉 Timothy be put unto such an unreasonable Fatigue , when there was nothing for him to do , at Ephesus ? And yet , 3. ( As we read in the first Epistle to Tim. ) there was much Business , and more than he could dispatch , in that little time allowed for his stay there by Mr. O. There is the more force in this Argument , because the Apostle at his Writing the first Epistle to Timothy , soon after from Macedonia , hopes to be with him at Ephesus shortly , ( 1 Ep. 3. 14. ) Was Timothy left at Ephesus , in the Apostle's room to discharge so many important Matters , as are reckoned up in that Epistle , and yet the Apostle intend to return unto Ephesus shortly ; and serve him with a Writ of Ease ? It is incredible . 4. Paul's hopes of returning shortly , from Macedonia unto Timothy at Ephesus , 1 Tim. 3. 14. according to Mr. O's Hypothesis , are wholly Inconsistent with his former Purposes of going from Ephesus to Macedonia , so to Achaia , and thence to Syria by Sea , and so to Jerusalem : For we read that he still continued in that mind after Winter , Act. 20. 3. which shews plainly that the Apostle after his leaving Ephesus , neither intended nor hoped to see it any more at this time . He did not then write his 1st . Epistle to Tim. whilst he was now in Macedonia , newly come from Ephesus , because he could not then think of returning to Ephesus shortly , his Journey to Jerusalem being then laid quite another way , and by Consequence he did not leave nor beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus , at this his departure thence into Macedonia . 5. Paul was in great hast to gather the Collections in Macedonia and Achaia , that he might bring them to Jerusalem , by the next Pentecost , if it were possible , Act. 20. 16. In so great hast , that being at Troas in his way to Macedonia , though a Door was opened unto him , that is , though he had a Prospect of Converting many Souls unto God , yet he refused to 〈◊〉 ; But set forward immediately unto Macedonia , 2 〈◊〉 . 2. 12 , 13. How then can it be imagined that he designed or hoped to return shortly unto Timothy at Ephesus , when he would not tarry a while at Troas , no not though he saw his Preaching would have effect among those People ? and at the same time aimed to pass unto Jerusalem , through syria by Sea , as before is noted . 6. It Timothy ( as Mr. O. Imagines ) returned unto Paul at Ephesus , before his Departure thence for Macedonia , about Pentecost , the Apostle had had no Occasion of being restless at Troas , 2 Cor. 2. 13. Nor in Macedonia , Ch. 7. 5 , 6. because of Titus coming not to him from Corinth . Was St. Paul troubled about Titus , whether he was Well and in Health ? or earnest to know how the Contributions at Corinth went on ? or curious to hear what Effect his First Chiding Letter had on the Corinthians ? Timothy if he had reached Paul at Ephesus , had certainly satisfy'd his Curiosity , in all these things . But seeing he was restless and uneasy , both at Troas and in Macedonia , upon some or all the foresaid Accounts , after he had left Ephesus , 't is certain Timothy came not to him at Ephesus , and by consequence he left not Timothy at Ephesus , when he went to Macedonia at that time , nor then besought him to abide there . 7. If Paul left Timothy at Ephesus now , at his departure thence unto Macedonia , 't is Plain , Timothy abode there but a very small while : For he was presently with Paul in Macedonia again , which is not at all agreeable to the Business , St. Paul afterward in his Letter committed to Timothy's Charge . The Case between them stood thus . Paul desired Timothy to abide at Ephesus , hoping doubtless and designing to be back with him in a little time . But because the Apostle had not yet given Timothy all the necessary Orders , nor sufficient Instructions , how he should behave himself in the Administration of the Ecclesiastical Government at Ephesus , and because he foresaw it might however happen to be long e'er he came to Timothy there , he therefore sends unto him this Epistle full of Directions , how he should behave himself in the House of God , the Church . These things manifestly shew that Timothy was intended to tarry a good while at Ephesus , and till Paul came to him , 1 Epist. 4. 13. although it should happen to be long : And likewise to continue there , though Paul had come to him shortly . If Paul had been certain of his returning shortly to Timothy at Ephesus : He had not sent him this Epistle : For so 't is intimated , 1 Tim. 3. 14 , 15. These things write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly : But because they had been needless , or might have been thought so , if Paul had been certain of his going unto him shortly . He therefore adds 〈◊〉 way of excuse ; But if I tarry long ( as perhaps I may ) I therefore write these things unto th e , that thou may'st know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the 〈◊〉 , which I have committed unto thee . This is not at all consistent with Timothy's being suddenly after with Paul in Macedonia , 2 Cor. 1. 1. If so , why should the Apostle talk of coming to him at 〈◊〉 shortly ; and , if it happen'd otherwise , write to him concerning his Behaviour in the Government of the Church ? But let us descend unto 〈◊〉 . In the first of Tim. and 5 th Chapter , the Apostle instructs him to reward the Elders that Rule well with double honour , especially if they 〈◊〉 labour'd in the Word and Doctrine , v. 17. to hear Complaints made against Elders and examine Witnesses , v. 19. to rebuke offending Blders openly , as he found Cause , or to acquit 'em , if the Accusation was not sufficiently proved against 'em , v. 20. and to Ordain Elders , as need required , v. 22. All which implies that Timothy was designed to continue at Ephesus some considerable time : whereas according to Mr. O's Hypothesis Timothy tarryed not at Ephesus till Paul came to him , but went to Paul in Macedouia , soon after the receipt of this Epistle , which is incredible , and ( as I said ) inconsistent with the Instructions aforesaid contained in the Epistle . 8 Timothy accordingly did abide at Ephesus a considerable time , as appears from the Apostles second Epistle , which is very agreeable to my Hypothesis , but not at all to Mr. O's . Nay but , Mr. O. will say the second Epistle was sent to Timothy from Rome , in the time of Paul's first Imprisonment . The Apostle 〈◊〉 from Miletus to Jerusalem , had left him there , or thereabouts in Asia ; and therefore this second Epistle proves not that Timothy continued at Ephesus , a good while after Paul left him there , Paul sending for him to Rome . Ans. It shall e'er I make an end , once more be Demonstrated ( under Mr. O's favour , I say , Demonstrated ) that the second Epistle was wrote in Paul's second Bonds at Rome . Mean-while Mr. O's Assertion , that Timothy went not with Paul to Jerusalem , but tarryed behind in Asia , is supported by no probable Circumstance in Scripture . It must be confest , that St. Luke no where expresly tells us , that Timothy accompanied Paul thither . But there is no force in this ; because Luke mentions none of the Apostle's other Companions , who went along with Him , with the Contributions unto Jerusalem , except Trophimus . Nevertherless it cannot be doubted but many accompanied him , not only to Jerusalem , but to Rome also , who nevertheless are omitted by Luke . To say nothing of Luke himself , Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. Tychicus was one , Eph. 6. 21. Colos. 4. 7. and Titus another , who is never once named by St. Luke in the whole Book of the Acts , and yet doubtless went with Paul from Corinth , and so to Jerusalem , and thence to Rome : in proof whereof , see 2 Cor. 8. 19. And not that only , but who was also chosen of the Churches , to travel with us with this Grace or Gift , the Corinthians Charity : which Words of St. Paul are to be understood of Titus , not of Luke mentioned in the precedent Verse . The precedent Verse being cast out , or put into a Parenthesis , thus the 17th and 19th Verses will run — For indeed He ( Titus ) accepted the Exhortation , but being more forward of his own accord He went in to you , and that only ( that is , he did not only accept my Exhortation , and went willing of himself , but over and above ) He was also Chosen of the Churches to travel with us , with this Grace . For the Apostle is here professedly writing in the Commendation of Titus , and mentions Luke but by the bye : and Titus was the Person , who took most Pains in forwarding the Collections at 〈◊〉 , for which Reason , 't is most Rational to believe , he was Chosen for one to carry them . Nor am I singular in this exposition , Sir Norton Knatchbul , in the Synopsis , differs but very little 〈◊〉 me , correcting the Parenthesis thus — Misimus cum eo fratrem ( 〈◊〉 laus , &c. ) cum hoc ministerio sive dono , implying , that both Titus and Luke , were sent with the Corinthians Liberality unto Jerusalem . I will not take upon me to Vindicate this Gentleman's Correction of the Text , but he plainly shews , that he thought Titus went along-with the Contributions to Jerusalem , which is all I contend . for . There are the same 〈◊〉 to believe Timothy attended Paul to Jerusalem , and then to Rome . 1. Because Timathy was employ'd by St. Paul , to promote the Collections in Macedonia , as Titus in Achaia ( For that was his Errand , I make account when Paul sent him into Macedonia , Act. 19. 22. ) And we ought in Reason to believe 〈◊〉 was join'd in the Commission , for carrying the Relief unto Jerusalem ; since he had been imploy'd in forwarding and Collecting them . This the rather 〈◊〉 . 2. We read He was with Paul at Rome in the Apostle's first Imprisonment , doubtless accompanying Paul thither from Miletus , and Jerusalem , Heb. 13. 2 , 3. Philip. 〈◊〉 . 1. Colof . 1. 1. Now then if Timothy went along with Paul , to Jerusalem , and to Rome , then he could not continue at Ephesus , or in Asia , a considerable time , neither was the second Epistle written to him , in the Apostles first Imprisonment , as Mr. O. supposes . Having ( as I hope ) given irrefragable Arguments , that Paul at his going into Macedonia mentioned , Acts the 20. 1. did not then leave Timothy behind at Ephesus , beseeching Him to abide there , I will now consider , when it was , that the Apostle left Titus in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting . My Opinion is ( as I have declared at large in T. N. ) that Paul being Released from his first Imprisonment at Rome , and returning into the East , as he promised or hinted in several of his Epistles , writ to 'em from Rome , touched at Crete , and having laid a Foundation of a Christian Church in that Island , prosecuted his Journey Eastward , leaving Titus behind to perfect it : whom therefore he afterwards furnished with Instructions about the Government of that Church , in his Epistle to Titus . Instead of this Mr. O. Proposes the Opinion of Dr. Lightfoot , which is , that when Paul returned from Macedonia to Greece , Act. 20. 2. then he left Titus there ( in Crete ) Tit. 1. 5. thinking that he should presently , after a little stay in Greece , have 〈◊〉 forwards towards Jerusalem . As he was about to Sail into Syria , the Jews laid wait for him , which made him return through Macedonia , Acts 20. 3. About that time ( as Dr. Lightfoot conceives ) he writ the Epistle to Titus , in which he calls him to Nicopolis , where 〈◊〉 intended to Winter , Tit. 3. 12. He had some thoughts of Wintering in Corinth , 1 Cor. 16. 6. but it seems , 〈◊〉 his Resolution , he determined to Winter in Nicopolis a City of Epirus , not very far distant from Corinth . Titus according to appointment came to him , and was thence sent by him to Corinth to hasten the Collections for the Saints in Judea , 2 Cor. 8. 16 , 17. Ans. Before I come to the main Business , I must take notice of several mistakes and Inconsistences in this Account . 1. That Paul cannot be said to have returned from Macedonia to Greece , whereas yet in this Peregrination he had not been . For Paul first came from Ephesus into Macedonia , then went into Greece , Acts 20. 2. He returned indeed afterward out of Greece into Macedonia again , v. 3. but he did not return out of Macedonia into Greece . But the meaning is , I presume , 〈◊〉 must be , as far as I am able to comprehend him , that Paul when ( or as ) he went from Macedonia into Greece left Titus in Crete , Tit. 1. 5. which is absurd , as any one will confess , that knows the Geographical Situation of these Places . 2. Mr. O. thinks that Paul intended to Winter at Nicopolis : but 't is evident , he intended to Winter at Corinth , 1 Cor. 16. 6. and 't is as evident , that he did Winter there , Act. 20. 3. for he 〈◊〉 there three Months . 3. Mr. O. says , Paul returned through Macedonia , Act. 20. 3. about the time as he writ the Epistle to Titus , in which He calls him to Nicopolis . But Paul's Return through Macedonia , was in the Spring , and He was got to Philippi by Easter , Act. 20. 6. How then could he about this time write to Titus , and in his Letter call Titus to him at Nicopolis , where he was determined to Winter , and yet Winter was already past . 4. Nicopolis ( says Mr. O. ) a City of Epirus not far distant from Corinth . Only about 170. Miles : that 's nothing with Mr. O. But I have shewn that 't is unlikely Paul should at this time determine to Winter at Nicopolis , where He had never as yet been , and where there was no Christian Church , that we known of : and 't is yet more unlikely that the Apostle's hast , whereof we have spoken , should permit him to go so far directly another way from Jerusalem . Lastly , says the Minister , Titus came to Paul at Nicopolis , and was thence sent by the Apostle to Corinth to hasten the Collections . But the mischief is , Paul wrote the second Epistle to the Corinthians by Titus from Macedonia before Winter , before the three Months mentioned , Acts 20. 3. and then sent him to hasten the Collections . Whether Mr. O. has done Dr. Lightfoot right in this confused Account I am not concerned to examine . He has made this his own Hypothesis , and 〈◊〉 I all along ascribe it to him . Well! letting these things pass , Mr. O's meaning is ( I guess ) that Paul going from Macedonia into Greece , visited Crete in his way , and there left Titus . Ans. I do not yet understand how it can be properly said , that Paul as he went from Macedonia into Greece visited Crete in his way . Greece is in the way from Macedonia to Crete , how then did he visit Crete in the way as he went from Macedonia to Greece ? However , sometime hereabouts — ( Mr. O. will say ) between his leaving Macedonia , and settling in Greece , Paul visited Crete , and left Titus there , which is the thing I now undertake to disprove : but will first as my Foundation , tell the Story of Iitus , as exactly as I can gather it from Scripture . Paul at Ephesus , dispatched Titus away to Corinth about the Collections , as I conceive , a Year or more before he sent Timothy unto Macedonia ; as may be gathered , from 2 Cor. 8. 6 , 10. chap. 9. 2. where the Apostles testifies of the Corinthians , that they were ready a Year ago . For this Reason it was that Paul looked and longed for Titus's return , after above a Years absence . But Titus at last came to Paul in Macedonia , and gave him an Account what effect his first Epistle had upon the Corinthians , 2 Cor. 7. 6 , 7 , &c. as also of their willingness to Contribute towards the Relief of the Poor Saints at Jerusalem , chap. 8 , 10 , 11. chap. 9. 2. Hereupon Paul ( and T mothy ) writ the second Epistle to the Corinthians , Titus carrying it , 2 Cor. 8. 6 , 18. I must add , here another short account of Paul He left Ephesus soon after Pentecost , and arrived ( let us imagine ) in June at Philippi in Macedonia . There he gave much Exhortation , Acts 20. 2. which implies ( as I gather ) that he spent much time in Macedonia : let us suppose he tarry'd there , till about November . Then He set forward for Greece where he abode three Months , v. 3. that is till February , thence he returned early in the Spring into Macedonia , and was got as far back as Philippi by Easter , v. 6 and so crost the Sea into Asia , Act. 20. This premised , my Arguments against Mr. O's Hypothesis are as follow . 1. Here is no time that can be assigned for Paul's sailing unto Crete , and there Founding a Church . If it be thought , that during the 〈◊〉 which is allowed for his stay in Macedonia , he might go to Crete , that cannot be granted : because Luke would doubtless have taken notice of so considerable an Enterprize : and besides , I do suppose , Paul was too busy in forwarding the Collections , and giving much Exhortation , to undertake such a long Voyage : Lastly , Luke plainly says , that Paul came from Macedonia ( not from Crete ) into Greece . If then within the time assigned to his stay in Macedonia , he went to Crete , he must have returned back again , first into Macedonia , and then have gone into Greece , which is absurd to suppose . Nor did he sail out of Grecce into Crete . For then Luke could not have writ , that he abode three Months , in Greece , one half of which time must at least have been spent in that Voyage to and again , and in tarrying there . 2. Nor could Titus accompany the Apostle thither at this time . Titus was sent alone from Macedonia to Corinth : His business at Corinth , was to encourage and promote the Contributions , as abundantly appears in the second Epistle to the Corinthians . 3. If Titus went along with Paul unto Jerusalem with the Contributions ( as cannot in reason be deny'd ) : how then could he be left in Crete to perfect that Church , and set in Order the things that were wanting ? I Surely this required more than two or three Months . Paul was two whole Years at least in planting the Church of Ephesus : but Titus could finish that in Crete ( it seems ) in as few Months . 4. The great hast Paul was in , and the Multiplicity of business in Macedonia , and Achaia that lay on his hands , and the Application wherewith he pursued it , will not suffer us to believe , that at this time he undertook such a great , and a new Work , that of the Conversion of the Island of Crete . At this time all other Concernments of the Church were laid aside , and gave place unto that of forwarding the Collections , and carrying them to Judea . 5. That Passage ( Titus 3. 12. ) when I shall send unto thee Artemas or Tychicus , make hast to come unto me at Nicopolis : for I have determined there to Winter , quite overthrows Mr. O's ( O Dr. Lightfoot's ) Hypothesis : For Paul at that time , fix'd by Mr. O. neither intended , nor did Winter at Nicopolis but at 〈◊〉 , as has been proved . Paul as yet had never been so far Westward as Nicopolis in Epirus , to Preach the Gospel as may be collected , from 2 Cor. 10. 14 , 16 — We are come ( says the Apostle ) as far as to you in Preaching the Gospel : but we hope to Preach the Gospel in the Regions beyond you , that is in Epirus , which as yet it seems he had not done . How then could he intend to Winter at Nicopolis ? which implies that there were Christians there already , among whom he would Winter : but we know of none as yet in those parts . 6. Paul ( as has been noted already ) was in so great hast to go unto Jerusalem , that he would not lose any time , no not tarry to Preach the Gospel at Troas , 〈◊〉 a Door was open 〈◊〉 him : how then shall we believe that he made a Voyage by 〈◊〉 into Crete , to Plant a Church there , when it does not appear he had the least encouragment beforehand , to expect any considerable Success , as he had at Troas ? 7. I in general before noted , what great business St. Paul had both in Macedonia and at 〈◊〉 , which would not dispense with his Absence from them . He could not at this time take so long a Journey as to Crete , about the Conversion of that Island , which would require a longer stay than he could dispense with : particularly , let it be observed , that his work at Corinth was more than Ordinary , viz. to reduce 'em unto Peace , and Unity , and Order . So he promised , 1 Cor. 11. 34. The rest will I set in order when I come . Whoever shall duly weigh these things with a 〈◊〉 mind , will be convinced , that St. Paul at this time of his going from Ephesus into Macedonia , and 〈◊〉 , and tarrying there did not , could not beseech 〈◊〉 to abide at 〈◊〉 , nor yet sail unto Crete to Plant a Church there leaving Titus to finish it . Mr. O. Here is no express Proof that Paul ( after his Release ) from his Imprisonment at Rome ) visited Ephesus . Ans. The Rector's 〈◊〉 as laid in T. N. does not require that Paul visited Ephesus . I took notice of Mr. Bain's Mistake , in saying or supposing that Paul left Timothy at Ephesus , as if Paul had then been there : but no such thing is to be found , in 1 Tim. 1. 3. Besides I exprest my Thoughts thus , That Paul being at 〈◊〉 , going unto Macedonia ( as he had signified Philipp . 1. 25 , 26. ) then besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus . Not that Paul was , at the time 〈◊〉 his beseeching Timothy , at Ephesus , but at Troas : Neither is it necessary to suppose that Timothy was then at Ephesus : for St. Paul might , by Letter beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus , though he had at that present been at Troas with Paul , or Timothy in some other place . These are unnecessary Repetitions . Mr. O. Whereas in proof of Paul's return into the East , after his Enlargement from Prison , I alledged ( 2 Tim. 4. 20. ) Trophimus's being left at 〈◊〉 sick , &c. the Minister replies , It is most likely that Paul touched at 〈◊〉 , when he returned from Jerusalem in Bonds to Rome : 't is evident he intended to sail by the Coasts of Asia , Act. 27. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 to Sail ? Surely Mr. O. forgets himself . Paul was now a Prisoner in Bonds , How then could the Apostle intend ? or determine which way the Ship must Sail ? Our Translation haply , which is not very exact here , betray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foul Mistake — Meaning to Sail , &c. but in the Original , 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being about to Sail by the Coasts of Asia we ( all in the Ship ) Lanched . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul and his 〈◊〉 ; that meant or designed which way they would Sail ; but the Centurion and Master of the Ship , who determined that Point . But for the Ships Sailing by the Coasts of Asia , the Reason is plain : for thither the Ship was bound , no further in the way to Rome : and therefore they changed their Ship at Myra , v. 5. a City of Lycia , part of the Southern Coasts of Asia ; and took another belonging to Alexandria , so Sailing directly into Italy , v. 6. It was then neither Paul's 〈◊〉 , no nor the Centurions Commands , which brought the Ship by the Coasts of Asia 〈◊〉 Myra , but the Merchants Business , which indeed lay so far in the direct Road unto Italy . For every one knows the Ancient way of Sailing , before the Compass and Loadstone were 〈◊〉 they chose 〈◊〉 Legere littus to Sail by the Coasts , as much as they safely could , and they were generally , all what we now call Coasters . For they had no certain way to Steer directly , from Place to Place , in the open broad Sea , except by the Sun or Stars , which did not always appear : so that they were wont to keep within sight of Land , if possible . But I pass this , and further say to Mr. O. that 't is a very absurd Conjecture to think , that Paul in his Voyage touch'd at 〈◊〉 . As if Miletus lay in the way from Myra to Italy , or as if the 〈◊〉 nturion , or the Master of the Ship would go out of their way , I know not how many days Sail to accompany Paul in visiting the Churches at and near Miletus , when as Paul was a Prisoner sent to Rome . The Centurion could never have answered it to his Superiours . As for the other two Suppositions , that Miletus might be a Town in Crete , of that name , or the Island Malta , it cannot be deny'd , that then Paul might in his Voyage from Judea to Italy , have left Trophimus in one , or in either of those two places : but what then will become of Paul's having been at Troas , 2 Tim. 4. 13. and at Corinth , v. 20 ? If then he touch'd not at Troas , and at Corinth in his Passage from Jerusalem to Rome , ( as for the foresaid reasons is clear ) there is good ground to believe he visited Miletus in Asia , Philippi , and other Churches at the time by me assigned . This will further be disputed by and by . After all this Mr. O. undertakes directly , to Vindicate the Ancient Chronology , and to prove that the first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's meeting , and taking leave of the Elders of Ephesus , Act. 20. Ans. If this were substantially proved , yet still it will not follow , that Timothy was not the Supreme Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus . For first nothing in Paul's Farewell-Sermon , proves the Elders to be the Supreme Governours of that Church , as has already been made out . And as for Paul's taking no notice of 〈◊〉 in that Farewel Sermon , I must retort , that neither did Paul mention the Elders , in the Commission given to Timothy , in the first Epistle , which Mr. O. supposes written before that farewel Sermon . There are several Epistles to the Churches , wherein the Presbyters are not mention'd : but it will not thence be concluded that they had no Presbyters atall : much less ought it to be gathered , that Timothy was not the Supreme Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus , because he is not spoken of in so short a 〈◊〉 - Speech . But these things have been oft enough spoken of : let us then hear Mr. O's Arguments proving the first of Timothy was writ before the Farewell-Sermon . Mr. O. Argues from Paul's excommunicating Alexander the Copper-Smith , 1 〈◊〉 . 1. 20. who is the Person mentioned , Act. 19. 33. He adds , that this Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy , and so is mentioned as a late thing . Ans. I 'll not create Mr. O. any unnecessary trouble : but grant that the same Person is mentioned in both places . But I must say , it does not appear that this Alexander was a Christian , at the uproar in Ephesus mentioned , Act 19. The contrary is most probable . He is called a Jew ( not a Christian Believer ) v. 34. If so , then he , who never yet Believed , could not yet be an Apostate and Consequently could not be Excommunicated . But say he were a Christian-Jew , it does not appear that he had any hand in raising the Tumult against Paul , or that he Apostatized from the Faith at that time . That his Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy I easily admit : but when he Apostatized , I do desire to be informed , as also where or to what Church he belonged , when he Apostatized , and was Excommunicated . The most likely was the Ephesian . Let that be supposed . The Question then is still , when he 〈◊〉 , and was Excommunicated ? But , the Truth is , we are in the Dark both where and when he Apostatized , and by Consequence know not when Paul Excommunicated him . And therefore nothing can be drawn hence in proof of the time of the Apostles writing the first Epistle to Timothy . Mr. O. Puts the Objection against himself , How came Timothy to leave Ephesus , and 〈◊〉 with Paul in Macedonia , Act. 20. 4. seeing the Apostle desired him to stay till he came ? 1 Tim. 4. 13. His Resolution of this Difficulty is out of Dr. Lightfoot , as follows — Paul designing to have Sailed for Syria , Acts 20. 3. came near to Timothy , and there discovering the Danger laid in his way by the Jews ( which also might have involved Timothy ) he brought him away back with him , and so both returned again into Macedonia , and when Winter was over , they set Sail for Asia again . Ans. I 'll venture to call this a senseless Story , though Mr. O. has Fathered it upon the Learned Dr. Lightfoot , truly or falsly is no matter to me . For , 1. Timothy was not at Ephesus when Paul was about to go for Jerusalem . He was with Paul in Macedonia , 2 Cor. 1. 1. Act. 20. 4. Except Mr. O. will affirm , as indeed in the Account He gives of this Matter , he must suppose , that Timothy went back from Corinth , to Paul at Ephesus , thence following him to Macedonia , then returned to Ephesus again , and lastly , was thence fetched back by the Apostle unto Macedonia once more , and Wintered with him in Greece , and then returned with Paul through Macedonia to Miletus , all which has already been disproved . 2. It is here implyed by Mr. O. that Paul attempted to sail for Syria , and Judea before Winter , which is inconsistent with Act. 20. 3. and 1 Cor. 16. 6. 3. It is here supposed that Paul designed to sail for Syria from Macedonia ; whereas 't is plain , it was from Corinth or Greece , Act. 20. 3. And there ( in Greece ) He abode three Months , and when the Jews laid wait for Him , as he was about to sail into Syria , 〈◊〉 purposed to return through Macedonia . 4. It is supposed that Paul was actually sailing towards Syria , and was come near to Timothy at 〈◊〉 , where He discovered the Jews , lying in wait for him . Whereas He had discovered the Jews Plot in Greece , when He was about to sail or just before he took Ship , and therefore alter'd his purpose , and returned 't is not said into Macedonia ( though that 's true ) but through Macedonia into Asia , v. 4. 5. 'T is supposed that Paul designed to take Ship for Syria before Winter , or before it was over : which cannot be : because He Winter'd at Corinth , Act. 20. 3. compared with 1 Cor. 16. 6. or at Nicopolis , as Mr. O. mistakes . 6. 'T is supposed the Jews lying in wait came to his knowledge , when he was near Timothy at Ephesus , and that Timothy ( then supposed at Ephesus ) might be involv'd in the danger : but the wait laid for Paul , by the Jews was designed in Greece , and there made known unto Paul , which prevented him from going by Sea , and determined his Journey through Macedonia . There are but two Reasons , that I can Imagine , why the Jews laid wait for Paul ; both which will argue it was in Greece , and not at or about Ephesus . 1. Because He had in Greece of late Zealously preach'd the Gospel . 2. Because He had now a considerable quantity of Money to carry thence to Jerusalem . Now if the Jews Plot was laid against Paul in Greece , and Paul not know it there , how came He to know it at or near Ephesus ? And how could 〈◊〉 at Ephesus be involved in the danger , which threatened the Apostle in Greece ? In short , there are so many wild and unaccountable Suppositions in this conceit , and so contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the Text , that nothing but a stiff and resolute adherence to a Cause , could have brought it into the head of any Man , and engaged others to defend it . Before I make an end of this , let us take a view of the Ramble , which Mr. O. has cut out for Timothy this Year . Timothy went from Ephesus , about Easter , to Macedonia , and so to Corinth : he came back from Corinth to Ephesus again , where he arrived by Whitsontide : He followed Paul shortly , after into Macedonia , thence some way or other was got to Ephesus once more . St. Paul fetches him back unto Maceaonia again , carries him with him unto Corinth , so to Nicopolis , back to Corinth , thence once more unto Macedonia , and so to Miletus , where he took up his Quarters of Refreshment , as Mr. O. believes : and indeed 〈◊〉 high time , after such a Fatigue which he underwent , in about 14 Months , amounting to about 4000. Miles . Mr. O. The first Epistle to Timothy must be written before , because the second Epistle was written in Paul's first Imprisonment , for which he offers several Reasons , which I am now to examine . 1. Mr. O. Argues hence , because Timothy was a Young Man , at Paul's writing the second Epistle , the which he proves from the Apostle's Exhortation to him — Flee Youthful Lusts , 2 Tim. 2. 22. Ans. Not to trouble my self , or the Reader , about Mr. O's Calculations , I will admit that Timothy was three or four and forty years Old , when Paul according to my Hypothesis , in his second Imprisonment , wrote the second Epistle . and advised him to flee Youthful Lusts. It might not be improper to Caution him , at that Age , against Youthful Lusts , such as Young Men are chiefly inclined to . Who is there , that has not known Men of 40. of 50. of 60. Years of Age , overcome with these Lusts ? Well! but says Mr. O. Timothy was also a 〈◊〉 man , 1 Tim. 5. 23. and therefore 't is not likely , that Paul should warn a sickly Man above 40. Years Old , against Youthful Lusts , 2 Tim. 2. 22. Ans. At Paul's writing the first Epistle , Timothy was Valetudinary . True , but at his writing the second , he might be recovered and confirmed in his Health : it does not appear he was still sickly . Mr. O. For the same Reason ( sc. because he was a Young Man ) Paul calls Timothy Son , 1 Tim. 2. 18. 2 Tim. 2. 1. Ans. Mr. O. I am perswaded does not believe himself , when he urges this as an Argument , for Timothy's being a Young Man. Was Onesimus a Young Man , when Paul called him his Son , Phil. v. 10 ? Was Mark a Young Man , whom St. Peter calls his Son , 1 Peter 5. 13 ? Were all those Believers Young Men , of whom St. John speaks , 3 Epi. 4. ? Or were all the Christians at Corinth Young Men ? And yet Paul calls 'em his Sons , 1 Cor. 4. 14. But , he calls 'em so for a quite different Reason than is assigned by Mr. O. viz. Because in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the Gospel , 1. Cor. 4. 14. And on the same account he Challenged Onesimus for his Son ( v. 10. Philem. ) Whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten in his Bonds . There are Sundry Reasons , why Men are wont to call others their Sons ; which I will not insift on . One among the rest is , when there is a great difference in Age : Then the Older will call the Younger Son , though the Younger has past his Juvenile Years . But in T. N. I gave another different Reason of Paul's calling Timothy Son , which I hope will satisfy every Body , but one who will be pleased with nothing , but his own Phansies . 2. Mr. O. In his next Reason for the Second Epistle to Timothy , being writ in Paul's first Imprisonment , many things are affirmed , but nothing proved , He asserts , that that Second Epistle was written before those to the Philippians , Colossians and Philemon , Timothy's Name being prefixt to them ; which therefore supposes , Timothy now got to Rome , according to Paul's Order , 2 Tim. 4. 9. Ans. The Proper Answer hereunto is , that Paul's Writing unto Timothy , 2 Tim. 4. 9. to come to him at Rome , agrees every whit as well with Mine as Mr. O's Hypothesis . The Question then between us , is not to be decided hereby , but by other Circumstances , which are to be spoken of anon . And to cut off all unnecessary jangle , the same I reply to his third Argument , taken from Mark' s being with Paul in his first Bonds : The same Circumstances may agree to the same Persons at different times . 4. Mr. O. Phansies that Paul's sufferings mentioned , 2 Tim. 3. 11. which happen'd at Iconium , Lystra and Antioch , Twenty Years before the Apostle's Second Imprisonment at Rome , imply , that that Second Epistle was written sooner , than his second Imprisonment : for the Apostle would not ( 't is likely ) mention Events so long since past , when there were other later Sufferings of his , that were much fresher in his Memory . Ans. First , if there be any force in such kind of weak Reasonings as these , then I ask , supposing with Mr. O. this second Epistle written in the Apostle's first Bonds , why , did he not rather mention his latter Sufferings at Jerusalem , which Timothy ( being then in Asia according to Mr. O. ) knew little of , and were the the last that had happen'd unto the Apostle , except those inconsiderable ones at Rome ? But the plain account of this Passage is , that St. Paul is now animating Timothy to undergo Afflictions , as became a Minister of Jesus Christ : To this end the Apostle lays before him , his own Example , v. 10 , 11. and instances in his own Sufferings at Iconium , &c. But 't was indifferent which of his Sufferings . He offered unto Timothy's consideration : one as well as another , a former as well as a latter would set forth Paul's Faith , Long-suffering , Charity , Patience , and Demonstrate God's Goodness and Protection of such as endure Persecution for his name's sake : because God had delivered Paul out of them all . And might not Paul say all this unto Timothy in his second as well as in his first Imprisonment ? If Mr. O. has no better Arguments than such as these , to prove the second Epistle written in the Apostle's first Imprisonment , he had better keep 'em to himself : they betray the want of good Evidence , and the weakness of his Hypothesis , rather than Establish it . 5. Mr. O. advances another Argument , viz. " from Tychicus being at Rome in Paul's first Bonds carrying thence the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians : and ( says Mr. O. ) that second to Timothy Ch. 4. 12. speaks of Tychicus's Journey to Ephesus : therefore this second Epistle must be written about the same time , as that to the Ephesians was , sc. in his 〈◊〉 Bonds . Ans. But what absurdity is it to believe , and assert that Tychicus carry'd those Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians , from Paul a Prisoner at Rome the first time ? and then in the Apostles second Bonds , afterward to have once more been sent to Ephesus , as is exprest 2 Tim. 4. 12. As if Tychicus might not have been with Paul at Rome in both Imprisonments . These things were noted in T. N. but the Minister urges 'em afresh without pretending to reply unto the Solution , I there offered of this small Difficulty . Here let it be observed how Mr. 〈◊〉 . proves that Tychicus went along with Paul to Rome in his 〈◊〉 Bonds , viz. from Acts 20. 4. where he is reckoned among those that accompany'd Paul from Macedonia into Asia , and then carrying Letters from Rome to the 〈◊〉 and Colossians : This is plain beyond Contradiction , Tychicus certainly went with Paul to Rome , at the Apostles first Imprisonment . Mr. O. has demonstrated it . But is it not every whit as plain that Timothy also was one of those who accompany'd Paul from Macedonia into Asia , Act. 20. 4. and do we not find that he was with Paul at Rome , Philip 1. 1. Colos. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23 ? And does it not then follow according to Mr. O's own Argument ( when the Interest of his Cause is forgot or not concerned ) that Timothy went with Paul to Rome , at his first Imprisonment ? If this be a good proof of Tychicus going along with Paul to Rome , 't is as good for Timothy's . Thus all Mr. O's petty Arguments and Sophisms , for Paul's writing the second Epistle to Timothy , in his first Bonds are overthrown by himself . Great is Truth , and sometimes breaks forth , and shines through the thickest Mists of Prejudice and Prepossession . The Conceit then of Timothy's being left behind Paul in Asia , invented merely to support a Cause ( that of Paul's writing the second Epistle in his first Bonds ) is now out of Doors , and henceforth forever to be laid aside . 6. Mr. O. The second Epistle was written in his first Bonds , because it mentions his being delivered from his Confinement , which he was not delivered from in his second Bonds . In the second Epistle 4. 17. He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion , that all the Gentiles might hear the Gospel , that is , that he might go about , and Preach the Gospel to many Nations . Ans. Mr. O. has unworthily inverted the Order of the Words , and so drawn 'em to a wrong sense . Thus the Apostle writes — The Lord stood with me , and Strengthen'd me , that by me , the Preaching might be fully known , and that all the Gentiles might hear : and I was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion. The sense of which Words is plainly this , that Paul by some Special Assistance from God , so well pleaded his own , and the Cause of the Gospel at the Tribunal of Caesar ( where all the Gentiles , a great number of the Principal Courtiers , and others being Present ) heard him , That he escaped Condemnation at that time : He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion ; his deliverance was the Effect of the good management of this Cause or vindicating the Truth of the Gospel , before the Roman Gentiles . But as for the Gentiles in other Nations , hearing the Gospel it was not the effect of his Deliverance at this time as Mr. O. by misplacing the parts of the Text would have it understood . Besides , when 't is said , I was delivered , it is not said , from his Confinement , as if he had been immediately set at Liberty ( for then he would not have sent for Timothy ) but rather have gone to him according to his Intentions ( as is supposed by Mr. O. ) But because he sent for Timothy after the deliverance here spoken of it follows , that he was still a Prisoner , though he had for once escaped with Life . Lastly , if this was his Deliverance from his first Imprisonment , then he could not write to Timothy to come unto him : because Timothy was with him already , * That is before his Enlargement from his first Bonds . Philip. 1. 1. Colos. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23. Upon the whole Matter this Passage shews the Epistle was writ not in the Apostle's first , but second Bonds . 7. Mr. O's next proof taken from Luke , is of the same Nature with his 5th Argument speaking of Tychicus : The same Reply therefore , that I made to the 5th will serve here , 〈◊〉 mutandis . 8. Mr. O. Argues from the Apostle's Cloak left at Troas 2 Tim. 4. 13. which hap'ned ( says the Minister ) at his going to Jerusalem , just before his being sent Prisoner to Rome . This Cloak was a Roman Habit , which might have prejudiced the Jews against him : therefore he left it at Troas : but being arrived at Rome , he sent for his Cloak , his Roman Habit. Ans. Though some believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here mention'd , was Paul's Cloak , his Penula , a Latin word made into Greek , by the Transposition and Alteration of some Letters : Yet 't is but very uncertain whether they are in the right . For why may not Penula be made out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Penula ? Whatever it was , suppose a Roman Habit , which Paul had brought with him from Rome , after his Enlargement from his first Bonds , according to my Hypothesis , why might he not leave it at Troas , at that time that he sailed thence into Macedonia ? For soon after he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy ( as I contend ) wherein he shews that his Intentions were to return into 〈◊〉 parts once more , 1 Ep. 3. 14. which was the Reason of his leaving his Cloak there behind him , intending afterwards to call for it , but haply being prevented , and so making forward for Rome , when there be sent for his Cloak . This is a fair account of this Passage about the Apostle's Cloak , without straining it to a Sense which no body ever thought of before , and which has no Foundátion in Scripture . But after all this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here rendered Cloak is a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and never to be met with again , either in Scripture or in the Ancient Classical Greek Authors ; And therefore its signification is very uncertain : it may denote a Cloak , and it may denote any thing else , an Hat , ex . gr . or a Shirt : it may signify some sort of Writings , or Cover to carry Writings in , 〈◊〉 to this last , the best Criticks incline . E. in the Synopsis Criticorum , thinks it was a little Cheft , Box , or portable Cover to carry Books and papers in , grounding himself on the Syriac Translation ; where 't is rendered domus Scriptorum . Dr. Ham. gathers from Phavorinus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Parchments rolled up , and was the very same , which the Apostle 〈◊〉 calls the Parchments , as is imply'd in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Bring with thee the Parchments rolled up , and the Books which I left at Troas , but especially the former the Parchments ; fail not to bring 'em , Others understand thereby an Hebrew Volume of the Old Testament , deriving it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Liber or inward Rind of a Tree , on which the Ancients used to write , from whence they suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived . Lastly , I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the outward Cover of Books * . In this uncertainty about the signification of this Word , and the variety of Opinions concerning it , how is it possible to form any Argumenr thence ? Or of what force can the Reasoning be , which is grounded on it ? See more of this Word in Suicerus Lexic . 9. Mr. O. argues to this purpose , That such as were more severely dealt with , were wont to be bound with two Chains , Act. 12. 6. But Paul 2 Tim. 1. 16. was bound but with one ; that all agree Paul's first Imprisonment was more favourable than his second : therefore he must have written this second Epistle in his first Imprisonment ( which was most favourable ) because he was then bound but with one Chain , 2 Tim. 1. 16. Ans. Whether Peter was more severely dealt with than ordinary , cannot be determined , from Act. 12. 6. except we had an account of some other milder Treatment of him on some other Occasion . Besides , it may happen that one Chain may be as long , and as heavy as two other Chains . I have known one Rope as long as two other Ropes : and a Prisoner may be as roughly handled , and as securely preserv'd from escaping with one long Chain , as with two short ones . In the Apostle's first Imprisonment , which was indeed favourable , although St. Luke describes his sufferings in the singular , Act. 28. 20. even as St. Paul himself does , Eph. 6. 20. Yet elsewhere we have 'em exprest in the Plural , Philip. 1. 7. Insomuch as in my Bonds , v. 13. my Bonds in Christ. v. 14. By my Bonds , v. 16. To my Bonds . Colos. 4. 18. My Bonds , Philem. 10. My Bonds , and v. 13. In the Bonds of the Gospel . So that Paul in his first Imprisonment was ty'd with many Bonds or Chains : as also he was in his second ( as I reckon it ) 2 Tim. 2. 9. For which ( Gospel ) I suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto Bonds . The difference then between his first and second Imprisonment , was not as to the number of his Bonds and Chains , but other hardships which he endured in his latter Imprisonment . If any one will consider the difference , between his Imprisonment as 't is described in the Acts ; and again , as 't is very plainly set forth by several Intimations in the second Epistle to Timothy , whereof I spoke particularly in the T. N. He will be forced to confess , that that in the Acts was his first Imprisonment , and that other referred to , in the second Epistle to Timothy , to have been his latter Imprisonment , and that the singularity or plurality of his Bonds mentioned in both , will not decide this Controversy . Mr. O. Demas was with Paul at Rome , in his first Imprisonment , Colos. 4. 14. we read nothing of his being there in his second Imprisonment . Ans. There is a manifest difference between Paul's Imprisonment , described in the Acts , and in the second Epistle to Timothy , which clearly proves the second Epistle written in Paul's latter Imprisonment , ex . gr . In the first Demas was with him , and because there was then little or no Danger , Demas stuck close to him : but in the latter , when all turned away from him , Demas among the rest ( then also with the Apostle at Rome ) forsook him in the Extremity . This account is very Natural . Is it not possible , Yea probable that Demas was with him in both Imprisonments ? Besides 't is an unsufferable Impertinence to urge such kind of Arguments , as are reconcilable with both sides of the Question ; such is Demas's attendance upon Paul in his Bonds . But whereas he adds , that we read 〈◊〉 of Demas being with Paul at Rome in his second Imprisonment , 't is so absurd an Observation upon his Principles , that nothing could have been said more absurdly . For on his Supposition , that the second Epistle to Timothy , was written in Paul's first Imprisonment , where should we read in Scripture of Demas , being with Paul in his second Imprisonment , which on this Hypothesis is not mentioned any where in Scripture ? But because a second Imprisonment is on all hands acknowledg'd , any unprejudiced Person will own , that we have the Circumstances of it plainly enough intimated , in the second Epistle to Timothy , which cannot agree with his first Imprisonment , as I noted in T. N. There is a Passage , in this second Epistle to Timothy , which my Adversary confesses stands in his way : 't is this ch . 4. 6. I am now ready to be offered , and the time of my departure is at hand . I have fought the good fight , I have finished my Course , I have kept the Faith. Hencefore there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness . Every Parcel of this Period argues , that the Apostle had no hopes or expectation of being set at Liberty , and escaping the present Danger . I am now ready to be offered , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am now offered already , or as good as actually Sacrificed . When a thing in Futurition is exprest in the present Tense , it denotes the certainty of the Event . And the time of my departure is at hand . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is very near me , and has been a good while hovering over my Head. I have fought the good Fight : My work in this World is at an end , and the Fight is over . I have finished my Course : Nothing more remains for me to do , but to wait the time of my approaching Death . I have kept the Faith : I have persevered stedfastly in the Truth now to the very last . Hencesorth there is laid up for me a Crown , &c. Therefore nothing now remains but comforting my self with the hopes , and Expectations of the Future Reward . Hence we gather that this second Epistle was wrote in the Apostle's latter Imprisonment , which ended in his Martyrdom . Mr. O. Paul speaks not here of his approaching Martyrdom , but intimates that being now old and worn with Travels , and hard Labour , and now in Bonds , he could not last long . Ans. Paul , it must be confest , even in his first Imprisonment , stiles himself the Aged , Philem. v. 9. But let us enquire into his Age. At Stephen's Martyrdom , he was a Young Man ( I 'll suppose as Mr. O. has of Timothy ) about Twenty Five Years old , Act. 7. 58. and this was in the Thirty Fourth Year of Christ. In the Sixty Second Year of Christ , he was first Prisoner at Rome . So that at his writing the second Epistle to Timothy , which Mr. O. will have to be in his first Imprisonment ( as that to Philemon was ) the Apostle was but about Fifty Three or Fifty Four Years old . He was but in his viridi Senectute in his first , and Green old Age. It was not then his extream old Age , which put him in mind of his sudden dissolution now at hand , as it were in the course of Nature . Neither was it any decay of Health , and Strength occasioned by his Labours , and the hardships which he had met with . We read not that he ever was Sick or Weak , or under any disorder as to his bodily Health . That he continued vigorous , and healthful after his first Imprisonment must be acknowledged , when we remember that after his Release ( as is not denied by Mr. O. himself ) he went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Unto the utmost limits of the West , preaching the Gospel , which he could never have undertaken , had he been wasted with Pains and Travels . Nor did his Bonds in the first Imprisonment , intimate that his Death was then at hand . For he had all along great hopes of enlargement , as has been oft noted out of his Epistles . But it was a violent Death he then foresaw , and that he was to be offered up as a Sacrifice , by the shedding of his Bloud ( so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes ) , to be made a Martyr or Witness of Jesus Christ. Nothing is more plain than this , if we would lay aside our Prejudices . Mr. O. Objects , Philip. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and this was certainly in his first Bonds . Ans. But who sees not a vast difference ? In that to the Philippians , he puts the Case , If I be offered ; I joy and rejoice , and will undergo it Gladly : this is not an expectation , but a meer supposition of Death or Martyrdom , as is plain from verse 24 — But I trust in the Lord , that I also my self shall come shortly . So that Paul looked not for Death at this time : as he did at the Writing of the second to Timothy . Mr. O. Objects , Act. 21. 13. I am ready to die at Jerusalem . Ans. St. Paul did not here fore-see or expect to die at Jerusalem : but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am ready or prepared and resolved ( if it so please God ) to lay down my Life for the sake of Christ. Mr. O. Objects , 1 Cor. 4. 9. ch . 15. 31. second Epistle 4. 11. The first of these Passages shews only that God had counted the Apostles worthy to suffer Death for his names sake , and had appointed them unto it . But as to the time when , or place where 〈◊〉 not said : whether at Jerusalem or at Rome , whether in the first or in the second Imprisonment , whether when the Apostle was Fifty , or Sixty , or Seventy Years Old , cannot hence be gathered . As for Paul's dying daily , I suppose none will allow it as pertinently urged . Lastly , when the Apostle says , we are always delivered unto Death , he has an Eye in General unto the Hazards they were constantly exposed unto , but not to any particular designed time of his own Death . But here in 2 Tim. 4. 6. St. Paul speaks positively in the present Tense , without any Reserve or Limitation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am now already as it were offered , which is more than the Conditional phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if I be offered . Again it 's one thing to say , I am at the point to die , and another , I am prepared for it . It is one thing to be appointed at a distance unto Death , as all Men are , or unto Martyrdom as the Apostles were , and another 〈◊〉 say , I am even now ready to be offered . To Conclude Mr. O's Reasoning here is very lame and imperfect . Mr. O. Adduces those other passages following , 2 Tim. 4. 17 , 18. I was delivered , and the Lord shall deliver me , parallel to that , 2 Cor. 1. 10. Ans. 'T is true Paul was this once delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion : but it does not follow that he shall be again delivered : Yes says Mr. O. it follows — And the Lord shall deliver me . It is an Elegancy to apply a former word or expression unto a different matter . He had said , I was delivered from the Sentence of Death ; and then passes off quite to another thing , and says He — The Lord shall deliver me , From what ? From every evil work , from doing any thing in the present pressures , and dangers unworthy of a Christian or Apostle and thereby will preserve me to his everlasting Kingdom . Mr. O. Paul did not expect to die very suddenly , because he sent for Timothy to come to him before Winter . Ans. This is truly observed and very obvious , and therefore we do not affirm that Paul certainly expected to die , so very suddenly , but that he might send for 〈◊〉 . It sufficeth to say , that he expected not to be loosed from these Bonds , but by Martyrdom at last . That He judged at the writing of this Epistle , his Death might be deferred for some time , haply till Timothy came . Still Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hovered over him , and he plainly saw his Enemies , would first or last by one means or other take away his Life . Nor do we 〈◊〉 that Paul was now already under a Sentence of Death ; and that for the same reason , because he had sent for Timothy . We rather affirm that his deliverance , out of the Mouth of the Lion , was only his escaping the Sentence of Condemnation at that time : That he was remanded unto Prison , and reserved for another Trial , when ever it pleased the Emperor to appoint it . Or else to be Sacrificed unto the Fury of that Bloudy Prince , Nero , by a sudden and Arbitrary or extrajudicial Decree , as I rather believe . One great Argument with Mr. O. is , that St. Paul at his Farewel committed unto the Ephesian Elders , the Supreme Government of that Church , as the perpetual and unalterable Method of Government , is because , he knew he should never see there Faces more , Act. 20. 25. Or rather that , They should never see his Face any more . I offered at a small Criticism on the Explication of this Passage , but laid no stress on it . The Minister takes a great deal of pains in 〈◊〉 this : how well let others judge . I am not concerned , 〈◊〉 does my-Argument require me to Justify that Gloss. Only it may be worth the while to remember that though Paul says , They should not all see his Face any more ; Yet Timothy did according to Mr. O's own Hypothesis , and so did Trophimus the 〈◊〉 , who went with him to Jerusalem . Besides , 't is hard to believe that St. Paul should so peremptorily affert without exception , that not one of 'em should see his Face any more . But as I said , I insist not on this . Mr. O. who busies himself in 〈◊〉 what I made no account of would have better employ'd himself , if he had more solidly replied to what I laid most weight on , that is , that the Apostle's saying , I know was only Conjectural : Paul thought so ; but he was not absolutely assured of it . But Mr. O. is of Opinion that this is sufficient to his purpose , that Paul thought they should see his Face no more . That therefore he was not wanting in his Duty of settling the Government , but gave his final Orders on that Point , constituting the Elders , the Governours of that Church , because he had no hopes of seeing them any more . Ans. I have had occasion more than once in this Book to acquaint the Reader , that Paul did not now ( so far as we find in Scripture ) commit the Supreme Government unto the Ephesian Elders . That the 28. Verse in the 20 th of Acts reaches not that sense , as is before made out , and shall be once more before I conclude this Chapter . Mean while supposing he had delivered the Supreme Power into their hands , yet the Government might be altered , or perfected afterwards upon occasion by the same Divine Power , which first constituted it . But after all this , Mr. O. not content with this Argument of his , urges , That Paul doth not use to express himself to positively — I know , when he speaks Conjecturally . Ans. 1. In all Reason the Apostle ought to be his own Interpreter . And he tells the Ephesian Elders , Acts 20. 22. that he knew not the things that should be fall him there , ( at Jerusalem . ) How then could Paul say absolutely , and without any reserve or condition , that they should see his Face no more ? If Festus had sent Paul to Rome by Land , through Syria , and Asia , through Ephesus , and Troas , as he might , if he had pleased , and Paul knew not the Contrary , then the Ephesian Elders must have seen his Face once more . Ans. 2. I do undertake to produce an Instance of Paul's speaking as peremptorily or positively , as he does here in the 20 th of Acts , and yet Mr. O. shall and has confest it , spoken conjecturally or uncertainly , as of a future contingent . I send him then to Philip. 1. 25. The Apostle had said , that he desired to be disolved : but that to abide in the flesh was more necessary for them — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And having this confidence I know I shall abide and continue with you all . The Case here is this ( that I may accommodate my self to the ordinary , and less observant Reader ) Paul wrote this Epistle from Rome in his first Imprisonment , he tells the Philippians that he knew he should abide and continue with them , which implies his return unto the Eastern-Churches , and particularly into Macedonia , whereof Philippi was a principal City : and yet Mr. O. all along disputes , and denies the certainty of Paul's going back into the Eastern parts , though Paul assured the Philippians with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the same word which he used when he spake thus to the Ephesian Elders , I know that ye shall see my Face no more . If then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know , is but Conjectural in the Epistle to the Philippians ( as Mr. O. must grant ) why not in the 20 th of Acts ? Why then does Mr. O. deny Paul returned into the East , after his enlargement out of Prison , grounding himself on Acts 20. 25. If he was positive in the Philippians , and in the Acts , Mr. O. has lost one half of his Argument , and besides is obliged to reconcile Paul in the Acts , with Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians . But I , who allow both spoken conjecturally , that is , with a Possibility of failing , am no further concerned than to prove that de facto , he went back into the East , which ( I suppose ) is sufficiently demonstrated already . From what has been said in this Chapter , it is manifest that Mr. O. has in no tolerable degree vindicated the Old Chronology , which fixt upon the 20 th of the Acts , as the time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus , when the Apostle was going to Macedonia : neither has he produced any one good Argument , that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in the Apostle's first Imprisonment at Rome . Once more I observe if he had evinced both these ( as is also noted in T. N. ) it would not be a sufficient proof of the Presbyterian Parity . For I once again repeat it , that I did not avoid that older Opinion , which allows the second Epistle to Timothy , to have been written in Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome , consequently , that the first Epistle was written before the Apostle's taking leave of the Ephesian Elders , and by Consequence , that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus , when He was going to Macedonia , Acts 20. 1. I did not , I say , lay aside this old Hypothesis , as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition , but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be . I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter , in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus , constituted Timothy the Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus , yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that , his Farewel-Sermon . Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians , and that other to the Ephesians , and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy , takes no Notice of the Elders , neither does John , Peter , or Jude in their Epistles , nor lastly , does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop , Presbyter or Deacon : but shall we thence conclude , that those Churches had none of those Officers in them ? Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus , might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon , as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy , wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government , and one would think could not have forgot'em , when he was discoursing on such an Argument . Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself , whose other Epistles so often , and so fully remember Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , in that to the Romans , had not oneSyllable of any of 'em ; and yet he knew very well that Bishops ( as well as Presbyters ) were then established throughout the World , as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians . 'T is then no Proof that Timothy , was not even at that time the established Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus , because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon . These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered : and why , let any one judge . I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy . Now whether ( as Mr. O. pleads ) Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only , not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution , but Divine , by the Power of the Holy Ghost , v. 28. enough has been said of this already . Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those , who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge , that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost , having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge . But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there , or his Prelatical Power over them . For it is not inconsistent to say , that Timothy was appointed their Ruler ( Bishop ) ; and at the same time , that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy . We Presbyters of the Church of England , do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock , and that by Divine Authority too ; and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us , by the same Divine Authority . Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests , viz. That we are Messengers , Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord , to teach , premonish , feed , and provide for the Lord's Family , and to seek for Christ's Sheep , that are dispersed abroad . And at our Ordination , the first Question is — Do ye think in your Hearts , that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ ? What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders — Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God ? It follows not then from these words , that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole , intire ; and supreme Government of that Church . They might even then be , and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy ( for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence ) as we are to our Diocesan Bishops . If our Provincial Archbishop , should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate , exhort as ordinary Presbyters — To take heed to our selves , and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers , to feed the Church of God , not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all , shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester ? These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy , but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering . Before I conlude this Chapter , there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis , has suggested to me , proving , I am bold to say , demonstrating , that the second Epistle to Timothy , was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome . I will lay 'em as briefly , and as plainly as I can before the Reader , and so make an end . 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy , was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment ( as Mr. O. affirms ) it must then have been written either before , or at the same time , or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 . 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written , as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges . Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy , had sent Tychicus to Ephesus , ( Chap. 4. 12 ) . How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians , if he was already gone to Ephesus , before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians ? The second Epistle to Timothy , therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians . 2. Not at the same time , as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written . For Timothy , who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 , was sent for by Paul to Rome ( Chap. 4. 9. ) was even then with Paul at Rome , and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon ( Chap. 1. 1. ) Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy , could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time , as that to the Colossians was . 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written . For then Timothy , who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 , must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul , which 't is certain he did not , Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome , and once more gone back into Asia with him . In like manner 〈◊〉 , who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians , from Paul and Timothy , must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome , and thence been sent back unto Ephesus . 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment , which is not in the least Probable . 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase , as no rational Man can admit . Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy , was not written after that to the Colossians . If then it was written neither before , nor at the same time , nor after those to the Colossians , and Philemon , it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment , therefore it must needs have been written in his Second . 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas , as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy , and in the Epistle to the Colossians , and that other to Philemon , I shall represent it first according to Mr. O's Hypothesis , and secondly according to my own . According to Mr. O's Hypothesis , Demas had forsaken Paul , loving this present World , and was departed to Thessalonica , before the Apostle wrote that second Epistle to Timothy . Paul in the same second Epistle , after Demas had forsaken him , sent for Timothy from Asia unto Rome , ( v. 9. ) . Timothy being come to Rome , joined with Paul in the Epistles to the Colossians ( Chap. 1. 1. ) and to Philemon ( v. 1. ) and yet Demas was still with Paul at Rome , even though he had forsaken Paul , and he is by the Apostle and Timothy , mentioned with Honour in both Epistles , Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. after he had forsaken the Apostle . This is absurd enough . For here are several Inconsistences , yea , Contradictions in the Story . as 't is laid by Mr. O. 1. Demas had forsaken Paul ( 2 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 . ) and yet had not forsaken him , Colos. 4. 14. Philem. 24. 2. Demas had forsaken Paul , and was departed to Thessalonica , and yet was still with Paul at Rome . 3. Demas was at Thessalonica and at Rome , at the same time . 4. Demas at once was an Apostate , and yet a 〈◊〉 Labourer with Paul , 〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 10. Philem. 24. Mr. O. may try ( if he please ) whether he can surmouut these Difficulties . But according to my Hypothesis , Demas continued with Paul at Rome , all his first Imprisonment there being little or no danger : at this time Paul wrote the Epistles to the Colossians , and that to Philemon , and therein Commends Demas , there being then no reason to the Contrary . But in the Apostle's second Imprisonment , when the Christian Religion ( and the Apostle in particular ) was more violently persecuted , then the Apostle wrote the second Epistle to Timothy , and then Demas had deserted Paul , and withdrawn himself into Macedonia , as indeed all Men then forsook him , 2 Tim. 4. 16. Let the Reader judge , whether this is not a plain and coherent Account : but Mr. O's confused , false , and utterly irreconcilable with it self . In a word , here is an end ( I suppose ) unto that part of the Controversy , about the time of Paul's writing the second Epistle to Timothy . It must need be in his second Imprisonment . And thus Mr. O's main Bulwark , raised for the defence of the Old Chronology 〈◊〉 ; Paul's writing the first Epistle to Timothy , before his leaving Miletus , Act. 20. is demolished , and levelled with the Ground . THE APPENDIX . I Must not deny , as I once before acknowledged , that I borrowed my Hypothesis , about the time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus , from Bishop P. and that I believed him , to have been the first publick Author of it . I am very sure he cited none . And that passage out of the Rhemists produced by Mr. O. 't is confest , I was not aware of . And what then ? They stumbled upon , and had a suspicion of something , which they were not able to make out distinctly . But the Bishop of Chester has done it , with the approbation of the most Learned Men , except such as are led aside with the 〈◊〉 of Interest , and have espoused a cause which will not allow it . And yet I hope I may say without Breach of modesty , that I did add some further proofs and Confirmations of this NewChronology ; though they 〈◊〉 absolutely necessary , those of Bishop Pearson's being sufficient without 'em , as I freely own . Mr O. is not mistaken when he say , Miracles are grown very common in this last Age. But he has not proved his Proposition by a proper Argument . He should have alledged those Miracles of this Age , who cast out the Devil at Surey : and that Miracle of this Age , who undertook the Defence of the pretended Exorcists , and yet acknowledged the Imposture at the same time . It is indeed a surprizing Miracle that the Devil should be cast out , where he never entered : and much more , that two Confident Ministers should assume to themselves the Glory of Dispossessing Dicky , when 't is well know that several other good Men pray'd for that unhappy Wretch . If Mr. O's displeased , that I called Bishop Pearson the Miracle of his time , I cannot help it : but would be glad he would shew me his equal from among the Dissenters . Of all others , I would advise him not to instance in that great Man Mr. Baxter , I cannot believe his own Testimony of himself sc. That he and 〈◊〉 Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages . All the World knows Mr. Baxter , did not understand Latin very well . Haply he understood English : and that 's all I verily believe he was Master off . But this Boast of his , puts me in Mind of a certain Bishop's Chaplain , Who told his Lord , that they two had been during the Civil Wars , in all the Prisons in England . The Bishop Modestly reply'd ( being unwilling to load his Enemies with an untruth ) I was never in more than one ( and there indeed he had been near upon twenty Years ) Ay but ( the Chaplain answered ) I have been in all the rest . Thus perhaps Mr. Baxter , and his Amanuensis understood Ninteen Languages : Mr. Baxter understood English , and his Scribe the remaining Eighteen , and here we have two other Miracles of this Age. A Man of no Learning , making as great a Figure , at least Noise , as any other even in this Learned Age : And his Amanuensis who understood Eighteen Languages , much more than Solomon did , as I believe , or any Man will ever do again . But the greatest Miracle of all is that Mr. Baxter and his Scribe understood Ninteen Languages , yet no use is made of any of 'em to any purpose , except the English , in all the Voluminous works of that Great Man. Mr. O. informs us , that St. Paul had Preached the Gospel in 〈◊〉 at that time , when being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he wrote his Epistle to the Romans . I will convict him of a great mistake ( to say no worse ) by laying the Testimony before the Reader — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So that from Jerusalem , and round about unto Illyricum , I have fully 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Christ. Not in but unto Illyricum , which spoils the Ministers Argument in that place . Concerning Paul's Preaching the Gospel in Spain and the Western parts of Europe , I chanced to express my self thus — All the 〈◊〉 say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went to Spain , and to the remotest parts of the West , &c. And at this he takes occasion to reproach me in general for my crude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because I said All , &c. 〈◊〉 , I must needs own that every Father has not affirmed this . But I have this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self , that 't is ordinary to express a Notion thus Universally , 〈◊〉 nevertheless there are many restrictions , and exceptions unto the Universal 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. O. with some Instances out of Scripture , Rom. 5. 18. By the Righteousness of one , the free Gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life . John 12. 32. And I , if I be lifted up from the Earth , will draw all Men unto me . Titus 2. 11. For the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation , 〈◊〉 appeared unto all Men. Mr. O. I do suppose in the explanation of these , and many other the like Passages in Scripture , thinks himself oblig'd to qualify them with some Limitations . To speak of that only which was last named . I ask Mr. O. Whether the Grace of God had then ( when Paul wrote to Titus ) appeared to all Men ? Yea , had it then appeared to one Thousandth part of Mankind ? Or if he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , was it saving Grace unto all Men without exception ? Or to the greatest Number of Men ? Or only , to some few ? Let Mr. O. deal with me , as he is forced to deal with the Holy Scripture , and then an end will soon be put unto this squabble . I did not then intend to be understood so strictly , as if not one individual Father had omitted to record that piece of History concerning Paul : No nor that the Major part of 'em had mentioned it . But that a great many of the best reputed among 'em , who had occasion to speak of this matter have attested it . Some Instances I will here annex out of the late Learned Bishop of Worcester . The first is that of Eusebius , that some ( Apostles ) passed over the Ocean to those which are called the British Islands : And as the Bishop argues , of all others , Paul was most likely , seeing we read of him alone in Scripture , designing to go Westward into Spain . Rom. 15. 28. Theodoret , That St. Paul brought Salvation to the Islands that lie in the Ocean , Having just before mentioned Spain . Jerom , That Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another , imitating the motion of the Sun of Righteousness ; of whom t is said , His going forth , &c. And that Jerom meant our Western Ocean cannot be doubted : for he elsewhere says , That St. Paul after his Imprisonment Preached the Gospel in the Western Parts . Clemens Romanus , That St. Paul Preached Righteousness through the whole World , and in so doing , went to the utmost bounds of the West . Venantius Fortunatus describes Paul's labours thus . Transit ad Oceanum , vel qua facit insula Portum Quasque Britannus-habet terras , quasque ultima 〈◊〉 . Hereunto I add , an Authority of my own Collection , 't is of Cyril , who writes thus — No one doubts but that St. Peter , and Paul himself Preached Jesus Christ unto the Western Parts , which they went unto . I shall conclude this with the Words of the Learned Mr. Baxter , who Learnedly expresseth himself thus , in that Learned Book of his intitul'd Methodus 〈◊〉 , and in one of the Ninteen Languages , which he , and his Amanuensis understood , Et reverd 〈◊〉 scripta 〈◊〉 & seipsa , & me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bac 〈◊〉 ; ego me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non possum justificare . I proceed now to Mr. O's Challenging me with making Paul to provide the Remedy ( of Schism ) about 14 Years after the Disease ; which he reckons to be absurd . Ans. I read of a certain Man , Jo. 5. 5. Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tears , and that Jesus Christ knew , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been now a long time in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never been made whole all that while . God's time for every thing is the best , at least we ought to wait his leasure , and not prescribe how soon he shall heal our Infirmities , of what kind soever they be . But let us examine these Fourteen Years , which he Challengeth me with . Dr. Lightfoot perhaps computes the time so as will reach Fourteen Years : but he 's none of my Oracle . I am of Opinion , he has scarce spoken one true word , in matters relating unto this Controversy , and this happen'd by the first false step he made , about the time of Paul's beseeching 〈◊〉 , &c. But I can reduce these Fourteen Years into Seven , all which time Paul had not an opportunity of applying the Remedy ; and thus I do it . With Bishop Pearson , I reckon the Corinthian Schism to have happen'd in the Year of Christ 57. A Year he tarry'd in Macedonia and Achaia , about two Years I allow for his stay at Jerusalem , and Voyage to Rome . He remained two Years a Prisonér there , and two Years may be allotted for his Return into the East , visiting and settling the Government of those Churches ; in all about Seven , which at least in the Gross agree with Bishop Pearson's Chronology . But whereas Mr. O. makes me say , the first 〈◊〉 to Timothy was writ Anno 69. It is a Palpable Mistake ( to say no 〈◊〉 . ) He hereby imputes unto me at least Four or five Years more than I ever reckon'd upon . Well! but how came Paul to defer changing the Government , so long as Seven or Eight Years ? This doubtless Mr. O. will think strange , and not to be granted . Ans. The Reason is obvious from the History of Paul. The Corinthian Schism broke out : Paul endeavour'd to heal it by Argument , and proceeded no further with them at that time . He therefore receives their Contributions , hastes to Judea , is there Imprisoned , sent to Rome , and there held in Durance two Years . After he returns into the East : by this time the like Schism had burst out at Ephesus , and haply in other Churches : and now was the time , and the first fair opportunity he had to alter or perfect the Government , and to place Timothy , in his stead over the Church of Ephesus , and others over the rest . Mr. O. All this is confidently affirmed after the Rectors usual way . Ans. It is so natural to Mr. O. to Challenge me with Confidence , that he cannot forbear even when I least deserve it . I am therefore obliged for once , to set the Saddle on the right Horse : for I 'll not resemble him to blind Bayard , as he very rudely doth me . In that Paragraph , to which Mr. O. refers , in the T. N. I gave a Summary of Paul's Travels in the East , after his Enlargement from his first Imprisonment at Rome : wherein I am far from confidently affirming , all his particular movements from place to place , tho' I guess at them . I over and over , and yet more than once over again delivered my Opinion with so much Precaution , that no Man of the least Modesty would have Tax'd me with Confidence on that score . If any one is at leisure to inform himself in the Truth , let him but turn to the 87th page of T. N. and he 'll presently see what care I took , and what modesty I us'd in proposing my own Thoughts , what frequent Interruptions and Parentheses I all along inserted , varying and repeating them meerly , that I might not seem too positive in such minute Circumstances . Ex. gr . As may reasonably be supposed . Again , 't is likely . And again , This may be allow'd . And once more , very probably . Then I conclude Hitherto we have built upon Conjecture . Let then any Man of sense Judge , whether Mr. O. deserves not once more to be Corrected 〈◊〉 a more than Ordinary sharpness . CHAP. V. Being an Answer to Mr. O's 5 th Chap. THIS Chapter is intirely spent about Evangelists . In T. N. I suppos'd with my 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 unto some certain place to Preach the Word . But Philip had no extraordinary call unto the office of an Evangelist that I can meet with , though he had Extraordinary Gifts in Preaching the Gospel . For any thing I read Philip was yet but a Deacon . 'T is then reasonable to believe that he was afterward appointed the Resident 〈◊〉 of Caesarea . Mr. O. observes very truly , and I freely acknowledge that I have no Testimony at hand , out of the Father's proving Philip to have been the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea . But whereas the Minister pretends that this Philip died at Hierapolis , and by consequence was not the fixt Evangelist of Caesarea , citing for this Eusebius , E. H. l. 3. I am forc'd again to expose his unfaithful representing Authors , making 'em write what is not to be found in them . The Historian in l. 3. c. 31. first speaks of Philip the Apostle — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One of the twelve , who died at Hierapolis . But he affirms it not of Philip the Deacon , or Evangelist . To the same purpose 〈◊〉 — Philippus Apostolus , in Phrygia praedicat Evangelium Domini Jesu . Sepelitur Hierapoli cum 〈◊〉 bonorifice . 'T is true Euseb. at the latter end of that Chapter , speaks also of Philip , the Evangelist and his Daughters ( says he ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Who lived with their Father Philip in Caesarea . But not a Syllable of Hierapolis . Nay , here is a tolerable proof that Eusebius thought Philip lived , and resided in 〈◊〉 . Here then we have another Instance of Mr. O's false dealing with Authors . Mr. O. still contends that Timothy and Titus , were not resident ( Bishops ) Evangelists , the Apostle calling 'em both away , Tit. 3. 12. To the Apostle Titus came at Nicopolis , and after was sent by Paul to 〈◊〉 , 2 Tim 4. 20. and we hear no further of him . It cannot be made appear that ever he returned more to Crete . Ans. From Scripture it cannot , because the Holy History there ends , sc. at Titus going into Dalmatia . But the Ecclesiastical History , which Mr. O. rightly appeals to in the like cases , tells us , that Titus died in Crete . What would any Man expect more ? The Question is , whether Eusebius asserts the 〈◊〉 to have been Resident , or unfixt Ministers in l. 3. c. 37 , 38 , 39. Mr. O. maintains this latter Opinion , 〈◊〉 testifying — That they Preach'd Christ to Infidels , Ordained Pastors , and passed into other Countries and Nations : That they went far 〈◊〉 their own Houses , did the work of Evangelists , and diligently Preached Christ to such as had not yet heard the Word of Faith , delivered to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels , Ordained other Pastors , and went into other Countries and Nations . Ans. True , all this Eusebius Witnesseth : but it proves not Mr. O's Point . This many Evangelists did for some time , but were afterwards fixt in some certain place to govern particular Churches , as appears from the Examples , Eusebius produces , sc. 〈◊〉 , Clemens Romanus , Polycarp and Papias , all which ( he assures us ) were the constant residing Bishops of particular Churches ( Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. ) though they had been sometime before unfixt Evangelists , attending the Apostles uncertain Orders , as the necessities of Religion occasionally required . And this is what I insisted on in T. N. that Evangelists were both fixt and unfixt , according as the Apostles Ordered them , that therefore fixedness , or unfixedness is not a proper Note , nor distinguishing Character of an Evangelist ; he may be one , or the other , or both at different times , as is manifest from Eusebius . Though I delivered my self in T. N. to this effect , Mr. O. takes no notice of it , but urges again the old Argument , avoiding what I observed out of Eusebius , in proof that his unfixt Evangelists , became afterwards the fixt Bishops of Churches . It remains then that Evangelists , many of 'em were according to Eusebius , fixt Ministers , which is all I am concerned for ; and by Consequence so might Timothy and Titus be . Another Controversy is moved about St. Mark , whether he being an Evangelist was the settled Governour of the Church of Alexandria . Ans. I do readily grant , that Mark was a great while an unsettled Minister , waiting on the Apostle Peter , and by him dispatched up and down , upon the Service of the Church , though afterward he went , or was sent unto Alexandria , where he planted a Church , and Govern'd it . After whom Annianus undertook the Administration , and is by Eusebius called the first Bishop thereof : which implies , that Mark was the Evangelist of it , the Administrator of that Church , having not as yet perhaps received the Title of Bishop as particularly belonging to him . But Mr. O. shakes me off by objecting — I may as well make Peter a Resident Apostle , because Eusebius saith , that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome . Ans. Supposing Peter was there , so long as 't is reported of him , I must profess I think he was the Resident Apostle of Rome , for there are Men of Learning and Observation , who will tell Mr. O. that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome ; that Apostles were wont to have the special care and oversight over some particular Church or Churches , besides their general Power , which extended unto all Places . Of Peter , Jerom testifies — ibique ( Romae ) viginti quinque annos Cathedram Sacerdotalem tenuit ( Petrus ) : And I hope this Father is of some credit , and in esteem with the Minister . They will tell him , that the removing from place to place , and from one City or Country to another , was not of the Essence of an Apostle : that they might , if they thought fit , remove , or else continue and fix . That if an Apostle upon some Emergent Occasion 〈◊〉 to another place , this proves not that he was not before his removal , the settled Minister of the former Church ; no more than when a Non-con Minister leaves his former Congregation , and running into a remote Country adheres to a new one . Will Mr. O. in this case deny that he was ever the settled Minister of the former ? They will tell him , that an Apostle when he removed , did still hold ( even in his Absence ) the Government of the Church which he left , until he thought fit to fix his Successour , or was by Death prevented taking any further care of it . There want not Examples of this kind . Thus 't is believed , Euodius succeeded Peter at Antioch , in the Apostles Life time , and Linus at Rome after his Death . And by the same Reason it 's Probable that Annianus succeeded Mark , tho' not with the same Title and Character . But Mr. O. has St. Chrysostom on his side — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Who went not about every where but ( only ) " Preached the Gospel , as Priscilla and Aquila , &c. He grants that the Evangelists did not go about Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did : but yet they Travell'd up and down into divers places , as the Apostles appointed them , distinguishing forsooth , between every where , which belong'd to Apostles , and divers places , which was proper to Evangelists . Ans. I don't find that Chrysostom speaks one Word here of Evangelists , as if they Travell'd into divers places , though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where , as Mr. O. Glosses upon the passage . The Instance of Priscilla and Aquila , will not evince this . For though we read of some removals of these two Persons , yet it was not in Order to Preach the Gospel , but on some other Account . Their first movement was from Rome to Corinth 〈◊〉 being by the Emperors Edict Banished thence . This then was not moving up and down into divers places , by the Apostles Direction , to Preach the Gospel : but in Obedience to the Civil Magistrates , and for their own security . The other motion was in Company with Paul from Corinth to Ephesus , where Paul proceeding in his Journey towards Jerusalem , left Aquila and Priscilla , Act. 18. 19 , 21. Whereas then Mr. O. says , that Aquila and Priscilla , removed from Corinth to Ephesus , doubtless by Paul ' s appointment , as other Evangelists did , I see no such thing in the Text. I rather think it was because they were all of the same Craft or Trade , Tent-Makers , v. 3. and as we shall see anon , not such Evangelists as Mr. O. and I am now disputing about . Mr. O. The Apostles went up and down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where , whither the Spirit Guided them , and at their own pleasure : but Evangelists not every where at their own pleasure , but up and down as the Apostles appointed . And this forsooth , must be Chrysostom's Meaning , that Evangelists did not go up and down every where as they pleased : but that 't is imply'd they Travell'd whithersoever the Apostles were pleased to direct them . Ans. There is no Substance at all in this slight Gloss. For the Apostles themselves strictly speaking , did not go up and down at their own pleasure , every where , but were under as great restraint , and determination as the Evangelists were . As the Evangelists were under the Conduct and Command of the Apostles , so were the Apostles under the Conduct and Determination of the Spirit , as Mr. O. confesses . The Apostles then travell'd not up and down at their own pleasure , no more than the Evangelists did : and the Evangelists went up and down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and into as many Cities , and Nations as the Apostles did , and perhaps more . But to pass over abundance of Trivial Observations made by the Minister , I will here endeavour to explain the meaning of this dark Passage of St. Chrysostom , which I suspect Mr. O. either does not , or will not understand , or has not duly considered . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In which Words his meaning is ( as I conceive ) that there were a sort of Evangelists , who went not up and down to Preach the Gospel Publickly , but only taught and instructed some People that came to them , privately at home , and such were Priscilla and Aquila , so we read of 'em , Acts 18. 26. Aquila and Priscilla , took Apollos unto them , and Expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly . Unto this passage , I am apt to believe Chrysostom alludes . For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , imports their not going up and down to preach Publickly , will be easily granted me , I hope : and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies private instructing , may be inferr'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : In which sense 't is taken , Mat. 18. 15. Tell him his fault between him , and thee alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chapter 14. 23. When he had sent the Multitude away , he went up into the Mountain apart ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately ) to pray : And when the Evening was come , he was there alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; or private by himself : see Luke 9. 18. He was praying alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Thus Aquila and Priscilla instructed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privately , and alone , not in publick Assemblies , or in the Face of the Church ; not every where , but in private , and at home . If this be the Sense of St. Chrysostom , the place nothing belongs to the Controversy between Mr. O. and me . St. Chrysostom goes on , and having in the fourth and last Place named Pastors and Teachers , he puts the Question to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; are Pastors and Teachers less ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Yes , he answers they are less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Less than those , who travel abroad and preach publickly , as being invested with the Evangelical Office : But not less than Aquila and Priscilla , who were only private Evangelists . Thus far St. Chrysostom has informed us of two sorts of Evangelists . 1. The private , who went not up and down to Propagate the Gospel in Publick , but at home only and privately . 2. Such as did travel up and down , and were publick Evangelists . Here there ought to be a full Point . Then he proceeds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The meaning whereof is more fully — There are Evangelists , who reside , and continue in one place , as Timothy and Titus . He had spoken before of private Evangelists , viz. Such as Aquila and Priscilla , and of Publick Evangelists , who travelled abroad and preached the Gospel , and now Thirdly , he mentions another sort of Evangelists , who were fixt and resided in a certain place as Timothy , and Titus . Which how far it favours Mr. O's . Opinion I leave to the Judgment of the Reader . If any one else offers me a better explication of this obscure passage in Chrysostom , I shall thankfully embrace it . In the mean time , I believe , it makes nothing for my Adversary , nor does it in the least distress me . Yea , it agrees with my notion and Eusebius , as I have Expounded him , and I presume agreeably to his meaning . St. Chrysostom , Lastly , mentions a fourth sort of Evangelists , sc. who wrote the Gospels , but they come not under the present Subject . Lastly , Mr. O. pleads that Chrysostom , doth not 〈◊〉 Timothy and Titus , among Evangelists , but among Pastors and Teachers . Ans. How then is Chrysostom of Mr. O's side , as he boasted before ? How will he thence prove that Evangelists travelled up and down as Timothy and Titus did ? And what becomes of Mr. O's constant affirming , they were Evangelists , and extraordinary Officers ? But if my Exposition holds good , as I hope it will , then Timothy and Titus , are reckon'd among fixt Evangelists , and not among Pastors and Teachers . Besides , I am not concerned among whom Chrysostom reckons 'em : they were fixt according to Chrysostom , and the sole and the Supreme Power was committed to 'em by Paul , as is plain in the Epistles . Whatever then their Title was , they were the settled Rulers of those Churches . Finally Mr. O. cites Eusebius for saying , It was only reported , that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus , but that there was no certainty , who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches , &c. for which he 〈◊〉 , Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 4. Ans. If Eusebius had written to this purpose , the Words however imply that some single Persons succeeded the Apostles , though it was not known of a certainty who they were , nor what their Names were . But setting aside this , the Principal thing here to be remark'd , is , that Mr. O. according to his usual Custom , has misrepresented Eusebius . The Historians Words are as follows . How many , and who of the true Followers ( of the Apostles ) were reckoned sufficient to feed the Churches founded by them it is not easy to say , Those only excepted which any one may gather out of Paul ' s Epistles . For this ( Paul ) had innumerable Fellow Labourers and ( as he calls 'em ) Fellow-Soldiers , very many of whom were by him thought worthy of immortal Fame , he having in his Epistles given an everlasting Testimony of them , and Luke also in the Acts reckoning them by their Names . Among these Timothy ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) is reported to have receiv'd the Episcopacy of the Ephesian Diocess , even as Titus also of the Churches in Crete . But Mr. O. craftily transposes the Historians Words . He begins at the latter end — It was ( says he ) only reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus . Then he adds , from the beginning of this long Period ; That there was no certainty who succeeded the Apostles , &c. As if it were but a Report , and not a certainty , that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of their respective Churches . Whereas Eusebius first says , 't was uncertain how many , and who governed the Churches , that vast number of 〈◊〉 planted by the Apostles : only he excepts those mentioned by name in the Acts , and Paul's Epistles , who certainly ruled the Churches planted by the Apostles : and among them ( says he ) 't is reported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : where is this reported ? Why in St. Paul's Epistles , 't is Witnessed , that Timothy received the Bishoprick of Ephesns , and Titus of Crete . And I hope the Testimony drawn from the Historical part of the Apostles Epistles , is not an uncertain Report . With the help of that common distinction , between Ordinary and Extraordinary Church-Officers , the Dissenters 〈◊〉 off , whatever is brought against them out of Scripture . They will tell you that the Apostles , and the Evangelists were Extraordinary Officers , and cannot be drawn into Consequence , nor made a President for Bishops , these being but Ordinary Church-Officers . Mr. O. I do believe , serves himself of this subterfuge , near an hundred times in this Defence of his , and the Plea. My design then here is to examine this Distinction , that this short Chapter may rise to some degree of Proportion with the rest . The Question then is , what is an extraordinary-Officer : And my Answer is , 't is of two kinds . 1. An Extraordinary Officer properly speaking is one , whose very Office is Extraordinary and Temporary . Such were the Dictators among the Romans , so long as that People preserv'd their Liberty . These Dictators were Created upon some occasion of extream danger threatning the Common-Wealth , which being over , there was an end of the Officer , and Office both . The Dictator returned back to the Plough , and the Consuls again reassumed the Administration of the publick Affairs . Of this kind is the High-Steward in England , who is constituted the chief Manager at the Coronation of the King , or Trial of a Peer . But so soon as these Solemnities are over , there 's an end of the High-Steward . He breaks his Staff , the Ensign of his Honour and Office , and becomes a private Man , as he was before . Such I reckon Prophets in the Church to have been , God raising them up by an extraordinary Commission for the necessary Service of Religion : but it was not necessary , that a Prophet should have a Successor , or that the Office of a Prophet should be continued : For in the Jewish Church Prophets ceas'd , as well as in the Christian , which every one knows and acknowledges . 2. An Extraordinary Officer is one , whose Office generally speaking , at least several parts of his Office are Ordinary , necessary and of perpetual use : But who is endued with many Singular , Personal , and extraordinary qualifications , and advantages for the Discharge of his Office. Such was Aaron the High-Priest of the Jews . Such were the Seventy taken in by Moses , to bear with him part of the burden of the Government . Such were the Apostles , and Evangelists , the Pastors and Teachers ( many of 'em ) in the Apostles days as I make account , and am now about to explain . The Ordinary necessary , and permanent parts of the Apostolical , and Evangelistical Offices were Preaching the Word , Administring the Sacraments , Ordaining Elders and managing the Government , and Discipline of the Church . With respect hereunto the Apostles , and Evangelists were Ordinary Church Officers ; Though having received from God , many extraordinary personal Gifts enabling them to discharge their Office more effectually ; on which Account they may be called extraordinary Officers also . For so we are wont to call even Persons of very Eminent Natural Parts , and mighty Improvements in knowledge , extraordinary Men : Much more then those , who receive their divine Abilities immediately from God. But still for all that , their Office was but Ordinary , and it was necessary , and God appointed that there should be a Succession unto the Ordinary Apostolical , and Evangelistical Offices , ( though he did not continue the extraordinary Gifts . So it appears from those Words of our Lord — And lo , I am with you alway , to the end of the World. [ Matt. 28. 20. This promise of Christ cannot be thought to belong to the Apostles personally : for they were mortal , how then could Jesus Christ be with them alway , and to the end of the World ? Nor is the Promise to be understood of extraordinary Gifts and Assistances , such as were given to the Apostles and Evangelists : For we know that those ceased in the Church , in an Age or two . It remains therefore , that in the fore-mentioned Passage , Christ promised to be with his Church alway unto the end of the World , in the Ordinary work of the Ministery , Preaching the Word , Discipling Nations , Administring the Sacrament , exercising Discipline , and Governing the Church . And from hence it follows , that they in whose hands is lodged the Power of Preaching the Word , and Administring the Sacraments , of Ordaining , and Governing the Church at this day , are Successors unto the Apostles and Evangelists , and invested with the same Powers , that the Apostles and Evangelists were , though not with such Extraordinary Gifts ; and by Consequence are the same Species of Church-Officers . ex . gr . Was not Caiaphas , as truly the High-Priest as Aaron , and the Sanhedrim in the Apostles days , the same that it was in Moses's ? only excepting the Eminent Gifts , which were bestowed on the one , and not on the other . I conclude then , that the Apostolical and Evangelistical Offices , were ( if we will speak exactly ) Ordinary ; tho' the Apostles and Evangelists Abilities were Extraordinary . And that the Apostles and Evangelists had , and to this day have , and will , and ought to have unto the end of the World , Successors in all the Ordinary parts of their Office. But it will be Objected , if the Apostolical , or Evangelistical Office was succeeded to , why was the name of the Office altered ? The discontinuance of the Title seems to argue the discontinuance of the Office. Ans. 1. It is held not without Reason , that the name Apostle descended at least upon their next , and immediate Successors , which some call Secondary Apostles , the Inseriour Ministers being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters . But in a little time the Apostles Successor , laid aside that Title of Apostle , out of modesty contenting themselves with that of Bishop , and the inferiour Ministers with that of Presbyter . To this purpose Theodoret , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . There is evidence sufficient in the Scripture of these Secondary Apostles , such perhaps was James the Just , and 〈◊〉 the Apostle of the Philippians . Titus , and others are called Apostles , 2 Cor. 8. 23. Therefore it may be further observed , that the Ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 'em indifferently , both Apostles and Bishops * , as may be seen in Jerom , 〈◊〉 and Salvian , as Mr. B. informs me . It may not here be passed over , that in after Ages , the Learned Writers often called the Apostles themselves by the Name of Bishop † , as may be seen in in Cyprian and Hilary : and in Eusebius , Peter is reckoned the Bishop of Rome , in conformity to the Language of their own time , when Bishop signify'd the Supreme Officer of a Church . This Observation shews clearly that the Apostolical , and the Episcopal Office is the same in reality . But I answer , 2. That the changing of the Title of the Office cannot import the ceasing of the Office. Caesar was Emperor by the Title of Perpetual Dictator , Augustus his Successor by that of Caesar : and the following Emperors by those of Caesar and Augustus , ( though Caesar at length was appropriated to one as yet only designed , and named the Emperor's Successor ) : whatever were their Titles , they were all Emperors . But to come nearer home , and to Instance in a Matter more directly to our purpose . At the Reformation in Scoltand , the Prelatical Rulers of the Churches were stiled Superintendents ; yet the Office of Bishop was not therefore changed , because the Title was . The Superintendents had the same Power to inspect the Churches in their own Districts , as the Bishops had . To conclude , the change of the name Apostle into Bishop , is no prejudice against the Episcopal Power , being the same as the Apostolical was , and succeeding into its place . It will again be Objected , that since Ordinary Presbyters are confest on all hands , to succeed the Apostles in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments , why not then in the other parts of the Apostolical Office , sc. the Ordaining and Governing Power ? Ans. The Solution of this Difficulty ( such as it is ) depends upon Matter of Fact , sc. how God was pleased by the Apostles to determine this Point . This is not the place to dispute the Question , whether the Apostles convey'd their whole Power and Office unto every , or to all Presbyters ; it has , I am in hopes , been cleared in the Negative , both in these and my former Papers : but to the Objection I reply , that when an Office is attended with Variety of Work , it does not follow of necessity , that he who succeeds in one part of the Office , must be reckoned to succeed in all . It cannot be doubted , but the Apostles had it in their Power to divide , and put the several parts of their Office into several hands : and we have an Instance that they did so . They made seven Deacons unto whom they committed the care of the poor , and distribution of the publick Alms , which was before in the Apostles themselves . But then no one will say , that because the Apostles conferred upon these Seven one part of their Office , that therefore they must be understood to have committed to 'em all the rest , sc. the Powers of Ordination , of Government , and of Discipline . By parity of Reason , though Presbyters succeeded the Apostles , and were by them Ordained unto that part of the Apostolical Office , viz. Ministring in the Word and Sacraments , it will not follow , that they also received the whole Apostolical Power , that of Ordination , Government , and Discipline . 'T is further Objected , That the Apostolical Power extended it self every where , the Evangelistical reached to divers places and Countries , but it cannot be pretended that the Episcopal Power , and Jurisdiction is so large , and as it were unlimited . 'T is rather confined unto a certain Compass or District , as we plainly see ; for which reason the Bishops are not the Apostles , nor the Evangelists Successors . Ans. 'T is no hard matter to get over this small Rub. This unlimited Power of the Apostles , may be reckoned among their Extraordinary , and personal Privileges , and so does us no prejudice . The Office may be the same , though the extent of Power may be more in one than in another . The Bishop of Eugubium , was as truly a Bishop , as the Pope of Rome . And Ptolemy was as really , and to all intents and purposes , King of Aegypt , as Alexander had been of that , and many other vast Kingdoms and Provinces : and as he was really a King , so he was really Alexander's Successor also . For who will say , that William 〈◊〉 , was not Will. the Conqueror's Successor , because he succeeded him not in the Dukedom of Normandy , as well as the Kingdom of England ? We see by these Examples , that one may have several Successors , into several parts of their Jurisdiction . How large soever the Diocess of the Apostles or Evangelists was , yet the Bishops may be their Successors , unto some parts of their Jurisdiction . Among the Romans , they who inherited any part of the Decedent's Estate ( were they few , or were they many ) were all called Haeredes , and distinguished according to the Proportion allotted them . Hence we read of Haeredes ex deunce , ex quadrante , ex semuncia , ex semisse ; as well as Haeres ex asse , who inherited all . But what if after all this , every Bishops Power extends it self through the whole World , being not in its own nature limited and fixt to any one single District ? Some have thought so , and upon good ground too . After many other Reasons , and Evidences of the Universal Power of Bishops given by Mr. B. p. 56. It seems to 〈◊〉 a strong Argument for it , that Bishops in Synods have ever exercised their Power in other Diocesses , as well as in their own . I do not see by what Authority Bishops in Councils could take upon 'em , to correct the Miscarriages of particular Bishops within their own Diocesses , to remove the Heretical , or Schismatical , to restore the unjustly deprived , to confirm the Customs and Polity of single Churches , except on this one Principle , That every Bishop is a Bishop of the Church Universal , and has an inherent Power over all the World , and every where . 'T is true , it must at the same time be 〈◊〉 , that for Peace and Order's sake , and to the end the Churches may be certainly taken care of , Bishops are limited to some particular Diocess , as to the constant and Ordinary Administration of Church Affairs ; and one Bishop is not suffered to interlope in anothers District without necessity : Nevertheless on extraordinary Occasions , such as Apostacy , Heresy , and Schism , the other Bishops made use of their general Power , to rectify Disorders even in those Churches , where Ordinarily they had no Jurisdiction . Every Bishop then is a Bishop every where , besides the constant care of some particular Church committed unto him . But it will lastly be Objected — That Apostles and Evangelists were not 〈◊〉 , but Itinerant Officers , shifting from place to place , as the exigences of the Church and Interest of the Gospel required . This the Bishops do not pretended to , neither can . Ans. 1. Some of the Apostles were fixt , or at least fixt themselves . Thus James the Apostle ( or at least an Apostle ) was the constant residing Prefect or Bishop of Jerusalem . So was Simeon after him . So was Peter at Rome for 25 years , according to Jerom. So was John in Asia for a long time . So was Timothy at Ephesus , and Titus in Crete . But 2. Bishops are no otherwise fixt than were the Apostles . I have shewed before that upon necessary occasions they interposed any where . Besides , a Bishop may in unconverted Nations pass from one City and Country to another , and plant Churches , as the Apostles did . Thus Frumentius played the Apostle in India , being Ordained Bishop at Alexandria in Egypt , by Athanasius . So did Aidan in Northumberland among the Angles and Mercians . 3. It is so difficult a matter to define exactly what Residence is , and when a Man may be said to be fixt : how oft , how long , and on what Occasions he may be allowed to be Absent , and yet at the same time be the settled Minister of a Church , that I think no Man alive can , with any tolerable certainty prononuce a Person not to have been the Resident Ruler , or Bishop of a Church , because he finds him employ'd in some other place upon some extraordinary Service of the Church . I make no difficulty to affirm , that when , and as oft as any Emergent necessity requires it , and his Superior Commands him , a fixt Resident Officer may leave his Flock for some time , and attend the Business , which he is thus ' specially called to : and yet still he is their fixt and settled Minister . If Paul called Timothy to him at Rome from Ephesus , and Titus from Crete , it will not follow they were not the fixt and Resident Rulers ( Bishops ) of those Churches , which the Apostle had before committed to 'em ; no more than that the British Bishops , who by Order of the Emperor Constantius assisted at the Council of Ariminum , were not the fixt Resident Bishops of the British Churches ; Or that the Members of the Assembly of Divines , were not the settled Rectors , Vicars , or Lecturers , of their respective Congregations , though they were a good while absent from 'em , and sitting at Westminster . 4. One may be the fixt Minister of a Church , and yet afterward remove to another place and settle there . I suppose my Neighbour Mr. B. had been the fixt Minister of some Congregation in the West of England , before he settled here among us . So that if for some important Reasons , Paul had quite removed Timothy from Ephesus , and Titus from Crete , appointing Tichycus in the Room of the former , 2 Tim. 4. 12. And Artemas to succeed the latter , Tit. 3. 12. This will not evince , That Timothy was never the fixt Ruler ( Bishop ) of Ephesus , or Titus of Crete . To draw toward a Conclusion all alterable Circumstances , such as Extraordinary divine Gifts , different Titles , Largeness , or extent of Power over all or very many Cities and Countries , and unfixedness as to any one City or Province , or whatever else of this kind may be alledg'd , make no difference between the Apostolical , or Evangelistical and the Episcopal Power . It is the Ordination which conferrs the Office , and the Power , not the fixedness or unfixedness of the Ordainer . 'T is the Power of Ordination given unto Apostles , Evangelists and Bishops , which enables 'em to Ordain others , not any alterable Circumstance , which is observed in any of ' em . In a word , that Ordinary Officers , may succeed Extraordinary Officers ( understand Extraordinary in the second signification before laid down ) must needs be confest by our Adversaries themselves , I mean the Presbyterians . They affirm , and believe that they succeed the Apostles in the Office of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments of Ordaining , Governing , and exercising the Discipline of the Church . With what Front then can any of 'em deny , that Ordinary Officers ( and such at this day are they at the best ) may succeed Extraordinary ones , in the exercise of an Ordinary Office ? Or with what Colour can they pretend , that fixt Officers ( such are they themselves now , as they believe ) cannot succeed those who were unfixt , that is the Apostles ? So that these Quirks of Extraordinary , and unsettled Officers are devis'd merely to disguise the Truth , and gull the simple Part of Mankind into Schism and Errour . The APPENDIX . MR. O. thinks he presses very hard upon me , when upon my supposing Evangelists to be a Species of Church-Officers distinct from Pastors , and Teachers , in Eph. 4. 11. I must be forc'd to deny the Diocesan Bishops , to be the Pastors of their 〈◊〉 Churches , contrary to the Prayer in the Ember-Weeks . Ans. The Good Man has ( I fear wilfully ) forgot what I discoursed about Pastors in T. N. to this effect , that in Scripture Pastor is a common Name given to Superior , and to Inferior Officers in the Church , as Minister also is . Here in the Epistle to the Ephesians , it can mean none but the Ordinary Teachers : Pastors and Teachers by the Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Importing the Ordinary Pres-byters , for which reason Pastors is twice together left out , 1 Cor. 12. 28 , 29. In after Ages it by degrees came to signify Bishops , at least principally them , and so ( as I reckon ) it is taken in this Sense , in the Ember-Weeks Prayer , Bishops and Pastors , there signifying the same Church-Officers . I say perhaps : for tho' I will not assuredly affirm , that by Pastors in that Collect , is meant the Presbyters , who assist at Ordinations , and examine the Candidates for Orders , and lay on hands with the Bishop : yet the Prayer is capable of that Sense ; The Bishops and Pastors , that is , The Bishops and the Assisting Presbyters . But Mr. O. adds , If the Rector says , they are both Pastors and Evangelists , he confounds those Officers , which the Apostle distinguisheth . Ans. If what I said just now be not — a sufficient Reply hereunto , I add , that one and the same Person may have distinct Offices , and the distinct Titles belonging to those Offices . John was an Apostle and an Evangelist . Every Apostle was a Prophet , was an Evangelist , was a Pastor and Teacher . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Apostles had all the Ministerial Powers . And so had Evangelists all the Powers , which their Inferior Officers had : They were Pastors and Teachers . Nor is this a Confounding the Officers , because the Proposition is not convertible . Though every Bishop or Evangelist , is a Pastor also and Teacher ; 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 Laws of the Church are made by them , with their knowledge and consent in Convocation . Mr. O. The Acts of Convocation are no Laws , till they be confirmed in Parliameut . Ans. They are , though not Civil , yet Ecclesiastical Laws , and formerly at east obliged in Conscience , as the late Bishop of Worcester informs me , Ecclesiastical Cases p. 336. 372 , 373. 'T is nothing to me , whether in Convocation they be made Laws of the Land ; I was speaking of the Laws of the Church . Besides , Mr. O's Charge against us was , that all the Power in the Church is in the Bishop's Hands . But this Argument of his Excludes not only the Presbyters , but the Bishops also from having any Power in the Ecclesiastical Legislative . For 't is likewise true that the Decrees of Convocation , tho' they were made by the Bishops only , as Mr. O. would insinuate , yet would not be Laws of the Land till confirmed by Parliament . Thus the Minister by denying or questioning too much has destroyed the Subject of the Question , the Bishops also being hereby strip'd of their Power , as well as the Presbyters . 'T is then to no purpose for us to dispute whether the Bishops have all the Ecclesiastical Power in their hands , or whether the Presbyters have some , since according to Mr. O. neither of 'em have any . Mr. O. Has every Parish Priest a Power of making Church Laws ? If not , &c. He thinks — they have not , and argues , That if the Parish Priests make Laws by their Representatives , and shall therefore be thought to have Power of Discipline , it will follow , that Free-holders have Power of Government , their Representatives in Parliament , being concerned in the making Laws . Ans. The Rector asserts not that Every Parish Priest has a Power of making Church Laws . It were an unreasonable thing . But every Parish Priest has a share in the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws , which he executes by his Representative in Convocation : and I add , Every Free-holder has a share of Power in making the Political-Laws . But all this is Trifling . Nothing is more evident than this , what is done by a Representative is the Act and Deed of the Persons represented . And nothing is more Ordinary , than to tell discontented People , when the Laws are executed upon them , that they are of their own making , that is made by their Representatives . Mr. O. The Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy . Ans. There are two things only ( that I know of ) necessary to make a just Representative . 1. That the Representers be sufficient as to Number . 2. That they be freely chosen by the Represented . On both accounts I will prove that the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy . 1. One cannot from the reason of the thing gather with any certainty , what number of Representers is necessary to make a just Representative , and 't would be in vain to all edge the private Sentiments of Men , among whom it will haply be found quot homines tot sententiae , so many Men , so many Minds . The surest way then to determine this Point is ( I think ) to compare the Convocation with the House of Commons , which is the Representative of People . My Argument lies thus — If the House of Commons be a just Representative of the People , as to the number of the Representers , which no Body , I presume , will dare to deny , then the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy . Let us then compare the number of the Representers and the Represented in the House of Commons with the number of the Representers , and Represented in the House of Convocation . The People of England represented in Parliament , are according to Dr. Chamberlain's computation in 〈◊〉 Angliae , between five and six Millions : Their Representers in the House of Commons about five hundred . The Clergy of England , are , I reckon , about fifteen Thousand ( allowing ten Thousand for the Parsons , Rectors , and Vicars of so many Parishes , and adding to these the Masters and Fellows of the Colledges in both Universities , Chaplains , Lecturers , and Curates , which will in all amount to five Thousand more ) as I will grant , because I will not favour a side ; tho' it may be they 'll not reach above one Third part of that Number . The Representers of these fifteen Thousand in Convocation , are an hundred Sixty and Six , which make up the two lower Houses of Convocation in both 〈◊〉 . Any Man may hence discern at first sight , the disproportion between five hundred Members of the House of Commons , Representing above five Millions of People . And one Hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation representing only fifteen Thousand Clergy . Every Parliament Man ( let us now consider them 〈◊〉 ) represents about ten Thousand Persons : But every Member of Convocation represents not much above Ninety . The difference then is as Ninety to ten Thousand . If then the Members of the House of Commons are in respect of number , a just Representative of the People ( as we all believe ) much more are the Members of Convocation , a just Representative of the Clergy . Now because the Wisdom and Integrity of Representers is to be regarded also , as well as their Number , and because their Wisdom and Integrity , cannot be better judged of , than by considering the freedom of their choice , we are in the next place to enquire whether the Members of Convocation are not as freely chosen by the Clergy , as the Members of Parliament are by the People . Let it then be remembred that a great part of the Nation , have not any Voice at all in the Election of Members of Parliament : For ( we know ) a vast number of Servants , Labourers , Mechanicks , Shop-keepers , Merchants , Artists of all sorts . Scholars , Attorneys , Lawyers , Physicians , Divines ( not having Freehold Estates ) Copy-holders , Minors also , and single Women have no Voice in the Election of any Parliament Man : That is ( as I reckon ) four parts of five of the People are not at all admitted to chuse Parliament Men. But all the Parsons , Rectors and Vicars , have Suffrages in the Election of Members of Convocation , and these Electors are two Thirds of the Clergy , viz. Parsons , Rectors and Vicars , being ten Thousand by my former Calculation . It appears hence , that if the House of Commons is a just Representative of the People with respect to their Election , much more is the Convocation a just Representative of the Clergy : four fifths of the People , as I reckon , being intirely excluded from choosing Members of Parliament , and but one Third part of the Clergy from choosing Members of Convocation . But to evince this , and make it yet more plain , we must go another way to work , because of the various methods , whereby Persons by Ancient Custom , or Constitution become Members of Parliament , and of Convocation without any due Election . Of the five hundred Members of the House of Commons , one hundred are Knights , chosen only by Free-holders , who are not haply an eighth part of the People of England ; and the other four hundred are Citizens , Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque Ports , Elected by an handful of Men , who are not ( I believe ) a fiftyeth part of the People of England . And these latter , in respect of the Body of the Nation , I can scarce admit to be elected ; they may more fitly be said to come in by Privilege . Of the one hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation , about fifty two , or a third part are chosen Proctors , by the Parsons , Vicars and Rectors , who are two thirds of the Clergy ; about an hundred and fourteen , come in by vertue of their Dignities ( as Deans and Arch-Deacons ) or by the Election of the Chapters only . Let any one then judge whether the lower Houses of Convocation , are near so much cramp'd with Members by Privilege , as the House of Commons is : four parts of the House of Commons , being chosen by not a fiftieth part of the Pople , and the fifth part of 'em , by about an eighth part of the People ; But a third part of the Convocation is chosen by two thirds of the Clergy , and the rest by privilege . If then the House of Commons , notwithstanding what has been observed , are by all Wise Men look'd upon as a just Representative of the People , with respect unto their choice , as well as their number , I would know a Reason , why the Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy . Now least what has been said shall not be thought clear enough , and sufficient to evince what it is intended for , there being a great uncertainty in such Calculations , I shall compare the Convocation with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster , who ( if I am not much mistaken ) will be found on both the forementioned Accounts , that is of Number , and of Choice to have been not so just a Representative of the Clergy , as the Convocation is . This will be dispatched in a very few Words . In the Year 1643. the Parliament called that Assembly , consisting of one hundred twenty and two Persons : Of whom let it be noted , 1. That they fell short of the two Houses of Convocation , forty four in number , besides , that there were some Scots among 'em . 2. That not one of 'em was chosen by the Clergy , but all Nominated by the Parliament . Either then let Mr. O. give over taxing the Convocation , as if it were not a just Representative of the Clergy , or confess the Westminster Assembly , to have been packed to serve a Turn , contrary to all Law and Justice . In short , and to retort Mr. O's Reflections , the Assemby of Divines , were all of 'em ( except a few Nominated for a Colour ) the Parliaments Creatures , chosen by them alone . The rest , if they had joined in the Westminster Deliberations , had been meer 〈◊〉 : there were enough to out-vote 'em , besides , those Lords and Commoners , who were taken into the Assembly , like so many Lay-Elders to Influence their Counsels , and prevent any Decree that might be offered contrary to that Parliaments Inclinations or Designs . Mr. O. If the Rector can find no proof in Scripture , that Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all , how dare they ( the Episcopal-Clergy ) do it for a Fortnight ? If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend , how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending ? Ans. We suspend not by virtue of our own sole inherent Power , but in conjunction with our Diocesan , with his knowledge and consent . There is a great Difference between an Inherent Power for Presbyters to suspend ( a precedent for which I require out of Scripture ) and to suspend for a time , according to the Constitutions of the Church , and in Subordination to the Bishop , unto whom the Party Suspended may appeal . Mr. O. Whereas I affirmed , that the Ordinary Elders had not Supreme Authority in the Churches , at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East , the Minister inferrs , that , herein is imply'd , that Ordinary Presbyters had the Supreme Authority before that time , and Challenges the Rector to prove they were ever deprived of it afterward . Ans. There is no such thing imply'd by the Rector , but only supposed at most , to avoid all unnecessary Disputes with his Adversaries . But if it were out of question , that the Ordinary Elders had once the Supreme Authority , yet the Apostle committing afterward the Supreme Authority , unto single Persons , ex . gr . unto Timothy and 〈◊〉 , and making no mention at all of the Ordinary Presbyters , must be understood to supersede the Power , that was before in the Presbyters , and to subject them unto those single Persons for the future . But this is the Point in Controversy throughout these Papers , and needs not here to be insisted on . Mr. O. Here the Rector fairly confesses there were no Bishops , when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds . Ans. The Rector supposes it only , as is said before , but does not grant it . Nay , he is quite of another mind . But it sufficeth to his Hypothesis , that single Persons were ( afterward at least ) Constituted Rulers ( Bishops ) in the Churches . Mr. O. 〈◊〉 could not receive the sole Power of Ordination , because Paul took in the Presbyters , 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ans. Here Mr. O. ( if I take him right ) grants that 〈◊〉 was Ordained by 〈◊〉 , taking the 〈◊〉 into his Assistance . This is as much , as I desire , and the exact Pattern of our Ordinations . Presbyters therefore did not by their own sole Power Ordain , but in Conjunction with the Apostle . On the other hand , if the Revelation concerning Timothy's Ordination , came to the Presbyters , as well as to St. Paul , they then acted not as Ordinary 〈◊〉 , but as Prophets , and so cannot warrant Ordinary Presbyters , Ordaining by Virtue of their Ordinary Power . 〈◊〉 , it no where appears that Paul joined the Presbyters in Commission with Timothy , it may then be reasonable to conclude , that Timothy received the sole Power , though 't is sufficient for me to say , He had the Supreme . Mr. O. But Paul joined 〈◊〉 with him in the Ordinations , Acts. 14. 23. Ans. Be it so : yet still if Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul ( as is manifest from Acts 14. 4 , 14. Gal. 29. ) And if Barnabas was equal to Paul , as many believe , and Mr. O. will not deny , then we are but where we were before . This is nothing to Ordinary Elders Ordaining . That Barnabas was tho' not equal to Paul , yet independent on him , may be probably hence gathered that in the sharp Contest between 'em , Barnabas submitted not to Paul but separated from him , Acts 15. 39. Besides , Barnabas received the same Commission that St. Paul did , and at the same time , Acts 13. 1 , 2. However , admitting Barnabas was but a Secondary Apostle , which I rather believe , or 〈◊〉 , yet Mr. O. will not ( I hope ) deny he was more than an Ordinary Elder , what then is this to Ordinary Elders Ordaining , by their own sole Power , and inherent Authority ? And how will it hence 〈◊〉 , that because Paul admitted Barnabas , an Apostle , at least a Secondary Apostle , to join in the Ordinations , ( Acts 14. 23. ) that therefore Timothy joined the Ordinary Presbyters with him ? All this notwithstanding , I give Mr. O. what he cannot prove , sc. That Timothy did not Ordain alone . 'T is enough to my purpose , that he was constitued the Principal Judge and Director in Ordinations , as in all other Acts of Jurisdiction . Mr. O. The Rector having argued from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that Timothy , was intended the Resident Governour of the Church of 〈◊〉 , the Minister denies it , upon the Authority of Mat. 15. 32. Mark. 8. 2. Ans. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these places produced against me is Limited by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes a great difference . A Man may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to reside or abide in a place one , two or three Days , or Months , or Years , and yet we know what 't is to reside , when 't is spoken undeterminately . As for those Words — Till I come , 1 Tim. 4. 13. 't is no Limitation of Timothy's Residence at 〈◊〉 , nor does it imply , that his Authority there must then cease . If it were so , then after Paul was come to 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 must have left off , Giving attendance unto Reading , to Exhortation , to 〈◊〉 , which yet I suppose were Duties perpetually incumbent upon him , let the Apostle be at 〈◊〉 or not . In a word , St. Paul's going shortly to Timothy at Ephesus , was not with intent to remove him thence , but to Instruct him throughly , how to behave himself in the House of God , the Church committed to his Charge , as is before observed and proved . Nevertheless , least the Apostle should be prevented of his intended Visit , and should tarry long ( as he suspected might happen ) he sent him for the present this Epistle containing the sum of what afterward , when he came to Ephesus , he would more at large communicate unto him . But these are Repetitions . Mr. O. to prove that 〈◊〉 had been furnished with the same Powers at Corinth , Philippi and Thessalonica , as he was afterwards at Ephesus , " Alledges the Rectors granting that unfixt Evangelists " governed the Churches , and Ordained Elders under the Apostles . Ans. This Concession proves not that Timothy was furnished with the same powers in Greece and Macedonia , as at Ephesus . For 1. It does not appear that Timothy was an Evangelist , when sent to Corinth , &c. This is no where to be found in Scripture . But in St. Paul's second Epistle to Timothy , which was a great while after he had been sent to 〈◊〉 , Philippi and Thessalonica ; then indeed 't is intimated he was an Evangelist , and not before . 2. It seems Evident unto me , that Timothy was sent unto Greece and Macedonia , for quite other purposes , than to govern those Churches , and Ordain 'em Elders : His business at 〈◊〉 was To Establish and comfort the Christians there , concerning their Faith ( 1 Thes. 3. 2. ) And afterward , he went thither again to hasten their Contributions , as I conceive . His Business to 〈◊〉 , was to carry the Apostles Letter , concerning the 〈◊〉 Schisms and Contentions . We read of no Commission given him to receive Accusations , to reprove Offenders openly , to examine the Qualification of the Candidates for Holy Orders , or to Ordain Elders , either at Corinth , 〈◊〉 or Thessalonica , as He had at Ephesus . 3. Eusebius ( on whose Authority the Hypothesis of unfixt Evangelists depends ) describes them thus , They went from place to place , among those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith , Or where no Churches were as yet established . But Paul had already planted Churches at Corinth , Philippi and Thessalonica . These then were not places proper for an unfixed Evangelist to be imploy'd in , and therefore Timothy did not the work of an Evangelist in those Cities , that is , he had not the same Powers there , as at Ephesus . So that I still call upon Mr. O. to prove Timothy was furnished with the same Powers in Greece and Macedonia , as he was after at Ephesus . 4. If Timothy had been furnished with the same Powers , at his going to Greece and Macedonia , as at Ephesus , why should Paul resolve for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , there to instruct 〈◊〉 in his Office ? And because he foresaw , that Journey might possibly be put off for a longer time , why did he dispatch a Letter to 〈◊〉 , wherein in the mean while , he gives him the necessary Orders for the better Ruling of the Church ? 〈◊〉 , I suppose was not so forgetful as to need these Instructions , if he had before been furnished with 'em , when he was sent to 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 . Mr. O. A great part of T. N. is to prove , That Presbyters were not Supreme Governours , because the Apostles were above'em : And yet that Timothy and Titus were Supreme Governours , though the Apostles were above them also . Either the Elders were Supreme Governours , or Timothy and Titus were not . Ans. I shew'd by Induction of Particulars , that the Presbyters were subject unto the Apostles in every single Act of Government : That either an Apostle or a Prophet , was constantly at the Helm to guide and direct ' em . The Elders had not a discretionary Power in any Case , that we read of . But Timothy and Titus ( though they also were subject to St. Paul , whenever he thought fit to interpose , yet ) generally speaking were left unto the Judgment of their own private Discretion , as appears from the Rules of Government prescribed 'em by the Apostle . There is a manifest difference between Timothy and Titus , their subjection to the Apostle , and that of the Ordinary Elders : See the Preface . Mr. O. Whereas in proof of many Congregations in the Church of Ephesus , I cited Acts 19. 10. All they which dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus . And backed this with Ignatius's calling himself the Bishop of Syria , not of Antioch only , but of some considerable part of the adjacent Country . The Minister Replies , This is little to the purpose , and that Men will talk any thing . But Ans. Do not these Observations render it highly probable , that the Ephesian Church was also composed of several Assembles in City and Country ? And is not this a good account why a Bishop , and many Presbyters , and Deacons were employ'd in the Church of Ephesus , not serving one Congregation alone in the City , but others also in the Country round about called Asia ? If there had been but one Congregation at Ephesus , one Bishop , or Presbyter might have sufficed . The Christians at that time of day were not so wealthy , as to multiply Church-Officers more than needed . This is not ( I confess ) to Mr. O's Purpose , but I hope 't will be thought to mine . Mr. O. further pleads That the Rector ( understand in Order to prove there were many Congregations in that Church ) May as well say , that the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians , and dwellers in Mesopotamia , Cappadocia , &c. for all these heard the Word of the Lord Jesus . Acts 2. 9 , 11. as well as those of Asia did . Ans. That 's the thing which I do affirm . The Parthians , and Dwellers in Mesopotamia here mentioned , belonged unto the Church of Jerusalem , so many of 'em , as were converted . For the Dwellers in Mesopotamia , v. 9. are said to be Dwellers at Jerusalem , v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in both places . Now if they Dwelt at Jerusalem , can it be doubted , whether they belong'd to that Church ? The Difficulty is , how the same Persons should be called Dwellers at Jerusalem , and in Mesopotamia at the same time . To this I answer , Mr. O. is as much concerned as I am to give an account of the Difficulty . Nevertheless I 'll venture to shoot my Bolt for once , leaving every Man Liberty to judge of it , as he sees cause . I am not satisfy'd with their Opinion , who say that these Dwellers in Mesopotamia , &c. came up to Jerusalem only for a time , to observe the Feast of Pentecost . How then could they be called Dwellers at Jerusalem ? Mr. Mede B. 1. Disc. 20th being of this Opinion expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. a short stay , and v. 9th a durable Mansion , supporting his Exposition by Gen. 27. 44. 1 Kings 17. 20. But 't is not likely , Luke would use the same Word , in the same Period , in so different Senses , and so perplex his Reader . I reckon then that many Jews , who formerly dwelt in Mesopotamia , and were born there , v. 8. had now shifted their Dwellings , and resided at Jerusalem . They who had before dwelt in Mesopotamia , did now dwell at Jerusalem , in expectation as some think of the Messiah , and by consequence the Church of Jerusalem , might take in the Dwellers in Mesopotamia . And what is said here of the Dwellers in Mesopotamia , must be apply'd unto the Medes , and Parthians , and Cappadocians , &c. More particularly , I thus explain it . There were at Jerusalem , many Schools or Colleges , for the Education and Instruction of Youth in Religion . These Colleges were built at the Charge of such Jews as lived in Foreign Countries , and sent their Youth to Jerusalem to be brought up in the knowledge of their Law. Their Tutors or Instructors , were probably Natives of the same Countries . All these being born in Foreign Nations , and therefore called Dwellers in them , are nevertheless reckoned as at this time Dwellers in Jerusalem , where they now resided , and so being Converted , might become Members of the new Christian Church at Jerusalem . But this is a Matter of little moment in the present Controversy . Mr. O. If the Power of conferring other Powers , is greater than those other Powers , then Bishops , who make an Archbishop are greater than he is : and so are Bishops than Kings who they Crown , as also Recorders or Town-Clerks , than Majors , whom they Swear . Ans. I know very well that my Proposition is liable to several exceptions , which it is not worth while to trouble the Reader with . It s certain , that when a free People , Superior to the Candidate , elect themselves a King , they are become subject to him , not greater than he is : And that because they divest themselves of the Power , which they put into the hands of another . The Case is the same , when Bishops make an Archbishop . They subject themselves to him , and thence-forward , he is their Superior . But this is not the Case before us . He who is possest of a Power , and is able also to conferr the same Power upon another , not diminishing nor destroying his own Power , must needs be greater than he who receives that Power , but is not able to give it to another . A Bishop ( as my supposition is ) having Power to Minister in the Word and Sacraments , is also enabled to confer this Ministry upon others , that is to Ordain Presbyters , and yet deprives not himself of it . He still Ministers in the Word and Sacraments himself . But he is greater thàn a Presbyter , because the Presbyter , though he has received the Power of Ministring in the Word and Sacraments , yet he 〈◊〉 Ordain another unto that Office , as the Bishop can . Nothing needs be plainer . But I will illustrate it by a known Instance . There are twenty four Knights of the Garter , the King is one of them . Every Knight of the Garter , cannot create a Fellow of the Order , but the Sovereign only . For which Reason He is called the Sovereign , and is greater than the other Companions of the Order are , I mean quatenus the Sovereign Knight . And therefore he is greater than the rest ; because he is not only a Knight of the Garter , but can make one , I need not apply it . As to Mr. O's other Instances , they are but so many 〈◊〉 Mistakes . It 's the Hereditary Title or Election , which makes the King , and not he who is appointed to manage the publick Ceremony , of setting the Crown on the King's Head , and giving him the Oath . And Mayors , are made by the Election of the FreeMen of the Corporation , and not by the Town-Clerks or Recorders , who Swear them . THE APPENDIX . MR O. whose manner it is to 〈◊〉 off Arguments which pinch him , by diverting his Reader , with Reflections on some casual Corruptions , in the Administration of our Church-Government , takes Occasion here to rally upon our Chancellors Commutings , or Dispensing with penace for Money . Ans. This is nothing to the Argument before us : this is no Scripture proof , that Presbyters ever Excommunicated , or suspended . And though I will not take upon me to defend or palliate any unwarrantable Practice ; yet I am of Opinion that some Corrupt Administrations , are not a sufficient reason for destroying Governments , either Civil , or Ecclesiastical : for then an end must be put unto all Government whatever . Nor do I believe one 〈◊〉 - Administration can excuse another : I mean Recrimination is no just Defence . Nevertheless against my Inclination , yea , and my Resolution too , I 'll for once walk a little out of my way , and tell Mr. O. a story , by the bye , to the end he may not be too much conceited of the Integrity and Innocence of his own Party ; but may thence see the Corruption of Humane Nature , and be convinced that Presbyterians are not so sweet as some would have 'em thought to be ; but when 't is in their Power , they also can be willing to Commute , as well as other People . The second Presbyterian Class , in the Province of Lancaster ( as 't was called ) began at Bury , March 25. 1647. And continued there by Adjournments till February 13th . 1650. In which space of time they met often , as they declared , By virtue of an Ordinance of Parliament , not at all pretending to Divine Commission , that I find in the Records of that Class , which I have by me . The Presbyterian Ministers , and Lay-Elders , thus meeting were entertain'd , or rather entertain'd themselves , at the House of one John Redfern , an Inn-Keeper in the said Town of Bury . I say entertained themselves , for like true Members of a Church Militant , and as if they had been real Soldiers , for the setting up the Kingdom of Jesus Church , they lived upon Free Quarter , or at least , run into their Landlord's Debt , above twenty Pounds . To give 'em their due , they had some Design to pay him off , and to that end , were devising to raise the Money out of the Purses of such as were Obnoxious to their Spiritual Discipline , that 's to say , they intended to commute , and Punish the Offenders Purses , instead of bringing them to the Stool of Repentance . But Oliver it seems , 〈◊〉 in their way and forbade the Bans , and so the honest Men adjourned to fresh Quarters at Bolton . Thus poor John Redfern was wronged , and no satisfaction could be had by fair means . But being ask'd why would he not sue 'em , he reply'd — No : the Remedy is worse than the Disease , and Justice is not to be had . Here then we have an Example of , at least , designed Commutation , or which is worse , of as Errant a piece of Roguery , as can Ordinarily be met with in History . Here we have a Bevy of Presbyterian Saints of the first Rate . Painful Preachers , and Zealous Lay-Elders gathered together in the fear of God ( so doubtless they were willing it should be believed ) to Reform the Country hereabouts , and yet giving an Example of the most scandalous Knavery , such as a good Heathen , or Turk would have been ashamed of . I hope there is no Precedent in the Gospel for this kind of Discipline . 〈◊〉 any questions the matter of Fact , as 't is here related . I am able to prove it , when reasonably required thereunto . Mr. O. The Rector supposes that some in the Church may Rule well , who don't labour in the Word and Doctrine . Ans. I do so . But then at the same time I suppose 'em Ordained , not Lay-Elders . Mr. O. When I alledged , Heb. 12. 15. in proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an Artificial Word , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is , and observed that Believers are there exhorted , To look diligently , &c. Mr. O. asks , Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock , as the Pastors of it ? Ans. No. But because it hence appears that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in a common sense applicable to any Man , therefore I conclude , that nothing of certainty can be argued from it , concerning the Power of Government . And I further say , that as Believers are not directed to play the Bishops , or to look diligently unto the Flock , as Pastors of it , so neither can it be proved , by this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Elders were to look diligently unto the Flock , as the Supreme Pastors of it , or as Timothy and Titus , who were Commissioned to do so . Mr. O. Who so bold as blind Bayard . Ans. Whether Mr. O. exposes the Rector , or his own Wit and good Breeding , by such a rude and trivial Diverb , I leave to the Reader , to decide , Such a Clownish expression , shews him to have convers'd rather among rude Carters and Dray-Men , than Men of Polite Learning , or Celebrated Authors that 〈◊〉 boasts so much of , and pretends to be so wonderfully 〈◊〉 in . Now the occasion of this Elegant and spruce Questionis this . The Rector in T. N. represented his Hypothesis borrowed from Bishop Pearson , as an Argument , which no Papist had ever thought on before . But Mr. O. belike has chop'd upon something to that purpose , as he thought in the Rhemish Testament , for which cause I am here compared to a Blind Tit. 'T is confest ( though there 's no need to confess it , as will appear presently ) I was not aware of that Passage of the Rhemists , and I am certain 〈◊〉 Pearson makes no mention of 'em , or of any other Author , which drew me into this mistake , if it will prove one at last ; but what if it should ? It does not in the least affect me , that Mr. O. is able to find me once in an Errour . I pretend not to be infallible or Omniscient . I have somewhat a better Proverb to excuse my self with , than Mr. O. had to revile me . Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus . The good Old Man Homer himself , was not only blind , but asleep too sometimes . Nor would I trouble my self to make more Words on this slight Occasion , were it not that I think my self obliged to vindicate Bishop Pearson , least any one should surmise , that he was beholden to the Rhemists for his New Chronology , about the time when Paul besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus , and yet had not the Ingenuity to acknowledge it . Let us then in the first place produce the Rhemists Words , which are as follows . This Epistle was written , as it seems after Paul's first Imprisonment in Rome , when he was dismissed and set at Liberty , and thereupon it is , that he might say here , I hope to come to thee quickly ( 1 Tim. 3. 14 ) That 's to say at Ephesus , where he had desired him to remain . Ans. But though the Rhemists here stumbled upon a small part of the Truth , they offer'd nothing in Confirmation of it , neither in the Argument , nor in their Observations upon the Epistle it self . Nor ( which is to be noted ) did they in the least make use of their Opinion in proof of Episcopacy : But Bishop Pearson did both , without being beholden to the Rhemists , for one Syllable towards the Establishment of this New Chronology . Moreover the Rhemists , speak only of the Time of Paul's writing this Epistle , not of his Beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus , at his going into Macedonia : concerning which they have not given the least intimation , but left that part of the Old Chronology as they found it . Only they seem to think that Paul , having long before his Imprisonment besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus , did now , after he was Dismissed and set at Liberty , viz. about the time that he wrote to the Hebrews , and immediately after his Enlargement , send this Letter unto Timothy , which is an Hypothesis quite different from that of Bishop Pearson's , as any one that understands , and remembers what has already been offered upon the Argument , will readily confess . So that the Learned Prelate was not in the least beholden unto the Seminary at Rhemes , for the Discovery and proof of this New Chronology , the Time of Paul ' s beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus . There was then little Occasion for Mr. O's challenging me with Boldness , and giving me that undeserv'd Character — That when I am remotest from Truth I am then most consident . I leave it to my Adversaries themselves , the Dissenters , to determine , which of the two is in the point of Time now debated , guilty of most Confidence . Well , but Mr. O. Thought of this Argument before the Rector published it . Ans. Haply so , but the Question is , whether he ever thought of it before Bishop Pearson brought it to Light. And if he has been so long acquainted with it , as he would have us think , or has prepared a Dissertation to vindicate the Old Chronology , as he boasts , I hope 't will be better put together than his Defence , and that one time or other , we shall be blest with a sight of so Elaborate a piece of Work : in the mean while , I am of Opinion , that if Mr. O. had been so long acquainted with this New Chronology , and had prepared a Dissertation to vindicate the Old one , his Defence would have been more tight and correct , than I find it ; His Plea , would have had something in it surely , relating to this New Chronology . In fine , that Mr. O. thought of the Bishop's Argument , before the Rector's Book came forth , is not material ; but that He thought of it before the Rector proposed it to him , we have only his own Word for it , which is not much worth in this case of Self-Testimony ; Yea , granting this also , I have good reason to believe he derived this part of his knowledge from Bishop Pearson , for a Reason best known to my self . Mr. O. has wonderfully demonstrated , from 2 Tim. 4. 9. 21. That Paul sent for Timothy to him at Rome , what no Body ever deny'd ; and yet he has not hereby proved , that Timothy was ever in the Apostle's Company , after he was besought to abide at Ephesus , 'T is not out of doubt to me that Timothy saw Paul at Rome , though he sent for him . For not to speak of other Obstacles , Paul might have been Martyred by the Emperor 's Special and sudden Command , before Timothy reached Rome . This is very likely , if we consider the State of Affairs at Rome about that time , as we read 'em set forth in the Annals of Paul. What I excepted against in Dr. Whitaker , was not that which Mr. O. pretends to make Answer to , but that he asserted Equals could receive Accusations as Timothy did . This the Dr. proved ( if Mr Prinn wrongs him not ) from a Synod of Bishops , who received an Accusation against one of their own Number , and then Censured him for his Fault . Now how far this is from a proof of what it was alledged for , I shewed at large , and Mr. O. who Taxes me for so doing overlooks it , nor makes any Reply to it . Indeed it is not to be Answered if it 〈◊〉 true , as I think none will deny , that one Bishop is not equal , but Inferior and Subject to a Synod of Bishops . Therefore a Synod's receiving an Accusation against a Bishop , is no proof of the Doctor 's Assertion , but an Instance of the contrary . As for Mr. O's own examples out of St. Cyprian , were they never so convincing ( which shall in its place be considered ) they will not however Vindicate Dr. Whitaker , nor are a proper Answer to my Exceptions against him . The proportion of Dioceses , how large at most they ought to be , is not my business to determine , as I undertake not to define how big a Parish or Congregation ought to be . I suppose the ultimum quod sic , and the Limits quos ultra citraque nequit consistere Rectum , are in both uncertain : and are only to be adjusted prout viri prudentes definiverint , as Superiors shall think fit to Order , and not by the Caprice and humoursome phancy of every overweening Opinionanist , and self conceited Reformer . Mr. O. hears the Rectors Parish has four or five Chappels in it . Ans. The Rectors Parish has neither five nor four Chappels in it . Tho' the Ministers Ears be never so long , yet is he mistaken herein . If it had twenty , 't is nothing to the purpose . Mr. O. Because the Rector affirm'd it no more impossible for Timothy ( supposed then the Angel of the Chruch of Ephesus , mentioned Rev. 2. ) To leave his first Love , than for Judas to betray his Master , is mightily disturbed , and to confute it musters up many Commendations given of Timothy in Scripture . Ans. In T. N. I declared my Opinion plainly , that Timothy was not that Angel there spoken of : yet supposing it , 't was not impossible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection . The Commendations alone render it not impossible . Abstracting from Matter of Fact then , that Judas an Apostle , who had the Power of Casting out Devils , should turn Apostate , is as strange , as that Timothy should leave his first Love. Lastly , when 't is for his turn , Mr. O. can admit , that Timothy might be overtaken with Youthful Lusts , but when he wants an Occasion of Cavilling , then 't is monstrous horrid to suppose it possible for Timothy to be guilty of some Defection from the Truth . If the one was possible , why not the other ? But especially if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 22. Signifie the Lusts of the Mind , its proneness to Paradoxes , to New up-start Opinions , curious Conceipts , and Innovations in Religion , of which kind we reckon Presbytery and Independency , which are but of Yesterday , and the product of Minds addicted unto Novelties . I do not find Commentators Ordinarily Expounding the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Youthful , i. e. Fleshly Lusts , but to the Sense I have now given them . In a Word , whoever attentively reads Rev. 2. 2 , 3 , 6. will find considerable Commendations of the Angel of Ephesus , perhaps not much Inferior to those of Timothy in other places of Scripture ; And yet this Angel left his first Love. 'T was not impossible then , but Timothy might do so likewise . I have now done with Mr. O's Defence . If I have left any thing of Moment unanswered ; Or if I have failed giving full satisfaction to any Material Difficulty Objected against me , I do promise either to supply these Defects , or fairly to confess my self unable . Only I could wish all personal Reflections , and unnecessary Digressions might be laid aside , that Arguments be plainly proposed , and 〈◊〉 as few words as may be , that no trickish and evasive Answers be made , when we have nothing else to reply . And finally , that we would not take to task a piece of an Argument , and the weakest part of it too , and then make the Reader believe we have fully accounted for the Difficulty , when in Truth we kept our selves all the while at a distance , and never came near the Merits of the Cause . THE SECOND PART : Wherein All Mr Owen's Authorities for Presbyterian Parity , and Ordination by Presbyters are overthrown ; and particularly is prov'd , THAT The Church of ENGLAND , Ever since the Reformation , HELD The Divine Apostolical Right of EPISCOPACY . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. One ought to endure to the utmost rather than divide the Church of God : and dying rather than rend it in pieces , is a no less glorious Martyrdom , and in my Opinion greater than being a Martyr for not Sacrificing unto Idols . In this latter Case a Man suffers for his own sake only , in the former for the whole Church . Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. LONDON : Printed in the Year 1699. THE INTRODUCTION . HAving spoken of the Government of the Christian Church in General , and as far as the Holy Scriptures afford us any Light : Having thence shewn that meer Presbyters alone did never exercise any Supreme Act of Jurisdiction of any kind that can be there discovered , except in Conjunction with , and subordination to some extraordinary Officers as Apostles or Prophets : Having in particular traced the manner of Government at Ephesus , unto the Death of St. John the Apostle ; and the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius , and found it cast by St. Paul into the same Form , as the Church of England is at this Day , viz. consisting of three distinct Orders of Ministers ( the Title only of the Supreme Governours haply excepted ) and so continued after him , as I said unto the time of Ignatius : And Lastly , having answered all the Objections raised against our Episcopal Government , by Mr. O. in his Book Entituled A Plea , &c. ( So many of 'em , I mean , as seemed to carry any weight in them , and concerned the times , within the Compass of which I have confin'd my self hitherto , that 's to say , the Apostolical Age. ) After all this , it remains that I consider the Arguments , which to the same purpose he was drawn from Ecclesiastical History , beginning where the Scripture ends , and so descending unto these last Ages , before which time Episcopacy was never brought into Question for Fifteen Hundred Years , save by one Arch-Heretick Aërius , of whom more hereafter . My Adversary indeed thinks he has found in Old Authors many Instances , favouring the Presbyterian Identity and Parity , and Ordination by Presbyters : This is now to be Examined . If my Answers shall be thought Old , I have this excuse for my self , that the Objections are old also : and in such a Case it is pardonable if not necessary , especially when an Adversary demands , and even duns ; yea , and reproaches one for not having already undertaken it . I pretend not then to make new discoveries never heard of before , in the Controversy now before us , ( though haply some few things not observed before , may be , here offered to the Reader ) but to apply the proper Answers unto the Old Objections , wherewith Mr. O. has endeavoured to embroil and perplex the Truth . I will not tie my self unto his Method , which is not so well fitted to my design , it being my purpose to Manage the Dispute only 〈◊〉 Matters of Fact , which being once cleared from countenancing the Presbyterian or Congregational Polities , Mr. O's . Syllogisms will and must fall to the Ground . I will then digest and dispose all his Authorities , and my Replies to 'em , though not exactly ( for the controversy 〈◊〉 not on the Niceties of Chronology ) yet pretty near to the Order of Time , to which they belong ; I begin with the Epistle of Clemens Romanus unto the Church of Corinth , which is the best Colourable Argument the Dissenters do or can bring for themselves . CHAP. I. Of the Testimony of Clemens Romanus . THE substance of what Mr. O. argues from this Epistle against Prelatical Episcopacy , and in favour of Presbyterian Parity is , whereas I affirm in T. N. Clement seems to make the Jewish High-Priest , the Inferior Priests and Levites a Precedent for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop , Presbyters and Deacons — That Clement no where saith there were those three distinct Officers in the Christian Church ; Or that the Jewish Government was a Pattern of the Christian : That Clement mentions but two Orders , viz. Bishops and Deacons ; That He calls these Bishops Presbyters : That they governed the Church of Corinth in common ; That He mentions no chief Bishop there ; That he exhorts the Corinthians to be subject unto their Elders ; That Clement , ought to be expounded by Scripture , Philip. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. In both which places two only Orders are to be met with ; That Clement does not intend to affirm there were three kinds of Officers in the Christian Church as in the Mosaical ; but only that both the one , and the other Church , ( that is the Mosaical with three Orders , and the Christian with two ) were both established by the same Divine Authority . Unto all which it 's reply'd ; 1. I readily grant Clement no where expresly affirms there were three distinct Orders in the Christian Church : or that the High-Priests , Priests and Levites in the Jewish Church , were the Pattern of Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian. Thus much is granted : Nevertheless , what I cited him for may be true , and is so , sc. That He seems to make the Jewish Government the Pattern of the Christian , as we are wont to argue from him , comparing the one with the other . One would think this joined with Jerom's Testimony , cited with it in T. N. pag. 1. were sufficient to warrant me thus modestly to 〈◊〉 , that Clement seems to 〈◊〉 the Jewish Government a Pattern of the Christian , which others before me have done : as Dr. H. in his Dissertations , and Dr. 〈◊〉 , Cod. Can. &c. l. 2. e. 11. But Mr. Mede deserves particularly to be taken notice of , who has more than once declared his Judgment in this matter . Let us hear him teaching us that , In things for which we find no rule given in the New Testament , there we are referred , and left to the Analogy of the Old. He instances in St. Paul arguing , for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel ( 1 Cor. 9. 13 , 14 ) in Infant Baptism , in hallowing the first Day of the Week , in the three Orders , Bishops , Priests and Deacons , asserted by Jerom to be derived from 〈◊〉 , his Sons , and the Levites ; and Lastly , in this Passage of St. Clement to the same purpose . Once more He Expounds those Words , in Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians — We ought to do all things in Order , as the Lord has commanded , putting the Question to himself thus , Where has the Lord commanded this ? and answering himself thus , In the Analogy of the Old Testament . Now Clement in the next following parts of his Epistle , treats in general of the time when the Christian Ministrations were to be performed , the place where , and the Persons by whom . If then the Analogy of the Law was a Divine Commission unto the Christians , if the Temple of the Jews , a Precedent of the Christian Churches , if the Jewish Sabbath , of the Christian Lord's-Day , why not the Levitical three Orders of the Christian 〈◊〉 , Priests and Deacons ? But that which is of most moment is , that many other Fathers following Clement ( as Jerom , Synesius , Cyprian and Firmilianus , of whom I have spoken elsewhere ) did not forget to allude or appeal to the Law of Moses , in confirmation of the three Orders of Church-Officers among the Christians . St. Cyprian said , He had a Divine Law to punish his rebellious Deacon , Quoting Deut. 17. 12. Numb . 16. 1. Here He thinks himself invested with the same Authority as Aaron was , and through Aaron to have received it from God. The like we meet with in several other Epistles . And indeed the names Sacerdos , Sacerdotium , Altare , Sacrificium , Oblationes , &c. so familiarly used by the Ancients ( and by our Clement himself ) to express the Christian Officers , and Offices , imply as much . It may then with Reason be supposed that Clement intended the same . 2. As I acknowledge Clement did not totidem verbis assert the Orders , so I observe that though He expresly mentions two only , yet he affirms no where , that there were two only kinds of Officers in the Church of 〈◊〉 , and no more . Or thus , though he mentions two only , yet he denies not expresly , but that there might be a third . 3. I join issue with Mr. O. that Clement ought to be expounded by the Scripture ; but surely not by the two places only which he has alledged , all the rest being laid aside . The Epistle then of Clement must be Expounded by the Whole Scripture , and what Intimations of three Orders are any where therein to be found . This has been done already , and needs not be drawn in here again , to lengthen and confound the Argument . Only thus briefly to the two Passages adduced by Mr. O. Though St. Paul , Philip. 1. 1. mentions Bishops and Deacons only , and no third Superior Officer in that Church : yet Chap. 2. 25. 〈◊〉 calls Epaphroditus ( by whom he sent this Epistle ) the Apostle of the Philippians : and though 1 Tim. 3. ch . He names Bishops and Deacons only , and no third Officer , yet ( as I hope has been sufficiently made out ) he had constituted Timothy Ruler of the Church of Ephesus , and particularly of the Elders there . So that there were at Philippi three Orders , an Apostle , Bishops ( or Presbyters ) and Deacons . Likewise at Ephesus , Timothy the Ruler of that Church , and Bishops ( or Presbyters ) and Deacons : and the same is to be believed of the Church of Corinth , when Clement wrote to 'em , if we will suffer our selves to be guided by Scripture and Reason . 4. That Clement exhorted the Corinthians to be subject unto the Presbyters , is certain . But so did Ignatius require , that the Churches should be subject to their Presbyters , tho' at the same time he urged the Christians , and specially the Presbyters themselves to be subject to the Bishop . The Flock may be subject to the Presbyters , and at the same time they and the Presbyters ought to be subject to the Bishop . Again , that the Presbyters governed the Church in common , is not questioned , but that they did so without a Bishop , is no where expresly said . Lastly , that Clement expresly mentions no Chief Bishop at 〈◊〉 , I own ; especially , not by the name Bishop : but still He seems to speak of an Order of Church-Officers , Superior to , and distinct from Presbyters . Page the second commending , the peaceable Behaviour of the Corinthians , in time 〈◊〉 , He writes , that they had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Subject to 〈◊〉 Rulers , and giving convenient honour unto the Presbyters . And again p. 〈◊〉 . Let us worship the Lord Jesus Christ , let us reverence our Governours ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) Let us honour our Presbyters . One would think here is sufficient Intimation of an Order of Church Officers Superior unto Presbyters , and distinct from them . 5. Clement was himself Bishop , or Supreme Ruler of the Church of God at Rome , being ( as 't is thought ) the same Person that we read of Philip. 4. 3. Now 't is not at all likely , that Clement a Person of unquestionable Piety and Integrity , being a Prelatical Bishop himself at Rome , should approve or countenance the Presbyterian Parity at 〈◊〉 ; and that those two Apostolical Churches , should thus widely differ in their Form of Government . 6. It may deserve our Observation , what Clement writes towards the Conclusion of his Epistle , p. 69. thus — Whoever among you is Generous and Charitable let him resolve thus , If the Sedition , Contention , and Schisms are risen on my account , I 'll be gone where-ever ye will , and whatever the People require , that I 'll do : only let the Flock of Christ , and the Presbyters set over them , live in Peace . Methinks the Author in these Words , plainly enough distinguishes between that Generous Person first spoken of , and a considerable part of the Presbyters immediately after mentioned separately from him . This Generous Person was it seems settled in some Post or Office , by one Party of the 〈◊〉 , or atleast continued in it , against the Mind and Inclination of the Rest. From hence sprang the Quarrels and Schisms among ' em . Now what Office could this be , but that of the Prelatical Bishop ? He could not be a meer Presbyter , for he 's plainly distinguished from them . And besides , 't is not to be imagined that one common Presbyter , equal with the Rest , should have been the occasion of such a dangerous Schism , or that his Absence should immediately put an end to it , as 't is here imply'd . Nor will any one ( I believe ) say , that He was a Deacon , much less an Ordinary Believer . He was then ( as I conceive ) the Prelate of that Church : but not acceptable to one party of the 〈◊〉 , and on this Occasion the Peace of the Church was disturbed . Clement not intermeddling among 'em as to the Merits of the Cause , advises this Generous Person out of Charity , and for the Peace of the Church , to abdicate and depart from his Office , to the end , some other succeeding with the Universal Consent of the Corinthians , by this means a Period might be put unto their Divisions . In further proof of this , I offer unto Consideration , what I long since wrote in my Clement upon the Margin , but was not so happy as to refer to the Author whence I had taken that Note ; 'T is this , That from the Passage of Clement's Epistle just before set down at length 〈◊〉 and others , after him conjecture , that Clement was named by Peter to be Bishop of Rome , and the Apostles immediate Successor , but refused it for a like Reason , that he here exhorts the Generous Person at Corinth , to lay down his Office. Now 't was very proper for Clement , to urge his own reason and example , and especially since his Modesty , and Condescension gained him afterward the Affections of that Church , and at length advanced him unto the Bishoprick of Rome . The like he hints unto this Generous Person , as a Motive to him to resign , in the next Period . He ( says Clement ) who shall do thus , shall procure to himself great Glory in the Lord , and every place ( every Church ) will receive him . The Passage in Epiphanius whereof I speak , is in English as follows — Peter and Paul , were both the first Apostles and Bishops of Rome , then Linus , afterward Cletus , and next him Clement , Contemporary of Peter and Paul. Nor let any one wonder , that others before Clement received the Episcopacy from the Apostles , seeing Clement was their Contemporary . Whether He received Ordination to the Episcopacy , and declined it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whilst they ( the Apostles Peter and Paul ) surviv'd , for He says in one of his Epistles , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . I depart , I am gone , let the People of God abide in Peace , designing this for others Good and advantage : or whether , &c. It may perhaps be objected , that Clement ascribes not the Corinthian Schisms to that one Generous Person only , but to some misunderstandings between the People , and the Presbyters , some of the latter being not suffered to continue in the exercise of their Ministry any longer at Corinth . So 't is intimated , pag. 58. in these Words — It would be no little Sin in us , to cast off those ( Presbyters or Bishops ) who have discharged the Office of their Ministry , 〈◊〉 and without blame : for we see that they have removed some ( Presbyters ) whose Conversation was laudable , and who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly . Brethren , &c. All that needs be answered hereunto is , 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere , that the Schism arose on the account of one ( or two Persons ) p. 62. 'T is ( says He ) a shame , an arrant shame , and unworthy a Christians Conversation , that the ancient and most firmly established Church ( of Corinth ) should raise Sedition against the Presbyters , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for one or two Persons : that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop ( that Generous Person ) it must needs follow , that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy , and by Consequence , that some of 'em were deserted , and laid aside by those of the People , who had an aversion to the Bishop ( that Generous Person so oft mentioned ) as well as to some of the Presbyters , who stuck close to him . 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of , were the Bishop in Possession , and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 . In short , if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the meaning of the Epistle ( which to us at this distance is dark enough ) be of any moment , it may then be allowed , that Clement has intimated , that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop , and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him , but was forced himself to interpose , in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth , was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters , and People had conceived against their Bishop , who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority , to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em , and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart . It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words , or at least to mention two Orders only , when yet they acknowledge a Third . This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self . The three Officers of the Jewish Church , are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 , wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest , who without controversy was a Third , is included . 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice — That the Priests and Levites , came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 ; meaning the High-Priest also , as I presume will not be denyed : For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham . Clemens Alexand . in his 〈◊〉 , cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders , Presbyters and Deacons , in the Christian Church , and yet elsewhere , he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two . In the former place , 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops ; at least they ought not to be excluded , though the Author there omits them . So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops , and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores , yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders , in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit . an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders , yet once he contents himself , to express 'em in two Words only , Bishops and Deacons . There are ( says he in the place cited ) on the Margin ) quatuor genera 〈◊〉 , Four Orders of Men in the Church ; but he sums 'em up in three Words , viz. Bishops , Deacons , and the Faithful . It may deserve observation , that at this time of the Day , and with Optatus , ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church ; shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters , or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment , because forsooth , He here mentions 'em not distinctly ? It cannot be fairly Collected hence , as every one 〈◊〉 . This is manifest that Optatus , in those two Words , Bishops and Deacons , must understand the three Orders , Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church . Besides saying here ( sicut supra dixi ) he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons . Wherefore the Premisses considered , 't is reasonable to believe , that Clemens Romanus likewise did , in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words , comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons . It ought not here to be forgot , what St. Chrysostom has observed , 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 : for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both . They Minister ( like Deacons ) unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates , and are subject unto him as the other are : But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments , as well as the Bishop does , and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock : for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops . But , Blundel ( and his Followers , I remember ) to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis , the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church , asserts , that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age : At other times to their own Customs , and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions . In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters ( or Bishops ) and Deacons : in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks , Bishops , and Priests , and Deacons . But this device will not do their Work , and must be laid aside , for the following Reasons . 1. St. Cyprian , against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed , though He often falls into the Dichotomy , yet asserts , the Divine Right of Bishops . Cum hoc igitur ( sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur ) divina lege fundatum sit — The Government of the Church by Bishops is ( says He ) founded upon a Divine Law. That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of , if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle . He begins it thus — Our Lord , whose precepts we ought to Reverence , and Observe , establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs , says , &c. And again he adds — Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church , pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions , so that the Church is established on Bishops , and every Act of the Church is governed , per eosdem Praepositos , by the same Praepositi , that is , Bishops . If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian , he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age , where the Divine Right ends , as well as his own , when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons . But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation . Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi , be understood of Presbyters : for Cyp. ( whatever any may fancy of Praepositi ) never calls Presbyters , Bishops ; Nor could he conformably to his own Writings . He professes thus of himself and other Bishops — Neq , enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit . None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops . But if the Presbyters were Bishops , then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops . 2. Optatus in the same Breath , in one short Period expresses himself both ways , as well in the Bipartite , as in the Tripartite Form. Therefore he must surely be understood to respect one and the same Age in the same Sentence . If he had therein an Eye unto the Apostolical Age , Blundel's Distinction is of no Advantage to our Adversaries . Still upon that supposition , there were three Orders in the Apostles time : If He referred to his own Age , then although He comprehends 'em in two Words , yet was there three Orders of Ministers in the Church . 3. Ignatius can with no Colour of reason be supposed to look to any other than the Apostolical Age , wherein he lived a great while , and was Martyr'd but about ten Years after the Apostle St. John. His three Orders therefore Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , were not , strictly speaking , of Ecclesiastical , but Apostolical Constitution . By consequence Blundel's device makes nothing for the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters . 4. It no manner of way relieves our Adversaries , from our Argument grounded on the Scriptures , which use the Dichotomy , and in it comprehend the three Jewish Orders , the High-Priests , the second Priests and the Levites . In conformity whereunto the Fathers , may be thought to have summed up the Christian Ministers in two Words also . If it be asked , with what Congruity could the Fathers so often fall into this Dichotomy , and yet at the same time believe the three Orders to be by Apostolical Constitution ? The Answer is easy . Except the Ruling part , that 's to say , the Administration of the Church Government , and Discipline , otherwise the Presbyters were and still are among us , as it were equal to Bishops , sc. in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments , wherein they Officiate as effectually as the Bishops themselves : for which Reason they may be accounted the Bishops Peers , and both not unfitly called by one common name . Even as I before observed from St. Chrysoftom , Presbyters are comprehended in Deacons , as agreeing in some things common to both . 8. And in the last place that which I insist , and chiefly rely upon , as a just Answer unto the Argument grounded on St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is this , that 't is drawn only from a Negative , Clement's not expresly mentioning the three distinct Orders , which I contend is unconcluding . I have oft enough produced Instances out of Scripture , of the Apostle's not constantly remembring all the Church-Officers in their Epistles , and frequently mentioning none at all . To keep my self within the Compass of my present Province , the Ecclesiastical History , Ignatius , whose great Design in all his other Epistles was to assert , and vindicate the three Orders of Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , passes 'em all over in his Epistle to the Romans . But 't is no good Consequence that therefore the Church of Rome , had not in it so much as a Presbyter or a Deacon . It may farther be considered , that much more an Argument deduced from an Author's silence can be of no force , when there are other positive , and express Witnesses attesting the Truth brought into Question . If a Witness deposes , that John and Richard , were engaged in the Murder of Robert , this shall not quit Thomas , if another Witness swears he also had an hand in the Assassination . Clement mentions Bishops ( or Presbyters ) and Deacons , not so much as intimating , that there was a Prelate at Corinth ( let that now be supposed : ) But his Contemporary Ignatius , has again and again testify'd that there were Bishops , Priests and Deacons in several Churches , to which he wrote , and particularly in his Epistle to the Ephesians , that there were these three distinct-Officers , throughout the World as far as he knew , and by consequence at Corinth ; Though Clement , for Reasons best known unto himself , thought not fit to mention the Prelate . Nor can it with Reason be pleaded , that Ignatius was ignorant of the Government of this Apostolical Church of Corinth , as I suppose it will be granted . From the whole then I gather that Clement's Silence is no good proof , that there was no Prelatical Bishop at Corinth , because his Contemporary is positive there was ; which now brings me to the Testimony of Ignatim in this Controversy . CHAP. II. Ignatius his Testimony . IGnatius , Clement's Contemporary , the Disciple and Friend of St. John , the Apostle , and Martyr of Jesus Christ , has so plainly , so fully , and so often in his Epistles , given in his Testimony unto the three distinct Orders of Church-Officers , Bishops , Priests and Deacons : and I have so exactly , and at length cited his Words in T. N. p. 59. 60 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 and 73. that one might justly wonder , this Truth should any longer be called into Question , after so clear Evidence produced . Mr. O. has sundry things to throw in our way , which I must consider in their Order , and remove , if it be possible . 1. Mr. O. would bring the credit of these Epistles into suspicion , as if it were not agreed among the Learned , whether they are Genuine , That Daille endeavoured to prove 'em Spurious , and La Roque with great Judgment , reply'd unto the Learned Bp. of Chester , Dr. Pearson , who had endeavoured to confute Monsieur Daille , in his Vindiciae Epist . S. Ignatii . Ans. The Genuineness of these Epistles was never questioned by any Learned Man , that I know of , since Dr. Pearson published his vindication of 'em , save by Monsieur La Roque , who attempted to support Monsieur Daille but without success . I never heard he gained any one Proselyte . 'T is confessed , I have not read that French Gentleman's Book , the Reason whereof is , that when Dr. Pearson was by his Friends dealt with to make a Reply to La Roque , the Wise Man answered , There was no need of it , that La Roque had advanced nothing of Moment against his Vindiciae , and that the Authority of St. Ignatius's Epistles remained still unquestionable . This I remember very well was the common Discourse among us many Years ago , in the University of Cambridge , and the Event confirms it : no Body now daring to deny them , not the Dissenters themselves , though sometimes in general they would have 'em pass for uncertain . It 's not intended hereby to disparage Monsieur La Roque in the least . His Misfortune was , that , He undertook the Defence of an ill Cause against a Potent Adversary , in such a Case the Learned'st Man in the World , must be forced to retire with dishonour and disappointment . But for Mr. O. to say that , 'T was not agreed among the Learned , &c. when one only Learned Man is to be found that stands out , is too much ( I think ) to offer unto the World , as if the Balance were even , and the Learned equally divided about the Genuineness of Ignatius's Epistles . I am perswaded Mr. O. himself believes , what Bishop Pearson has proved 'em to be , though he would 〈◊〉 that they are yet doubtful : But enough of this . 2. Mr. O. further contends , There are strong presumptions , that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could Ordinarily meet in one place , and had but one Altar , 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 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. from Act. 19. 10. That the Church of Ephesus took in all Asia — All they of Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus , from the mouth of Paul , who then resided at Ephesus , and there Preached the Gospel first in the Synagogue ( v. 8. ) then in the School of Tyrannus ( v. 9. ) . Asia , I expounded Asia the Proper : but I would crave leave a little to mend that Gloss , understanding it only of some of the nearer parts of it , adjoining unto Ephesus , which belonged ùnto Asia the Proper . And wheras the Historian expresses Himself thus largely all Asia , and yet intends ( as I suppose only the Neigbhouring parts of it , we need not much admire at this , since it is so said to aggrandize and Magnify the success , and Increase of the Gospel . We have an Instance of this kind of expression in the Chapter before us , Act. 19. 27. where the mad and superstitious People of Ephesus Glory of their Goddess Diana , that all Asia , and the World Worshippeth Her : and yet , v. 34. she is called Diana of the Ephesians : at least she was not Worshipped all the World over strictly speaking . So I read Jo. 12. 19. Behold the World is gone after him ; and yet only some Numbers of the Jews followed Christ. In short , by all Asia , is to be understood the Ephesian Asia , or that part which adjoined pretty close unto Ephesus , whither their secular business oft drew the Country People : Their Curiosity first lead them unto the Synagogue and School of Tyrannus , and so they became Acquainted with the Word of the Lord Jesus and embraced it , of these Country Converts we read in this Chapter , v. 31. — And certain of the chief of Asia , which were his Friends sent unto him , &c. Nor is it an unusual thing to call the parts of a Country , near unto the Principal City by the general Name of the Province , whereof it is but a little Member . Thus ( as is before observed ) Ignatius stiles Himself Bishop of Syria ; not of all Syria , properly so called , as will I hope be granted me , but of the Country round about Antioch , which was within the limits of Syria . So then if all they which dwelt in Asia , in the Adjacent parts of Ephesus , as well as in the City its self , heard the Word of the Lord Jesus , both Jews and Greeks , v. 10. and this within the space of those two Years , the Apostle remained at Ephesus , it must be allowed that the Church of Ephesus was too numerous to be contained within one Single Congregation ; and it is reasonable to believe , that there were some Congregations in the 〈◊〉 ( especially in Ignatius's time ) which the Presbyters of Ephesus , in Ordinary , attended under the Bishop . If it be doubted whether these Country Proselytes , or these Country Congregations , were Members of the Church of Ephesus , some Reasons or Evidences to the contrary must be assigned . We read no where of any Prelatical Church ( which must be confessed , the Form of Church Government thereabouts in Ignatius's Time ) nearer Ephesus , than that at Magnesia , distant from Ephesus about fourscore Miles . But that the Country Presbyters and Congregations within the foresaid Tract , did belong unto Ephesus is most probable hence , that the Scripture all along speaks of the Church of Ephesus and of Asia , as one and the same Church : Acts 20. 18. Ye know ( says He to the Ephesian Elders ) after what manner I have been with you from the first day , that I came into Asia . Acts 19. 31. Certain of the chief of Asia . 2 Cor. 1. 8. We would not ( Brethren ) have you ignorant of our trouble , which came to us in Asia . Acts 20. 16. Paul determined to sail by Ephesus , because He would not spend the time in Asia . These expressions could never have dropt from the Holy Pen-Men , except the Church of Ephesus had extended its self , round about in the Country of Asia . We read 〈◊〉 times that when St. Paul speaks of the Affairs of Corinth , He uses the Word Achaia ( whereof Corinth was the Principal City . Rom. 15. 26 , 16. 6. 〈◊〉 Cor. 16. 15. 2 Cor. 9. 2. 1 Thes. 1. 7. ) Which is an Evidence , that the Church of Corinth comprehended a good part of Achaia . From the whole I gather there must needs have been several Congregations , belonging to the Church of Ephesus , even in St. Paul's days , much more in the days of Ignatius , and if so , then Onesimus was a Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus . But Secondly . I also pretended to evince by an Heap of Arguments collected from the Form of Church Government , drawn up by the Assembly of Divines , and Vindicated by the London Ministers after in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani , that in St. Paul's Time , there were several Congregations in the Church of Ephesus : Mr. O. who tells his Reader somewhere in his Defence , that He has followed and Answered me Paragraph by Paragraph , has made a shift to skip over these Proofs : They come too near the Quick. I shall be forced therefore for that Reason , and the more strongly to Establish my Position to repeat them once more , and so dismiss the Epistles of Ignatius . The Assembly , and the London Divines , undertook to evince by Scripture , that even in the Days of St. Paul , there were several Congregations in the Church of Ephesus , and argued as follows — The Number of Prophets and Teachers at Ephesus were many , Paul continued there two Years and three Months , settled thereabout twelve Disciples , who Prophesied Act. 19. 1. 6 , 7. How should these thirteen Ministers be employ'd , if there were not many Congregations ? compare also Act. 20. 17 , 18 , 36 , 37. where 't is said of the Bishops ( or Presbyters ) of Ephesus , that Paul 〈◊〉 down and prayed with them all , and they all wept sore . Here is a good number imply'd . The gift of Tongues , also was given unto all these twelve Prophets , Act. 19. 6 , 7. To what end , if they had not several Congregations to speak unto in these several Tongues ? The multitude of believers must needs be great at Ephesus . For first , why should Paul , who had Universal Commission to plant Churches in all the World , stay about two Years at Ephesus , if no more had been converted there , than to make up one single Congregation ? Act. 19. 8 , 10. During this space ( secondly ) all that dwelt in Asia ( usually Meeting at Ephesus for Worship ) heard the Word of the Lord Jesus , both Jews and Greeks . Act. 19. 10. At the knowledge of Paul's Miracles ( thirdly ) Fear fell upon all the Jews and Greeks , dwelling at Ephesus , and the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified , Act. 19. 17. Many of the believes ( fourthly ) came , and confessed and shewed their deeds , v. 18. whereby is intimated , that more did believe than did thus , ( fifthly ) Many also of them that used curious Arts , brought their Books together and burnt them before all Men , and they counted the price of them , and found it fifty thousand pieces of Silver , ( This they would never have done publickly , if the Major part , or atleast a very great and considerable part of the City , had not embraced the 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 Milevita●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 Congregat●●●●●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 were of the Jewish Religion , yet this is no good Consequence . It would not pass ( I think ) if one should say Timothy was no Christian , but a Jew , because the Apostle saith , He knew the Holy Scriptures ( of the Old Testament ) which were able to make him wise unto Salvation . Thirdly , Philo does not affirm the Therapeutae pray'd twice a Day only , but intimates the quite contrary . His Words are , they passed the whole day in exercising themselves , understand , in Prayers , Praises , and other Offices of Piety and Devotion . Hence rather it may be gathered that the Therapeutae , pray'd three times a Day , as did the Ancient , and more devout part of the Jews , Psal. 55. 17. Dan. 6. 10. Acts. 3. 1. as well as the Christians . Fourthly , It is no doubt with me , but the Christians composed Hymns from the beginning , and 't is not unlikely in Metre too , if singing be a good proof of Metrical Praises , Act. 16. 25. Lastly the Christians were spread throughout the World , as the Therapeutae were : for if ( as Ignatius teaches ) Bishops were throughout the World , it follows of necessity that so were the Christians also , in as large a Sense as the Therapeutae . Upon the whole 〈◊〉 here is no proof , that I can see of the Therapeutae being Jews , not Cristians . On the contrary , that they were Christians may be gathered hence , because their Religious Exercises , their Lives and Manners , and their Discipline were conformable to the Christians , even in things peculiar to the Christians . They divided their Substance among their Friends , as the Christians are said to have done in the Acts : The Women among them ingaged into a State of Celibacy , which the Jewish Women would not no ; they observed Lent , or the Fast about Good Friday more strictly , than at other times ; for indeed otherwise their whole Life was Abstinence . In a Word , they had three Orders of Church-Officers : First , they that performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( that is Presbyters ) , Secondly , they that were employ'd about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( that is Deacons ) and Thirdly , those that obtained the highest degree of Office amongst them ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) that is Bishops . On these and other accounts ( which I pass by ) Eusebius roundly affirms — I judge that Philo ' s Words are plainly , and without controversy to be understood of Christians . Besides , I cannot easily perswade my self , that Scaliger and Valesius at this distance of time should see further into the matter , than Eusebius , Jerom and Epiphanius , who flourish'd much nearer those Days , whereof Philo wrote . Nor do we ever read of the Therape●●ae , before Philo brought them to Light , for any thing I have found ; and as for Josephus ( who doubtless had read Philo ) he takes no Notice at all of them , 't is probable , because they were Christians . So that I conceive them , to be as New as the Christians , yea Christians , though Philo did not or would not own it , being desirous ( it should seem ) to commend his own Nation and Religion , by representing , the strict Holiness and Devotion of these Therapeu●ae , as of a Sect of the Jews . Nevertheless , we ought here to Remember what Eusebius , almost in the beginning of the Seventh Chapter , has expresly delivered of these Therapeutae , viz. that they were Apostolical Men , 〈◊〉 of the race of the Hebrews ( or Jews ) and for that Reason in a great measure observed the Jewish rites , and institutions , as the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem , and in Judea generally did , even unto the Subversion of the City by Titus . They were then Christian-Jews , or Jewish-Christians , who both believed in Christ , and yet were 〈◊〉 of the Jew , of which kind we meet with many in the Acts of the Apostles . Whoever will impartially consider what has been said , will ( I hope ) be induced to believe they were Christians . I am pretty sure 't is the only way to reconcile the Arguments brought on both sides . The Christians then , ( as I designed to prove ) must have been many at Alexandria , and in AEgypt , whilst Mark presided there or soon after : they had many Churches , and Annianus succeeded Mark in the Government of them , we reading of no other Bishops , then at or near Alexandria , but Annianus ; Mr. O. has not told us of one . Yet Mr. O. pleads — Mark was no resident Evangelist at Alexandria , but a Companion of Peter's , and Paul's in their Travels up and down , with Paul , Acts. 12. 25. ch . 13. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 11. Philemon . 24. Col. 4. 10. with Barnabas , Acts 15. 39. and at Cyprus : with Peter at Babylon , ● Ep. 5. 13. And since he was thus employ'd in divers Countries one after another by these three Apostles , he could not be the Resident Evangelist at Alexandria . Ans. First , all this is nothing to the Argument drawn from Annianus his succeeding Mark , and having the Administration of the Church of Alexandria committed to him ; for he might succeed in the Administration , when the Evangelist left it , and betook himself to another Work. Secondly , I conceive there were three several Persons Named Mark , all to be found in the Scriptures before cited ; for 't is in no wise probable , that Paul , and Barnabas , and Peter , should all have the same Person to be their Disciple and Companion , since they all took a different Course , and Travelled into distant Provinces to propagate the Gospel . Thirdly , Paul fell out with , and separated from Barnabas , who took Mark along with him , Paul refusing it , Acts 15. 28. we never read that they pieced again . 'T is not likely then , that the same Mark should accompany Paul afterwards ; and yet we read of one Mark with Paul , all along in the Texts alledged ; Nor can it be thought that Paul would receive this Mark again , who had deserted him , and for that reason been rejected by him . Fourthly , There was not a right understanding between Peter and Paul , as appears from the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians . 'T is not then probable , that the same Mark attended them both . Fifthly , The several Characters and Descriptions , given unto Mark in the places adduced by Mr. O. do 〈◊〉 that there were three of that Name . First , In Acts 12. 12. Ch. 13. 13. Ch. 15. 37 , 39. the Mark in all these Texts spoken of , is either called John only , or John sirnamed Mark : but he quite forsook Paul , and adhered to Barnabas in the last quoted place , Act. 15. 39. This note of distinction imports , that there were other Marks , besides this John. For Secondly , I read of Mark the Nephew of Barnabas , or Barnabas's Sister's Son , Col. 4. 10. He doubtless was the Man , who was Paul's Disciple and Companion , after his separation from Barnabas , and continued with him to the end of Paul's Life . Col. 4. 10. Philem. 24. 2 Tim. 4. 11. But lastly there was a Mark , Peter's Son , and with Peter , when he wrote his first Epistle at Babylon , 1 Pet. 5. 13. For the several Reasons before alledged , he could be neither of the two former Marks , and moreover Eusebius constantly makes him the Disciple , Interpreter , and Follower of Peter . 'T is then incredible , he 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 when their Records had been destroyed by the Saracens . It must then rest upon the credit of 〈◊〉 himself alone , and what that is will appear by and by . In the mean time this Tale of 〈◊〉 must not pass , being wrote by one , who lived at so great a distance of time from the matter of Fact , delivered by Him without any other known Ancienter Author to support him , besides , He is an Obscure Writer Pop't up into the World to serve a cause , and therefore cannot Merit belief . Secondly , 〈◊〉 differs from many Authors of more Unquestionable Authority than himself . He differs from Ignatius , who affirms that Presbyters ought to do nothing without the Bishop , not Baptize , not Marry , not Celebrate the Eucharist without the Bishop : but according to 〈◊〉 , they Ordained without him . He differs from Eusebius , so far at least as to relate , what Eusebius knew nothing of . It is very strange that Eusebius so diligent , and so exact an Historian , so curious , and inquisitive a Searcher , into the Antiquities of the most Eminent Churches , from their first Plantation , particularly this of Alexandria , should not have discovered any thing , of the Presbyters Ordaining their Bishop and one another : that , he that has acquainted us with the Names of all the Patriarchs from Mark to Alexander , the precise Order of their Succession , the Year when every Bishop succeeded , in what Emperor's Reign it was , and sundry , other remarkable things which happened in that Church , should be wholly silent , and ignorant of this Constitution , of St. Mark. More over 〈◊〉 says , that Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his Name , in the first Year of Nero's Reign : but Eusebius affirms , it was done in the Days of Claudius , Nero's Predecessor . Eutychius tells us , that Mark was slain in the first Year of Nero , Eusebius not till the Eighth at soonest . He differs from St. Jerom too who reports , that all the New Testament was wrote in Greek , except the Gospel of Matthew ; but Eutychius will have it , that Mark wrote his in the Latin Tongue . Briefly , then he differs from some Authors ( quoted by Selden himself ) in whom he read of three Presbyters , Seven Deacons , and Eleven other 〈◊〉 Officers , of what Character is not said ; whereas Eutychius mentions Twelve only , and all those Presbyters : on these accounts , then he is of very little credit . Thirdly , He relates many things in his Annals ( whereof these Origines are a part ) against the Faith of all approved History . He makes the Council of Nice , to have consisted of 2048. Bishops , which is not credible : He says , Peter was crucified in the Twenty Second Year after Christ : and he reckons Origen a Bishop . Fouthly , Even in these Origines , he is not at one with himself . He writes , that Mark went unto Barca to preach the Gospel , that then Claudius Caesar dy'd , and Nero succeeded him : that in the Reign of Nero , Peter the Prince of the Apostles , wrote the Gospel of Mark , with Mark in the Roman Tongue , and in the City of Rome , and yet that Mark was slain at Alexandria , in the first Year of Nero. But if Mark was Martyr'd at Alexandria , in the first Year of Nero , it cannot be , that he was at Rome with Peter in Nero's Reign , and joyned with him in Writing the Gospel . Fifthly , Eutychius's story seems most improbable , and in my Judgment overthrows its self . For if the Presbyters had the Power , first of chusing , and then Ordaining one from among themselves to be Patriarch , and after that , Ordained the new Presbyter also , to what purpose was a Bishop created ? was he to be a Bishop of Clouts , to sit in his Chair and gravely to look on , whilst the Eleven Presbyters Chose and Ordained the Twelveth , and he have no Hand in it ? Sixthly , The Origines consists of so many Childish , Ridiculous , and Absurd Relations , that no wise Man can given any credit to so trifling an Author . That story of Mark' s going to a Shoe-Maker or Cobler , to have his Shoe-Latchet mended ; of Hananias pricking his Finger with the Awl , and thereupon growing Angry : of Mark' s 〈◊〉 him with a Promise to heal his Finger , if He would belive in Christ : of Hananias believing and being cured ; and Lastly , of Mark' s Baptizing him thereupon , and making him Patriarch of Alexandria , is to me incredible . Another of the like Nature , is that of Alexander's desiring that the Patriarch of Alexandria , should not be called Papa , whereas it had been decreed before in the Days of Heracles ( I suppose for distinctions sake ) Bishops being stiled Fathers , therefore it was judged fit , that the Patriarch should be Honoured with the Title of Grand-Father . But-why Alexander should be so Self-denying , as to refuse an Honourable Title , which several of his Predecessors had had beforehim , is to me a Mystery . Again , that wonderful design of Mark ( as 〈◊〉 reports it , to have always the exact Number of Twelve Presbyters in Alexandria , appears to me not very Solid . Lastly , of the same stamp is , that request of Peter to be crucify'd with his Head downward , that he might not have the Honour to die , in the same manner as Jesus Christ did . I fancy , that Peter never requested such a thing , or if He did , that Nero never granted it . Seventhly , Whereas Eutychius would make us believe , that Mark' s Rule about the Presbyters of Alexandria ( not the Neighbouring Bishops of Egypt ) chusing and Ordaining the Patriarchs , and Presbyters continued unto the Days of Alexander , ( who must therefore be the last that was Ordained by the Presbyters , about the Year 310. ) : Yet St. Cyprian , who flourish'd above 60 Years before Alexander , has something that makes me suspect the contrary , and that Mark establish'd no such Order at Alexandria , St. Cyprians's Words are these — Propter quod diligenter de Traditione divina , & Apostolica observatione servandum est , & tenendum , quod apud nos quoque , & fere per Provincias Universas tenetur , ut ad Ordinationes rite Celebrandas , ad eam plebem Cui Praepositus Ordinatur , Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant , & Episcopus delegatur plebe presente , &c. This is part of a Letter , written by the Bishop of Carthage , to the Churches of Leon , Asturica , and Emerita in Spain : from whence 't is manifest , that this was a Divine Tradition , an Apostolical Practice , that the Bishops of the Province should Assemble , Chuse and Ordain a new Bishop , and that it universally obtained , apud nos ( says the Father ) among us in Africa , and almost in all the Provinces in the World , in the Roman Empire besure . And I take Cyprian to be a much trustier Author , than Eutychius , or Jerom either . To support this Testimony of St. Cyprian , I produce the First , of the Apostolical Canons , which were collected before St. Cyprian , at least a good while before the Nicene Council ( as Dr. Beverigde has shewn ) wherein , as is by Selden pretended , the Custom of Alexandria was alter'd ; but 〈◊〉 cannot be , as may be gathered from the first Canon aforesaid , which runs thus — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If then this Apostolical Canon was in force before the Council of Nice , then it was not the Nieene Council , which altered the Alexandrian Custom , as Eutychius and Selden suppose , it having been a much more Ancient practise , it seems for the Provincial Bishops , to Ordain Bishops . And so Eutychius is mistaken in this point also . If ever there was such a Rule establish'd by Mark at Alexandria , of Presbyters Ordaining Bishops , or Presbyters , it was changed before Alexander or the Nicene Council , yea , before St. Cyprian's time . Eighthly , Whereas Eutychius asserts , there were no Bishops in Egypt till Demetrius , it is proved to the contrary by that most Learned Prelate Bishop Pearson , from several good Testimonies , and particularly from the Vetus Vita Marci , and Rabanus Maurus Abbot of Fulda , of both which Mr. Selden likewise takes Notice . The former writes thus — Pentapolim pergit ( Marcus ) & Ordinans Episcopos , per Regiones illas , & Clericos ; iterum Alexandriam venit . The latter thus — Ordinaverat ( Marcus ) pro se Episcopum Annianum , 〈◊〉 quoque longe lateque 〈◊〉 Episcopos . Mr. Selden to avoid the force of these Testimonies has invented this Shift , sc. that Mark made these Bishops in Pentapolis only , and not in Egpyt . If one ask'd why Mark should make Bishops in Pentapolis , and not in 〈◊〉 also , it would be hard for Mr. O. to give a satisfactory answer to it . Besides 't is said , that Mark made Bishops , per Regiones illas , doubtless the meaning is through all the Countries , that he travelled between Alexandria and Pentapolis ; and surely Egypt was one of them . And why should one Patriarch or Bishop , suffice for Alexandria and all Egypt , but not for Pentapolis ? Except Mr. O. would be so kind as to furnish us , with so early an instance , of a vast City and Province , under the Government of one single Bishop . It cannot then be questioned , but that there were from the beginning Bishops in the Province of Egypt , as well as one in the City of Alexandria . Ninthly , Whereas Eutychius says , that Mark appointed the Twelve Presbyters to chuse their Patriarch , and by Imposition of Hands , and Prayers to Ordain him , yet Bishop Pearson has produc'd several good Authorities to the contrary , shewing they were not Ordained by the Presbyters ; as first the Apostolical Constitutions attest . Of Abilius who succeeded Hananias — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Jerom's Chronicle , we read that Abilius was chosen ex Presbyteris , & 〈◊〉 Graecorum Traditionem a Sancto Luca Ordinatus est , that is , Abilius was chosen out of the Presbyters ( or from among them , as Jerom has it , not by 〈◊〉 ) and according to the Tradition of the Greek Church , was Ordained by St. Luke . Furthermore 〈◊〉 , who wrote the Lives of the Alexandrian Patriarchs , informs us , that Cerdon who succeeded Abilius , and Cerdon's Successors unto Demetrius , were Ordained by the Bishops out of that Region , that is , Egypt , I suppose . By all which it appears , that there were Bishops in Egypt before Demetrius , who Ordained the Patriarch , or Bishop of Alexandria . Tenthly , It is not like , that 〈◊〉 had any Authentick Records , belonging to the Churches of Alexandria and Egypt , the Saracens having destroy'd and burnt 'em all , long before Eutychius was born ; so that where he wanders from the Truth , or when he 〈◊〉 , we must conclude , he fram'd his Annals , and Origines out of his own Brains , or some uncertain Monkish Traditions and Legends , then currant among them . To conclude , supposing the Alexandrian Presbyters , by St. Mark' s appointment , did Elect the Patriarch or Bishop , yea , and Ordain him too , yet it must be confess'd , that Bishops ) however chosen and Ordained ) are as early as he , and by Divine Right , St. Mark being a Person inspired , and consequently having Authority from God , at least from the Apostles , to establish the Government of the Chuches , which he founded , with what Face then could Selden produce these Origines , to justifie the Presbyterian design in the late Troubles ( I do not now say for altering the way of choosing , and Ordaining them ) but for quite extirpating Episcopacy ? Or with what Colour of Reason can Mr. O. argue against Episcopacy , and blame us for not observing the supposed Method of chusing and Ordaining our Bishops , 〈◊〉 himself and his Partizans are undermining the Fabrick , which St. Mark is confest to have built , and levelling it to the very Foundation ? Let our Adversaries first conform themselves to this Rule of St. Mark , let them in every City chuse , and Ordain a Bishop for Life , unto whom themselves , and all the Faithful in the City and Country adjacent must be Subject , and unto whose care and conduct , the Administration of the Ecclesiastical Affairs may chiefly be committed , and when they have done this , then let them lay before us this special Author Eutychius : It will be time enough then to consider farther of him : Mean while it seems not fair nor honest , to bring this Fabulous instance on the Stage against us , which they themselves will not be guided by . The 〈◊〉 is Eutychius , of whom we have been speaking , liv'd about 900 Years distance from the 〈◊〉 by him related , without any intermediate Testimony to confirm his story : He differs in many things , from several good Authors of much more credit than himself : He relates things against the Faith of all History ; he contradicts himself , 〈◊〉 own story 〈◊〉 its self , he intermixes many little Foolish and very improbable Remarks , he is contradicted by more Ancient Writers , yea , and more unquestionable than himself ; Jerom , whose design and Argument needed it , makes no mention of that Constitution of St. Mark , and lastly , the Dissenters themselves observe it not . By this instance therefore ; 〈◊〉 they do us harm they do themselves no good , yea , rather hereby they condemn themselves . But Lastly , against the Testimony of 〈◊〉 , I lay that of 〈◊〉 . Echellensis de Orig. Alexand. Ecl. which I borrow from the Bishop of Worcester . Echellensis tells us out of Severns Alex. Bishop of the Asmonaeans , and of the Sect of the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 , that after the Death of the Patriarch , the Presbyters met together and prayed , and proceeded to Election : The first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to chuse their Bishop , and to the other Bishops ( in Egypt ) to consecrate him . To which the Bishops then present assented , only saying , if he were worthy they would consecrate him , whom they chose , but not otherwise : So then they had it seems , a Negative Voice in the Election . And Elmachinus makes this a Constitution of St. Mark in the first Foundation of that Church , and saith it continued to the Nicene Council , about which time it was ordered , that the Bishop might be chosen from any place or Church whatever , and this was all the Alteration in the Constitution of the Alexandrian Church at the Council of Nice , whatever Selden or Eutycbius say to the contrary . CHAP IV. Of the Syriac Translation of the New Testament . MR. O. argues , that the the Syriac 〈◊〉 , which is so very Ancient , that is comes nearest in time to the Original , useth not two Words , 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 , and besides were small , and inconsiderable Conversions , no Church being formed or established among them : For so 〈◊〉 in the place cited mentions many other Countries , where happly some few scattered Christians lived , though no Church was regularly established . Now though this is sufficient to convince me , that the People of the remote North and North-West of Scotland ( now so called ) beyond Edenburgh , were not meant by 〈◊〉 ; yet foreseeing it will not satisfie others , whose Interest and Cause will not suffer them easily to be perswaded , I will therefore take the Liberty to offer my own Thoughts unto the Readers Consideration , My Conjecture then is , that the Loca Britannorum Romanis inaccessa referred unto by 〈◊〉 , were no other than Ireland . Ptolomy reckons the Islands of the World thus . First , Taprobane the Greatest : The next was ( GREAT ) Britain , otherwise 〈◊〉 Albion , and the Third , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Island of the Britains called Ireland . And Pliny says , Albion was named Britany , yet all the Neighbouring Island were called Britannies , and that Ireland of Old time was inhabited by Britains . Aristotle ( or whoever was the Author of that Book de mundo ) Witnesses , that there were in the Ocean two the greatest Islands in the World , called 〈◊〉 ' ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Albion and Ireland . Thus much I have gathered from Mr. Cambden . I shall add one of my own Collection from Dionysius de situ Orbis , who speaking of our Western Ocean says . † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who then can doubt , but that Ireland was meant by 〈◊〉 's Britannorum loca , as well as any other places of the Britains , since 't is well known the Romans never carried their Arms , nor extended their Conquests , so far as unto that Island , although they were not ignorant of the place , be sure in Tertullian's Days , no nor in Augustus's time , when Dionysius the African wrote ? 〈◊〉 himself in the same Period adds , and Multarum Insularum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , many Islands unknown to us , where the Gospel had got footing . But least the unwary Reader should think these very Words overthrow my Opinion , and that the Island , Ireland , being unknown to 〈◊〉 , cannot be meant by the Loca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inaccessa , it must be noted that by 〈◊〉 , he intends such Islands with whom they had no Commerce in Ordinary , nor an exact account of . 〈◊〉 that they were wholly ignorant of them cannot be ; for then 〈◊〉 must talk at Random and Nonsense . How could He say , that Christianity was propagated in these Islands , if they were altogether 〈◊〉 . There is a passage in Archbishop 〈◊〉 , I must not 〈◊〉 over . Neither did Celestine employ less care about freeing the Britains from the Pelagian Heresies — a Bishop being Ordained 〈◊〉 the Scots ; while be studies to preserve the Roman Island Catholick , 〈◊〉 also made the Barbarous Island Christian , the former whereof was Great-Britain , the latter Ireland . The forecited Words are 〈◊〉 's which Vitus Basinstochius † thus expounds , and thereby illustrates Tertullian . When Prosper said Britannies , doubtless 〈◊〉 called the Roman Island , Britain , and the other Island called Barbarous , he understood to be Ireland , whither the Power of the Roman 〈◊〉 't is believed never came . It will be Objected hence , that therefore because the Pope is here said to have sent a Bishop ( 〈◊〉 is meant ) and by him made Ireland Christian , Ireland embraced not the Faith till that time , 〈◊〉 about 430. by consequence 〈◊〉 is not to be understood of Ireland . But I reply , First , That Prosper and 〈◊〉 , must be supposed to speak a 〈◊〉 de Rome , as believing none were good Christians , but who depended on the Pope . Besides , Ireland was Christian long before this , as the story of 〈◊〉 proves . But Secondly , It may with Reason 〈◊〉 supposed , that a great part of Ireland was yet unconverted . Or Thirdly , The Scots a Foreign People , 〈◊〉 , and Barbarous had more 〈◊〉 invaded , and Conquered them , and withal very much impaired the Christian Religion , ( as the 〈◊〉 once did here in England ) nevertheless , that about the Year 430. the Christian Religion , by the Preaching of 〈◊〉 , or rather St. Patrick was restored again . If it be demanded of me , how I prove , that Ireland became Christian before 〈◊〉 , I reply , 't is proved by the same 〈◊〉 , others would prove that the North and North West of the now Scotland , was so early converted , that is , by 〈◊〉 's Testimony ; and which 〈◊〉 the must likely conjecture , must now be left to the Reader . The summ is , if 〈◊〉 may as well speak of Ireland , as of any other place , here is then no proof of so early a Conversion in the utmost North of Great Britain . But let us hear what Mr. O. has advanc'd in this Controversy : For indeed my business is with him . He begins then and Acquaints us . The Histories of Scotland tell 〈◊〉 their Churches were Governed by 〈◊〉 without Bishops , for above 200 Years , and therefore had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 . In confirmation hereof , Mr. O. cites Hector 〈◊〉 , John Major , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and indeed these are the best and the most Ancient and only Witnesses , that can be produced in that Cause , except the invisible 〈◊〉 , who at best was but in the Eleventh Century . But these were the most Errand 〈◊〉 of Legends as ever appeared in publick , having no Author , no Records before them , to support what they affirm concerning their Country and its affairs . Thus much my Lord of St. 〈◊〉 in his Historical Account has objected against these , and other such Fabulous Historians : And Mr. O. who has read this Learned . Bishop , ought not to have urged these 〈◊〉 , unless 〈◊〉 had taken off the Bishops Exceptions against them . True , he tells us , Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Approbation , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E. 〈◊〉 . p. 〈◊〉 . 799. 800. But when I consult Archbishop 〈◊〉 , I find him indeed citing these Authors , page 800. but not , no not 〈◊〉 Himself , with Approbation , unless his very citing them must 〈◊〉 taken as an Approbation of them , which I must 〈◊〉 Mr. O. is his 〈◊〉 . For the said Archbishop in his Preface to that Book 〈◊〉 , the Reader would object against him , the Obscurity and little Credit of many of his Authors ingenuously Confesses , that he had gathered together a 〈◊〉 of all manner of Authors , good and bad , new and old , to the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historian might from thence pick , what seemed to his purpose and probable : But that otherwise ( he 〈◊〉 ) 〈◊〉 was not so void of sense , 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Monmouth , or Hector Boethius , or any other of the lower Form , as 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 thing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hence it follows , that Archbishop 〈◊〉 cites them not with Approbation , especially not 〈◊〉 , and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who is the vir gregis , the 〈◊〉 and Leader , in all the Romantick Stories of the Antiquity of the Scotch Nation and Church . It is to be observed Hector Boethius , the last of the three takes upon him to mend the former , Fordon , and Major , saying ( what Mr. O. leaves out ) Palladius was the first , that was made Bishop , by the Pope among the Scots ; whereas in former times , Bishops were taken out of the Culdees and Monks , the People chusing them . Here then the Witnesses do not agree among themselves : For Fordon says without Bishops , and Major Presbyters only , but Boethius plainly intimates the Scots had Bishops in former times , though not of the Roman Stamp , nor thence sent unto the Scots . Palladius was the first of the Roman Bishops , not the first Bishop . Whoever chose'em is nothing to our purpose : The Scots had Bishops before Palladius , according to Boethius , who were pickt out of the Monks and Culdees : But he says , not Ordained by them . It may as well be affirmed , that because our Bishops at this Day are taken out of the Presbyters , that therefore they are Ordained by them . Lastly , The said Archbishop Usher , there produces another Testimony out of John Baly , who Writes — Palladius was sent among the Scots , that he might establish the Episcopal Order among them , after the Roman Fashion , for ( He adds ) the Scots had before that time their Bishops , and ( other ) . Ministers , as it was among the Britains after the Asiatick Manner . But it pleased not the Romans ( the Popes ) who affected Ceremonies , and hated the Asiaticks . But though the Scots were Anciently the Inhabitans of Ireland , yet says Mr. O. these Authors call the Ancient Inhabitants of ( the now ) Scotland , by the Name they were known in their own days , and to them Palladius is thought to have been sent . True ! But 't was their ignorance or worse , nothing being more clear , than that the Ancient Inhabitants of the now Scotland , were Britains and Picts , not Scots . This is fully made out in the Historical Account of the Church-Government , &c. as well as by Archbishop Usher's Authorities , to whom I refer the Reader . Whereas Bede l. 5. c. 10. relates , how that Columba was the first Teacher of the Christian Faith , among the Tramontane Picts , to the North , Mr. O. thus glosses on that Passage — He was the first Bede knew of , implying there were others before , that Bede knew not of . Ans. At this rate all Authorities may be eluded : And all the Testimonies produced by Mr. O. in favour of his Cause , may easily be laid aside . Bede 〈◊〉 no other , yet the contrary is true ; thus , I may say , Fordon and Major talk of Presbyters and Monks , among the Scots without Bishops : That is , that they knew of ; but however there were Bishops among them Bede himself gives not the 〈◊〉 occasion for this gloss , but is as positive herein , as any Writer can be . And he is a better Witness in these Matters , than Fordon , Major , and Boethius . These talk of matter before their time a 1000 Years , without any Authority to back their Relations : Bede , of things which happened but about 140 Years , only before his time . For 〈◊〉 flourished Anno 560. and Bede was born Anno 707. and flourish'd 735. In short then Bede might well understand what happened at 〈◊〉 , and among the Northern Picts , the English Saxons , having so lately received Christianity from the Bishops , sent hither by Columba , and his Successors . Mr. O. goes on to acquaint us , Christianity was much more Ancient in the North of the now Scotland , and that 't is proved by Bishop Cowper . Ans. Bishop Cowper , laboured under the common Disease of easily believing , and advancing the Antiquity and Honour ( as he thought ) of his own Nation . He brought no Testimony of Credit , but that out of Theodoret , which belongs unto the Southern Britains ( for of Tertullian's we have before Treated ) . But Mr. O. would be resolved in some Queries . First , When the Fathers mention Joseph of Arimathea , Simon Zelotes , &c. to have Preached the Gospel in Britain , what reason have we to exclude North Britain ? The zeal of those Apostles and Apostolical Men , and their Charity would Prompt them , to endeavour the Propagation of the Gospel throughout Britain ; and part of the now Scotland , belonged then to the British Kings . Ans. I know no Father that mentions Joseph of Arimathea , and Simon Zelotes , except haply Dorotheus , who is the Father of a Thousand Lyes , or Fordon , Major , Boethius , Fleming , Balaeus , and such other later and Legendary Writers . I can give several good reasons against the North - Britains being so early converted , and good ones too , as I think Britain Anciently was divided into very many petty Kingdoms : None of the Princes received the Faith very early ( that we know of ) save Lucius perhaps : The Romans never penetrated into the now Scotland , till a good while after , and it was by their means in part , that Christianity spread its self . The Picts in North - Scotland never stoop't to their Yoke , which rendred their Conversion more difficult . And something ( I hope ) in this point may be ascribed unto the Secret Will and Providence of God. Can Mr. O. give me any other Reasons than such as these , that the Saxons and Angli in Germany , who over-run Britain , were no sooner converted , tho' Tertullian reckons the Germans in General , to have been Christians in his time ? Nor were the Apostles themselves , nor the Apostolical Men always Successful in their endeavours . St. Paul was forbid to Preach in Asia , Acts , 16. 6. 'T is a wretched way of proving a matter of Fact in Question , from such slender Probabilities . By the like Arguments one might prove , that all Europe , Asia and Africa , embraced the Gospel a Thousand Years since , even the most Northern Scythians , the most Eastern Indians and Seres , and the Africans about the Cape of Good-Hope . In short , though Paul plants , and Apollos Waters , yet 't is God , who gives the Increase . 'T is certain the Apostles themselves did not always take Fish , where-ever they cast their Net. Our Lord foretold them as much , directing them therefore to shake off the dust of their Feet , as a Testimony against them , that rejected their Doctrine . But enough of Mr. O's first Query . Secondly , He asks if the North - Britains received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome ( as seems from Bede , E. H. l. 3. c. 4 ) How came they to keep their Easter , after the Eastern Manner . Ans. This is accounted for by the Bishop of St. Asaph , and Mr. O. ought to have acquiess'd , or else refuted the Bishop , and not thus frivolously repeated the bare Objection about Easter , without Vindicating it against the Bishop . But he seems to read Books on purpose to furnish himself with little Objections ; not with a disposition to hearken unto Reason , but to Spin out , and continue disputes , for Ever . Besides , the North Britain ( here so called by Mr. O. ) is by Bede in his History described , to be the most Southern part of the now Scotland , adjoyning vnto England , and called Galloway or Annandale , on this side Edenburgh . But what is this , to the Northern Tramontaene 〈◊〉 , beyond Edenburgh , whither we say the Romans , neither Gentiles nor Christians , nor the Christian Religion , ever reached before Columba settled at Hy , who also came thither not from Rome , but Ireland . Mr. O. farther pleads these words of Bede . I. 1. ch . 13. That by the Pope Palladius was sent primus Episcopus ad Scotos Creden tes . therefore the Scots were Christians before Palladius . Ans. If this Testimony be adduced to any purpose , 't is to prove , that the Tramontane Picts received Palladius , their first Bishop from 〈◊〉 , the Roman 〈◊〉 , that before that time they believed , and had Presbytery only , but no Bishops , because Palladius was the first . Now to shew the Disingenuity of this Suggestion , it must be noted very briefly out of the Historical Account , that by Scots , are here meant the Scots in Ireland , that Bede has not a word of their form of Government ; that some Copies read ad Scotos convertendos , which would imply , that they were not yet Christians ; that primus ( in Prosper , whence Bede is thought to have taken his Narrative ) in some Copies is read primitus , that is , formerly ; that Palladius and Patricius , were designed for the Primates only , or the first Bishops in rank ; and finally , that 't is true , Palladius was the first Bishop , sent into Ireland by the Pope ; Yet there were Bishops before that Time , of which Number Archbishop Usher produces Four. This was the first attempt of reducing Ireland to the Obedience of the Pope . I 'll say nothing of Mr. O's confessing Palladius was sent into Ireland . Plea 148. Mr. O. now promises us an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland : 't is that of Segenius a 〈◊〉 , and the Abbot of Hy , who with other Presbyters Ordained Bishop Aidan and Finan . Bede H. E. l. 3. 5 , 15 Ans. But Mr. O. acknowledges that there were Bishops at Hy , and in that Province from Bede , lib. 3. ch . 4. and the Ulster Annals agree hereunto . What need we say any more to resolve this difficulty ? Some Bishop with the Abbot and his Presbyters , laying hands on ( as our Custom is at this Day ) Ordained Aidan , For to what purpose were these Bishops among them , if not to Ordain ? The Government was in the Abbots Hands : the Presbyters were able to Minister in the Word and Sacraments : The Bishops bufiness then was certainly to Ordain . Mr. O. excepts against the Ulster Annals , as not being attested by any Author of that Age : And yet they agree in most things with Adamnanus , and with 〈◊〉 , and are a little relied on by Archbishop Usher . Mr. O. urges ( a Bishop being supposed in the Monastery at Hy ) He was subject to the Abbot , and thinks he has here sufficiently reply'd , to My Lord of St. Asaph's Solution of that difficulty ; I do therefore add thereto . Ans. Nothing is more certain than that Bishops were wont to be in Monasteries . I read in Theodoret , of eleven residing in those of Egypt , from their Youth up to their Extreame Old Age , and when they were Bishops too . Theod. E. H. l. 4. ch . 22. Now though the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot of Hy , yet it must remembred also , that the Abbots Jurisdiction extended it self throughout the Province . No wonder then , if the Provincial Bishops were 〈◊〉 to the Abbots : Rule and Order required thus much . If one of our English Bishops should 〈◊〉 into a College of Oxford , and readmit himself a Member of the University , He becomes thereby subject unto the Head of that College , and to the Chancellor within the Precincts of the University . And that I may not fain a case , some of our Bishops have held a Prebendary of a Collegiate Church in Commendam : He is thereby subject to the Dean therein , all matters belonging to that Church , even as 〈◊〉 says , the Provincial Bishops were to the Abbots of Hy , viz. within the Abbot's Jurisdiction . But we know for all this the Chancellor of Oxford , and the Dean of a Cathedral cannot Ordain . Besides , the Abbots of Hy , though they retained an External Government over all in the Province , the Bishops not excepted : Yet as to the Episcopal and Ministerial Acts of Religion , in that Age belonging to Bishops , the Abbots gave place to Bishops , as 〈◊〉 appear from the following story , in My Lord of St. Asaph , It was it seems the Custom at that time , for the Priests being all equals to break the Lord's Bread in the 〈◊〉 together . A certain Bishop being then at Hy , and not discovering his Character , was by Columba invited to break the Lord's Bread with him : But Columba at length discerning him to be a Bishop , would have the Bishop break the Bread alone , as Bishops then used to do : which shews that notwithstanding the Abbots Temporal Jurisdiction ( as I may call it ) Columba acknowledged the Episcopal Order , to be Superior to that of a Presbyter . Lastly , Bede's inusitato more ( for the right understanding whereof , I refer to the Historical Account ) implies , that this was but one singular , and unprecedented example . One Swallow , and such a one as was never seen before , does not make a Summer . One might then here justly cry out with 〈◊〉 , Quid mibi profers 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae consuetudinem ? Cum 〈◊〉 Turba 〈◊〉 , and the Whole World was Episcopal . The first person sent into Northumberland , from Hy was one described only , but without a Name in Bede . Returning back to Hy without 〈◊〉 , Aidan is appointed and Ordained unto the Episcopacy : in whose Ordination it is probable his Predecessor , a Bishop was concerned : for he was then present among them . Mr. O. alledges , he is called only 〈◊〉 a Priest ; but this is disputing a small point by Halves : for if Aidan was a Bishop so was his 〈◊〉 : And of Aidan 't is said — Ipsum esse dignum Episcopatu : and then in the next Chapter , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aidan at his Ordination , 〈◊〉 Antistes . So then in Bede's Language Antistes is a Bishop , and the nameless Person we speak of is called so a little 〈◊〉 : He was therefore a Bishop , if Aidan was . Lastly , Aidan belike was a Presbyter before he was Ordained Bishop of Northumbria : if so , to what purpose was he Ordained , if not to a distinct Office ? I do suppose all Mr. 〈◊〉 Material Objections are accounted for by this time , and his Proofs of Presbyterian Ordination invalidated . I will conclude this Chapter with two Observations . First , It cannot with any reason be imagined , but that there were Bishops in the Province of Hy , because Columba , the first Abbot thereof came out of Ireland ; there we read of Bishops among whom he was educated , convers't freely with them , and was Ordained by them . He was Ordained Deacon by Finian Bishop of Meath , and was an Intimate Friend of Columbanus Bishop of Laghlin , and Ordained Presbyter by one of them , most probably by Columbanus , from whom also he might take his Name , as Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea , did that of Pamphilus , Hist. Account c. 5. After he was Abbot of Hy , he propagated Bishops among the Northumbrians , from whom our English Saxons derived . On this account it was my Lord of St. Asaph argued , that the Scotch Ordinations must needs be Episcopal , meaning those at Hy : which he confirmed by this Consideration , because the Romans ( Austin the Monk , and his Associates ) did not dislike the Orders , that they found in the British Church , as being Episcopal , though derived from the Monastery of Hy. To this Mr. O. excepts , that if by British Bishops be meant the Church of South Britain , 't is not to the purpose as we observed before . Ans. Nothing is more plain than that my Lord Bishop meant the Church of South Britain . Whatever Mr. O. observed before is not Material , but my Lord Bishop's Observation is manifestly to the purpose . For if the Romans did not dislike the Orders of the Church of South Britain , they could not dislike the Orders of Hy , because the South Britains derived their Orders from Hy , and doubtless were the same : and the reason they disliked neither was because they were Episcopal , as were the Romans and all the World beside . Mr. O. adds , if the Orders 〈◊〉 at Hy , be intended as not disliked by the Romans , yet ( says he ) the Romans were not so ignorant of the Privileges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations , which are allowed by that Church . Decret . Greg. Abbas , si sit Presbyter , conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem . Ans. Ordo Clericalis may possibly here 〈◊〉 neither the Episcopal nor Presbyterial , nor the Diaconal Order , but the Inferior Orders only , such as the Sub-Deacons , Acoluthists , Exorcists , Psalmists , Lectors and Door-keepers . But that the Episcopal Order is not meant , is to me past dispute : For the Romans never allowed an Abbot Presbyter to Ordain a Bishop that I heard of . Secondly , If this Privilege was allowed by the Roman Pontifs to the Presbyter , Abbots . It was allowed to such of them only , who 't is likely owned the Jurisdiction of the Roman See. But not unto those , who refused subjection to it , as did the Abbots of Hy , Mr. O. knows very Well . This Privilege then , whatever it was , could not be the reason of the Romans not dislkeing the foresaid Orders . Thirdly , The Decretals mentioned were made or put together , by Gregory the Nineth Pope of Rome , in the Thirteenth Century , about 709 Years after these Abbots of Hy , almost as many after Austin the Monk , and therefore not appositely here alledged . Fourthly , Mr. O. seems here to countenance Presbyterian Orders , by Popish 〈◊〉 , and Canonsframed in the Dregs of Time , when the Romish Corruptions were at their Height . But I like them never the better for that . The Romans are more excusable in this then our Dissenters , 'T was their Principle , that all Church-Officers derive from , and depend meerly upon the Pope's Will. He may then communicate the Priviledge to whom he will , even to a Deacon . But that a Presbyterian Dissenter should justify his Orders by a Pope's decree is something extraordinary and Extravagant , as I fancy . But Secondly , I would observe that Columba a Presbyter himself usurp't ( or received from the Prince of the Province of Delried ) a Dominion over a great Province in the North-West of the now Scotland , over the Monks and Culdees ( if any such were ) , yea even over his Fellow Presbyters themselves : for all or many of them at least were Presbyters , and lastly , over the Bishop also , if it will be acknowledged there were such in the Province of Hy. Besides , he yet retained a Jurisdiction over the Monastery of Dearmuch in Ireland , which himself had formerly erected , and his Successors over many more Monasteries of lesser Note , which sprang out of these two , both in 〈◊〉 and in 〈◊〉 . Now this is a wonderful piece of Antiquity to justifie the Priciples , and Practices of the United Brethren at present amongst us . If it proves Presbyterian Ordination it destroys Presbyterian Parity , unless Mr. O. will assert , that the Monks of Hy were equal to the Abbots , and that every Monk was the Abbot in his Turn , pro Tempore . What Room then has Mr. O. to talk of Bishops receiving their Power from Kings , ruling over many Churches and Congregations , exercising Jurisdiction over their Fellow Presbyters ( as he thinks ) and that for life too ? All this did Columba and his Successors , who are pretended by Mr. Baxter , to have restored the Culdees ( or Presbyters ) strength against the incroachments of Palladius . But all this while the Tyrants only were changed , not the Tyranny , the name altered not the thing . Instead of Palladius , the Culdees and Monks were in the Hands of Columba : and in the place of a Bishop was set up an Archpresbyter . Moreover , I would ask whether in the supposed Ordinations at Hy by Presbyters , the Monk-Presbyters could or did Ordain without the Abbot-Presbyters . If not ( as I believe all will and must grant ) our United Bretheren will find little relief from this rare Instance of Presbyterian Parity and Ordination . I should here have concluded this Chapter , but Mr. O. in the midst of this Controversie , has interwoven an invidious Reflection upon Episcopacy , and asserted , that the Hierarchy in the Churches of the Roman Empire , had their Platform from the Heathen , who had their Flamens and Arch-Flamens , and I know not what . Ans. 1. If the Heathens had Sundry Officers in the Administrations of their Idolatrous Religion , subordinate to one another , it will not follow the Christians took it from them ? Why not from the Jewish Hierarchy ? His beloved Hilarius Sardus is of this Opinion : or why may it not not be thought a piece of Natural Religion , wherein the Patriarch , Jews , Gentiles , all agree ? But let us see how he attempts to make good this Reflection of the Christians , deriving their Hierarchy 〈◊〉 the Heathen . He grounds it on the Epistle of Julian to Arsacius , the Gentiles Chief-Priest in Galatia , and after the Citation of a scrap out of Eusebius , which I do not find in the places directed to , cries out , Here is a Precedent for Bishops intermedling with state affairs . Whereas any one may know that will but read , or understand that Epistle ( which Mr. O. never did I preceive ) that 't is intirely spent about Religious matters , and directs how Arsacius the Chief Priest should behave himself , in Governing the affairs of the Gentile Religion . Thus we are wont to be teazed by a sort of Men , that do not or will not understand what they say ; who , so they may cast dirt upon us , care not how ignorantly and falsly they do it . But to let this pass . The Question here is , whether the Christians derived their form of Church Government by Bishops from the Gentiles , or the Gentiles from them . This latter I undertake to make out . First , From the Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church , who argue for the Divine Authority of Bishops , as being borrowed from the Levitical High Priests , Priests and Levites . All the World knows this ; I need not bring forth 〈◊〉 Testimonies , even Mr. O's so oft mentioned Hilary is one : but of this I have spoke before . Secondly , Although the Druids according to Caesar , had such a sort of Government among them yet in the East , where Episcopacy was first established , the Gentiles had no such Government , as appears from what Eusebius has noted , of Maximinus the Heathen Emperor , who observing the way of Church Government among the Christians , and believing it conduced to the furtherance of their Religion , for the same reason appointed the same among the Gentiles . He then drew his Pattern from the Christians . Which is moreover confirmed by Lactantius , to have been then newly taken up by the Heathens — Maximinus novo more Sacerdotes Maximos per singulas Civitates singulos ex Primoribus fecit — parumque hoc fuit , nisi etiam Provinciis ex alticre Dignitatis gradu singulosquasi Pontifices superponeret — Maximinus then first ( Novo more ) created Chief Priests in every City , and as if this had been too little , he Ordained as it were High-Priests over Whole Provinces : It was then a new device among the Gentiles , first set up by Maxinisnus in conformity to the Christians . Thirdly , The same is proved out of that very Epistle of Julian , to Arsacius the chief-Priest of Galatia , though quoted by Mr. O. himself , as if it were on his side . I am ashamed any Man , that pretends to Religion and Learning , should thus foully misrepresent Authors , and make as if they had written , what is manifest they never so much as dreamed of . To shew this , I 'll first sum up what Sozomen himself relates concerning this matter , and then give you an abridgment of Julian's Epistle , that follows in the same Chapter . He says — The Emperor ( Julian ) desiring that the Gentile Religion should prevail , but observing that it was far surmounted by the Christian , was exceedingly troubled . When he thought with himself , that Christianity was chiefly commended by the lives and manners of those , who profess'd it , he determined with himself , to 〈◊〉 the Temples of the Gentiles with the same Rule and Order , which was in use among the Christians : also with the same degrees and Prerogatives of Supremacy . And sundry other things are mentioned , wherein Julian was resolved to imitate the Christians : He adds in general — The Emperor endeavoured to conform the Gentile unto the Christian Institutions . Then follows Julian's Letter to Arsacius , the Chief Priest of Galatia , wherein there is not a Syllable of State-Affairs ( as Mr. O. has falsly suggested ) , not a word that intimates , as if the Christian derived their Government from the Gentiles . He only admonishes Arsacius to take care about Sundry , particular things belonging unto Morality , such as Hospitality to Strangers , care about burying the dead , that the Flamines should not frequent the Theater , nor Drink in Taverns , nor profess any Trade . He advises him to build Hospitals for the Poor , and promises to furnish him with Moneys to do it : He warns him not to pay visits often to Great Men , but to write to 'em only , and live retiredly : that the Inferior Flamines should not meet secular Officers , when they entred the Cities in Pomp , 〈◊〉 they came to the Temples of the Gods ; who when they are entred , are then but private Persons . In a Word , he Orders Arsacius to endeavour to make the Flamines good Men , by shaming them unto their Duty or perswading them , or removing them from the Priestly Ministry : to bestow Honour on them who obey'd , but the the stubborn and contumacious to expel . First , From the Whole it appears that all this Policy of Julian was taken from the Christians , whose Rules and Government he knew very well , having himself once been a Christian , and a Reader in the Church . True ! many Writers of latter Ages have taught , that the Christians followed the Gentiles in their Church-Government . But 't is not my business to account for the dreams and fancies of School-Men , and other Authors that follow them : Although at the same time I am of Opinion , that the Primitive Church regulated their Parishes , Diocesses and Provinces , according to the Divisions , which they found ready made to their Hands , by the Civil Magistrate , and perhaps to the districts formerly appointed by the Druids in these Western parts , which might occasion those Authors to affirm , that the Episcopal Government it self , was borrowed from them , which is ( we see ) a great mistake . To conclude ; seeing we have found the Government of the Gentile Religion ( in the East at least ) was taken from the Christian , being before more like unto the Presbyterian or Congregational , the Reflection may be retorted upon our Adversaries , and it may with more Truth be said , that they had their Pattern from the Gentile Priests . If any one desire a more full and Learned account of this , let him consult the late Bishop of Worcester . CHAP. VI. Concerning Fortunatianus Bishop of Assurae , Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops . MR O. endeavours to prove that Presbyters , and People may receive an accusation against their own Bishop : which is as 〈◊〉 as to say , the Bishop is not Superior to his Prebyters , who are his Judges . This he pretends to evince from the 65 th Epistle of St. Cyprian , which is thus directed — Epicteto fratri & plebi . The case was this : Fortunatianus Bishop of Assurae , had Sacrificed unto Idols in the late time of Persecution , under Decius the Emperor , by Consequence he had abandoned his Bishoprick , and even Christianity its self . When affairs were afterwards somewhat settled , and Peace restored unto the Church , Fortunatianus claim'd his Bishoprick again , and 't is not unlikely , but he had some interest among some of the People of Assurae , who were willing to accept him ; for so it was I find , in the following Case of Basilides and Martialis . Cyprian acquainted herewith , in that Letter exhorts Epictetus , and the People not to receive him , 〈◊〉 to acknowledge him any more for their Bishop . How this story establishes Mr. O's Proposition , I am not able to discern . For 1st , By this Argument the Bps were subject unto the People , as well as to their Presbyters , which Mr. O. would do well to consider of . 2 ly , It does not appear that Fortunatianus , was ever accused or cited to Answer unto the Charge laid against him : by consequence no Judiciary Sentence was pronounc't upon him . The Fact was Notorious . He had of his own accord abdicated and turned to the Gentiles . Thirdly , If Fortunatianus was formally cited , accused and condemned , it follows not that Epictetus the supposed Presbyter , and the People were his Judges . One may with more reason imagine that the Cause was brought , if at all , before the the Provincial Bishops and by them decided . Fourthly , It s not certain that Epictetus was was a meer Presbyter 〈◊〉 for ought any one knows or can say to the contrary , Epictetus filled the Episcopal Chair at Assurae , when Cyprian wrote that Epistle . Fifthly , Supposing Epictetus was only a Presbyter , yet here is no mention of a formal Process or Judgment given against Fortunatianus : but only a caution given to that Church , not to receive him again . For the matter of Fact ( I suppose ) was plain . The unfortunate Man had Sacrificed , and thereby abandon'd his Bishoprick . But Peace being restored , he will needs intrude into it again , having as is to be presumed ) some Friends at Assurae favouring his pretences . This is certain the design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle , was not to advise them , to call Fortunatianus before them to try , and to condemn or depose him , but only to warn the Church of Assurae , to think no more of their former Bishop , who had 〈◊〉 into Idolatry , and was therefore no Bishop at all . And this was agreeable to the Rule , which the Churches of Rome and of Africa , and of the Whole World had formerly made , as the Learned 〈◊〉 has observed — That such as had Sacrificed should be deprived of their Ordination and Sacerdotal Honour , and upon their Repentance should be admitted unto Lay Communion only . The Observation is taken out of the 67 th Epistle ( of which I am to speak by and by ) in these Words — Jam pridem nobiscum & cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis , etiam Collega noster Cornelius Sacerdos pacisicus ac justus , ac martyrio honoratus decreverit ejusmodi homines ad poenitentiam quidem agendam posse admitti , ab Ordinatione autem 〈◊〉 atque sacerdotali honore prohiberi . It is not then to be denyed , but that as the Presbyters and the People of a Diocess ( when 't is Notorious that their Bishop has Apostatized , and fallen into Idolatry , and for some time deserted them , and another is substituted in his place ( which was I presume the Case before us ) have a Power by the Law of Reason , and of Scripture too to refuse him , when he offers to obtrude himself again upon 'em ; so more especially since there is a solemn 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Law provided in the Case . But I demand of Mr. O. to give me an instance , when ever the Presbyters and People called their Bishop into Judgment before them , censured and rebuk't , acquitted or condemned him , either when the Fact was in Question , or the matter objected against him , was in Controversy about its lawfulness . Until Mr. O. produces an Instance of one of these kinds , he is far short of proving that Presbyters , and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop , as Timothy had Power to do against Elders . For Timothy had Power to receive an Accusation upon information of Witnesses , and to rebuke the offender accordingly , and if need were to reject him , Titus 3. 10. We are then safe as yet , notwithstanding any thing St. Cyprian has written in this Epistle . The Case of Basilides and Martialis , is much what the same , as that of Fortunatianus , and is to be found in the 67 th Epistle of St. Cyprian . 'T was wrote by St. Cyprian in his own name , and in the name of 36 other African Bishops to Felix Presbyter , and the People of Leon and Asturia , also unto Lelius Deacon , and the People of Emerita , all in Spain , in answer to a Letter of Sabinus , Successor to Basilides , and of another Felix Successor of Martialis , whom the Bishop calls Coepiscopos Nostros , our fellow Bishops . What may fairly be Collected from this Epistle follows : As First , It may from this Epistle be gathered , that Basilides and Martialis , after they had been proved guilty of Idolatry were deposed from their Bishopricks . Secondly , That Sabinus and Felix , were substituted in their Rooms . Thirdly , That the Idolatrous Bishops were deprived , and the new ones Chosen and Ordained , by the Provincial Bishops in the Presence , and with the Concurrence or consent of the People : For thus Cyprian speaks — The People have Power either of chusing good Bishops or refusing unworthy ones : Again , the People ought to separate from a Wicked Bishop : that Episcopal Ordinations ought to be Celebrated sub populi assistentis Conscientia , with the knowledge and assent of the People present , to the end that by the People the Crimes of bad Men may be detected , the Merits of good Men may be testified , and so a right and regular Ordination may be made , which shall have been examined by the judgment and suffrage of all . St. Cyprian goes on — That is to be observed , which is held among us in Africa , and almost in all Provinces , that to the end Ordinations be rightly made , all the next Bishops of the same Province meet together with the People , for whom the Bishop is design'd ; and let the Bishop be chosen in the presence of the People , which knows and has been acquainted with the Lives and Conversations of the Candidates . This we understand has been done among you , in the Ordination of Sabinus our Collegue , how that the Bishoprick was given him , and hands laid on him with the Suffrage of the whole Fraternity , and by the Judgment ( or decree ) of the Bishops , who were present at the Meeting , and who had sent their Letters ( of Consent ) concerning the Bishop to be chosen . That which I would deduce from all this is , that because the Power of chusing and Ordaining a Bishop , was lodg'd in the Provincial Bishops together with the People of the Diocess , it must follow that the Power of depriving , consequently of receiving Accusations against the Bishop , was 〈◊〉 in the same Provincial Bishops , and and the People of the Diocess . And if this be so , then Basilides and Martialis were deposed by the Provincial Bishops , in the presence and with the Consent of the People , and so Mr. O's inference from this story will not hold , sc : that the Presbyters and People may receive an accusation against their Bishop , that 's to say in a Judiciary way . Moreover it seems to me very probable by some passages in this Epistle , that the People's Power in chusing or rejecting their Bishop consisted only in the Testimony , which they gave to the Provincial Bishops , concerning the Lives and Conversations of the Bishop propounded by the Provincial Bishops to succeed . I gather this from those words — 〈◊〉 ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes , vel indignos recusandi , the which is more clearly explained in the same Paragraph , where Cyprian adds , Ordinationes Sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis Conscientia fieri oportere , ut plebe presente , vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita predicentur . Ordinations ought to be with the knowledge of the People , that the Crimes of bad Men might be discovered , and that the deserts of good Men , might be made known unto 〈◊〉 Provincial Bishops , who were indeed the proper Electors . The same is shortly after again explained — Episcopus deligatur Plebe Presente , quae singulorum vitam , plenissime novit , & 〈◊〉 . actum de ejus Conversatione perspexit — — Let the Bishop he chosen ( by the next Bishop of the Province ) the People being present , who knew the lives of each ( Candidate ) and saw every Man's Works and Conversation . So that the Peoples business seems but to have been only to give testimony for or against the Candidate for the Bishoprick , whilst the Synod of the Provincial Bishops chose and Ordained him . However this be , it is manifest from the whole — that the Presbyters and the People did not ( without the Provincial Bishops ) by virtue of their own sole and proper Power hear , or receive Accusations in a Judiciary way , much less take upon 'em to give Sentence upon their own Bishops , which is the thing affirmed by Mr. O. without any ground or Reason produced out of these Epistles . Whoever will impartially read St. Cyprian , must confess he is intirely Ours . Among all others , he is the most hearty and Zealous Assertor of Episcopacy , tho' he used and exerted his Power with exemplary Humility and Moderation . The Rector in T. N. observed , that in the Epistles to Timothy and 〈◊〉 , no share in the Government of these Churches was given to the Presbytery , whereby is signified at least , that these two were the Supreme or Principal Rulers of those Churches committed to their Charge . After this the Rector granted , nevertheless , that the Presbyters were not , ought not to be utterly precluded from all interest in the Government of the Church , as appears from the Council of Jerusalem , Acts 15. Hereunto after some Cavils , and charging me with contradicting my self ( I leave that to the Judgment of the Reader ) the Minister gravely admonishes us — — , that Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters , and without the Consent of the People Epistle 6. Erasm. Ans. 1. This Passage proves not that the Presbyters were equal unto St. Cyprian : it may as well be said the People were equal both to the Presbyters and to St. Cyprian . All that can hence be gathered is , what I intimated and granted before , that the Presbyters have a subordinate 〈◊〉 in the Government , and are as a standing Council to the Bishop : but the Bishop is the Supreme and Principal . 'T is so in our Civil Government , especially when we have a Wise and Good King. He does nothing of moment without the advice of his Peers , and Consent of his People in Parliament . 2. It may be questioned , whether St. Cyprian thought himself in strictness obliged to this , or whether it was his own Voluntary and prudent Resolution , and Condescention unto his Presbytery and People . The whole passage runs thus — Solus rescribere nihil potui , quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro ( Presbyterorum ) & sine consensu plebis 〈◊〉 privatâ sententiâ gerere . Wherein is intimated , that he took this Course not as obliged thereunto by any Law , but by a Rule he had of his own accord laid down to himself , and so would not without necessity depart from it . For 3. St. Cyprian did take upon himself sometimes on extraordinary Occasions , to dispatch some Ecclesiastical Affairs without the Consent of his Presbyters , and People , ( as in the Ordination of Aurelius the Lector ) which notwithstanding were valid . 4. The Council and Consent of the Presbyters , and People were only required , and admitted in Testimony of the Manners , Age , Merits , and Qualifications of such as were to be Ordained ( of which we just now spoke ) , the Power of Ordination still remaining 〈◊〉 the Hands of the Bishop , as may be seen in the Epistles cited in the Margin . CHAP. VII . Of the Scythians . MR O. very positively after Blundel asserts that — The Power of Ordination and Government , was in the Hands of Captive Presbyters under the Scythians beyond Ister , for about 70 Years from the Year 260 to the Year 327. Now if this were as certainly true as Blundel , and Mr. O. have confidently reported out of the Historian , it would do them no Service at all : forasmuch as it is not deny'd but that Christians in Captivity , and under other necessities also may govern themselves , and Worship God without Bishops , yea , without Presbyters and without Deacons ; so our Lord has determined in general , God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice . But not to insist on this ; let us see , with what Artifice these two Gentlemen have misrepresented and corrupted Philostorgius , on whom they Father the foresaid Story . To this end I will make him speak English. Philostorgius saith , that Ulphilas one of the Transistrian Scythians , who by the Ancients are called Getae , but now Goths , brought over into the Roman soil a very great multitude of Men , who had been thrust out of their Native Country for the sake of Religion : that the Nation of the Scythians , formerly embraced the Christian Faith , on the following Occasion . When Valerianus and Gallienus , were Emperors , a vast multitude of Scythians living beyond Ister , Cross'd that River into the Roman Empire , and by their Excursions infested a great part of Europe . After that having sailed over ( the Hellespont ) into Asia , they invaded Galatia and Cappadocia . And having made very many Captives , among whom were some of the Clergy , they returned into their own Country with much prey . Wherefore those Captives and Holy Men , thus mixt with the Barbarians , brought over not a few of them , unto true Piety and Godliness , and perswaded them , that instead of the Gentile Superstition they would embrace the Christian Religion . Of the number of those Cap. tives were the Ancestors of Ulphilas . This Ulphilas , therefore was the Leader of those Holy Men , who lately came out of Gothia ( or Scythia ) and was their first Bishop constituted after this manner . When by the King of the Goths , he was sent Embassador with some others , unto the Emperor Constantine , he was Ordained by Eusebius , and other Bishops with him , Bishop of those , who became Christians in Gothia , and were now past over the River Danube into the Empire this multitude of Refugees , the Emperor plac'd in Maesia , that is , on the Roman side and Bank of Ister . There is nothing more Material in this story , as 't is delivered by Philostorgius . Upon this passage then , I observe as follows . First , That Philostorgius was by the Ancients noted for an Impudent , Lying , and Impious Historian : and therefore his Relations not easily to be credited , especially in the matter now before us . Philostorgius's business was , to advance the Name and reputation of Ulphilas ( being a profess'd Arian , as well as himself was ) and therefore he remembers that Constantine , called him Moses , and caused him to be Ordained the first Bishop of the Christian Scythians or Goths . The latter of which , I shall by and by shew is not true , not in the sense Blondel would have it . Secondly , That Philostorgius in the foresaid Relation , is singular and by himself , none of the Ecclesiastical Historians before or after him , making any mention of the things related concerning Ulphilas : and this is enough to bring him into suspicion , when he commends Ulphilas , as the first Bishop of the Goths or Scythian Christians . Thirdly , Not to insist on either of the former Observations , but allowing Philostorgius , to be a faithful Historian , and taking the matter of Fact as granted , I farther note , that Philostorgius speaks of Clergy-Men in General carried , into Captivity , not mentioning the particular Species . So that among the Captivated Clergy-Men , there might be Bishops , and there might not be Presbyters , for any thing Philostorgius has said , or Mr. O. can tell . It is not to be gathered from him , that Ulphilas himself was so much as a Presbyter , when he first went unto Constantine . Jeroms Adversaries therefore might with as much Truth , and for the Honour of Deacons have hence concluded , that the Power of Government , and Ordination was in the Hands of Deacons in Scythia , for these 70 Years , as Blundel could make his Inference for Presbyters . The most probable Conjecture is , that there were some of all sorts , sc. Bishops Priest and Deacons . Fourthly , I might demand of Mr. O. to prove that there was any one Presbyter among those Christian Captives , which haply , he will be put hard to do , but in the mean while I 'll undertake to demonstrate , that there was at least one Bishop in Scythia , before Ulphilas , viz. Theophilus , who was one of the Nicene Fathers , and subscribed the Canons of that Council , so Eusebius Witnesseth — also the Bishop of Persis was present at the Synod , nor was there wanting a Scythian Bishop . Socrates names him — Theophilus who being Bishop of the Goths , 〈◊〉 there present subscribed the Nicene - Council . Theophilus therefore was Bishop of the Goths before the Nicene Synod , and was present at the Council and subscribed it . Therefore the power of Ordination , and the Government of the Scythian Church was not in the Hands of Presbyters among the Christian Goths ( or Scythians ) for about 70 Years , as Mr. O. and Blondel have affirmed , but in the Hands of Bishops , or of a Bishop at least . I add , that seeing we find a Bishop among the Goths before the Nicene Synod , 't is but reasonable to think that Bishops , or a Bishop at first went along with the Captive Christians into Scythia , or that one soon followed them thither . I will confirm this Con - jecture from that passage in Sozomen , who informs 〈◊〉 that — it was an Ancient Custom ( speaking of the Scythians ) that one Bishop only govern the Churches of that Province . Sozomen is now writing of the Church-affairs , in the Reign of Valentinian and Valens , that is about the Year 370. 43 Years after Ulphilas had been first Ordained Bishop . Now Ulphilas was not long before this time alive according to Socrates , and invented the Gothick Letters , 〈◊〉 the Reign of Valens . Without all Peradventure , therefore the Goths had Bishops long before Ulphilas . For if there had been but two in all , that is Ulphilas , and after him Vetranio , then Bishop , it had been a foolish remark of Sozomen , to tell his Reader , that it was an Ancient Custom among the Scythian Christians , that one Bishop only governed their Province , when as this Ancient Custom , forsooth , had been but of 40 Years continuance from the first , and there had been but Two , and the former of them dead but about four Years before . For both Ulphilas and Vetranio were Bishops in the Reign of Valens * . The sum is there were Bishops in Scythia , during some part at least of the 70 Years mentioned by Mr. O. and in all likelihood all the while . I defy Mr. O , to shew the contrary out of Philostorgius , or any other Historian extant . There does remain indeed a small Difficulty to be accounted for , viz. How then comes it to pass , that Philostorgius calls him the first Bishop of the Goths , if the Goths had Bishops before him ? The answer hereunto is easy and 〈◊〉 . Fifthly , Theophilus , who was present at the Nicene Synod , was Bishop of the Goths beyond the Danube ( or Ister ) : for they came not over the River into the Roman Empire , till after the said Synod . Upon their Arrival or at their request , Constantine allotted Maesia for 'em to inhabit , that is to say , that part of the Roman Empire , which lay to the Banks of the Danube , on this side the River , and named Ulphilas to be Bishop , and he was the first Bishop of the Cisistrian Scythians within the Roman Empire , and Ordained by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea , tho' Theophilus before him had been Bishop of the Transistrian . So Socrates , Moreover to this Faith even Ulphilas himself , Bishop of the Goths then first consented . For before that time , he had imbraced the 〈◊〉 Faith , following Theophilus Bishop of the Goths , who being present had subscribed the Nicene Council . So that after all this , it can't be questioned , but that the Gothick Christians were long before Ulphilas governed by Bishops , although Blondel and Mr. O. have so roundly denyed it without , yea , against plain Evidence to the contrary . Upon a farther Search into Blondel , I find him acknowledging , what I have before spoken of Theophilus Bishop of the 〈◊〉 ; but Mr. O. who pretends to improve Arguments , has left this lamer and more imperfect then he found it . Let us then see what answer Blundel has framed against Theophilus the Scythian Bishop : It is as follows . If we grant Theophilus was Bishop of the Gothick Metropolis before 〈◊〉 , we will being hereby furnished with a stronger Weapon justifie our Cause : For they who make to themselves a Bishop their Superior , who dare deny them a Power of Ordaining Presbyters , which are but their equals . Ans. This Argument is grounded upon a Supposition , which is not to be allowed of nor can be proved . Blondel takes it here for granted , the Scythian Presbyters Ordained their Bishops , Theophilus for instance . But one may surmize several other things with equal probabilty , any of which will overthrow this wonderful Demonstration . As 1. It may be supposed that a Bishop , or Bishops were by the Scythians , at their irruption into Galatia and Cappadocia , carryed Captives into Scythia , as was before observed ; or 2. That some Bishop might follow the Captive Christians into that Barbarous Country , being first Ordained in the Empire . Theophilus ( which is a Greek Name ) haply was so made and Ordained their Bishop , or 3. the Scythian Church might send one of their own Presbyters to be Ordained by the Imperial Bishops , as Ulphilas after was . For that there was a Correspondence between the Scythian and Imperial Churches is past doubt , when we consider that Theophilus Bishop of the Scythians , assisted at the Council of Nice . There is nothing in Philostorgius the only Author of this Tale , that thwarts any one of thesethree suppositions , or that Countenances Blondel's surmises of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their own Bishop . That of Ulphilas being the first Bishop , I have already accounted for . 2. If the Scythian Presbyters Ordained a Bishop to preside over them ( supposing this ) it hence follows they thought it necessary to have one : and rather then have none chosen in their necessity , to constitute and Ordain him themselves contrary to the Ordinary and established Method , of which they could not be ignorant . But this is said upon a bare supposition of the Scythian Presbyters Ordaining their Bishops , which is not proved nor at all probable , as I have shewed before . That which appears above board is , that the Scythians had a Bishop , which , setting apart meer Conjectures on both sides , is sufficient to my purpose . CHAP. VIII . Of the Chorepiscopi . THE Occasion of their Institution , as I conjecture , was either 1. To promote and quicken Conversions in the Countries and Villages subject to the City Bishops : or 2. After believers and Congregations were there multiplyed to be as Suffragans , and Assistants for the better Government of the Churches . And because it was a Fundamental Law in the Church , that there ought not to be two Bishops in one Diocess , with plentitude of Power ( it being impossible to serve two Masters ) therefore these 〈◊〉 , were intirely under , the Jurisdiction of the City Bishops , who were indeed the 〈◊〉 . There is not any Monument of Antiquity , that I am aware of , from whence we may better understand the Nature of these Chorepiscopi , than the Canon of the Council of Antioch , which I will therefore transcribe at length into English . They who reside in Villages and in the Country , or are called Chorepiscopi , although Ordained by Bishops , it pleaseth the Holy Synod that they know their own Measures , and govern the Churches subjected to them , and rest content with that care and Administration ; that they constitute Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists , and be satisfy'd with this Power , not daring to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon , without the express consent of the Bishop of the City , unto which both he ( the Chorepiscopus ) and the Country belong . But let the Country Bishop be under the Bishop of the City , to which he is Subject . Now the main Question is , whether these Chorepiscopi were real Bishops Superior to and distinguished from Presbyters , and in whom was lodged the Episcopal Character and Power . The Affirmative is proved by the following Arguments . 1. I consider , that the Title of Bishop and the Power of Ordaining Presbyters , was then acknowledged to be in 'em , which I can never be induced to believe , would have been granted them at that time of Day , if they were meer Presbyters . They were under the same Bishop as the City Presbyters were ; How came they to have that Honourable Title bestowed on them , which the City Presbyters had not ? Were the Country Presbyters ( such the Chorepiscopi were according to Mr. O. ) far more Honourable and better deserving the Title of Bishop then the City Presbyters were ? I can imagine no other reason of this , but because they had received the true stamp and Character of Bishops , had an inherent habitual Power to do whatever any Diocesan could , and more than any meer Presbyter was able to do : Only as yet they were not Diocesan Bishops , having no Independent Diocesses of their own to Govern , and by consequence were under some limitations , which Diocesans were not . 2. I remember that by the same Conncil of Antioch , they were allowed to give Pacifick Letters to the Clergy to go into other Diocesses , which in those Days the Bishops only could do , and which was one of the Episcopal Prerogatives . 3. Again the 10th Canon of Antioch decrees , that the Chorepiscopi although they had received imposition of Hands by Bishops , may not dare to Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon : the obvious meaning whereof is , that although the Chorepiscopi were Ordained Bishops ; 〈◊〉 , they might not Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without leave from the Diocesan . If a Chorepiscopus received the real Character or Power of a Bishop , he might be apt to think and conclude with himself , that he might Ordain Presbyters and Deacons , as well as the Diocesan being of the same Order with him . No says the Canon : And the Reason of this Prohibition is manifest , because at present he acted only as a Comminister and Assistant in anothers Diocess , where he might not exert his Episcopal Power without Licence from the Diocesan , nor could do it without Breach of the Peace and Order of the Church : We have something of this kind even among our selves at this day . A Diocesan Bishop out of his own Diocess , and whilst he abides in another Mans , can't Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without 〈◊〉 from the proper Bishop : and something of this Nature I find in the 18th Canon of Ancyra , where a Presbyter being supposed to be Ordained Bishop for another Diocess , but rejected is permitted to return to his former Post , but still to as be a Presbyter though retaining his Episcopal Honour and Character : One may then be a real Bishop , and have the habitual Power and Intrinsick Character of a Bishop , and yet can't put forth the Act and Ordain in anothers Diocess . There is no reason he should ; it would breed Confusion . 4. Chorepiscopi were real Bishops , because they had an equal Right and Authority , to assist , vote , decree , and confirm Canons at Councils as Diocesan Bishops had . Divers of them subscribed the Council of Nice . It must be confess'd that meer Presbyters did so likewise , but it was in the Name and stead of their Principals , as their very subscriptions shew . Thus Vito ( or Victor ) and Vincentius Presbyters , and Pope Sylvester's Legates , subscribed the Nicene Synod , yet added to their common Names , Romanus or Roma missus : So in the Council of Carthage , Anno 419. two Roman Presbyters and Legates of the Pope did — Philippus Presbyter , Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae , Asellus Presbyter , Legatus Ecclesiae Romanae . But the Chorepiscopi subscribed in their own Names , without mentioning any Delegation at all , and therefore acted by their own proper inherent Authority , and by consequence were real Bishops . Having ( I presume ) proved , that the Chorepiscopi had the True Episcopal Character impress'd on them , I come to consider what advantage Mr. O. would make of ' em . In the first place from the 10th Canon of Ant. A. D. 344 ( or 341 ) he lays it down that — the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops Ordained Presbyters , until they were restrained by that Canon . I agree with Mr. O. so far , that 't is very likely , the Chorepiscopi presumed to Ordain Presbyters in another Bishop's Diocess , until they were prohibted by this Canon . It was necessary , they should be restrained for the peace and good Order of the Church , from having an uncontroulable Liberty of Ordaining in another Bishops Diocess , and without his consent . The rule is highly reasonable and observed to this Day . However this be , the Canon will do Mr. O. no service , if the Chorepiscopi were real Bishops , and more than Presbyters , of which I have already produced sufficient proof . Again Mr. O. gathers , that if these Chorepiscopi were Bishops , then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities , but in Country villages . This I grant also unto Mr. O. but it nothing concerns the Matter in Hand . We must Distinguish between Diocesan Bishops , whose seat and Principal Church was oft-times in Villages , and the Chorepiscopi , who were not Diocesans , but the Comministri and Vicarii of the City Bishops . Now how far the Delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus extended , no one alive can tell at this Day . 'T is nothing likely , that it was confined to one Village only , as Mr. O. contends , though haply his Ordinary Residence , and particular care might be in some Country-Town , where he discharged the Ordinary Duty of a Presbyter , and on that score may be accounted as a Country Presbyter under the City Bishop ; such at this day is even a Diocesan Bishop , who is by Commendam possest of a Rectory in anothers Diocess . He can Act there but as a Presbyter , except he has leave from the proper Bishop . For ought any thing then that Mr. O. says or pretends to prove , the delegated Power of a Chorepiscopus reach'd to more than one or half a dozen Villages . Well! Mr. O. goes on and tells us , that — The Country Villages , where the Chorepiscopi were fixt , were but thinly Peopled with Christians , the Majority or at least great Numbers of the People being Heathens , by which , ( he adds ) we may guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses , which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes . Here are divers things supposed and asserted , but none proved . 1. 'T is supposed that the Chorepiscopus's Power , was confined to one Village or Country Parish only ; this ought to be made out by Mr. O. 2. 'T is asserted , that these Country Villages were thinly Peopled with Christians , but that is more then Mr. O. knows ; and the contrary is more probable , so . that they abounded with Christians now in the Reign of Constantius , Son of Constantine , the Great , when that Council of Antioch was held , and from whence Mr. O. makes the Deduction . Besides 't is likely , that a Chorepiscopus was never made , but where the Christians were Numerous . In short , how , thin soever particular Villages were of Christians , yet there being many , very many Villages , all of them having some Christians , and a Power over them being committed to the Chorepiscopi , this note of Mr. O's is not very much to the purpose . But however from the Premises he Collects 4. That we may thence guess at the bigness of Primitive Diocesses , which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes . Something of this Nature might perhaps be conjectured , if all Mr. O. has asserted without proof , and overlook'd without Examination were true . But I ask whether this be not an intolerable piece of Confidence to intimate at this rate , that these Country Villages were seperate , and independent Diocesses , when as 't is manifest from the very Canon , that they were Appendages of the City Diocess , and subject to the City Bishop . Here then instead of a small Parish Bishoprick , we have found as large a Diocess , haply as ours are at this Day . Mr. O. proceeds and affirms , That the Chorepiscopi are an instance of Bishops , without subject Presbyters ; they were but Parish Bishops , under City Bishops . Say then a Chorepiscopus had the charge of one only single Village or particular Congregation , specially allotted to him , which at this day , we call a Parish ( admitting this ) : yet it follows not , that he was a Bishop without subject Presbyters : probably he had some district of the Diocess committed to his particular care and inspection . The Canon of Antioch seems to intimate thus much — It seemed good to the Synod , that the Chorepiscopi govern the Churches ( in the plural ) subject to them , and to content themselves with this care and sollicitude of constituting Readers . But granting they had no subject Presbyters , but acted Ordinarily as Parish Presbyters : yet they were real Bishops , and ready upon occasion to discharge the Diocesans Office , when required , which Prebyters could not . Morever if these Chorepiscopi , were only Presbyters and Bishops of a small Congregation ( as Mr. O. has before concluded ) why was the caution given them against Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons , except it was for other Parishes or Churches ? For surely they did not Ordain Presbyters and Deacons for themselves . If they did , even so they must have had Presbyters subject to them . In short , they had doubtless a delegated Power from the City or Diocesan Bishop , to Ordain Presbyters and Deacons . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where and when ever occasion required . But in the last place Mr. O. urges , the second Council of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Can. 7th which makes the Chorepiscopi , to be one and the same with 〈◊〉 . This Council was Provincial aud held in Spain , Anno 620. which is therefore , of no great Authority with me : especially since the Argument it insists on , is chiefly drawn from the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Roman Church : For so the Canon concludes — quoe 〈◊〉 eis a sede Apostolica prohibita esse noscuntur . Nevertheless , that I may not be thought to decline any thing said on this subject , that has the appearance of an Argument against me , I answer , that although by the first design and institution of the Chorepiscopi , they were real Bishops ( so it was before and after the Councils of Ancyra and Antioch , for sometime ) yet not long afterwards an end was put to these Chorepiscopi . So I read in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. held Anno 364. There , and then it was decreed that — Bishops were not to be made any more in Villages , and in the Countries ( understand within anothers Diocess ) but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their steads : which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were but Presbyters intrufted with the Administration of some part of the Episcopal Power . But 't is observable what is after added , as for those ( Chorepiscopi ) who have been already made , the former Canons of Ancyra and Antioch must be observed by them , that they do nothing without the Consent of the City Bishop . Where we see plainly a Supersedeas is given unto that Order of the Chorepiscopi , for the future . Nor is this alteration to be wondered at . For the making the Chorepiscopi , or Vicarious Bishops in the Country , belonging to anothers Diocess was meerly an Ecclesiastical Constitution , and by the same Power that it was introduced it might again be annulled . I observe moreover , that the 2d clause above mentioned , which still reserves to the former Chorepiscopi their Power , which had been committed to them by the City Bishops , shews that they had received some Character , which a Council could not deprive them of . For otherwise the Power of the former Chorepiscopi , might have been Abrogated as well as the Order its self , intirely dissolved for the future . The occasion of this change made by the Laodicean Fathers doubtless was , that they had by experience found some inconveniences and disorders , happening through these Chorepiscopi , who it may be could never be hindred from Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons , in other Bishops Diocefses contrary to all Order and good Rule . Therefore an end was put to them , and in their place were substituted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who I imagaine were like our Archdeacons at this Day , and were instituted for the Diocesan's ease in matters of less moment : but upon no account were to have the Episcopal Character impress'd on them with Power to Ordain , no not with the Bishops Licence . Accordingly the late Learned Bishop of Worcester observes , That Lanfranc 〈◊〉 made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See , that Thomas Archbishop of York , first divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries , and Remigius Bishop of Lincoln , his into seven Archdeaconries , says Harry of Huntingdon . One occasion hereof was the laying aside the Chorepiscopi , as too much assuming unto themselves . The sum of what has been said is , that the 〈◊〉 were at first real Bishops , but in anothers Diocess , where they might put forth such Episcopal Acts as were permitted them within some certain limited district , and even Ordain Presbyters and Deacons , when expresly delegated thereto by the Diocesan : that they refided in some Country Villages , where their Ordinary and constant Work was no other than of Presbyters , and so were look'd on as the Diocesans Presbyters , which can by no means prejudice their Episcopal Character . One may be a Bishop yet without a Diocess , as one may be a Presbyter without a Title or Parish . The Council of Laodicea , thought fit to put an end unto this Order , so did the Romans and Spanish Churches , as also the English. Haply the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Archdeacons might have the Title of Chorepiscopi , for some while continued to them being substituted in their room : but this is no proof , that they were Presbyters at their first Institution , when the real Episcopal Character was 〈◊〉 on them , though no Diocess was yet actually allotted them . This is what I thought needful , and enough to be offered in Answer to the Difficulties started about the Chorepiscopi . As for that Epistle to 〈◊〉 it shall suffice to note that 't is one of those , which are accounted Spurious , as may be Collected from Bellarmin himself , whose Judgment is — ejus scripta non extant , exceptis paucis Epistolis , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suns inter Epistolds S. Hieronymi , aliique in Hiftorid 〈◊〉 . l. 2. c. 22. l. 5. c. 10. 11. The rest therefore and this in particular are Apocryphal . It was possibly counterfeited by some , that lived after the Council of Hispalis , there being a very great Agreement between this Epistle , and that 7th Canon of the Council , as who ever will read them must confess . We shall not need therefore to be concerned at any thing brought against us out of this connterfeit Epistle . CHAP. IX . Of the Council of Nice . MRO. as if all Antiquity were on his side , omits not to argue even from the Council of Nice its self , in favour of the Power of Presbyters Ordaining , which is a discovery so new and surprizing , that one would 〈◊〉 the Whole Chriftian Church had been blind above these 1300. Years last paft , till he with the help of Mr. Baxter , has been pleas'd to open all our Eyes at last and to assure us — that the Council of Nice , decree'd concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Melitius at 〈◊〉 , as follows — Hi autem Qui Dei Gratia , & nostris ( lege vestris ) precibus adjuti ad 〈◊〉 Scbisma deflexisse compersi sunt , sed se intra Catholica & Apostolicae 〈◊〉 fines ab erroris Labe vacuos continuerint , Authoritatem 〈◊〉 tum Ministros 〈◊〉 . &c , Mr. O. has taken this Passage out of Mr. Baxter , and he out of some Translator , that did not or would not understand the Historian aright . The Words are part of a Letter wrote by the Nicene Fathers , to the Church of Alexandria , wherein they gave an Account to that Church , of what had been propounded and examined in the Synod , and what had been decreed , and confirmed therein , as first , That the Impiety of Arrius , and his Accomplices had been brought into Question and condemned , &c. — that as for Melitius , it pleased the Synod to deal more gently with him ( than with Arrius ) viz. that he should remain in his own City , but that he should have no Power to Ordain or to propose the names ( of the Candidates to the holy Function ) ; only he might retain the bare Title of his Honour ( that is of Bishop ) ; that those who had been constituted ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) by him being first confirmed ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) by a more solemn and Religious Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop of Alexandria , might be allowed to joyn in matters properly belonging to them , but that until they had obtained their Honour and Ministry again , they should be second unto all those , who in every Diocess and Church , have been before proposed under the Authority of our most beloved Collegue Alexander : And moreover , should have no Power to propound the Names of those who are subject to Alexander , nor in short to do any thing without the Consent of the Bishop of the Catholick Church of Alexandria This is all the Nicene Synod wrote concerning the Melitians or those , who had been constituted ( and Ordained ) by Melitius . Here 's not a Syllable ( of Presbyters or ) of Ordaining Ministers ; the passage may as well , and is to be 〈◊〉 of Bishops , and of Ordaining Bishops . But for the more thorough understanding it , we must remember that Melitius , whilst Peter was Patriarch of Alexandria , had been Bishop of Lycus , a City in Egypt subject to the said Patriarch : — that during the Persecution under Maximinus , Peter absconding , Melitius had taken upon him to constitute ( or Ordain ) Bishops , which belonged unto the Patriarch to do . 'T is not indeed doubted , but that he Ordained Presbyters and Deacons also : nevertheless , his first and Principal Crime ( as I believe ) was his Constituting ( or Ordaining ) Bishops , which was a manifest invasion of the Patriarch's Right . And that 〈◊〉 constituted and Ordained Bishops is proved by Valesius , out of Epiphanius . Nay , the said Learned Annotator Evinces , that Melitius constituted ( or Ordained ) Twenty Eight Bishops , besides Five Presbyters and Three Deacons , as he gathers from the second Apology , of Athanasius against the Arrians : from whence he makes no scruple to affirm , that Socrates in this place speaks chiefly of Bishops , constituted or Ordained by 〈◊〉 , yet so , as that Presbyters and Deacons also were 〈◊〉 by him . 〈◊〉 ( says he ) if the Nicene Fathers hid herein decreed nothing against the Melitian 〈◊〉 , they had left their work very lame and imperfect . Besides , 〈◊〉 became Schismatical not by Ordaining Presbyters , but by Ordaining Bishops . Hence Sozomen observes , that Melitius — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had usurp'd the Power of Ordaining , which did not all belong unto him . The Power of Ordaining whom ? Why not Bishops ? For till by this means he was fallen into 〈◊〉 , he had certainly ( as Bishop ) Power to 〈◊〉 Priests and Deacons , but not of Ordaining or 〈◊〉 Bishops without the 〈◊〉 leave . And this was I suppose , if not his only fault , yet his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Wherefore , when the Nicene Fathers decreed , that the 〈◊〉 , who had been constituted and Ordained by 〈◊〉 , might not intermeddle in the constituting ( or Ordaining ) others , until themselves had been confirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a more Solemn imposition of Hands , they must thereby mean , that the Melitian Bishops being Ordained Schismatically , were suspended from Ordaining until they had been confirmed by the Patriarch , and some of the Egyptian Bishops subject to him . And this is all that the Synod declar'd concerning the Melitians . But neither Mr. O. nor Mr. Baxter , for any thing I can see in the Plea , have taken any Notice of this Passage , 〈◊〉 whereof we are amus'd with something less Pertinent to the matter in Hand , as I am now about to shew . For the Nicene Fathers go on in that Epistle to speak of the Alexandrians , that is , such as had not withdrawn themselves from Alexander the Patriarch , nor had ever adhered to Melitius . They thus then farther write to the Church of Alexandria , concerning these latter and Regular Clergy . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. But as for those , who by the Grace of God , and through your Prayers have been found in no Schism , but have ever stood firm , and unmoveable in the Catholick Church , it pleased the Holy Synod , that they should have Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to point out , and to give up the Names of 〈◊〉 as were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy to be of the Clergy , and in short , to do all things according to the Ecclesiastical Law and Constitution : which is the passage misrepresented by Mr. O. and Mr. Baxter , wherein the Synod confirms to 'em , their Ancient Rights and Privileges . Having given I hope , an exact account of this latter part of that Epistle , let us now see whether Mr. Baxter or Mr. O. have done so . To which end I observe , that here is not one Word of Presbyters , at least not of Presbyters Ordaining , and 〈◊〉 of all of Presbyters , who had been Ordained by Melitius , nor lastly ( which was the thing Mr. O. aimed at ) of Presbyters Ordaining Ministers . 1. They speak not of Presbyters , that is , not in particular , and expresly of them alone , as is manifeft to any one , that has his Eyes in his Head : but only in General of such as had not been engaged in the Melitian Schism . These surely must be Bishops , as well as Presbyters or Deacons . The truth is , they include all the Three Orders , and that 's the reason in this whole Epistle , they Name no one of them expresly , meaning to confirm them all ( as well Bishops as Presbyters , that had stuck close to Alexander ) in their Ancient Respective Powers and 〈◊〉 . 2. Much more they speak not of the Ordaining Power of Presbyters . Mr. O. at least ought not to say so ; for what then will become of the Authority of Father 〈◊〉 , who asserts , that Alexander or the Nicene Council first deprived them of it ? what did this Synod or Alexander both deprive 'em of it , and confirm it to them ? that cannot be . Either then Eutychius is out in his story , or Mr. O. is a little mistaken about the Letter of the Nicene Fathers . Besides , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not 〈◊〉 to Ordain , but the 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Word to put up the Names of the Candidates for Holy Orders , and Sozomen in his account of this Fact uses that single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse , Socrates expressing it in two Words ( as Valesius has observed ) Exegetical of one another ; it being usual for Authors to embellish their writings , and give them a grateful Emphasis by a Variety , and redundancy of Expression . No body at this diftance of time can tell all the Customs of this Church , and what Honorary 〈◊〉 the Presbyters might have at the publick 〈◊〉 . However this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be expounded Ordaining . And yet admitting that it signifies so , 't is not necessary to understand the passage of Presbyters Ordaining ; it may as well be presumed to be intended of Bishops Ordaining , there being no circumstance that limits the sense unto Presbyters : and as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Words are spoken of those , that were to be Ordained , and not of the Ordainers , and may as well be taken to mean such as were thought worthy to be Bishops , as those who were 〈◊〉 worthy to 〈◊〉 made Presbyters . For in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers , we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But least of all . Thirdly do the Nicene Fathers speak here of the Melitian Presbyters , because the Melitians , had not , according to the Character here given of these Persons , stood firm and unmoveable in the Catholick 〈◊〉 , but had been engaged in the Melitian Schism . Nor 4. does the Synod speak of Ordaining Ministers , if by Ministers our Adversaries understand Presbyters ( which Title they seem at this day to affect , and usurp to themselves , though it generally denotes all the Three Orders . ) These four mistakes has Mr. O. committed at the beginning of his Account of the Nicene Synod . Before I proceed to consider what He farther advances on this Occasion , I will only Note , that the Patriarchs of Alexandria had power over the Bishops , and Whole Church of Egypt , with its Appendages long before the Synod of Nice . That they had then power over these Churches appears plainly from this Epistle , which in several places speaks of them as Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria : that the Alexandrian Patriarchs had Power over them before the Patriarch Alexander is evident from the Melitian Schism , which had not been a Sinful Schism , if Peter and 〈◊〉 , Alexander's Predecessors had not had Jurisdiction over them : That this Power of the Patriarchs was very Ancient , is also manifest from the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council , which begins thus — Let the Ancient Customs obtain which are in Egypt , Libya and Pentapolis , that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these Provinces : which shews lastly , the extent of their Power through 〈◊〉 , Libya , and 〈◊〉 , and that it had been an Ancient Custom , that is , long before Alexander , and the Synod of Nice , yea , before Peter and Achillas . Thus much being said for the right understanding of that Letter of the Nicence Fathers , let us now proceed to examine what Mr. O. has inferred from the last mentioned passage , according to Mr. Baxter's Lamentable Translation of it . Mr. O. argues — If any say the meaning is , that these Presbyters shall Ordain and govern with Bishops , but not with out them , it is granted . For the decree refers to the Ecclesiastica Instituta ; but this sheweth , that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office , and consequently is no nullity , tho' an irregularity as to the Canons , when 't is done by them alone . His meaning is ( as I take him ) that Presbyters have an Inherent and Intrinsick power to Ordain , but that the Nicene Fathers had by their Ecclesiastical Constitution restrained that power , so that it should not be exerted , but with the Bishops : that when the Presbyter did Ordain without Bishops , 't was only an irregularity 〈◊〉 breach of the Ecclesiastical Constitution , not a Nullity . But to this I reply . 1. That the Nicence Fathers ( as has already been observed ) speak not of Presbyter only , but of all the Three Orders Bishops , Priests and Deacons , who are hereby every one of them , allowed to do what properly belong to their own Order , according to the Ancient Custom and Constitution of that Church . 2. That therefore supposing their meaning to be ( what Mr. O. would have it ) that Presbyters in particular , according to the Ecclesiastical Constitution , shall Ordain with the Bishops , and not without them , it will not follow , that Ordination by Presbyters alone without Bishops is vallid , and only an irregularity : Because it may with as good Reason be hence concluded , that the Presbyters power to Ordain with the Bishops belonged to them , but by Ecclesiastical Constitution only , and not by any inherent Right . There is nothing in this Letter , that argues any thing for their Intrinisick power to Ordain . The most that can be said is , that they had an Ancient Right by Ecclesiastical Constitution , and Custom to Ordain with Bishops , and if so , then their Ordaining without Bishops was a Nullity , as well as an Irregularity ; because they transgress'd that very Law which alone gave them their Power . 3. It is a great mistake , to think every thing established , or rather reinforc'd by Ecclesiastical Constitution , has no better Foundation than that very Ecclesiastical Constitution or Reinforcement . A Divine and Scriptural Law may , and has been oftentimes confirmed and renewed by a Synodical Decree , and subjected to Ecclesiastical Penalties . The Lord's-Day , which Mr. O. will not deny to be Holy by Divine Institution , has been made so by Humane appointment also , and punishments decreed against those that prophaned it . This is manifest among out selves here in England , and Constantine Ordained the first Day of the Week for Divine Worship : Shall we say , the Lord's-Day was not Holy and Appropriate to Divine Worship before that Emperor's Constitution ? Of the same Nature , are the 38. 41. 42 , 49. 50 , 51. &c. Can. Apostol . The Decree then of the Synod of Nice hinders not , but that it might have been a Divine Institution , that Presbyters Ordain and Govern , only with and under Bishops . And if this be so , as I have formerly ( t is hoped ) made good , then Presbyters Ordaining without Bishops will prove a Nullity , and contrary to the Divine and Scripture Rule , as well as an Irregularity or contrary to the Ecclesiastical Laws . But how does the Ecclesiastical Constitution shew , that Ordination belongs to the Presbyters Office ? His meaning ( I suppose ) is that the Nicene Synod , could not appoint Presbyters to Ordain with Bishops , except the Presbyters had a Prior , and an intrinsick power to Ordain . But I ask , why may not the Synod shew thereby , that the Presbyters intrinsick power ( what ever it was ) belonged to them only in Conjunction with Bishops ? And not separately from ' em . If a Prince Commands the General of his Army to do nothing of Moment , without the advice of the Principal Field-Officers , this shews that the Field-Officers have a Power to Act with the General and under him , but not that they have a power to Act seperately and without Him : And if the General or other the Kings Ministers declare this part of the Commission to the Field-Officers , they may and ought to Act in Conjunction with their General ( for the Commission so appoints ) ; but it would be presumption and Mutiny to Act without the General , which if they presumed to do their Orders would of them selves be Null and invalid . Briefly Mr. O. must first prove , that the Nicene Fathers supposed the Presbyters to have an Intrinsick power to Ordain alone , before he can make out that their separate Ordinations are irregular only , and not invalid in themselves . But Mr. O. again argues that — If it be said these ( Nicene Constitutions ) condemn Schismatical Ordinations ( which he grants , yet answers ) that Schism as such cannot make Ordinations Null , though it implys an Irregularity . Hereunto I return , that Schism as such does make the Ordination Null . It is Null as to the Exercise of the Office so conferred , though not as to the habitual Power or intrinsick Character given . This seems to have been the very Sense of the Nicene Fathers , in this their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria . The Melitian Bishops , because they had been Schismatically Ordained , were suspended from the Exercise of their Office , yet their Character was not declared utterly void and annull'd . There was Room left for their exercising it again upon some certain Conditions , and the Title of Bishop was still continued unto 'em , which could not be , if the Character had been intirely lost or Null . Hitherto belongs the Case of Colluthus and Ischyras , which some Episcopal Divines have urged against the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters ; for , say they , Ischyras Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter , is in Athanasius constantly called and declared no Presbyter , but a meer Laic , and not suffered so much as to have the Honor and Title of Presbyter , as all others of the Melitian Schism , Episcopally though Schismatically Ordained were allowed : So the Nicene Fathers had decreed . The reason why Ischyras was rejected is this , he had been Ordained by a Presbyter only , viz. Colluthus , Blondel has taken much pains to perplex this Fact with sundry difficulties , and Objections thrown in our way on purpose to render it useless unto us in the present Controversie : and Mr. O. also has made his observations on it . I shall consider them both , and to that end shall in the first place produce the Principal passages , that occur in Athanasius's second Apology relating to the said Colluthus and 〈◊〉 . There I read of . Ischyras , who neither was Ordained by the Church , nor , when Alexander received the Presbyters , Ordained by Melitius , was reckoned among them ( that 's to say in Melitius his 〈◊〉 ) : so that he was no Presbyter . How then or by whom was he created a Presbyter ? By Colluthus ? For that alone remains to be pretended . But 't is granted on all hands , that Colluthus died Presbyter , all his Ordinations were void , and all Ordained by him , in the Schism reduced into the Order of Laicks — But they ( the Eusebians and Melitians ) called a private Fellow Presbyter — Ischyras was not acknowledged a Presbyter by Athanasius . Ischyras was not so much as a Presbyter , he never was a Presbyter of Melitius ( not Ordained by him ) Ischyras was in no wise a Cleric , though the Eusebians , and Melitians gave it out , that he was a Presbyter . 'T is remarkable , that Ischyras in his submissive Letter , unto Athanasius disowned not his being a Presbyter Ordained by 〈◊〉 , which I note here by the by . Ischyras our accuser is no manner of way a Presbyter , because he is not mentioned in the 〈◊〉 or Register of those , who had been Ordained by Melitius . Ischyras never was a Minister of the Church , but boasted himself to be a Presbvter of Colluthus , though no Body believed him — so that He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was deposed by the Alexandrian Synod , and number'd among the Laics . Ischyras a Fellow , that called himself a Presbyter , but was no Presbyter : for he was Ordained by a Catholick Presbyter ( Colluthus ) , who himself ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) was but an Imaginary or Counterfeit Bishop , and was Commanded in the General Council ( of Alexandria ) by Hosius , and the other Bishops to be a Presbyter , as he had been before : So that by consequence all Ordained by him , went back into their former place , and Ischyras appeared a Laic . The Eusebians and Melitians called this Fellow Bishop , who was not at all a Presbyter : but they made the Emperor to write unto Colluthus ( for nothing 〈◊〉 amiss to them ) that a Church be provided for Ischyras , and immediatly caused him to be called a Bishop , when he was not so much as a Presbyter : From all which we think the case as before stated is clear . But Blondel contends , " That Colluthus was a real Bishop Ordained by Melitius , though Shismatically , which is only a Canonical Irregularity ; but however he was Episcopally Ordained , and a real though Schismatical Bishop : That if he had out-lived this storm raised against him , by the Alexandrian Synod , he must have been a partaker of the favour granted to such by the Nicene Fathers , and by consequence would have been a Bishop , though created Schismatically : and therefore that Ischyras , if at all Ordained by Colluthus , was Episcopally Ordained , and so could not be deposed for being Ordained by a Presbyter , but as Schismatically Ordained by a Bishop in Schism . The design of all which is to wrest out of our Hands this Weapon , and to make it believed , that the case reaches not Ordination by Presbyters : For Blundel is very positive , and thus expresses himself — It is false and frivolous to assert , that Ischyras was no Presbyter , simply for this one reason , that he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter : Because Colluthus was a real Bishop , after what manner created is little to the Point . In Answer hereunto , and to evince that this is a Clever Instance in Antiquity against Ordinations by Presbyters , I will reduce the Whole case into three Questions . 1. Whether Colluthus was ever Ordained Bishop by Melitius . 2. Whether Ischyras was ever Ordained Presbyter by Colluthus 3. Supposing he was not , whether Ischyras became a Laic for want of any Ordination , or because Schismatically Ordained by a Schismatical Bishop , or lastly , because Ordained by a Presbyter only . Qu. 1. 〈◊〉 . Whether Colluthus was ever Ordained Bishop by Melitius . Ans. Never . For he is all along called Presbyter , never Bishop , nor Schismatical Bishop : He is described as one , that took upon him the Episcopacy , personated and pretended to be what he was not , a Bishop . If he had been a real , though Schismatically Ordained Bishop , he could not have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have Acted the part of a Bishop , which implys , he was not really one . No body ever called 〈◊〉 Bishop , though Schismatical a counterfeit or Phantastical one , there being a vast difference 〈◊〉 these two . Lastly , if Colluthus had been a real Bishop though Schismatical , then Ischyras Ordained by him , ought to have been partaker of the Nicene Indulgence , as other 〈◊〉 Schismaticks were ; but Ischyras was not in the number of those recieved by Alexander ; and therefore Colluthus was not a Real Bishop . Against all this is it will haply be replyed , as Blundel has endeavoured to prove , that Melitius in his Breviculum , presented unto Alexander , owned Colluthus as one of those Bishops which He had Ordained . Ans. 1. Here lies the Knavery : For 't is not Colluthus , but Caluthus , who is mentioned in the Breviculum . And least this should be thought a mistake in Writing or in Printing , I undertake to prove beyond all Contradiction , that they were different Persons however , if not different in Name also . For 't is granted by Blundel , and in its self manifest , that our Colluthus died before the Synod of Nice broke up , or Alexander returned into Egypt , and demanded of Melitius this Breviculum . But the Caluthus named in the Breviculum , when Melitius brought it to Alexander , now returned from Nice into Egypt was then alive : So it follows in Athanasius , immediately after the Breviculum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . These Persons then present , Melitius brought unto Alexander the Bishop . So that , as the Accusers of Athanasius , pretended he had Killed Arsenius , though Arsenius was then alive : Even so by a contrary Artifice , Blundel will have our Colluthus alive : Though he was already Dead , whosoever then were Ordained by our Colluthus , were Ordained by a meer Presbyter . Qu. 2. 2. Whether Ischyras was ever Ordained Presbyter by Colluthus . Ans. That he was no Presbyter is so often affirmed , that we need not trouble our selves to enquire farther into that matter . However , that he was Ordained by Colluthus ( because Blundel is inclined to believe not ) will require a little proof . And 1. I note that though Athanasius plainly enough denies , he was at all a Presbyter , yet still with respect to Melitius , who 't is certain did not Ordain him . Ischyras ( lays He ) is no manner of way a Presbyter , because he was not mentioned in the Breviculum , or Register of those whom Meltitus Ordained . This Argument , which he brings here , shews Ischyras was not Ordained a Presbyter by Melitius : But 't is no proof against Colluthus his Ordaining of him , neither did or could Athanasius mean so . Thus the Sardick Fathers , He never was a Presbyter of Melitius . 2. Ischyras gave out himself , that he was a Presbyter of Colluthus his Ordainnig : The Arrians and Melitians , called him Presbyter on that account . 3. Though none but himself , the Eusebians and Melitians , and a few of his Relations , called Ischyras a Presbyter , yet the Orthodox affirm , he was Ordained by Colluthus . The Council of Alexandria , admitting that he had been Ordained by Colluthus conclude , he was no Presbyter , but deny not that he was Ordained by Collutbus the Presbyter , and for that reason Ischyras , though Ordained was indeed no Presbyter . The Mareotic Presbyters and 〈◊〉 , say plainly — He was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus , who counterfeited Himself a Bishop , and moreover add , that all Ordained by Colluthus , and among the rest , Ischyras became and were mere Laics . 'T is evident then , that Ischyras was Ordained by Colluthus , and yet was not a Presbyter , because Colluthus himself was but a Presbyter . 4. Supposing Ischyras was not really Ordained by Colluthus , the point will come to the same Issue : For the Alexandrian Synod not troubling themselves to enquire into the matter of Fact , but taking it for granted , that he was Ordained ( it was the same thing with them ) they pronounced the Sentence against Him , that he was not a Presbyter , because he was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus , and so he - appeared a meer Laic . Qu. 3. 3. Whether Ischycas was declared a meer Laic , either because not Ordained at all , or because Schismatically Ordained , or else because he was Ordained by a Presbyter only , viz. Colluthus . Ans. It having been proved , that Colluthus was no Bishop , that Ischyras was Ordained by him , at least supposed by the Synod of Alexandria , to have been Ordained by him , the first part of the Question is at an end , it was not because he had not been Ordained at all ; and then I affirm he became a Laic , not simply because he was Schismatically Ordained , but because he was Ordained by a Presbyter , who had no competent power to Ordain at all . For 1. Colluthus is ever called Presbyter ( not once Bishop or Schismatical Bishop that I find ) or barely 〈◊〉 or Catholick Presbyter , or one that counterfeited himself a Bishop , as in the Synodical Letter of the Alexandrian Fathers , and by the Presbyters and Deacons at Mareota . They all then looked upon Ischyras as Ordained by a Presbyter , and for that reason his Ordination Null . For so 2. It is expresly recorded , Colluthus died a Prebyter , therefore all his Ordinations were void , and all Ordained by him in the Schism were reduced into the Order of Laics , says the Synodical Letter of the Alexandrian Fathers . Ischyras was no Presbyter , for he was Ordained by the Catholick Presbyter Colluthus ; so that by consequence all Ordained by him went back into their former place , and Ischyras appeared a Laic , say the Presbyters , and Deacons at Mareota . But it will be objected , that the Words in the Alexandrian Synod are — all Ordained by Colluthus in Schism became Laics , implying by those Words 〈◊〉 Schism , that therefore his Ordinations were void , not because Colluthus was a Presbyter , but because his Ordinations were Schismatical . Ans. 1. It is very true in Fact , that all Colluthus his Ordinations were Schismatical , yet this was not the proper and immediate reason of their Nullity ; but only mentioned as a Circumstance which aggravated his Crime , the True Reaon , being assigned in the former Clause of that Period — Colluthus being a Presbyter died , therefore all his Ordinations were void , viz. because he died a Presbyter , and for the same reason those Ordained by him were meer Laicks . 2. Schism , if it was one reason of the Nullity of Colluthus his Ordinations , yet it was not the only one : For another was , because Colluthus died a Presbyter . 3. I do confess the Alexandrian Fathers , prosecuted the Melitians with the utmost Rigor , declaring all their Ordinations without exception utterly void ; so that such as were Schismatically Ordained , were Universally Commanded to be what they were before . But the Nicene Fathers came to a better Temper , and in some Degree confirmed the Schismatical Ordinations , that is , such as were meerly Schismatical : And yet Ischyras was not permitted to tast of this favour ? Why so ? Why , because there was another fatal blot in his Escocheon , which could never be wiped out , viz. He had been Ordained by a Presbyter only . 4. It is a great mistake to think that Schism must needs be understood of the breach of the Ecclesiastical Laws only . There is Schism in departing from some Scripture or Divine Rules , which not immediatly appertaining to the Fundamentals and Essence of Religion , denominates the Persons not Apostates or Hereticks , but Erroneous and 〈◊〉 only . If any of the believers at Antioch , had presumed to eat Blood contrary to the Apostolical Decree concluded on at Jerusalem , he had been doubtless a Schismatick . Thus we reckon the Dissenters Schismaticks , as departing from the Divine Apostolical Constitution of Episcopacy . Colluthus a Presbyter Ordaining Ischyras did it in Schism , true ! but 't was such a Schism as contravened a Divine Law , and so the Alexandrian Fathers thought for any thing I see to the contrary , when they condemned his Schismatical Ordinations as Null in themselves . For surely that which is done against a Divine Law , ( and such is Schismatical Ordination , Schism being a Work of the Flesh ) is in its self Null and of no Effect . 5. We ought to distinguish between the Law its self , and the Censures of the Church declared against the breach of that Law. The Law may be of Divine Appointment , though the Censure is meerly Ecclesiastical . St. Paul has given us a Canon , that a Bishop ought not to be a striker : But Deposition for this fault is purely Ecclesiastical , not an Apostolical Penalty . In like manner a Presbyter ( as Colluthus ) Ordaining without the Bishop , and for that cause being deposed , the fault was committed against a Divine Law , though the punishment was Ecclesiastical . 'T were foolish and absurd to conclude , that Ordination by a 〈◊〉 was only a Canonical Irregularity , because a Synod declares it Null : Or that Ischyras his Ordination was only irregular & uncanonical not unscriptural , because his Deposition was decreed by the Alexandrian Synod . As it is not the verdict of the Jury , nor the Sentence of the Judge , nor the Execution of the Criminal , which properly and in intrinsick Justice makes him a Murtherer , but the Murther its self committed ; so 't is not a Synod's Solemn Declaration , which is purely Ecclesiastical , but the Schism its self or a Violation of some Scripture . Law that makes him a Schismatick , and subjects him to Ecclesiastical Punishment . Blundel himself suspecting ( as I believe ) that the Whole Fabrick ; which he had with so much Artifice , and Subtlety here raised in Opposition to us , would not stand , is therefore content at least to grant that — Ischyras was for this one reason accounted a Laic , because he was Ordained by a Presbyter , by Colluthus a Presbyter : But says it does not hence follow that Bishops alone had power given them by the Apostles to Ordain , or that Presbyters werenot Originally invested with that Power : And he adds , that nevertheless , Ordination by Presbyters was only a Violation of the Ecclesiastical Constitution , which he endeavours to confirm from numerous Instances of Ecclesiastical Canons , by Vertue whereof Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , were sometimes deposed for Canonical Irregularities . Ans. This is a sorry shift and unworthy so Learned a Man ; for on the other side , I am able to produce several Canons , and have already produced enough , the matter of which Canons is grounded on Scripture , though reinforced by Ecclesiastical Penalties . It will not follow then , that because the Ecclesiastical Canons forbid Presbyters to Ordain ( reserving that Power to Bishops ) upon pain of Deposition or Deprivation , &c. therefore this was not a Divine Appointment , but Ecclesiastical only . For at this rate Blondel might pretend the 27th Canon Apostolical , the matter of which is , that a Bishop must not be a striker , is a meer Ecclesiastical Constitution , which yet we know is one of St. Paul's Canons , 1 Tim. 3. 3. Though at the same time we must confess that the Deposition , which is the Penalty annex'd is purely Ecclesiastical . The matter of some Church Canons is often purely Ecclesiastical as well as the Penalty ; but it will not follow that all are so . For as the Prince frequently causes old Laws to be observed , reinforceing them by Proclamation , so have Synods done with Ancient Scripture Laws and Rules . In this Case the King makes not new Laws , nor the Synods new Ecclesiastical Canons . The Primitive Christians were wont to explain , and propound unto the Church the belief of the great Fundamental and Essential Articles of Christianity , as that of the Trinity against the Arrians , and that of Grace against the Pelagians , upon pain of Deposition or Excommunication ; We must not hence infer that these were only Canonical not Scripture Truths , because others of their Definitions were so . In short the Tryal of the Subject matter of Church Canons , whether Divine or purely Ecclesiastial will depend on the Scripture chiefly . Thither we are to resort for satisfaction , and not fancy whatever has been reinforced by Canon is meerly Canonical . We have 't is hoped already thence clear'd that point about Episcopal Ordination : That which properly belongs to us here , is to prove it to have been the Principle and Practice of the Church in the beginning of the Fourth Century , when the Alexandrian and Nicene Synods were Assembled , which we think also is hitherto made good . But Blondel goes on : Ischyras was deposed by the Alexandrian Bishops ; whence it appears , he was taken for a Presbyter , not a meer Laic : For else 't is absurd to affirm he was deposed . A Man cannot be said to be knock'd down , except he stood on his Feet before . Ans. This is what we utterly deny , and is indeed a Meer quirk , no better than fooling . Ischyras and many others were not properly deposed , but only declared no Presbyters , as being Ordained by a Presbyter , which may reasonably be gathered from the Expressions used in the foresaid Synodical Epistles . concerning such as Colluthus had Ordained , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote no more . And therefore , when the Synod of Jerusalem complained , how the Eusebians caused Ischyras to be called Bishop , they aggravated the Insolence in these Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whereas he was not so much as a Presbyter , viz. at that very time ; that 's to say , When 〈◊〉 was alive and in some Credit , and when the Eusebians gave him out for a Bishop , before the Alexandrian Synod was assembled , or had declared him a Laic , even then he was not so much as a Presbyter . So that he was a meer Laic in the Nature of the thing , and before the Alexandrian Fathers had so pronounced him . Nor do I see any impropriety in saying Ischyras ( tho' no Presbyter ) was deposed . For though he was really no Presbyter as being Ordained by a Presbyter only , yet he took upon him the Office and Title of Presbyter , supported and upheld himself by Stilts , by Confidence and Hypocrisy : He was believed a Presbyter by many , and by many countenanced and kept up as such . Now though a Man lying prostrate on the floor can't be Knock'd down , qui jacet in terrâ non habet unde cadat ; yet he who stands on Crutches or is held up by others , 't is not absurd to say , He may be Knock'd down , which is sufficient to shew the Weakness of Blondel's fancy , And the false Colours put on this Argument . But Blundel gives it yet a siner Turn thus — It was usual in that Age ( says he ) to reduce real Bishops and Presbyters , transgressing the Canons of the Church , ad Laicam Communionem : and yet it cannot be deny'd , but they had been real Bishops . Ans. This is very true : But is just such another piece of Sophistry as before , and reaches not the Merits of the Cause . For 1. this will not evince that ever 〈◊〉 was a Presbyter , though some real Presbyters for Crimes proved upon them were allowed only Lay-Communion . He has not 〈◊〉 us that they were declared meer Laics : They were only suspended from performing the Office of Presbyters , and admitted to Lay-Communion , their Character still ( as I may say ) lying dormant in them . If any such Instance were to be found , it can't thence be gathered , that Ischyras also was so dealt with . 'T is absurd to argue from one or a few particular Instances , unto all others or to any other single Case , especially which differs from them . For 't is one thing to misdemean ones self in an Office , another to counterfeit it . The former is deprived from performing , what he is orherwise rightly qualify'd for , the latter is not what he pretends to be . The instance of the former kind is of a pure Ecclesiastical Punishment , whereas the latter labours under a defect and Error of the first Concoction which in the Nature of the thing annuls all his following Ministerial Acts , he having never received the Power , which he pretends to . Though therefore a Real Presbyter is for his misbehaviour sometimes condemn'd to Lay-Communion , yet the suspension taken of , as he once was , so he again becomes a real Presbyter to all intents and purposes . 'T is no good Consequence hence drawn that a Counterfeit Presbyter ( such was Ischyras ) who is declared a meer Laic , must needs have been a Presbyter : Neither will it follow that he , who has usurp'd the Seat of a Presbyter , from whence he is thrust down and deposed , was ever a real Presbyter . For a Man may well enough be said to be deposed from an Office which he usurps and discharges for a while , but never had a Right and Title to . A Real King , though deposed was once a real King ; that 's undeniable ; but one that personates and is called a King , and Acts all the parts of the Royal Character for a time , must be acknowledged never to have been a real King. 'T was Ischyras his Case , He Acted the part of a Presbyter , and was afterwards Kick'd off the Stage , shall it hence be concluded He was once a real Presbyter ? Under Blondel's favour I think not . But Let us see now what Mr. O. ( who has a Knack at improving Arguments ) 〈◊〉 offered about the Case of Ischyras . He acknowledges Colluthus was but a pretended Bishop , and therefore was Commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter . I am of this Mind , and 't is all I demand should be grantedme . The Reader of himself will discern hereby , that he has given up the Whole Cause . But perhaps Mr. O. means , that Colluthus pretending to be a Bishop , though he was not one , and under that false Colour to Ordain , therefore not his Power of Ordaining as a Presbyter was called in Question , but his Dissimulation in taking upon him to be what he was not , was condemned , and so he was publickly declared to be a Presbyter , that is a pretended Bishop only . Ans. But I ask then , why was Ischyras laid aside as a meer Laic ? Surely , not because his Ordainer falsly assumed the Character of Bishop , which belonged not to him . But then ( say I ) is it not hard my Ordainers Dissimulation ( supposing him otherwise to have the Power ) should annul my Orders . But Colluthus his Ordinations were vacated , not because he pretended to be a Bishop and was not , but because he was a Presbyter without Power to Ordain . Well! But Mr. O. tells us , Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by the Authors , Colluthus belike not owning he had Ordained Ischyras : So that it not appearing , 't was taken for granted , He was never Ordained , and so He became a Laic , no Presbyter ; not because he was Ordained by a Presbyter , but for want of any Ordination , that appeared . The meaning of all which ( as I apprehend ) is that the instance makes nothing against Ordination by Presbyters , seeing here was no Ordination at all , Ischyras's Ordainers not owning , that they had imposed hands on him . For answer hereunto I referr the Reader to what is above replyed unto something of this kind : The sum whereof is that Ischyras was either really Ordained by Colluthus the Presbyter , or at least by his Judges taken for such , which is the same thing . As for Dr. Field's Argument ( 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 〈◊〉 & Sanctus Hilarius , whence some conclude they cannot be ascribed to so ill a Man as the Deacon : But that either Hilary Bishop of Poictiers , or Hilary of Arles must have them . Yet Vossius * contends that those Titles of Beatus & Sanctus , were by Custom and in Civility given to all Clergy-Men , whether they deserved them or not , as at this Day , Reverendus & Venerabilis are : That the Commentaries were written when Damasus was Rector Ecclesiae , Pope of Rome , and that Hilary of Poictiers , dying in the second Year of Damasus , was too Old , to have either time or strength to perform such a Work , whilst that Pope was living : And lastly , that Hilary of Arles , came too late to write in Damasus his Pontificate , or to be quoted by St. Austin . And thus the Commentaries and Questions will fall to the Deacon's share . Ans. 1. 'T is certain to me , Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of the Questions and Commentaries , as we now have them : But not for the reason assigned . Those words 〈◊〉 bodie Rector est Damasus are on 1 Tim. 3. from whence to the end of the Commentaries are but 52 leaves in Folio , which he might have time and strength to finish in that Popes first Year . The Commentaries moreover break off abruptly at the 10th Ch. of the Hebrews , and the work is left unfinished , whence it may be thought that there his Life or his strength might fail him . But still it is confessed Hilary of Poictiers was not the Author of them : They are too mean to be Fathered upon so great a Man. 2. The Particular Testimonies spoken of before cannot be attributed unto Hilary of Arles : For he flourished Twenty Years after Austin . 3. Neither can they belong to the Deacon a Reason of no credit or Authority , as I shall shew . Wherefore 4. They were cited out of some Work of Hilary of Poictiers not now extant , which may be confirmed by another Testimony in Austin ( not yet observed by any that I know of ) writing still against the Pelagians — Ecclesiae Catholicae adversus Haereticos acerrimum Defensorem Venerandum quis ignorat Hilarium Episcopum Gallum ? Which can be understood of no other Hilary then the Bishop of Poictiers , as is manifest from what has been said . 5. Neither 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 , allowed this Deacon so much as a place in their Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Writers , being it seems unworthy that Honour . Bellarmine indeed incidentally mentions him in his Observations on Ambroses's Works , yet makes no reckoning of him . But Jerom falls foul on him calling him in derision Orbis Deucalionem , and adds — libellos adversus nos de Haereticis rebaptizandis edidit . It can't then be thought St. Austin would build upon this Deacons Authority . Thus much I thought fit to say concerning the Passages of St. Austin borrowed out of Hilary , supposed by some to be the Deacon , and Author of the Commentaries and Questions , of which I will now say something considering them in the Lump . 1. I do suppose the same Person or Persons ( whosoever they were ) wrote these Commentaries and Questions . Blondel Himself is of this Opinion , and so is Bellarmine in his Observations on Ambrose's Works . 2. I also Judge they were written long after Hilary of Poictiers , yea , after Jerom and Austin , by some ignorant , idle and knavlsh Fellow , who mixed truth and falshood , good and bad together , Collecting some Notions out of the Fathers , and adding many of his own silly conceits . The Testimonies which I have spoken of were its likely collected out of Austin : The Discourse , about the Ambition of the Roman Deacons , exalting themselves above Presbyters was borrowed from Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius . But to make short Work on it . Let us hear Erasmus's Censure of the Questions . The Author ( says he ) repeats many the same things in several places , propounds the same Questions , and treats of 'em over and over again ; is not constant in his Opinions : Some scraps out of other Mens Works are often inserted : He repeats what he had said 〈◊〉 , but in a quite different stile . He is very idle in starting Questions , which he ought not . There is a perfect confusion in the Work. Sometimes he writes Commentaries , sometimes Controversie : Sometimes he Preaches , and sometimes disputes very Foolishly and Meerly Prates . He is often Scurrilous and Abusive , and yet has said many things worthy to be read and known , but gathered out of others . He cites not his Authors , he cheats the Reader with counterfeit Titles . By the repetitions and the disorder in his matter he writes of , by his Tumultuous and Womanish Talkativeness he even kills his Reader . The first part seems to be the Work of some Greek affecting to speak Latin , &c. Erasmus is more favourable to the Commentaries , yet confesses the Prefaces are not St. Ambroses's , but some busy and illiterate Fellow tack'd 'em to the Commentaries . I make account then these Commentaries and Questions are of no Credit or Authority in any Controversy whatever . 2. The compiler of them has intermixt several things favouring Episcopacy , and so is Jack O' both-sides . 1. He expounds the Angels ( spoken of 1 Cor. 11. 10. ) Bishops grounding himself on the Revelations : And gives the Reason why Women ought to be covered in the Church because of the Angels , that is , Bishops , quia Episcopus personam habet Christi & vicarius est Domini , sustains the Person of Christ and is the Vicar of the Lord. The which must be understood of the Days of Paul : Else the Explanation is altogether fruitless and impertinent . 2. He resembles the Deacons to the Levites , Presbyters to the Priests , whereof one was the High-Priest unto whom the Bishop answers see Question 101. 3. He grants Timothy had the Power ofOrdaining committed to him by Paul in these . Words , unde Quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet Timotheus , ostendit Paulus . But he no where expresly allows this to the Presbyters . Many other Observations , if it were worth while , might be Collected out of this Author tending to the same purpose . 3. He contradicts himself the Holy Scripture , and the most Ancient Writers in the Church . He affirms that at first all might Preach , Baptize and explain Scripture , but after , Churches were Establish'd and Distinct Offices were appointed , and the Church began to be govern'd another way , so that no Man should presume to Officiate in Holy things , except he were Ordained . Whereas nothing is more manifest than that there were at the Council of Jerusalem * , besides , Deacons two Species of Officers at least , Apostles and Elders , to say nothing of Prophets , of whom also we read , Act. 15 , That when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians , there were set in the Church by God himself , Apostles , Prophets , Evangelists , Pastors , Teachers , &c. The same are to be met with in his Epistle to the Ephesians . In that to the Philippians we read of their Apostle , of their Bishops ( or Presbyters , ) and their Deacons . Timothy and Titus had their Elders and Deacons under them . To omit sundry , other examples hereof in Scripture , Clemens Romanus tells us , that the Lord appointed who were to Minister in Divine Offices among the Christians , and Ignatius needs not here to be brought in for Evidence . But let us consider the several Instances Mr. O. gives in Confirmation of this Paradox , that there were no Ministers in the Church at the beginning . The first is of Philip. But Philip had been Ordained by Imposition of Hands , and besides was a Person endued with extraordinary and supernatural Gifts , that is was a Prophet , and of such I readily grant it true , that they were not strictly and indispensably ty'd to common Rules of Order , but might do what the Spirit moved 'em to . But 't is remarkable what Hilary himself says of Philip , Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut Philippus . So then here were Ministers thus Early besides the Apostles . As for Apollos Act. 18. 24. to pass by other Observations that might be useful , I much question whether , when he preach'd at Ephesus , he was yet a Christian , or rather am positive he was none : For he knew only the Baptism of John , v. 25. unto whom therefore Aquila and Priscilla , expounded the way of God more perfectly , v. 26. And tho' after this he still Preach'd at Corinth , v. 28. it may be said that by this time he had been Ordained to it , for any thing appears to the contrary : And we must not think none were Ordained , but such of whom 't is expresly testify'd in Scripture : We ought rather to conclude all were Ordain'd because many were . Of Aquila and Priscilla , their instructing Apollos , I have shewed elsewhere , that it was private not Ministerial Instruction . In short , I know not one Example of a Person unordained , and of ordinary Gifts only , that took upon him to Preach in any Christian Assemblies , much more to administer the Holy Sacraments ; nor can I fancy , when that time was of which Hilary speaks , when every Man that would , did Administer in the Word and Sacraments . But the story of Vrigen is urg'd , who was made Catechist in the School of Alexandria , and taught the Catechumens in the Rudiments of Christianty , as Dr. Cave relates it , and what is yet more , Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea , and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem invited him to Preach before them . As Africa has always been noted for a Country abounding with strange and Monstrous Creatures ; so are we continually pester'd with some surprizing and extraordinary fact in the Egyptian Church , as if that differed from all the World besides . But to this Example of Origen , I first say , that Mr. O. is as much obliged to reconcile it with the Presbyterian Principles , as I am with the Episcopal : That Origen , though he instructed the Catechumens at Alexandria in the principles of Christianty ( so do our School-Masters though not Ordained : ) Haply once or so he preach'd at Cesarea before he had been Ordained , ( so do our Fellows of Colleges at the University ) : Yet this is nothing to the Sacraments , which he did not presume to Administer ; and lastly though Theoctistus and Alexander of Jerusalem , out of Curiosity desirous to hear the great Origen Discourse upon some profound point in Christianty invited him into the Pulpit , yet Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria condemn'd it , and it became a Scandal and occasion of offence among them . Mr. O. speaking of Evangelists would prove them to have been unfixt Officers from this observation out of Hilary , that Evangelists , that is Deacons ( as Hilary thinks ) did Preach sine Cathedra , which he expounds without a fixt Residence . Ans. This is more absurd then any thing I have met with in my Adversary . Sine Cathedra , without a fixt Residence ? He might as well have rendred it without fear or Wit. The meaning doubtless is , that whereas Presbyters had their Stalls , as well as the Bishop , and sate in his Presence , and perhaps according to Hilary Preach'd out of them , the Deacons always stood , nor had their Stalls , so that when permitted they Preach'd sine Cathedra . Stantibus Diaconis , we often meet with in St. Cyprian ; and Hilary himself took Notice — that the Roman Deacons did not assume the Privilege of sitting in the Church , had 〈◊〉 Cathedra , no seat in it . Jerom has also observ'd the same : Sedent Presbyteri , stant Diaconi . So that Hilary's meaning was hereby to distinguish the one from the other , and intimated that Deacons were inferior to Presbyters , being not suffer'd to sit or to have a Stall in the Church , as the other had . In short , no one surely will dare to say , that Deacons were unfixt Officers in the Church , either in the Apostles or in Hilary's Days . Mr. O. and before him Blondel , in Order to prove that Bishops were meerly the first Presbyters , and had only precedency , but no Power or Jurisdiction over the rest , argue from Hilary , that in the beginning the oldest Presbyter in Years succeeded into the Episcopacy , and so became the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the President of the Presbytery , and that this Apostolical Custom or 〈◊〉 , continued till it was by experience found , that undeserving or disabled Old Men were advanced to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Affairs , and the dishonour of the Church : 'T was therefore chang'd into Election to the end , not Order , but Merit might take place . Ans. 1. The Controversy is not about the manner of succeeding into the 〈◊〉 . The Method is either prescrib'd in Scripture or not . If it be , let the Presbyterians shew where , and we promise to observe it for the future : If not 'tis left to the Church , to Order this Circumstance as shall be thought fit . In the mean time we may not lay aside Bishops , because we have not a Divine Rule about their Succession . Many things are appointed in the Word of God , the particular Circumstances being left at large unto Humane Prudence . We are commanded to read the Scriptures , but not how much at a time , whether one or more Sections , whether one or more Chapters , nor in what Order : Shall we therefore abolish the Command it self , because these Circumstances are not expresly delivered to us in Scripture ? God forbid ! Supposing then that there have been different Customs taken up about the way of Succeeding into the Episcopacy , this is no prejudice against Episcopacy its self . 2. It is some matter of wonder to me how the Affairs of the Church could be prejudiced by the Oldest Presbyters , succeeding as of right to the first Chair or Presidency , if he received thereby no Power or Jurisdiction as our Adverrsaries pretend . 3. It is false , and nothing can be falser then this conceit of the Oldest Presbyter succeeding into the Episcopacy . Timothy was a Young Man and promoted by St. Paul , and that not for his Age , but his Merit : For surely none can believe he was the Oldest among the Ephesian Elders . What occasion then for the Apostles Admonition — let no Man despise thy Youth , if all the Presbyters were Younger than himself ? And Jerom , who affirms that Paul Ordained Timothy Bishop of Ephesus , his Maxim was , Presbyter aetatis Nomen est , Episcopus 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 Christiana . Quod Aaron & filios ejus hoc Episcopum & Presbyterum noverimus . 7. Jerom not 〈◊〉 and more than once insinuates that Bishops succeeded the Apostles . Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi * , Bishops hold the place of the Apostles . Habes pro Apostolis Episcopos filios Apostolorum , you have instead of the Apostles , Bishops the Sons of the Apostles , Episcopi & Presbyteri 〈◊〉 in Exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros , quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur & Meritum , and let Bishops and Presbyters take for their Pattern , the Apostles and Apostolical Men , whose honour they possess , and therefore should endeavour to have their Merit . Non est facile stare loco Pauli , tenere gradum Petri † . 'T is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul to possess the degree of Peter . Omnes ( so . Episcopi ) sive Romae , sive Eugubii , sive Constantinopoli Rhegii , sive Alexandriae , sive Tanais ( I may add from Jerom sive Divites , sive Pauperes , sive Sublimes , 〈◊〉 Inferiores ) Apostolorum sunt Successores . * All Bishops whatever , are the Apostles Successors . And whereas in this very Epistle , He is exalting his fellow Presbyters as high as with any colour of Pretence he was able , yet no such thing as this drops from him , sc. that the Presbyters are the Apostles Successors . — If then Bishops are the Apostles Successors , as if Jerom may be Judge , they were , then also the Office of a Bishop must needs be by Apostolical Institution : For none could appoint Successors unto the Apostles but the Apostles themselves . 8. The early establishment of Bishops in the very days of the Apostles , or at least , immediately after them , will force any Ingenious Man to confess Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution . This also Jerom has witnessed , * telling us that Clement , ( of whom we read , Phil. 4. ) was the 4th ( some said the 2d ) Bishop of Rome after Peter : That Ignatius † was the 3d Bishop of 〈◊〉 after Peter : That Papias , a Disciple of St. John the Apostle , was Bishop of Hierapolis , and Quadratus , a Disciple of the Apostles , Bishop of Athens . To these add the Asiatick Bishops , of whom we read in Ignatius's Epistles . For because Jerom believed the Epistles genuine , and approves of the subject Matter of them , he has hereby given in his Testimony , that there were Bishops in all those Churches . Is it then possible to imagine Jerom beleived that Decree to be any other than Apostolical , or that Episcopacy received its Date from a meer Ecclesiastical Canon sometime after ? It can never enter into my Head that the Church Government ( which some say was Presbyterian , that is , Administred by a College of Presbyters acting in a Parity , when the Apostles were living ) should be thus quickly altered by a meer Humane , or Ecclesiastical Decree , upon a pretence of preventing Schisms ; whereas the Apostles themselves did not ( as the Presbyterians believe ) think this Reason sufficient to change the Church-Government in their time ; that is , 't is most improbable and absurd to say so many Holy Men and Martyrs of Christ , familiar with , and Disciples of the Apostles , sc. St. Clement , Ignatius , Papias , Quadratus , and an innumerable Company , ( whose Names and whose particular Diocesses are not Transmitted unto us , says Eusebius ) should dare not only to decree , and consent to the Alteration of Church-Government , but themselves to Usurp and Exercise an Authority over their Equals contrary to the Apostolical Rule and Practice . From the whole then that has been said , I may reasonably conclude . 1. That Episcopacy , which is by Jerom called The Remedy against Schism , was Set up and Decreed 〈◊〉 the Apostles in their own days . 2. That though he terms it an Ecclesiastical Custom and Constitution , he is to be taken to mean in opposition to 〈◊〉 Veritati , our Lord 's own Personal Appointment , and not unto Apostolical Tradition , or Institution . 3. That what I have offer'd in this Chapter towards the reconciling Jerom with himself , is most reasonable to be admitted . And lastly , That the Power and Authority allowed by Jerom unto Bishops , particularly that of Ordination , and the other of Confirmation , belong'd to them by virtue of the Apostles Commission , and were not Restraints laid upon the Presbyters by Ecclesiastical Canons , That of Confirmation he deduces from Scripture in his Dialogue against the Luciferians . But Mr. O. will , perhaps say , that all this is nothing to him , and to the Objections he has laid in our way . I am then obliged now to consider in particular what Observations he has mustred up out of Jerom , and levelled against Episcopacy in favour of the Presbyterians Claim . Mr. O. then Pleads , that Jerom has shew'd the Presbyters of Alexandria 〈◊〉 their Bishops for almost 200 Years , and that he would leave nothing out that was Material in Constituting them . Ans. Jerom has not shew'd , nor so much as directly asserted that the Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops : But he has omitted several Circumstances not only Material , but Advantagious to his main Design , if they had been true . Jerom , both in his Commentaries on Titus , and in his Epistle to Evagrius , speaks constantly in the Passive Voice , how that one was chosen , and set over the rest ; but by whom he says not . Why not by the Neighbouring Bishops ? Why not by the Predecessor as well as by the Presbyters ? Jerom has not expresly told us that the Bishop of Alexandria chosen out of the Presbyters , received another , and a new Consecration , nor that the Presbyters Ordained him , all which would have tended much to the Honour of himself , and his Fellow-Presbyters . True , he expresly says , the Presbyters nam'd him Bishop at his Instalment , bnt this does not necessarily imply either that they Chose , or Ordained him . He ought , and doubtless would have spoken out , if either , or both these things had been true . Whereas then Mr. O. adds , Jerom mentions no other way of Constituting them but by Presbyters , it is certain he mentions no way at all . This is manifest ' beyond all exception . Jerom has assur'd us of it , that the Apostles , not the Presbyters , Made and Ordain'd Bishops in most parts of the Christian World ; at Ephesus , at Coloss , at Philippi , at Athens , in Crete , at Jerusalem , and if Mark did not so at Alexandria , it were very strange . However Orbis Major est Urbe . It should indeed seem by the Allusions wherewith Jerom explains himself , that the Presbyters chose one of their own Number , and set him over the rest . So ( says he ) the Army chooses their General , the Deacons their Arch-Deacons . Admitting then this at present , I reply . 1. 'T is no where so much as hinted in Jerom , that the Alexandrian Presbyters Ordain'd their Patriarchs : But rather the contrary , that the neighbouring Bishops impos'd Hands on him . Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter ? In which words he must have an Eye unto the Custom of the Alexandrian Church , from Mark to Heraclas , and Dionysius , implying that Bishops , not Presbyters Ordain'd all that while . Well! But I have admitted that the Presbyters of Alexandria chose their Patriarch , and then Mr. O. argues * That Jerom makes this an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters . Ans. Whatever may be inferred from Jerom , I am very sure this is no good Argument for the Identity and Equality of Bishops and Presbyters . For it is plain that Ordinary Deacons were not the same , nor equal to Arch-deacons , nor the Army to the Emperor , ( as I have occasionally observ'd elsewhere ) although the Deacons chose their Arch-deacons , and the Army set up the Emperor . For to what purpose is an Arch-Deacon chosen , or a General , if they be but still equal to the Army , and to the Deacons , if they have no power over them ? There is a memorable Story to our purpose , of the Emperor Valentinian . He had been chosen Emperor by the Army . The Soldiers afterwards demanded of him to chuse and receive a Partner in the Government ; to which he reply'd — It was in your choice ( fellow Soldiers ) whether you would chuse me Emperor or not ; but since you have chosen me , what you require is in my power , not yours , and ye ought to rest contented as good Subjects . But to return unto Jerom. I have shew'd before out of him , that the Apostles made Bishops ; what then is become of this Argument for Parity in all the Churches of the World , except Alexandria ? But if Jerom contradicts himself past all relief , I cannot help it . Yet again . Why may not one imagine that Jerom's principal aim being to maintain the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons , he noted that at Alexandria , the Bishop was chosen not out of the Deacons , but unum ex se , viz. out of the Presbyters ? Ay , but 't will be reply'd , that Jerom in this Epistle design'd to prove that Bishops and Presbyters , were at first the same , and that to other Arguments for their Identity , he subjoyns this Story of the Church of Alexandria . I reply , not so , if Mr. O. will allow me to reconcile Jerom with himself . I am not indeed able to account for Jerom , when he proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters , from sundry places of Scripture , the Epistles of Peter and Paul , and St. John ; and yet gives us a Catalogue of several Bishops in that time . But this I say , Jerom after he had advanc'd the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons , in that Epistle to Evagrius , telling us there was a time when Bishops and Presbyters were the same . He proceeds to argue from the Church of Alexandria , that there , even to Heraclas and Dionysius , for 200 Years , the Bishops were chosen out of the Presbyters , not out of the Deacons , which Observation was not designed to prove the Presbyterian Identity , nor the Parity , but the Honour given to the Presbyters above Deacons , because the Patriarch was for a long while chosen out of their Number only . Lastly , Let what will become of Jerom and his Arguments , this is sure , and confessed on all Hands , there were always Bishops of Alexandria from the beginning of their Conversion by Mark. It no manner of way belongs to the present Controversy how , or by whom chosen and set up . If the Scripture shall be thought not to have determin'd this point , I mean what way , and bywhom the Bishops shall be Constituted , it is then in the Church to determine , but not utterly to lay them aside . But Mr. O. goes on † We read not of any other Consecration of the Bishops of Alexandria , than the Presbyters Election , and their placing him in an higher Degree , and naming him Bishop . No , has Mr. O. forgot , or did he not know till aster he had thus shot his Bolt , that according to Eutychius , cited this very 128th p. that by the Institution of Mark , The Presbyters when the Patriarchship was vacant , chose one of their Number , on whose Head they laid their Hands , and blessed him , and created him Patriarch . And if this be true , Jerom forgot a very material thing that would have made for the Honour of Presbyters and their Identity with Bishops ; and Mr. O. forgot another , that of the Presbyters imposing Hands on their new Patriarch , which I take to be somewhat more than Electing , Placing and Naming him Bishop . Mr. O. proves * there was anciently no other Consecration but Electing , Placing and Naming him Bishop , from the Testimony of Polydor Virgil , who in his Book de Invent. rerum , l. 4. c. 6. 〈◊〉 , ( says Mr. O. ) that anciently in making Bishops there were no Ceremonies used , &c. Ans. Mr. O. has a Knack above all other Men to misrepresent Authors : And though I resolved not to concern my self with late Writers : Yet being Polydor was in his time a Learned Man , and of no small Reputation in the Roman Church of Engl. I will with Mr. O. pay some deference to his Testimony and Character . Let us then hear , what Polydor has delivered in the place cited . He tells , That Jesus Christ created twelve Pontiffs , whom he called Apostles , also Seventy Disciples , whom he made ( Sacerdotes ) Priests ; that from these latter the Order of Presbyters arose , that the Apostles and Disciples were not admitted into their Office by any other Rites save only the Election or Institution of Christ. Which Polydor proves immediately after from the practice of the Apostles in taking Matthias into their Number , and instituting the Seven Deacons . Let us run through Polydor's Argument backward , and see what it says . The Apostles imposed Hands on the Seven Deacons , therefore on Matthias , and by consequence according to Virgil , so did Christ lay Hands on the Apostles , and Seventy Disciples . So that this Authority out of Polydor recoils upon himself . Indeed Mr. O. owns as much : But then thereby he destroys his own propositition , which is , We know no other Ceremony but Election , &c. But is not Impositiof Hands a Ceremony , and more than Electing , placing and nominating him Bishop ? I am perswaded it is a Ceremony . Thus Mr. O. confutes himself , when he pretends to confirm his Opinion . I cannot pass by one thing , which Polydor very falsly tacks to his Discourse here concerning the Original of Imposition of Hands , which he derives from our Lord and his Apostles , but adds , atque hinc olim factum , &c. hence it came about that 〈◊〉 , ( it was an Old Ecclesiastical Practice ) in Consecrating a Bishop , the Presbyters imposed Hands , and for this cites Cyprian's fourth Epistle to Felix ( in the Oxford Ed. the 67. 'T is pity Mr. O. stumbled not upon this Hint of Virgils . In appearance 't is better then any He has produced in his Plea. But the comfort is there is nothing like this to be found in that Epistle ; and this I thought proper to Note to the End , no new trouble should be created me upon Virgil's Authority . Mr. O. Jerom saith the Custom was changed , from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius . What Custom ? Not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People : For that continued long after ; therefore it must be be the 〈◊〉 of Bishops ( which afterwards was done ) by Neighbouring Bishops in the way of Consecration , that is laying on of Hands , as I apprehend Mr. O. Hence we must learn , that before Heraclas and Dionysius , the Bishops were not consecrated by Imposition of Hands , but barely elected , &c. that after 〈◊〉 and Dionysius the Custom was altered , and then they were Consecrated by Neighbouring Bishops with Imposition of Hands . Ans. Jerom teaches us no such thing . He is here only falling upon a new Argument , as I said before , to advance the Honour of Presbyters above Deacons , sc. that at Alexandria , the Bishops were always chosen ( ex se ) out of the Presbyters , says Eutychius , not out of the Deacons ( though the Custom was afterwards changed about the time of Heraclas and Dionysius , or not until Alexander as 〈◊〉 ) : Nevertheless were Bishops from the beginning Consecrated by laying on of Hands , for any thing Jerom intimates , and which Eutychius has affirmed , as may also be reasonably presumed and gathered from the practice of the Apostles recorded in the Epistles to Timothy , yea , and from Jerom himself in the following Period , excepta Ordinatione , Eutychius his Words are , the Eleven Presbyters laid their Hands on the Bishop ( Elect ) and Blessed and Created him Patriarch . This Rule was made by Mark himself . Mr. O. after a long Quotation out of Eutychius thus Triumphs , Here is a full proof of Presbyters chusing and creating their Bishop , and that by Imposition of Hands , and Benediction or Prayer . Ans. 1. And here is a full proof that Bishops were from the beginning , and were Created also by Imposition of Hands , which Mr. O. just before denyed upon the Authority of Jerom , and was now to have proved , if he had stuck close to his Argument . But it must be confess'd , Eutychius does assert the Alexandrian Presbyters chose , and created their own Bishops by Imposition of Hands and Benediction , Wherefore 2. not to insift any more on the incompetency of Eutychius his Authority , a late obscure and false Historian , I ask how Mr. O. will be able to reconcile Jerom with Eutychius , the former affirming ( as Mr. O. understands him ) that the Presbyters chose , and set up their Bishops unto Heraclas and Dionysius ( then it seems this Custom ceas'd ) the latter unto Alexander : That is to say , Eutychius will have this Custom to have continued 90 Years longer then Jerom assigned it . Eutychius says , the Presbyters all that while Ordained their Patriarchs by imposition of Hands ; Jerom no such matter , but rather the Contrary : They only ( as Mr. O. will have it ) chose placed and named him Bishop . We must then dismiss them both as the Evangelist did the Witnesses against our Lord , their Witness does not agree together . I only add , that the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council seems to overturn at least Eutychius his Testimony : Let the Ancient Customs continue , which I understand of all things established by this Synod , and among the rest that of the Neighbouring Bishops in Egypt , Ordaining the Patriarchs of Alexandria . For if this Synod ( as Eutychius believed ) at the motion of Alexander the Patriarch had altered the Old Custom , with what Face could they have laid down this Rule , Let the Ancient Customs continue ? Or was it Wisdom to exasperate the Alexandrians with a New decree , when they were already engaged in Schisms and Contentions about the Melitian Ordinations ? To shut up this Chapter , whatever Jerom shall be made to say concerning the Alexandrian Presbyters , chusing placing and nominating their Bishop , he no where affirms they Ordained him by imposition of Hands and Prayer : He acquaints us that the Apostles Ordained Bishops in their Time , not the College of Presbyters . If afterwards the Presbyters of Alexandria chose , and created their Bishop by Imposition of Hands , it was at best but an Ecclesiastical Indulgence , for which there is no Rule or Precedent to be found in Scripture or in the Apostles Days . But I am well satisfy'd , that in truth there could be no such Liberty allowed them . Neque 〈◊〉 aliquid cuiquam largiri potest Humana 〈◊〉 , ubi intercedit & Legem tribuit divina proescriptio . This Principle of St. Cyprians ( who flourished about 250 ) shews also , that in the Days of Heraclas and Dionysius , that is Anno 222 the Bishops had not yet taken upon them to dispense with any Divine Precept , and therefore could not have given or decreed unto Bishops , the sole Inherent Power of Ordination , or restrain'd the Presbyters , if they had any Title to it from the Apostles . CHAP. XIII . Of the Carthaginian Councils . IT were to be wish'd that , when Men built an Argument upon the Testimony of an Author , they would 〈◊〉 read and weigh him , and be sure to understand him too before they pretend to bring him forth as a Witness unto the matter in Controversy : And also that they would let him speak the Whole Truth . But in the next instance Mr. O. seems to have overlook'd both these necessary Precautions , and has at Adventures produc'd a Scrap of a Testimony in favour of himself , as he thinks , but which in the end will prove fatal to his Cause , and will confirm the World in the Belief , that he is either very rash and ignorant in his own Quotations , or that he will stick at nothing , so he may seem to support his own Opinion . The Fathers ( says He * ) in the second Council of Carthage , Anno 428 † did observe , That until that time some Diocesses never had any Bishops at all , and thereupon Ordained , they should have none for the future . They would never have made such a Canon , had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Jure Divino . I agree with Mr. O. in the Deduction he has made , provided the Premises were true . To make these good , therefore he quotes that Canon aforesaid thus — placet ut Dioceses , quae 〈◊〉 Episcopos acceperunt , non habeant . Whoever first formed this Argument against Episcopacy , has grosly abused his Reader and the the Council too . Mr. O. perhaps borrowed it of Mr. Baxter or some such kind of Author , whose Interest and Partiality will not suffer them to let the Reader see the whole Period , least at the same time he should discern the Truth , and themselves be found Guilty of Falsification , which I doubt not to make out in a few Words . To which end I will take the Liberty to lay the Canon before the Reader in its own Language . For though the African Fathers used the Latin Tongue , yet all the Latin Copies among us at this Day were derived from the Greek Version , as Justellus tells us , which is therefore the most Authentick , and ought to be accounted of greatest Authority . The said Canon therefore runs thus — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In English thus — It was determined that the People in the Diocesses ( not the Diocesses ) having formerly belong'd to Bishops , but never having had a proper Bishop of their own , should not have ( now for the Future ) their own proper Rectors , that 's to say Bishops , except by the Consent of that Bishop under whose Jurisdiction ( at present ) they are . From whence it appears 1. That the People here spoken of were aforetime Subject to Bishops , which Mr. O. has miserably perverted by saying , that — till that time the Diocesses never had any Bishops at all , contrary to the apparent sense of that Canon , which affirms it , and describes those People thus — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , the People here spoken of were even in the possession , and under the Jurisdiction of Bishops : Ex. gra . To make the matter plainer to Mr. O. The People of Lancashire cannot be said never to have had any Bishops at all , it being well known that the Bishop of Chester is their Diocesan . 2. The People mentioned in the Canon had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper Bishop peculiar to themselves . Thus it is true , that the County of Lancaster never had to this Day a proper Bishop of their own . 3. The African Fathers did not Peremptorily resolve that those People should have no Bishop for the future , though Mr. O. has very falsly affirmed it . But two things they define , either first that they should continue in subjection to their former Bishop , that is to keep to my Example , that the County of Lancaster should continue as a Member of the Diocess of Chester : Or else secondly , that they should be erected into a Distinct Bishoprick , and have their own proper Bishop , provided nevertheless that it be with the Consent of their former Bishop , or thus in the Example , that the County of Lancaster should be made a Bishoprick by its self , and have a proper Bishop of its own , provided my Lord of Chester would consent thereunto . There is another Canon , in the African Code which is more full to my purpose — It pleased the Synod that the People , who never had proper Bishops of their own , should not have them , Except it be so decreed in a full Provincial Synod , and ( particularly ) by the Primate , and with the Consent of that Bishop , unto whose Government that Church ( or the aforesaid People ) formerly belonged . Mr. O. then , 〈◊〉 he had dealt honestly and faithfully with the African Fathers and with us , should have cited the whole Period at length , and not abused them , and endeavoured to cozen the present Age with such Counterfeit Stuff . I have this only farther to remark upon these Canons of the Carthaginian Councils ( and so shall conclude ) , that the Occasion of making the former ( and of the latter too as is probable ) was the Ambitious and Haughty , and Aspiring , Stubborn and Foolish ( for all these Epithets are there bestowed on them ) Disposition of some Presbyters , who raising their Crests against their own Bishops , and Wheedling the People by some indirect means , would needs in a Disorderly manner make themselves their Rectors i. e. Bishops . This immediately follows in the aforesaid Canon as any one that pleases may see at his Leisure . To prove that Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination Mr. O. alledges * the 4th Council of Carthage † Can. 3. — Omnes Presbyteri qui Praesentes sunt , Manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius ( Ordinandi Presbyteri ) teneant . Ans. 1. He has not given us the Canon intire having left out something , which perhaps will go a great way to the overthrowing his Argument , as will be seen anon . Thus the Canon runs — Episcopo eum ( sc. Presbyterum ) benedicente Omnes , &c. But it is not unusual for Mr. O. to quote his Authors by Halves , and to suppress , what seems to make against him . At this rate he may soon get the Christian World on his side , so many of 'em at least as will not be at the pains or are unable to examine his Authorities . 2. This Canon , though Caranza and other Authors mention it , is not to be found in the African Code set forth by Justellus , which makes me suspect , that the Fathers , who in the Council of Trull , took the African into the Code of the Universal Church , look'd upon it either as Spurious , or rejected it as to the matter therein decreed . But I will not insist on this . 3. It is most reasonable to interpret one Canon by another . The said Council decreed . — Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet . From 〈◊〉 one would guess that the Imposition of the Presbyters Hands was designed only 〈◊〉 a Testimony , that the Bishop Ordained with the advice and consent of the Presbyters , at least not without them . 4. If Presbyters laid on Hands as proper Ordainers , how comes it to pass that in other Councils and Canons of the Church it s declared that the Bishop only Ordains and not the Presbyters ? In the 2. Council of Hisp. Can. 6. — Episcopus enim sacerdotibus & Ministris solus Honorem dare potest . Can. 7. Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis ( Presbyteris ) Mysteriorum Communis sit Dispensatio ; quaedam tamen sibi prohibita noverint , sicut Presbyterorum & Diaconorum Consecratio . But the fifth Canon is remarkable . The Occasion of it was this . A certain Bishop being Blind , laid on his Hands at the Ordination of some Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of his Presbyters ; & Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum Ordinem benedictionem dedisse fertur . For which ( 't is added that ) the Presbyter deserved to be condemned , but that he was in the mean time dead . From whence I think 't is plain , 1. That Ordination was not effectually given by Imposition of Hands , but by Benediction the Charge or Commission ( wherein properly consifted the Ordination ) which was given to the Ordained . 2. All the Irregularity here committed was , that the Presbyter presum'd Benedicere , and there with it may be to give the Commission , that is to Ordain , which if Imposition of Hands was Ordination , had been no Irregularity at least no Essential defect , as it is declared to be . 3. For if Imposition of Hands be the Ordination , then there was no Irregularity in these Ordinations , the Bishop having laid his Hands on the Ordained , as 't is testifyed in the Canon , as well as that Presbyter , who blest him . 4. The Orders thus conferred were declared Null by the Council — Hi ( Presbyteri & Diaconi ) gradum sacerdotii & Levitici Ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt , amittant . So that 〈◊〉 the whole it appears , that in the Judgment of these Fathers and of the Church at that Time , laying on of Hands was not properly Ordination , and by 〈◊〉 , though Presbyters impose Hands , yet they do not Ordain , which 〈◊〉 overthrows Mr. O's Major Proposition . But let us see how Mr. O. confirms his Major , He endeavours it by this Medium — That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power : But Imposition of Hands is an Ordaining Act. Therefore , &c. To the Minor I answer by denying Imposition of Hands to be an Ordaining Act , 't is only an outward and Solemn Concomitant of it , as is before Evinc'd though Warranted by Holy Scripture . By the Imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters Hands is signifyed to the Congregation present , that the Bishop Ordains the Person with the advice Consent and Council of his Presbyters . But Mr. O. adds , I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles days , of Persons laying on of Hands in Ordination , that had no Ordaining Power . If I should affirm that those mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. imposed Hands , but had no Ordaining Power , I am very sure he can't disprove me : And if I should demand one Instance in the Apostles times of meer Presbyters laying on of hands , or Ordaining without a Bishop ; I am sure Mr. O. cannot produce it . But Mr. O. pleads * How then comes the Bishops to urge the Scripture ? ( 1 Tim. 5. 22. ) Lay hands suddenly on no Man , in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power , and thence to infer that he was Bishop of Ephesus , since he might lay on Hands , and yet have no Ordaining Power , nor be Bishop . This difficulty is easily resolved . If there were no other Argument for Timothy's Episcopal Power in the Church of Ephesus ; but that Text only , it might thence be fairly inferred , that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus , and had the Power of Ordaining , because no other are joyn'd in Commission with him ; nevertheless , though this prov'd it not , it may be evinc'd from other pregnant Passages in those Epistles to Timothy , which I need not repeat . Nor do we acknowledge Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination : That of Benediction belongs not to them at all . But ( says he ) What does the Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie , if not an Ordaining Power ? I have told him already , it denotes their Approbation , and that the Bishop 〈◊〉 with their Advice and Consent : No , ( he replys * ) they could signifie their Approbation some other way without imposition of Hands , as by saying Amen to the Ordination Prayers . But this is to be wiser than God and his Apostles , who have ( as I often have supposed , though I need not grant it ) recommended this way , which adds an agreeable Solemnity unto the Action ; at least the Church has thought fit to admit the Presbyters to lay on Hands , and thereby to signify their Approbation ( of such as are taken into their own proper Ministry ) in a particular way and different from the Peoples testifying their Assent . And this is the reason why at the Ordination of a Deacon , Presbyters were not to impose Hands , sc. Quia non ad Sacerdotium sed ad Ministerium Consecratur , * as the African Fathers declared . In short , this Canon 〈◊〉 with others , which appropriate the Power of Ordaining Presbyters unto Bishops only , ( as is above observ'd ) seems to me to shew , that in the judgment of the Ancients , Presbyters had no Inherent Original Power of laying on Hands , but that 't was granted to them by Ecclesiastical Constitution only . Otherwise , probably they would have had Power of Imposition of Hands at the Ordination of Deacons also . Briefly , because in the Prosecution of this Argument Mr. O. appeals to the Scripture so oft for proof of certain things that fell in his way whilst he was managing this Point ; I do once more here desire , what I have often call'd for , one single probable proof , or Example from Scripture of bare ordinary Presbyters Ordaining , or laying on of Hands without some Superior presiding in the Action , 5. And to conclude this Discourse about the Councils of Carthage , I that am not much concern'd about Men's Opinions , nor whether the Presbyters impose Hands tanquam Ordinantes , or tanquam Approbantes only , am very well content every one should abound in his own sense , provided there be an Agreement in Practice , and an occasion be not thereby taken to raise Schisms and Emulations in the Church . Let this matter be bang'd in the Schools so long as Criticks shall please , yet seeing there is no colour for asserting Presbyters to be Ordainers without the Bishop , whatever they be with him , I make no difficulty to affirm that their Ordinations without the Bishop , are without Precedent , either in Scripture or Antiquity , and by consequence , in themselves Null and Invalid . A partial Cause can never produce the 〈◊〉 Effect . Mr. O. being about to establish the Ordaining Power of the Presbyters , instances in the 22d Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage , wherein it is Decreed : That Bishops must not Ordain without their Presbyters , as Presbyters not without Bishops , that therefore he may as well say Bishops have no Power to Ordain , because they could not Ordinarily do it without their Presbyters : As we affirm Presbyters have no Power to Ordain , because they can't Ordain without Bishops . Ans. Let us see the Canon at length * — Ut Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non Ordinet , ita ut &c. It is hence apparent that the Bishop Ordain'd , and not the Presbyters , though he was to take along with him the Counsel and Advice of his Prebyters . Let Mr. O. produce me a Canon to this Effect , Presbyteri sine Concilio Episcopi sui Clericos non Ordinent , and then it will be time for us to think of a further Answer unto this Cavil . Mr. O. urges * farther the following Canon ; † The Bishop may hear no Man's Cause without the Presence of his Clergy : Otherwise the Bishop's Sentence shall be void , unless it be confirm'd in their Presence . This we can assent unto without Prejudice to our main Cause . But I read no where that the Presbyter's Sentence shall be void without the Presence of the Bishop : The reason is , because the Presbyters gave no Sentence at all . Mr. O. to confirm his Maxim that Lay-Men were allow'd to Preach , at the Request of the Clergy cites * the Carthaginian Canon . — A Lay-Man may not dare to Preach , whilst the Clergy are present , unless they ask him . Ans. I have given my Opinion of this Matter before . It affects the Presbyters as well as the Bishops , and is of as much force against Mr. O. ( unless he 'll turn Quaker ) as against the Rector . But over and above I note this Canon is not taken into the universal Code , and therefore was rejected in the Council of Trull . CHAP. XIV . Of Paphnutius and Daniel . THE next thing Mr. O. urges in behalf of Presbyters Ordaining is the Story , which Joannes Cassianus tells of one Paphnutius , a Presbyter Abbot , who made Daniel his design'd Successor , a Deacon first , and then Goaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotis honore festinavit — Optansque sibi Successionem dignissimam providere eum Presbyterii honore provexit . He adds , That Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria , did not pronounce the Ordination null that we read of , nor any other in that time . Had it been either irregular , or unusual , doubtless it had been Censur'd . Ans. It must not be deny'd but that this Instance of Presbyters Ordaining appears the fairest of all others that Mr. O. has muster'd up in his Plea. Nevertheless , what I have to reply , is as follows . 1. It is but a single Instance of a ( for ought I know ) Humoursome Abbot , who took upon him to do this contrary to the known and establish'd Order of the Catholick Church , and particularly , of the Alexandrian , whereof he is supposed to have been a part : The Desert of Scetis , where he usually resided , adjoining to the Lake Maria , or Maeris , which borders on Egypt . 2. Whereas 't is urged , that Theophilus , Bishop of Alexandria , did not pronounce this Ordination void and null that we read of , there is no great matter in this . For it may with as great reason be argued , that Theophilus would have Censured it , if it had come to his knowledge , there being no probability that Theophilus would have past by such a Disorder and Affront done to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions , seeing Peter and Alexander of Alexandria , his Predecessors , would not bear with the Melitians . 3. 'T is wonderful that Mr. O. should Insinuate that it was neither irregular , nor unusual , which in former Cases he has granted over and over again . 4. Valesius tells me , * that Paphnutius was engaged in the Melitian Schism , as Ephiphanius testisies , de Haeresi Melitianorum . He also observes , that the Schism was then improv'd unto Heresie . 'T is no wonder then that an Heretical Schismatick should presume to break through the Rules and Orders of that Church , from which he divided , and usurp a Power that nothing belonged to him . And hence also may be drawn the reason why Theophilus took no notice of what Paphnutius did , he being a Schismatick , ( if not an Heretick ) and out of the Communion of the Church ; and what had the Patriarch to do to judge them that were without already ? As St. Paul speaks in somewhat a like Case . But 5. I will not content my self with these Answers , though I reckon them sufficient : But add , 't is no where affirmed by Cassianus that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel a Deacon , or Presbyter ; but only Cum Daniel multis junior esset aetate ad Diaconii praelatus est Officium , and then Festinavit coaequare , made baste to equal Daniel with himself in the Honour of the Priest-hood . And Lastly , desiring to provide a most worthy Successor to himself whilst he was alive , Provexit promoted him to the Honour of the Presbytership . The Question is whether these Words signifie that Paphnutius Ordained Daniel . That he did so , can no ways be concluded from this Testimony of Cassianus . For , 1. It has been ordinary to attribute that unto a Person , which indeed he only commanded , or directed , devised , or procured to be done . Thus Parents are commonly said to make their Sons Ministers , but Ordain them not themselves . Thus Patrons among us make and prefer Vicars and Rectors of Churches ( and the King Bishops ) though Bishops Ordain and Institute them . Thus Joshua made him sharp Knives , and Circumcised the Children of Israel . Joshua 5. 3. Now I hope Mr. O. will not affirm that Joshua himself made the sharp Knives , or Circumcised all these Israelites with his own hands . But to come yet nearer to our purpose , I read in St. Cyprian * Novatus Felicissimum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione & ambitione Diaconum constituit . The enquiry is , whether Novatus , a Presbyter , imposed hands and Ordained Felicissimus , a Deacon , and whether St. Cyprian is thus to be understood . This doubt is to be 〈◊〉 from another passage of St. Cyprian in the same 〈◊〉 . Qui ( Novatus ) isthic ( Carthagine ) Diaconum fecerat sc. Felicissimum , illic ( Romae ) Episcopum fecit , sc. Novatianum . Novatus made Felicissimus a Deacon at 〈◊〉 , and Novatianus a Bishop at Rome . But how ? Not Ordaining him himself , but procuring , or encouraging him to be Ordained by Bishops , as we read in Eusebius * — Novatianus , a Presbyter of Rome , ( by Eus. called Novatus also ) having from some remote parts of Italy invited three Bishops unto Rome , forced them to Ordain him ( Novatianus ) Bishop . This was the Contrivance of the African Novatus , as we learn from Cyprian . As then Novatus did not Ordain Novatianus , but three Bishops procured for the purpose ; so neither can it be thought he Ordained Foelicissimus Deacon , but by his Policy and Interest got him to be Ordained : And yet Cyprian witnesseth that he made ( fecit & constituit ) the one a Deacon , and made ( fecit ) the other a Bishop . In like manner 〈◊〉 made Daniel a Deacon and a Presbyter , that is appointed and commanded him to take Orders . For being the Abbot , he had the Authority to determine his own Monk unto the Orders of Deacon and Presbyter . But It may not be amiss to consider what Blondel has from this Testimony of Cassianus advanced * for the establishment of Presbyterian Ordination . He places this fact in the Year 390. when the Egyptian Church enjoyed a profound Peace , and Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria , and the Government of this Church was improved in a manner into a Secular Dominion . If in these Circumstances ( He argues ) a Presbyter might Ordain Presbyters , how much more before the ancient simplicity of the Gospel was shackled with Novel Constitutions . Ans. It is is some prejudice against this Story of Cassianus , that neither 〈◊〉 , Sozomen , Theodoret , nor any of those Ecclesiastical Historians , though they mention Paphnutius , should have one Syllable of this Action , nor so much as mention Daniel . Besides the Egytian Churches were not in so perfect Tranquility , as Mr. Blondel imagines , and represents them . The Melitian Schism still remained among them , and this Paphnutius was one of them , as I have before observ'd ; so that it is not be wondered at , that Paphnutius presumed to Ordain , and Theophilus overlook'd , and neglected it . For what had he to do with them that were already out of the Church and Excommunicated , as the Melitians must needs be supposed . This premised I frame an Argument against Blondel , and ( as I conceit ) every whit as good as his . 'T is this . If in the most Turbulent State of the Egyptian Church , when Alexander was Bishop of Alexandria , the Ordinations of Melitius and Colluthus were declared invalid , it is Morally impossible that the Ordination of Daniel by Paphnutius , should be approved or connived at , when Theophilus being Bishop of Alexandria , the Episcopacy was raised to a higher degree of Grandeur , and the Peace of the Church better established . To conclude this Chapter , let it be remembred , what I have already noted out of Theodoret , how that Bishops were wont to reside among the Monks in the Wilderness of Egypt , and that seven of them are said to have done so from their Youth up , to their extreme Old Age , even when they were Bishops ; and a little Sense will perswade one to believe , that Daniel was Ordained by a Bishop , Paphnutius the Abbot commanding and directing his Monk to receive Holy Orders . CHAP. XV. Of Pope Leo ' s Decree . THE case was this . There were was in the Diocess of Rusticus Bishop of Narbona ( as may be conjectured from Pope Leo's Epistle ) some Persons , who toook upon 'em to Ordain , and who are called by that Pope Pseudo Episcopi . Rusticus complains thereof in a Letter to Leo , which is not extant that I know of . Leo's Answer is — There is no reason they should be accounted Bishops , who were neither chosen by the Clergy , nor desired by the People , nor Consecrated by the Provincial Bishops at the appointment of the Metropolitan . Whence , when the Question often arises concerning the Honour ( he means Episcopacy , and the Power of Ordaining ) who can doubt that , what does not appear to have been truly Conferred , is in no wise to be given by those Pseudo Episcopi . But if any Clergy-Man in those Churches , which belong unto their own proper Bishop , have been Ordained by those Pseudo Episcopi , and the Ordination was performed with the Consent and appointment of the Presidents ( or proper Bishops ) it may be ratify'd ; provided they remain in those Churches . This Pope Leo flourished about the Year 442. Now Mr. O. who alledges , this Decree of Pope Leo against us , is upon the Proof of Presbyters Ordaining , which I do not see is in the least favoured by these Words , except he will 〈◊〉 these Pseudo Episcopi were Presbyters only . When Mr. O. shall have proved this , I shall think my self oblig'd to return an Answer to it , and not before . In the mean while I observe Mr. O. leaving his Argument adduces this Passage to throw dirt upon our Establish'd Bishops , and prove 'em to be uncanonically Ordained , instead of Confirming his own dear Presbyterian Ordination : But let us see what He says . Two things are remarkable in the decision of Leo the Great . 1. That our English Bishops wanting two of the requisites mentioned in the Popes Decree , sc. The Election of the Clergy , and the demand of the People , their Ordinations therefore have a Canonical Nullity in them , and our English Bishops would have been reckoned Pseudo Episcopi in Leo's time . Upon which remark I make the following Reflexions . 1. We are beholden to Mr. O. for making his simple Friends believe that we are departed from the decrees of the Popes . From henceforth then let them not reproach our Bishops for Popish . 2. Mr. O. is in the right . Pope Leo perhaps would have called our Bishops Pseudo Episcopi : I am sure at this Day the Popes do not fail to condemn 'em as such . 3. The uncanonical Ordination of Bishops among us , will not excuse that of the Presbyterians , much less justify their Anti-Scriptural Ordinations . No one can defend himself by Recrimination : But a greater fault can never be excused by a lesser . 4. We are so far from tying up our selves to the strict observation of Papal or Provincial Canons , that we think not our selves absolutely oblig'd to the Observation of the Decrees of the Oecumenical Synods , but take Libery to vary from them , when ever necessity or great convenience invites us to it : Otherwise we endeavour to conform our selves to them , as much as is possible . 5. I have more than once in the Preface to I. N. and in the former part of this Treatise ( I hope ) sufficiently evinc'd , that our Bishops want neither the Election of the Clergy , nor the Consent of the People , and therefore their Ordinations on that score have no Canonical Nullity in them . But. 2. Mr. O. remarks from the foresaid Decree of Pope Leo , That the consent of the true Bishops ex post facto made the Ordination of meer Presbyters lawful , which could not be unless Presbyters had an intrinsick Power of Ordination . Hereunto I return . 1. Mr. O. ought first to prove that these Pseudo Episcopi were meer Presbyters . I am otherwise perswaded and think I can evince it out of Leo's Decree . 2. The consent of the true Bishops was not required ex post facto ( that 's the disingenuous and false Gloss of an Adversary ) but antecedent to the Ordination , as appears from these Words , & ( si ) Ordinatio Clericorum consensu & judicio Praesidentium facta est , if the Ordination of the Ministers was made with the Consent and appointment of the Bishops . Let any Man of understanding judge whether this Consent and appointment of the Provincial Bishops , was to be Antecedent to the Ordinations or to follow them . 3. Whereas Mr. O. renders Pseudo Episcopi false Bishops as it were in opposition to true Bishops ( so he renders proprios Episcopos ) 't is I think a mistake . The proper Bishops being the Bishops of the Diocesses within the Provinces , and by consequence the Pseudo Episcopi , such as had no Diocess there , and therefore could not Ordain regularly without the consent and appointment of the proper Bishops of the Diocesses : Of which I have spoken before . Upon the Whole matter , how Mr. O. will be able to infer hence , that Ordination by meer Presbyters can be lawful , or that they have an intrinsick Power to Ordain , I am yet to learn. If these Pseudo Episcopi were real Bishops , as they must have been , if their Ordinations were valid when the proper Bishops consent was first obtained , what is this to the Advantage of Presbyterian Ordination ? 〈◊〉 who will believe the Pope of Rome at this time of Day , viz. in the middle of the 5th Century would decree any thing that might Countenance the Ordinations of meer Presbyters ? This is plain , that though the Pope called 'em Pseudo Episcopi , yet they reckon themselves real Bishops , and not meer Presbyters : Which is a strong presumption that in those times , meer Presbyters were not allowed to Ordain . For to what purpose else should they assume the Title and Character of Bishops ? Our Presbyterians do not think there is any need for them to usurp the Title of Bishops , and that because they believe themselves to have Power of Ordination , as Presbyters . All the Difficulty is why Leo calls 'em Pseudo Episcopi , if they were real Bishops . Ans. The reason hereof I conceivé is , because they had been Ordained Bishops , but were not possessed of any Diocesses in those Provinces , and yet took upon them to Act there , which they ought not to have done , it being contrary to the peace and establish'd Order of the Church , This appears from the first Words of the Decree . There is no reason they should be accounted Bishops ( that is have Liberty to Act as Bishops in those Diocesses and Provinces ) who were neither chosen by the Clergy , nor desired by the People , nor Consecrated by the Provincial Bishops at the appointment of the Metropolitan . From these Words 't is plain that he speaks not of meer Presbyters : For it was never required by any Ecclesiastical Canon , that meer Presbyters were to be Ordained by the Provincial Bishops with the Consent of the Metropolitan . This Ecclesiastical Rule and Constitution concerned Bishops only . So that I reckon the Pope called them Pseudo Episcopi , not because they were not Ordained Bishops , but because they acted irregularly in other Bishops Diocesses . CHAP. XVI . Of the Churches in the Island of Taprobane . WE are come now to the Year 520. when ( says Mr. O. ) In the Island of Taprobane , or * Zeilan , as 't is now called , there was a Church of Christians governed by a Presbyter and his Deacon , without any Superiour Bishop to whom he or his Flock was Subject . This Island is above 2000 Miles in Compass , a Province big enough for a Bishop , yet had none in Justin the Emperor's time , which was about the Year 520. but was under the Jurisdiction of a Presbyter Ordained in Persia , who in all likelyhood Ordained his Successor , and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries : From hence Mr. O. roundly concludes — that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches , no not in the 6th Age , and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction , and consequently of Ordination . I 'll not now contest the Truth of the story ; Let us rather suppose the matter of Fact to be as it is reported by Mr. O. — But I have these following things to reply to it , and to the conclusion drawn from it . 1. How does Mr. O. know that this Presbyter and his Deacon , and the flock of Christians belonging to 'em were without a Superior Bishop , to whom they were Subject ? They might be subject to some Bishop in Persia , for any thing he can tell or the first Relator says . 'T is true , this Presbyter regebat , he did rule the flock , but it might be under some Bishop ; the likelihood hereof is the greater , because he was Ordained in Persia , and from thence sent to propagate the Gospel . 2. Whereas Mr. O. thinking to magnify the Power of Presbyters , and to shew what vast Churches have been rul'd by them without Bishops , acquaints us that this Island is ( or was ) 2000 Miles in Compass , and that it was big enough for a Bishop , it might not be unseasonable to ask him first , whether he is not mistaken in the extent of the Island . Heylin makes it but 700 or 800 at most . Well but I 'll not stand with Mr. O. for 1200 or 1300 Miles ; Almost two thirds shall 〈◊〉 break Squares between him and me , especially since he has so good a Geographer on his side as N. Lloyd ; granting then this . 2. Neither his Country-Man Lloyd , nor Heylin make any mention of Christians in this Island . The story then may be but a Fable at last . 3. I ask whether there were any more than one single Congregation of Christians in this Island , or more than one Presbyter and his Deacon . If not he has the reason why there was no Bishop in the Island ; but that the Presbyter and his Flock were subject unto some Persian Bishop . If he says there were Christians up and down in the Island ( as his telling us of the large compass of it seems to intimate ) and many Congregations , and yet this Presbyter ruled 'em all , why then we have a real , though not nominal Bishop , I mean in respect of Jurisdiction . 4. Whereas Mr. O. makes this Reflection , that this Island in Compass 2000 Miles , was a Province big enough for a Bishop , he 'll give me leave ( I hope ) to retort , that it seems it was not too big for one Presbyter and his Deacon . 3. Let it be observed , that Mr. O. knows not but this Presbyter had a Predecessor in that Island : For there is a Tradition that Philip the Evangelist preached the Gospel in Persia , India and Taprobane . I demand then upon that supposition , who Ordained his Predecessor ? A Bishop in Persia in likelihood ; for so much is reasonably gathered from this Presbyter's being himself Ordained there ; and Bishops were before that time in Persia . If so , there is more Probability that this Presbyters Successor also was Ordained in Persia , than that the Presbyter himself Ordained him . But these things are all in the dark , and we know not certainly that this Presbyter had either a Predecessor or a Successor , and so Mr. O's whole Argument is lost : He has built upon no Foundation : It tumbles down 〈◊〉 it s own accord . I add , 't is likely this Church in Taprobane increased not much , nor continued long , there being no Monument of a Christian Church there , but the Monk Cosma's Tale of this single Presbyter . 4. Since we must contend with likelihoods , I ask whether it be not much more likely , that this Presbyter being Ordained in Persia , did take care rather , that his Successor ( if he had any ) should be there Ordained likewise , than that himself should presume to Ordain Him. There is not any the least ground to conjecture , that the Presbyter himself Ordained Him ; but there is some to think that his Successor was Ordained in Persia , viz. because he himself was . 5. Admitting that the Church of Christ in this Island of Taprobane continued there for some Ages , if it increased not much ( which is most likely because we hear nothing more of it ) it might depend upon and remain subject unto some Persian Bishop , and be under his Guidance and direction , as our Western Islands are under the Bishop of London . If it flourish'd and Christians multiply'd considerably there , who can tell but they had Bishops of their own afterwards ? The summ of the matter is — A certain Monk called Cosmas ( a Man of no Note and Reputation that I know of ) tells a lame story of a Presbyter ( without a Name , which renders the Tale Suspicious ) who in the Year 520 , ( when all the World besides was confessedly Episcopal ) was Ordained in Persia ( where the Government of the Church was Episcopal ) and ruled a Church in Zeilan ( no one knows how Numerous , or how long he ruled it , nor how long it continued a Church ) without a Superiour Bishop ( says Mr. O. which is more than is testify'd by the Relators ) and in all likelihood Ordained his own Successor , and would not be at the Trouble of sending for one to very Remote Countries ( all which is spoken at Random , it being in the story not so much as intimated that he had any Successor , or that he Ordained him , or that he was unwilling to get a Successor from a remote Country ) . And from hence without any Colour of pretence very rashly , and very weakly Mr. O. has gather'd that even in the 6th Century , Bishops were thought Essential , and that meer Presbyters have Power to Ordain . If this must pass for a tolerable Argument against Episcopal Government , or in the least favours the Presbyterian , I do renounce all pretence to common Sense . CHAP. XVII . Of Pelagius his Ordination . WE have now been a long Journey in search after some Instance of Presbyters Ordaining , or some Law and Custom that warrants it : We have been in Africa , and among the Moors in Egypt , and the Desert of Scetis , at Taprobane , which lies to East-India , among the Northern Scythians , in England , and in France , and among the Picts , and Scots , in the most remote parts of Britain : We have examined the most famous Councils and their Definitions , of Nice , of Ancyra , Antioch , and the Carthaginian Synods , and all to as little purpose as they who seek a Needle in a Bottle of Hay . We are now at length going to visit Limina Apostolorum , Rome its self the Centre of Christendom , and thence to learn what may be found in the practice of St. Peter , and St. Paul's Successors for Presbyters Power to Ordain : And surely we will not decline the determination of this Question , which the Infallible Church has made by her Example . To this purpose therefore we are put in Mind of the Ordination of Pelagius Bishop of Rome , which happened about the Year 555 and is remembred by Anastasius , who wrote the lives of the Popes . Anastasius then relates , as Mr. O. tells me , how that — Pelagius the first , Bishop of Rome , was Ordained by John Bishop of Perusia , Bonus Bishop of Florence , and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia : Whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop . Before I make a direct Answer to this and to the Argument , which Mr. O. builds upon the Fact it is requisite , that I tell the story a little more largely . For some Men have got a Scurvy Trick to leave out whatever is to their Disadvantage or In validates the Force of their Argument , it being not the Truth but the Interest of the Cause , which they labour to support . The story then is thus . Vigilius , the Immediate Predecessor of Pelagius had been severely Treated at Constantinople , by Justinian or rather Theodora his Empress ; and returning back to Rome , fell Sick , and died . Pelagius was suspected to have had an Hand in his Death * , at least had been his Enemy and a cause of his Sufferings , for which Reason the Clergy hated Pelagius , so that he could not procure three Bishops to consecrate him . He therefore in the place of the third admitted Andreas the Presbyter of Hostia , and what will not such a Man as Pelagius do to establish himself in so considerable a Post as the Bishoprick of Rome ? But if such as these shall pass for good Precedents , any Irregularity in the World may at this Rate be Justifyed . Thus much being premised , let us see what use Mr. O. makes of this Ordination of Pelagius . He argues thus — Either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop , &c. or else a Presbyter has Intrinsick Power of Ordination , &c. that is , either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop , and then the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome , and Consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession , Or , &c. Ans. I reply that though Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop , i. e. not Canonically Ordained , yet this notwithstanding the English Bishops have true Canonical Succession . For 1. We need not pretend to derive the Succession of our Bishops from the Popes of Rome ; 't is more probable that they are the Successors of St. Paul or some other Apostolical Men , who first planted the Gospel here in the Days of the Apostles or soon after : So that we are not concerned at any Irregularity supposed in the Roman Succession . 2. We had Bishops here in England , ( or Britain ) long before Pelagius was Pope of Rome , it being certain that some British Bishops assisted at the Council of Arles held in the days of Constantine the Great , and at that of Ariminum called together by Constantius his Son , above 200 Years before Pelagius : And this Race of Bishops continued even unto Austin the Monks coming hither . Whatever then becomes of Pelagius his Consecration , 't is no matter to us : His Irregularity affects not our English Bishops . 3. Supposing ( what nevertheless is not true ) that the Heathen Saxons , the Angli and the Danes , quite extirpated Christianity in this Land , until Austin the Monk coming from Rome , with the Pope's Commission once more reduced , and brought back the Inhabitants of this Isle unto the belief of the Gospel , and gave us a new line of Bishops : Yet still the Irregularity of Pelagius's Consecration will not at all disparage our Succession of Bishops , as Mr. O. knows very well , if he would not dissemble . For I ought to believe that he has read the known History of Venerable Bede , o'er and o'er , and thoroughly digested him , because he so oft and familiarly quotes him in the Plea , &c. He may then please to remember that Austin was not Created Bishop by Pope Gregory , but by Etherius Archbishop of Arles in France — Interea vir Domini Augustinus venit Arelas , & ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem Civitatis Etherio juxta quod jussa Sti. Patris Gregorii acceperant , Archiepiscopus Genti Anglorum Ordinatus est . So that from henceforth Mr. O. and the Papists may take notice that the English Bishops as to the Succession of their Orders , are nothing beholden to the Bishops of Rome , at least not unto Pelagius ; that if Etherius was a Canonical Bishop ( as I must believe till the Contrary is prov'd ) so was Austin a Canonical Bishop , and so are our English Bishops unto this day , whatever becomes of Pelagius his Consecration . Without any farther fear of danger therefore I may Conclude that Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop , that is ; was not Canonically Ordained , and yet we have a true Succession of Canonically Ordained Bishops in England . But Mr. O. goes on — Or else he was a Canonical Bishop , and what then ? Why then it follows , a Presbyter has a Canonical Power to Ordain ( for so Andreas had , if Pelagius was Canonically Ordain'd ) and then by another consequence , that Presbyters have an Intrinsick Power to Ordain : Because no Ecclesiastical Laws can give to any Order of Men a Canonical Power to that , which they have not an Intrinsical Power to do . Supposing this , ( for I need not contend the truth of it ) the Answer then to the whole Argument is , ( as before ) that Pelagius was not Canonically Ordained . But now I think on 't , what if a Man should affirm that Pelagius was Canonically Ordained , and yet assert , that a Presbyter has not an Intrinsical Power to Ordain ? The first Apostolical Canon decrees — Let a Bishop be Ordain'd by two or three Bishops . Pelagius's Consecration therefore was Canonical , being performed by two Bishops according to this Canoh , and Presbyter Andreas may stand for a Cypher . True , the Nicene and other Synods afterwards said by three Bishops . Nevertheless the Apostolical Canons being always reckoned as part of the Code of the universal Church , the Nicene ( and all other ) Canons ought in conformity to this to be favourably interpreted , I mean that it did not intend peremptorily to command , but rather prudentially advised that if it could be , a Bishop should be Consecrated by three Bishops . It is not improbable but Pelagius's Consecration was upon this very Account afterwards allow'd of . For this is manifest , that Pelagius ( what ever his Ordination was ) is not reckoned amongst the Schismatical Bishops of Rome , but was acknowledged , and peaceably submitted to . Mr. O. then is too positive , when he affirms that — by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop . Without all peradventure , fewer might serve in cases of Necessity , as this haply afterwards might be judged . If God himself is pleas'd that his own Laws shall submit to those of Necessity , much more the Canons of the Church shall . Wise Men have so determin'd , even in this particular case . Gregory declared that Austin ( notwithstanding the Canons ) might himself alone Consecrate Bishops , & quidem in 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 Bishop ; then the Bishop Ordains the younger Son to be the elder ; and lastly , another younger Son is chosen by ( Prelatis & Subditis ) the Ministers and People , and Ordain'd . But by another part of these Cathari , near the Sea , thus , — The Bishop before his death Ordains the elder Son Bishop , ( to succeed him ) and then as before . All the aforesaid Ordinations are made with Imposition of Hands , and the Honour of Ordaining , and giving the Holy Ghost , is attributed unto the Bishop , or unto him that is the elder Son , who holdst he Book of the New-Testament upon the Head of him on whom the hands are laid . Thus much their Adversaries said of them , wherein , doubtless , there is a mixture of Truth and I alshood ; at least this miserable People scattered up and down , did somewhat vary in their Rites , and were never at all times and in all places steady to themselves . I have mentioned before , how that about the Year 1470. the Waldenses in Austria and Moravia had Bishops ; and from these it was that the Fratres 〈◊〉 drew the Succession of their 〈◊〉 Orders ; which History will deserve here to be more particularly Transcribed . In order whereunto , I must now tell the Story of the Fratres Bohemi as Comenius , and the History of the Persecut . Bohem , have made it ready to my Hands , fetching it from the very beginning of Christianity . The Sclavonian Nations were Converted in the Apostles times . Rom. 15. 19. 2 Ep. to Tim. 4. 10. By Sclavonians , Comenius means all the Nations from Macedonia Northward , even to Russia , Polonia and Germany . Some proof of their early embracing the Gospel , he fetches from St. Jerom , who was Born at Strydon , a City of 〈◊〉 , or Dalmatia . In the sixth Synod of Constantinople , in the Year 680. the Lombards and Sclavonians , are acknowledged to be Christians : About the Year 861. Cyrillus and Methodius , two Graecian Bishops , made the People inhabiting about the Danube , Christians , and then passing into Moravia and Bohemia , propagated the Faith among them † After this , Comenius mentions Ditmarus Saxo , Bishop of Prague * . The History of the Bohemian Persecution tells of Waytichius II. Bishop of Prague , in the Year 907. of Boleslaus Pius , another Bishop of Prague , Anno 965. of Priests and Prelates , Anno 1197. who opposed the Usurpations of the Popes , and of Conrade , Bishop of Prague , who leaving the Romish Errors , remained Bishop there Anno 1421. About 20 Years before this hap'ned , viz. Anno 1400. the Bohemian Churches separated from the Roman , upon the account that the Publick Prayers were made in the Latin Tongue , that the Clergy were obliged to Celibacy , that Transubstatiation was made an Article of Faith , and that the People were deprived of the Cup in the Lord's-Supper . This occasioned the dispersion of the Bohemians , and their Settlement in Austria , from whence they sent unto the Greek Church for the Ordination of their Ministers , and had hopes given them of their obtaining it . They removed after into Silesia . Now it was that Gregory , an Holy Man , was by the Persecutors tortured ; but falling into a Trance , felt no pain , and was believed , dead . Recovering , he told his Friends of a Vision , wherein , among other things , he saw three Men standing about a Tree laden with Fruit , and defending it from the Birds † ; and about the same time the Fratres Bohemi were under some trouble of Mind how they should for the future be provided with a Succession of rightly Ordained Ministers . For they considered that ( though several of the Roman Priests came over to them ) it was too uncertain to hope for them 〈◊〉 Rome . They doubted also , whether the Ordination was valid , when a Presbyter , and not a Bishop , Ordained a Presbyter , and that if the Question was once mov'd about it , whether they should be able to defend such an Ordination , either at Home or Abroad . At length , after some Years deliberation , viz 1467. and about 6 Years after the said Vision of Gregory , having Fasted and Pray'd for Direction from God , they resolved upon the following Course . They chuse nine of the most deserving Brethren , and fittest for the Ministry : They wrap up twelve Tickets , nine whereof were Blanks , and three full ones , having writ on them — est , that is to say , as they meant it should signifie — it is the Will of God ; but the Blanks were to denote it was not the Will of God they should have Bishops . These twelve Tickets being mixed , were delivered to a young Boy , ( not knowing what he did ) to be distributed one to every one of those nine Persons . 'T is manifest that the nine Blank Tickets might every one have been given out unto those nine Persons , from whence it would have been concluded , that what they were about to do , was not the Will of God. But it so hap'ned that the three full Tickets were delivered to three of the nine , sc. to Kunwaldius , Praelausius , and Crenovius . And hence they gathered assuredly , that what they were designing , was the Will of God , sc. to seek for Episcopal Orders , and the means of continuing a right Succession of them , and that to that end those three Persons were to be Ordained Bishops . Accordingly they sent three Persons unto the Church of the Waldenses , who were at that time planted in the Confines of Moravia and Austria , acquainting them with what was done , and asking their Advice . One of these three was Michael Zambergius , so called , because he was Pastor Zambergensis † , his true Name being Michael Bradacius . How it came to pass that he was sent in the room of one of the other three chosen by lot , is not said * . But Zambergius , and the other two , coming to the Wâldenses , find one Stephen their Bishop , who calling to him another Waldensian Bishop , and some Ministers , they create these three Bishops with imposition of Hands , thereby conferring on them the Power of Ordaining Ministers * . 〈◊〉 three new Ordained Bishops of the Fratres Bohemi were the three which 〈◊〉 saw in his 〈◊〉 , Guardians of the Tree , that is , of the Bohemian Churches . Note that the Waldenses affirmed themselves to have had a lawful and uninterrupted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles days † , and derived their Original from the time of 〈◊〉 . This hap'ned I reckon , about 1420. or 1430. About the Year 1500. my Author witnesseth that there were 200 Churches in Bohemia and Moravia . In the History of the Bohemian Persecution , after their having received Bishops from the Waldenses , I read of Lucas Pragene , Bishop of the Bohemians * , of Sanctuariensis , an Italian Bishop , who for Conscience sake embraced the Bohemian Communion Anno 1482. † and of Philip , Bishop of Sidon , being among them Anno 1493. Afterwards in the Year 1499. the Bohemians sent as far as Armenia for Ordination § , their Succession perhaps by some accident failing . Anno 1542. I find Joanes Augusta , was their Antistes , or Bishop . The next year after , I meet with a great number of the Bohemians retired into Prussia , whom their Bishop Mathias Sionius followed soon after . About 1556. a Synod was held in the middle of Moravia , where were present more than 200 of the Clergy . Then were fifteen Ministers Ordain'd , two Bishops , and six Conseniors . The two Bishops were George Israel for the Polonian Churches , and Johannes Blaboslaus for the Moravian . At the same time Joannes Nigranus , was Bishop in Bohemia . Now it was that the Arrians ( afterwards called Socinians ) disturbed the Peace , Order and Unity of the 〈◊〉 Bohemi , asserting that the Pastors ( alias , the Ministers , or Presbyters ) had power to do all things in the Church . And this Paradox they pretended to advance , left any thing that smelt of Popery should remain among them , who had renounced that Communion § . Therefore they were so true to their Principle , as not only to disallow of Bishops , ( called Seniors , or Superintendants ) but to deny even the Godhead of Jesus Christ , 〈◊〉 forsooth , the Papists maintain'd that Doctrine : But for the same reason they might as well have denyed the Being of God himself . At the same time , in 〈◊〉 Polonia , the Fratres Bohemi had five Bishops for so many Diocesses , vix . the Crasovian , the 〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉 , the Russian , and the Belsensis Diocess . Anno 1571. Joannes Calephus , was their Bishop in Bohemia , Joannes Laurentius , in Poland , Stanislaus and Andreas Stephanus , Bishop of the Fratres in Bohemia . And lastly , Johannes Adam Comenius a Moravian , and another , a Polonian , their Elect Bishops , Annno 1632. ¶ Comenius after this History , ( of which I have given a Summary Account so far as belongs to the present Argument ) has furnished us with another Tractate , which he stiles — Ratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 in Unitate fratrum Bohemorum . The Pontifical of the Bohemian Brethren , as I may call it , the substance whereof is as follows . — He tells us , That in their Church whereof himself was a Bishop Elect , there were four Orders of Ministers , sc. the 〈◊〉 , sen Antistites , or the Prepositi Ministrorum , sometimes called Vigiles , or Speculatores , Superintendentes , or Superattendentes , that is as he explains himself in our Language Bishops . 2 Conseniores , which he expounds Coepiscopi , or Chorepiscopi , or the Bishops Fellows . 3. Pastors , who were also Ordinarily called Ministers , the same as with us are stiled Presbyters , Priests or Elders . 4. Deacons called 〈◊〉 Administratores , or Adjutores . Among the Bishops there were besides a Praeses , or Primate , or the first Bishop . The President 's , or Primate's Office , among other things , was to appoint and call Synods . The Office of the Bishops , besides other things , was to Ordain all Ecclesiastical Degrees , as Deacons , Pastors Conseniors and Seniors , ( or Bishops ) . All other Degrees were obedient and subject to the Bishops . The Conseniors were Coadjutors to the Seniors , ( or Bishops ) , had power with the Seniors ( or without them , but by their Direction and Command ) to be Members of the Ecclesiastical Senate , and were above the Pastors or Deacons . Their business was to provide for good Order , to acquaint the Seniors with Misdemeanors , to admonish the Ministers , to observe the Ecclesiastical Statutes and Customes , to provide fit Persons for the Ministry , to exercise Discipline over the Ministers , together with the Bishops , or without them , yet by their Direction , to examine the Candidates for Holy Orders , and to present them to the Bishops , diligently to observe how the Pastors discharged themselves in their Office , to reprove their smaller Offences , and to acquaint the Bishop with their more Scandalous ones . I do not find they had power to Ordain , and 〈◊〉 in his Annotations , says , That in minoribus negotiis Episcopi vices obirent , as the ancient Chorepiscopi did . If they be chosen Seniors , they are new Ordained with Imposition of Hands , as Pastors , or Ministers are . The Seniors Ordain all Orders . The Seniors are chosen by the Seniors , Conseniors and Pastors , and are Ordained in a General Assembly with Imposition of Hands . At the Solemnity is sung that Hymn , — come Holy Ghost , &c. The former , or the Ordaining Seniors , offer the new created Bishop their right Hands in token of Fellowship . The Conseniors theirs in token of Obedience . The Conseniors being Ordained with Imposition of Hands give their right Hands to the Seniors , in token of Obedience , to the former Conseniors , in token of Fellowship . The Ministers offer theirs to the new created Conseniors in token of Obedience . Ministers are Ordained by the Seniors , with laying on of Hands of the Seniors , so many as are present . At the Solemnity they sing that Hymn , — come Holy Ghost , &c. The new Ordained Ministers give their right Hands unto the Seniors and Conseniors in token of Obedience , to the Pastors in token of Fellowship , and the Deacons offer their Hands to them in token of Observance . To conclude , it most be confessed , that Comenius says Bishop and Presbyter are one , ( I suppose he means have the same Power and Authority to Minister in the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ; and this is out of all doubt ) ; but withal he intimates that a Bishop is one , who is moreover , an Inspector , or Superintendent , and for this cites Acts 20. 28. His mind is ( I suppose ) that St. Paul in the 17th verse , addressed himself generally to all Presbyters , whether meer Elders , or those who moreover had the oversight of the rest . But in the 28th 〈◊〉 he turns his Speech unto those , especially , who had been made Bishops . And this is but what the Syriac Version seems to imply , wherein ( as has already been noted ) verse the 17th Elders is rendered by Kashishaa , which properly , and only signifies Elders ; but verse the 28th Episkupea is used , which denotes Overseers . However this be , if any one carefully observes , what has been before related concerning the Government of the Church of the Bohemians , it is impossible to conceive but that Bishops ( or Seniors ) were somewhat more than meer Presbyters . The Division of Ecclesiastical Officers into three or four Orders , the Power of Ordaining appropriated to Bishops , the great care they had about getting a right Succession of Orders 〈◊〉 Bishops , and many other remarkable passages before mentioned , render this point uncontestable : From the whole , I think it follows , that the Waldenses , and the Fratres Bohemi were governed by Bishops superior to Ministers , or Pastors , long after they were separated from the Roman Idolatrous Communion ; yea that the Waldenses had Bishops within 150 Years , and less , the Fratres Bohemi within 160. that therefore Mr. O. is utterly mistaken , who avers that the Waldenses had no other Ministers than Presbyters for near 500 Years last past , and that Presbyters Ordained Presbyters without Bishops . The contrary is most certain , if my Authors have not deceived me . Mr. O. was not insensible of this Matter of Fact , of the Bohemians deriving their Bishops from the Waldenses , but he shuffles us off with saying , That the Waldensian Bishops were only Titular Bishops † . That is indeed meer Presbyters honoured with the bare Title of Bishops . If Mr. O. had not known that remarkable Story about Zambergius , and two others , being Ordained Bishops by Stephen and another Waldensian Bishop , he might possible have been pardonable in some measure for this his rash and groundless Assertion : But seeing he has thus against Knowledge , and 〈◊〉 perverted the 〈◊〉 Truth , by a gloss of his own making , without any ground , how any one should excuse him I can't tell , and whether he will be able to defend himself , I much question . In the mean while I 'll endeavour to demonstrate that what he has laid down concerning the Waldensian Bishops , as if they were such in Title only , is a senseless Surmize , altogether false , and no manner of way reconcileable with the Faith of History . For let us but run over the Story once more very briefly , and the truth will appear bright as the Sun at Noon-day . Let it be rembered then , that the Bohemians after their Separation from the Church of Rome , were a good while supplied from thence with Bishops and Presbyters , who forsaking the Romish Communion joyned themselves to that of the Reformed Bohemians , and by consequence had been Episcopally Ordained . But the Bohemians considering with themselves that it was a very uncertain thing to depend upon such a casual way of having rightly Ordained Ministers , and very much doubting , whether Ordination by Presbyters alone , was good and valid , after much deliberation among themselves ; Solemnly ask'd 〈◊〉 of God by Prayer and Fasting upon that Question , Now , if they believed a Presbyter could validly Ordain Presbyters , there had been no need for any thing of this kind . Why should they be deliberating from time to time near Six Years about having Episcopal Orders , and that in a true Succession ? If a Presbyter having the bare Title of Bishop was sufficient to Ordain , there had been no need to have sent Zambergius unto the Waldensians : It had been but affirming that Bishop and Presbyter is all one , and that the one has Power to Ordain , as well as the other . Why all this Fasting and Praying , and seeking direction from God about a thing of nothing , a Name and Title ? What was this but to abuse themselves and the World , and to mock God also with Pretences unto Religion and Tenderness of Conscience , when 't was nothing but meer Hypocrisie . Let it be farther considered , what a device they formed about resolving themselves concerning the Will of God , whether they should seek for a Right Succession of Bishops for the continuance of Holy Orders among them . Is it likely they would have us'd so much Precaution against any fraud in the delivery of the Lots and in the Designation of the Persons ? And all this only that they might have a true Succession of the Title of Bishop , when they had the Power before . Zambergius at least was a Pastor ( or Minister or Presbyter ) before he was created Bishop by Stephen . Could not he have Ordained Presbyters as many as there was need of , and so transmitted the Succession of Holy Orders unto future Generations ? I am perswaded if any one should presume to say that 〈◊〉 was only a Titular Apostle but indeed no more than a Disciple , Mr. O. would be ready to rebuke so 〈◊〉 a Conceit . Can any one imagine the Apostles would have put the Multitude upon chusing one into the place of Judas , telling them it was necessary his Bishoprick should be filled by another , and because they chose two that they should by prayer and 〈◊〉 of Lotts decide , which of the Competitors should succeed and be declar'd Apostle ? And after all this Apostle was nothing but a Word , a Title , was not different from Disciple . The fratres Bohemi were but in a low and Poor Persecuted Condition . They had no need to have been at the pains and Charge of Three Persons , and perhaps more taking a long and dangerous and expensive Journey unto the Waldenses , and all for an empty and unnecessary Title of Honour , and which they might have as well assumed unto themselves as the Waldenses had done before 'em according to Mr. O. Well , but perhaps Mr. O. has not so good an Opinion of the Bohemians as he has of the Waldenses . The Bohemians perhaps were fond of Bishops , and disirous of a right Succession ; and some of the dregs of Roman Superssition yet remain'd among them : But the Waldenses were nothing so : Their Titular Bishops were nothing but Presbyters 〈◊〉 another Name . Neither will this do Mr. O's . Work. For the Bohemians declared to the Waldenses all that had past among them , their Scruples about Presbyterian Ordination , and a true Succession of Orders , the way they took to know the Mind of God. The Waldenses approved of all they had done , assur'd the Bohemians that the Succession of Bishops among them was from the Apostles : And so Stephen and his Collegue Ordained Three Bohemians Bishops . Can these Good Men the Waldenses be excused in all this , if Bishop was but a Word , a. Title 〈◊〉 no more than Presbyter ? They should rather have told them ( as Mr. O. has assured us ) , that there 's no difference between Bishop and Presbyter , that among them Presbyters Ordain Presbyters , though under another Title . That the Bohemians were mistaken , and that it was 〈◊〉 Rag of Popery still cleaving to 'em , to Advance an Order of Bishops above Presbyters , unto whom the Power of Ordaining belong'd . The Waldenses ought plainly to have thus undeceived the Bohemians , and let them know their Error about the Necessity of Bishops . They ought not to have assured 'em that they had a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles , and bolstered them up in their Error by creating Bishops . If the Waldenses play'd the Bohemians this Trick , I cannot esteem 'em what Mr. O. would have us believe 'em Presbytorian Saints , but as rank Hypocrites as I ever read of . For no Man can 〈◊〉 the Waldenses , except by allowing 'em to have been of that perswasion , that a Presbyter can't Ordain a Presbyter , and that Orders and the Succession , of the Power of Ordaining must pass through Bishops not Titular , but really distinguish'd from Presbyters and Superior to them : Nor were the Bishops and Ministers all one , except in Title . How then came the Ministers by joining Hands at their Ordination , to promise Canonical Obedience unto the Bishops ? Lastly let it be considered , that the whole Rationale of the Bohemian Hierarchy , was in all probability taken from the Waldenses , from whom their Episcopacy was derived . Besides , if Stephen was by Title only a Bishop , but really a Presbyter and no more , how could the Bohemians be able hereby to defend their Orders and the Succession of them against their Adversaries abroad ( meaning I believe the Papists , when as indeed their Ordinations were meerly Presbyterian , though in Title Episcopal ? And what sorry comfort was this to the Bohemians , that the Three Titular Bishops being returned to their own People could only Acquaint 'em , that they had indeed been Ordain'd by two Titular Bishops , who nevertheless were but Presbyters such as they themselves were before , and to tell you the truth , we have deliberated long upon this business , we have prayed and fasted in vain , and God by answering our sign in the Affirmative has but at last deceived us . We have taken a long and chargeable Journey to the Waldenses , but have brought no thing back worthy our pains , but a Word and Empty Title . Thus the whole Action was meer Pageantry , a Scene of Imposture , and an Intrigue carried on by Hypocrites on both sides : This must be confessed , if the Waldensian Bishops were meerly Titular ( as Mr. O. is pleased to say ) . On the other Hand the History assures us , that the fratres Bohemi were exceedingly comforted and encouraged at the return of their Presbyters now created Bishops and deriving their Orders in an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles , as they believ'd . But at length my Adversary seems to melt a litle and to come half way over to us . He professes thus in his own and Brethren's Name — We dislke not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be Ordinarily restrained to the Graver Ministers , provided they assume it not as proper to them by Divine Right , nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions . From this Conclusion of Mr. O. it follows — 1. That in Mr. O's Judgment the Church may restrain the Power of Ordaining , taking the Exercise of it from some of the Yonnger Fry , and lodging it in the Hands of the Graver sort . But the mischief is , the Younger sort will presently cry our against the Usurpation , they will plead , That they are Presbyters as well as others , and have an Inherent Power to Ordain ; that it can't be taken from them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions ; that they can't in Conscience part with that Power and Right , which the Scripture gives them . And in short will turn all Mr. O's Battering Rams against the Graver Ministers , which he has planted against our Bishops , and with more Reason too . For St. Paul when he restrained the Power of Ordination , he had not respect to Age , but to Ability . 〈◊〉 by was but a Young Man , when Paul set him over the Church of 〈◊〉 , and I have reason to think 〈◊〉 was so too . For he admonishes him to take care that 〈◊〉 Man despise him , c. 2. 15. where I suppose it is to be understood that Titus also was but young . And Demas Bishop of Magnesia , in Ignatius was a Young Man also . 2. If Mr. O. would be pleased to give me leave to suppose St. Paul as Wise as himself , 't is all I ask . I will suppose then , that the said Apostle for Orders sake did restrain the exercise of the Ordaining Power to some Persons by Him made Choice of , and for the prevention of Schism did prescribe the same Rule unto the Churches , which Mr. O. sees some reason for now doubtless then St. Paul left not the Power of Ordaining promiscuously unto all Presbyters , but limited it unto a few , I will not say the Graver or Older sort , but the Wiser and most Holy. If Mr. O. would nourish this Principle , and make such Deductions from it as 't is capable of , he would soon see that Episcopal Ordination is Apostolical . But I believe his own Party will conn him no Thanks for this Liberal Concession . Mr. O. adds — and not clog it with unscriptural Impositions . If there be any Order in a Church some few things must of necessity be imposed : But this is what the Dissenters aim at , that every one may be left at Liberty to say and do what is right in his own Eyes . The Impositions laid upon the Ordained among us are not such as the Bishops themselves alone devised , but the Whole Church consented unto , and though they be not prescrib'd in Scripture , they are not Antiscriptural nor introduc'd into the place of any thing required by the Word of God. In short , did not the Presbyterians when they were in the Saddle clog their Ordinations with unscriptural Impositions ? I mean that of taking the Covenant . But this is to carry the Controversy into another Quarter . I shall therefore let it pass . Of the Lollards . 〈◊〉 has , it is 〈◊〉 , fastned that Practice on the Lollards that their Presbyters after the manner of Bishops did create new Presbyters , and that every Priest ( or Presbyter ) has as good a Power to bind and loose , and to Minister in all other things belonging to the Church as the Pope himself gives or can give . But to this it may be reply'd , that 't is only the report of an Adversary , and perhaps may be a Scandal . It may again be answered , that these Lollards came too late to prescribe unto the Church in any thing by them practised . It may yet further be said that , when People grope their way in a Dark Night , it is no wonder if they now and then stumble . They are to be both pittied and pardoned . For lastly , 't is manifest ( if the Testimony of their Adversaries concerning them be admitted ) that the Lollards look'd upon even Presbyters as an Order no ways approv'd of by God. It was one of their Maxims — Presbyteratus non est 〈◊〉 approbatus a Deo. So that Presbyters as well as Bishops are by the same Authority utterly 〈◊〉 the Church . It was another of their Opinions 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 ( 〈◊〉 . 566. ) that no Day is Holy , not the Lord's-Day ( or Sabbath Day as People will call it ) , but that on every Day Men may work , eat and drink , &c. If then the Lollards erred thus grosly in these points , it is no wonder that they were mistaken in that of the Government of the Church by Bishops . But if their Authority be 〈◊〉 to establish Presbyters in the Power of Ordaining , by the same Authority it may be proved the Lords-Day is not Holy. Yea , rather , 〈◊〉 the Order of Presbyters be not approved of by God , 't is in vain for Mr O. to equal them unto Bishops , because the Lollards brought them down as low as the People , and utterly Cancelled their Office , at least denyed it to be of Divine Institution . In short , I think they were a well meaning , but ignorant People , who had 〈◊〉 and Knowledge enough to discover the gross Superstition , Idolatry and Corruptions of the Romish Church ; but not to define the true Doctrine of the Gospel , about Government and Discipline . Finally note here , that this Instance of the Lollards ( who appeared at soonest about the end of the 14th Century ) is by Mr O. brought in proof of this Proposition , that Ordination by Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church . Now I don't believe that there is one other Author extant , that pretends such Familiar Acquaintance with the Fathers and Councils as Mr. O. does , especially not among the Protestants , that ever reckoned the Practice of the 14th Century for Primitive . The 4th or 5th Age are the latest we are wont to appeal to , at least under the Title of the Primitive Church . But what ? all are Fathers with Mr. O. that favour his Opinion , and the Primitive Church will never have an end , so long as any thing can be found conformable to the Presbyterian Discipline . Concerning the Boiarians , or Bavarians , who , as Mr. O. would have us believe , were once Presbyterians , I will only say thus much in short . I find in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit . Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops , aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs . I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian ; but will not trouble my self , or Reader with them . He that is curious , and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People , may take Aventinus into his Hands , and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops , and governed by Presbyters only . It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly ; but however , as he goes along , he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops , even before they were brought into subjection to Rome . CHAP. XIX . Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation . THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors , and continued down to our own Times : This Doctrine ( says Mr. O. ) meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop ) hath been maintained also by the Church of England , both Popish and Protestant . Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State , and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors , both of the Roman and Protestant Communion , both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us . All I am concerned for , is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found , or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records , at , or since the Reformation . For 't is nothing to me , if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters , as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff . Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression , that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer , much less of the Dissenters , whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea. My design is upon Mr. O. himself , and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions , or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government . Mr. O. has alledged three against us ; the little Treatise , commonly called , The Bishops Book , another , called , The Institution of a Christian Man , and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet , the late Lord Bishop of Worcester , in his Irenicum ; all which ( as I shall prove ) belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII . and whatever Opinions are there to be met with , are not to be imputed to our first Reformers , at least , not as their fixed and settled Judgment ; for I reckon , that in Hen. VIII's Days , the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb , newly conceived , not brought forth , that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born , and in its Swadling Cloths , and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity , that it has yet been able to attain unto , during which Queens Government , something also is objected to us , which shall be examined in its Order . The Bishop's Book , was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments , the Creed , and the Grounds of Religion , fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction . 'T was composed by sundry Bishops , of whom , Cranmer was chief , by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII . in the Year 1537. established by Parliament , and Printed by Tho. Barthelet , with this Title . The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man. Out of this Book , Fox has furnished us with this following Passage — * That there is no mention made , neither in the Scripture , nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor , or Author of the Church , being within the Times of the Apostles , that Christ did ever make , or constitute any Distinction , or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power , Order , or Jurisdiction , between the Apostles themselves , and the Bishops themselves , but that they were all equal in power , &c. and that there is now , and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity . It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church . From hence Mr. O. has gathered ( for he refers to Fox's Martyrology ) that these Bishops ( the Authors of that Book ) affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers , and not mentioned in Scripture . Ans. This Deduction is downright false , and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words . The design of that Prince at that time , was to throw off the Pope , and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England ; to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed , that as the Apostles were equal among themselves , so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times , or ( according to Jerom ) that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium : That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book , Patriarchs , Primates , Metropolitans , and Archbishops , and particularly , the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops ; particularly , not over the English ; only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake : But from the beginning it was not so . Here is not one word of Presbyters , or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops . Now , that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book , I appeal to what I find elsewhere , taken thence by Mr. Strype † . How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope , but to the King's Laws : That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel , in matters Civil and Moral , but by Grant and Gift of Princes , that it was always , and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes , with the Consent of their Parliaments , to revoke and call again into their Hands , or otherwise , to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given , and permitted by their Authority and Assent , and Sufferance , without which , if the Bishop of Rome , or any other Bishop whatsoever , should take upon them any Authority , or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil , that Bishop is not worthy the Name , is an Usurper , and Subverter of the Kingdom : That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church , as well as that of Rome : That there is no difference in Superiority , Preeminence , or Authority of one ( Bishop ) over another : But they be all of equal Power and Dignity , and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome . The Equality here spoken of in the beginning , and in the latter end of this Period , is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church , but between Bishop and Bishop , Church and Church , and particularly , that no Church ( that of England especially ) is subject to Rome . And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops , such Priests haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England , in Subordination to , and by the Popes Authority ; not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found ; only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate , and that in Civil and Moral Matters only . The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another ( if haply it be another ) Book , entituled — The Institution of a Christian Man , drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod , Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII . and the Parliament , and commanded to be Preached . Out of this Book ( afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess ) Mr. O. cites as follows . — in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus , sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum & Presbyterorum , sive Episcoporum . Which Words ( it must be confessed ) look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight . Ans. In the first place , I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this , and some other Books of the same nature , and written with the same design . The Bishops Book , otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man , of which before , came forth again two Years after , sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name , viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man ; Printed also by Barthelet : That this also was once more Published in Engglish , and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book , according to the Custom of those Times ; though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer ; but called The King's Book , because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation , added to it by way of Preface , and assumed to himself the being the Author of it . Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book , Entituled The Bishops Book , because framed by them ; I guess it the same with that I first spoke of , and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another , which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book , but Entituled , The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power . I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book , going under this Title . — Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit . 1544. in the Preface whereof , 't is said to have been at first writ in English , and then Translated into Latin , by whom , or by what Authority I find not ; and whether this be the same with Mr. O's , I know not ; but this is sure , Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses ; mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine . And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books , and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops , not about the superiority , or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church , I am apt to fear some foul play . But concerning the Testimony its self , as allowed of , I shall speak more by and by . Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book , Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man. If it shall be said , that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of , was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book , but the Bishops Book ; yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other . Thus then I read in the King's Book . — That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church , given of God to Christian Men , by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands . That this Sacrament was conferred , and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops . That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest : That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like , as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed , or limited by the Word of God for the nomination , election , presentation , or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers , but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region , provided , made , or to be made , &c. — He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries , both of Priests and Bishops , sc. Teaching , Preaching , Ministring the Sacraments , Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar , loosing and assoiling from Sin , Excommunicating and finally , Praying for the whole Church , and their own Flock in special . — That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices , but with such sort and such Limitations , as the Laws permit and suffer — That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also . Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only , that is Priests and Deacons , Scripture maketh express mention , and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands — That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans , have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority , Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture : That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were , and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only , &c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio , which I have seen , there is some disagreement to be found : For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition , &c. seems to speak of two Orders only , i. e. Priests and Deacons , the Christiani hominis Institutio , expresseth it thus — de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum & Diaconorum , Scriptura expresse meminit , &c. meaning , as I suppose , not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers , but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry , sc. of Presbyters and Deacons : That is , the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons , is only expresly mentioned in Scripture , and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands : And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine , &c. is to be understood , as I conceive not of Persons , but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day . It is not then affirm'd in either , that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices , that is Priests and Deacons , ( and not Bishops ) according to the Scripture : But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there , nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture , tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands . MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense , and to his purpose rather , sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions ( in Ordinibus ) but of Deacons ( or Ministers ) and of Presbyters ( or Bishops ) How Ministers and Bishops crept in here , I 'll not say : But they are capable still of the same Sence , sc. that in the New 〈◊〉 there is no mention of other degrees and Distinctions of Persons in Orders ( that is of Persons Ordained by Imposition of Hands ) except Deacons and Presbyters : For Bishops were not consecrated again by any express appointment in Scripture according to the prevailing opinion of those times . 'T is lastly to be observed , that in the necessary doctrine , &c. that we read , that Patriarchs , Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans , have not now nor ever had Power , Authority and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Scripture , 't is in the Latin Translation added cetrosque Inferiores Episcopos aut Presbyteros , which makes no alteration . For who is there that believes not , that the Archbishop of York has no Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Chester , nor over the Presbyters of this Diocess , but what is given him by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Law of the Land , for Peace and Orders sake ? But 't is worthy our Notice that in the K's Book ( as is before at large set down ) Orders or Ordination is taught to be , A Divine Gift or Grace given by the Imposition of the Bishops Hands : That the Apostles gave this Grace and appointed the Bishops after them to do the like : What need we any more ? Here are Bishops having the Power of Ordaining distinguished from the Ordained , sc. Priests and Deacons . But when all is said , and whatever Sense any Man shall think fit to put upon these passages out of the King 's and Bishop's Book I make little account of . At best they express the Mind and Opinion of Hen. 8th , Cranmer and other Bishops , who were all still ingag'd and held fast in the Toils of Popish Errors and Superstitions , all their Design hitherto in these Books being only to cast off the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope . For the Rest , they continued yet Papists all over . Cranmer himself , who was chiefly imployed in drawing up these Books , still retained his old Errors and Prejudices suck'd in with his Milk , and continued Zealous for the Corporal Presence even to the last Year of Hen. 〈◊〉 . In the necessary Doctrine publish'd 1543. 't was taught , that in the Ave Mary the Blessed Virgin is Honoured and Worshipped , that the reading the Old and New Testament is not so necessary , as of Duty the People ought and be bound to read it , but as the Prince and Polity of the Realm shall think convenient , that the Publick Law of the Realm had so restrained it . The seven Sacraments are in the Book its self asserted and explained , Prayers for the dead recommended upon the Authority of the Book of Maccabees , and of the Ancient Doctors in Masses and Exequies . Now this is an hopeful Book to establish Protestant Doctrines by , and thence to affirm , the Protestant Church of England was of the Mind there were no more Officers in the Church , than Bishops ( or Presbyters ) and Deacons . At best the Reformation was but now on the Anvil , and Cranmer and the other Reformers were but Hammering it out by Degrees . Nor can we believe they always or at that very time declared their own Opinions fully and freely . Hen. VIII . was an Haughty and Sturdy Prince impatient of any Oppósition , and resolved to assume unto himself all the Popes Usurped Powers . Cranmer and his Associates thought it a good step towards their Design , if they could but shake off the Tyranny of the Pope , hoping after this point once gain'd they might in good time compass their whole Design , and establish the Church upon the sure Foundations of Truth . To please then the Humour of the King and gratify his Pride , it must be declar'd and acknowledged forsooth , by the Bishops , when they took out their Commissions ( as Cranmer himself did more than once ) that all Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical flowed from the King , that the Bishops Exercised it only by the Kings Courtesie , that the King impowred them to Ordain , to give Institution , and to do all other parts of the Episcopal Function , of which Opinion Cranmer himself was Anno 1540 , and even in the first of Edward the 6 th , or pretended to be . In short , this Character Dr. Burnet gives of the Archbishop , that his greatest weakness was his over Obsequiousness to Hen. VIII . There is then no Colour to ascribe any thing we meet with in these Books , as the free and settled Judgment of Cranmer , much less as the the Doctrine of the English Protestant Church . And if any Man shall pretend by these Testimonies to overthrow the Divine Right of Bishops , he will be oblig'd to lay aside the Divine Right of Presbyters also , who were at the same time and in the same manner subjected to the Will of the King and to the Laws of the Land , as any intent Reader may observe from the aforesaid Passages out of the Kings and Bishops Books . And so much of this matter . The Third Testimony objected against us is the Celebrated MS. in the Irenicum , from whence we are informed . That Cranmer and other Bishops set forth this to be their judgments , that Bishops and Priests were one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion alledging Jerom in Confirmation . Ans. I have said enough of Jerom already , and need not repeat or apply it here . I chuse 1. to present the Reader with some particular account of that MS. before I directly reply to the Objection . The King called a Select Convention of Bishops and Learned Doctors at Windsor Castle , who were to give their Resolutions of several Questions relating to Religion every one under his own Hand . They did so , and Cranmer's are particularly 〈◊〉 in the said MS. Those which belong to Our present purpose are . Quest. 9. Whether the Apostles lacking an higher Power , as not having a Christian King among them , made Bishops by necessity or by Authority given them of God. Ans. Cranmer . All Christian Princes have committed to them immediatly of God the Whole care of all their Subjects concerning the Administration of God's Word for the care of Souls . That the Prince has sundry Ministers under him as Bishops , Parsons , Vicars and other Priests , who are appointed by his Highness unto that Ministration : That the said Officers and Ministers , as well of one sort as of the other be appointed , assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and Orders of Kings and Princes : That in the Apostle's time , when there were no Christian Princes , the Ministers of Gods Word were appointed by the consent of the Christian Multitude among themselves . That sometimes the Apostles sent and appointed Ministers of God's Word , sometimes the People did chuse them , and those sent and appointed by the Apostles , the People of their own will accepted , not for the Supremacy or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to Command as their Princes and Masters , but as good People ready to obey the advice of good Consellors , Quest. 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first : If Priest , then the Priest made the Bishop . Cr. Ans. The Bishops and Priests were at one time , and were not two things , but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion . Quest. 11. Whether a Bishop has Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture or no : And whether any other , but only a Bishop may make a Priest. Cr. Ans. A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scripture , so may Princes and Governours , and the People also by Election : The People did commonly elect their Bishops and Priests . Quest. 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and a Priest , or only appointing to the Office be sufficient . Cr. Ans. In the New Testament , he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture : For Election and appointing thereunto is sufficient . I have somewhat contracted the Archbishops Answers , but so as to preserve the Sense full and intire , and somethings I have omitted not Material ( as I Judge ) here to be set down . These Questions and Answers in the MS. were subscrib'd T. Cant. and this is mine Opinion and Sentence , which I do not temerariously define , but remit the Judgment wholly to your Majesty . To all which I reply 1. That though these were the Opinions of 〈◊〉 yet other Bishops , unto whom the same 〈◊〉 were put were otherwise perswaded . Mr. Strype , has furnished us with different Answers given by some others of the learned Doctors or Bishops of that time from another MS. out of Cotton's Library . To the 9th Question . The Calling , Naming , Appointment , and preferment of one before another to be a Bishop or Priest had a necessity to be done in that sort , a Prince being wanting : The Ordering ( Ordination ) appeareth taught by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture per manuum Impositionem cum Oratione . This I doubt not will be own'd a truer and more Scriptural Resolution of the Question then Cr's was . To Question 10th . Bishops ( were first ) or not after : These learned Men spake here cautiously ; Cranmer rashly and roundly pronounces . To Quest. 11. Scripture warranteth a Bishop obeying the 〈◊〉 to Order a Priest per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione , and so it hath been from the beginning . They do not boldly define that Priest and Bishop were one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion , as Cranmer did . To Quest. 12 — Manuum Impositio cum Oratione , is required unto the making of a Bishop or Priest : So as only appointing it is not sufficient . There is yet the Judgment of other Learned Men to be seen in Mr. Strype , which I will add unto the former . To Quest. 9th — Making Bishops has two parts , Appointment and Ordination . Appointment , which by necessity the Apostles made by Common Election , and sometime by their own Assignment , could not be done by Christian Princes , because there were none ; yet now appertaineth to them : But in Ordering wherein Grace is conferred , the Apostles followed the Rule taught by the Holy Ghost , per Manuum Impositionem cum Oratione & Jejunio . A more solid and Judicious Answer then Cranmer's . To Quest. 10 — Christ made the Apostles first both Priests and Bishops , but whether at one time some doubt . After that the Apostles made both Bishops and Priests , the names whereof in the Scripture be confounded . They manifestly imply a real distinction between them , in the beginning , though they were one in Name , or rather though both were called by both Names indifferently . To Quest. 11 — The Bishop having Authority from his Prince to give Orders , may by his Ministry given to him of God in Scripture Ordain a Priest , and we read not that any other not being a Bishop hath since the beginning of Christ's Church Ordained a Priest. N. B. To Quest. 12 — Only Appointment is not sufficient , but Consecration , that is to say , Imposition of Hands with 〈◊〉 , and prayer is also required . For so the Apostles used to Order them that were appointed , and so has been used continually , and we have not read the contrary . From the whole it appears , that what ever was Cranmer's Opinion , yet others were of a contrary Mind : It cannot then be truly affirm'd , that Cranmer's was the Judgment of the Church of England , as farther may be confirmed by what Dr. Leighton reply'd at the same time unto the Queries . 1. I suppose , that a Bishop has according to the Scripture Power from God as being his Minister to create the Presbyter , although he ought not to promote any one unto the Office of a Presbyter or admit him to any Ecclesiastical Ministry , unless the Princes leave be first obtained in a Christian Common-Wealth . But that any other Person has according to the Scripture Power to create the Presbyter , I have not read nor learned from any Instance . 2. I suppose Consecration by laying on of Hands is necessary : For so we are taught by the Examples of the Apostles . Thus much Dr. Durel , who read the whole MS. by the permission of Mr. St. reports out of it in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Angli . The Judgment then of Cranmer set forth in that MS. cannot with any Truth be ascribed to the Church of England ; it was the Opinion but of some Persons , from which their Contemporaries we see differed much . But , 2. the Argument grounded on the MS. belongs not to the time when the Church of England was Protestant . So that the Resolution of those Queries were rather of the Popish Church of England . For the Questions were not put by Edw. VI. as was at first surmized , but by Hen. VIII . To make out which note . 1. The Manuscript has no date , nor any King named in it , that called the Assembly at Windsor . One may then ascribe it to the Father Henry , as well as to the Son Edward . 2. Cranmer submits himself and his Sentence unto the Judgment of the King. But Edward VI. was a Child too young , and unexperienced to ask these Questions , or to have the final decision of them referred to him . 3. Lee , Archbishop of York , who subscribed the Answers in the MS. died in the Year 1544. * some Years before Edward was King , by which Argument ( Dr. Durel says ) he convinced Mr. Still . that the Convention was held at Windsor in the Reign of Hen. VIII . not of Edward VI. 4. In Mr. Strype's Memor . the King makes his Animadversions upon the Bishops Answers , which cannot be thought the Work of Edw. VI. a Child , but of Hen. VIII . 5. The matter of the Questions , and of the Answers of Cranmer sufficiently prove that Hen. VIII . convened that Assembly at Windsor . They both resemble the foresaid King's and Bishops Books , and one Animadversion of the King in Mr. Strype ( which is , since they confess appointing Bishops belongeth now to Princes , how can you prove that Ordering is only committed unto you Bishops ? ) bewrays King Henry's aspiring to be invested with all the Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Power , even of Ordination it self . Of which , see more in his Memorials . P. 16 , 17. Append. N. 7. It. Mem. 141. Briefly as in his elder Brothers life time , he was bred up in Learning , that he might be Alterius Orbis Papa , or Archbishop of Canterbury ; so after he was King , the Ambition still prevailed in him , and was not , we see , easily removed . 6. Early in the Reign of Edw. VI. and when the Reformation was going on prosperously , Cranmer and the Protestant Bishops understanding matters better , and having freedom to speak their Minds , delivered themselves more clearly in the point , as may be inferred from sundry Observations belonging to that Time , and upon Record . As 1. It is declared in the Preface before the Form of Ordination drawn up and agreed upon in Edw. VI's Reign . That it is 〈◊〉 unto all Men , diligently reading the Holy Scriptures , and ancient Authors , that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church , Bishops , Priests and Deacons , by publick Prayer , and with Imposition of Hands approved and admitted thereunto . Cranmer it seems was now come over to Dr. Leighton's Opinion , declared in the days of Hen. VIII . 2. Cranmer set forth a Catechism in the first Year of Edw. VI. Anno 1548. wherein the three Orders are taught as of Divine Right , from whence ( says the Historian ) It appears that he had changed the Opinion he formerly held against the Divine Institution of those Ecclesiastical Orders . 3 In the Days of Edward VI. Cranmer suspended Heath Bishop of Worcester , for refusing to subscribe the fore-mentioned Form of Ordination . 4. In the same Reign John Alasco , a Noble Polonian , was by Cranmer's means made a Superintendant over all the Churches of the Foreigners , yet newly planted in and about London ; the Germans , Italians , and the French. — And Superintendant is but another Word for Bishop . Whoever therefore will impartially weigh the darkness of the times in Henry VIII's Reign , where the above mentioned King's and Bishop's Books were written , and the Answers made unto the King's Questions by Cranmer , and some others , the stifness of that Prince , his fondness of being Head of the Church , and the awe which the Archbishop and his Associates in the Reformation stood in towards him , the earnest desire they had at any Rate , and on any Terms to be rid of the Pope's Tyranny , the falseness , uncertainty , and absurdity of many Opinions delivered by the Bishops , and their repugnancy to each other , he will be forc'd to confess that no stress can be laid upon any of their Conclusions , much less that they were the first and steady Sentiments of the Protestant Church of England : For even the Popish Clergy also generally subscribed them . But the sudden alteration of the Bishops minds as to this present Point in debate in Edward VI's days : puts it out of all question , that the MS. of my late Lord of Worcester , belongs to King Henry VIII's days ; and that our first Reformers their mature and setled Judgment was , that there were from the beginning of the Christian Church three Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers by Divine Right , Bishops , Priests and Deacons : Let us hear the Reflections of the Learned Prelate , the now Lord Bishop of Salisbury . — * In Cranmer's Papers some singular Opinions of his about the nature of 〈◊〉 Offices will be found ; but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty , so they were not established as the Doctrine of the Church , but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own . And it seems , that afterwards he changed his Opinion ; for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set forth , which is directly contrary to those Opinions set down in this Paper , viz. Mr. Stillingfleet's MS. In the next Reign 't is no matter to us what became of the Divine Right of Episcopacy . The Protestant Church of England suffered an Eclipse in Queen Mary's days , but soon recovering it self under the Auspicious Government of Queen Elizabeth shin'd so much the brighter , and in a short time came to that Settlement which it enjoys to this day , without any considerable Alteration : And to our present point , 〈◊〉 , 1. That the Form of Ordination of Deacons , Priests and Bishops , with the Preface before spoken of , were confirmed in the 4th of Eliz. 1562. and again in her 13th Year Anno 1571. and which to make short work of it , continues in force unto this Day . 2. In the general Apology of the Protestants , the 5th Article of the English Confession is inserted , and was drawn up in that Queen's time , Anno 1562. and runs in the words following , — Farthermore , we believe that there be divers Degrees of Ministers in the Church , Deacons , Priests and Bishops , to whom is committed the Office to instruct the People , and setting forth of Religion . But Mr. O. Objects unto us the 13th of Eliz. c. 12. pretending to prove thereby , that Ordination by Presbyters was then allowed here in England . The Clause he refers to , is more at length thus — All Persons under Bishops , who pretend to be Priests , or Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments , by reason of any other Form of Institution , or Consecration , or Ordering , than the Form set forth by Parliament in Edw. VI. or now used , shall in the presence of the Bishop declare their Assent , and subscribe to all the 〈◊〉 of Religion , which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith , and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprized in a Book , Entituled , Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces , and the whole Clergy , in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions , &c , — and 〈◊〉 , &c. From hence Mr. O. infers , That the Statute respects not Popish Ordinations , only , if at all , but gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to subscribe all the Articles absolutely , among which was the Book of Consecration ; and that the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of true Christian Faith , and of the Sacraments , which he would prove in that the Statute speaks of Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments , and the Title of Ministers is rarely used among the Papists , and is common among the Reformed Churches ; the Ministry among the Papists being a real Priest-hood , and therefore they call their Presbyters , Priests . Ans. The Statute , doubtless , speaks of all Priests and Ministers , whether Papists , or Dissenters : All were to Assent and Subscribe , in case they would continue in , or be let into any Ecclesiastical Promotion : But chiefly the Papists . 〈◊〉 first , I assert this upon Mr. O's own words . — The Ministry of the Papists ( says he ) was a real Priest hood , and therefore they call their Presbyters , Priests . On the contrary , I do not remember that Dissenting Ministers have ever been stiled Priests in any publick Instrument of Church or State. Now as for the word Ministers , even that also ( it may be ) points at the Popish Priests ; for it had lately been used among the Papists . I meet with it in Smith's Recantation † ; in the necessary Doctrine , and other publick Records , But chiefly , I consider that at the time of this Act of Parliament the Popish Priests herded themselves among the 〈◊〉 , and went by the name , and under the disguise of Dissenting Ministers . For the more effectual discovery of these Foxes , and to unkennel them for the security of the Flock , as well as to curb the Dissenters themselves , Ministers was thought a fit Word to be added unto the Act , to the end none might escape subscribing . Mr. O's 〈◊〉 here turns upon himself , whilst he distinguishes , where the Law does not , contrary to that wise rule of Interpreting Laws . Besides , these Words in the Statute — Who pretend to be Priests or Ministers by reason of any other form of Institution or Consecration or ordering than the English then in force do in my Opinion , plainly and more openly strike at the Popish Ordinations , the Great Design of that Reign , especially in the beginning , being to extirpate the Romish Priests . It may be urg'd — That the Dissenting Ministers by subscribing those Articles , which only belong unto the Confession of the true Christian Faith , were to be admited or continued in their Benefices , and by consequence their Ordinations allowed , though they did not declare their Assent unto the Ceremonies and Traditions , nor to the 20th and 36th Article of Religion . Ans. This cannot be : For I shall shew anon that they were oblig'd to subscribe those two Articles , which if they did ex animo , they must of necessity forth with enter into Episcopal Orders , and approve of and use Church Ceremonies , which was what the Statute aim'd at . Nor ( as Mr. O. argues ) does the subscription seem to intend those only , who scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies , and not the other Doctrines in the 39 , Articles , which was the case of the Dissenters alone . For the Papists scruple , many other of the 39 , Articles , which also were to be assented unto , but were not scrupled by the Presbyterian Dissenters ( though other Dissenting Ministers haply did ) ; and though the Papists scruple not Ceremonies and Traditions in General , yet they scruple ours in particular : By consequence were intended in the Act , as much and more then the Dissenters . Mr. O. Because the Assent and Subscription was only to the Articles of Religion concerning the Confession of the true Christian Faith , and Doctrine of the Sacraments , therefore an Indulgence was intended the Dissenting Ministers , who scrupled nothing else but Ceremonies and the Book of Consecration which belonging not to the Christian Faith , are not required to be subscribed and assented to , and by consequence Ordination by Presbyters was here allowed . Ans. All I have to do is to prove that the 20th and 36th Articles among the 39 , were by this Statute required to be subscribed and assented to . And thus I prove it . 'T is manifest that the 39 Articles are meant in this Statute , viz. from these Words in the Act — — Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and 〈◊〉 of both Provinces , and the Whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions in Religion . Oh! but ( cries Mr. O. ) 't is meant of such Articles only , as concerned the Confession of the true Christian Faith , which the two aforesaid Articles did not , all the rest being opposed ( it seems ) unto the 20th and 36th Articles . Ans. It is very absur'd in my Judgment to Interpret Acts of Parliament in so loose a manner , which are wont to speak more correctly , and with greater exactness ; and if this had been intended the Statute would certainly have excepted the two Articles . I rather believe the Articles of Religion here mentioned , are opposed to other Articles of the Queen's setting forth in the 6th of her Raign , Anno 1564. and to be seen in the Collection of Dr. Sparrow * called , Articles 〈◊〉 Doctrine and Preaching , for Administration of Prayer and 〈◊〉 , for certain Orders in Ecclesiastical Politie , Apparel or Persons Ecclesiastical , and Sundry other Protestations . All which were injoined by the Queens Letters and Authority only , unto which this Statute did not direct an Assent and Subscription , but to the 39 only . which for Distinctions sake are entituled Articles of Religion , and in Allusion thereto are so called in the Statute . To all these 39 Articles called 〈◊〉 of Religion , all Priests and Ministers were to subscribe : And this was enacted as well for the avoiding diversity of Opinions , as establishing of Consent touching true Religion . Moreover by Ceremonies we commonly understand things of meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution : These indeed considered every one singly by it self belong not to the true Christian Faith. Right ! But the 20th Article , which in general defines and declares it to be in the Power of the Church to appoint some decent Ceremonies 〈◊〉 a Principle or Proposition , which belongs unto the true Christian Faith , as being founded on the Word of God , and therefore with the rest was to be subscrib'd . The Book of Consecration confirmed in the 36th Article , contains the Scripture Rule of Ordination by Bishops , and so concerns the true Christian Faith : It was then to be assented unto . Finally , that I have not mistaken the Sense of the Statute or the Lawgivers Intendment , I will support my Interpretation by the Judgment of the great Oracle of the Law , and other Reverend Judges before him . Subscription required of the Clergy is twofold : One by force of an Act of Parliament confirming , and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion , agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England , and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. c. 12. referring to Canons made by the Clergy of England , at a Convocation holden at London , 1562. containing 39 Articles of Religion , and ratify'd as aforesaid — He adds , that in Smith's Case , who subscribed the 39 Articles of Religion with this Addition — So far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God , it was resolved by Wray Chief Justice , and all the Judges of England , that this subscription was not according to the Statute of the 13 Eliz. because the Statute required an absolute subscription ; that this Statute was made for avoiding Diversity of Opinions , which was the scope of the Act , but by this Addition , the Party might by his own private Opinion , take some of them to be against the Word of God. Contrary to the design of the Statute , and the 39 Articles themselves : Belike Smith intended to decline , subscribing unto the 20th and 36th Articles . Hereby then 't is apparent , that this Act intended no indulgence unto the Dissenters , nor allowance of Presbyterian Orders . In King James the first 's Reign , was publish'd a Book entituled Tractatus de Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae , by Dr. Mocket the then Archbishop's Chaplain , whereunto the Author annex'd Jewels Apology , the greater and less Catechisms , the Publick Liturgy , the 39 Articles of Religion and the Homilies . Now because Blondel builds upon these , I ought at least to examine the Treatise and the Catechisms . The latter , I cannot get a sight of , and shall at present only look into the former , from whence it may be Collected — That the Office of a Bishop is twofold . The first has respect unto all the Faithful of the Whole Flock : The second unto the Ministers of the Church . As to the former it is acknowledged that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Degree of Office or 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 , that the Prince may make a Priest. He that will infer hence , that according to the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time , Bishops were not Jure Divino , but by the Law of the Land , must be also forced to conclude , that Priests and Ministers hold by the same Tenure and no other : And from the whole it will follow that Mr. Hobbs was in the right , when he affirms the Will and Laws of the Prince to be the Standard of the Peoples Religion . Furthermore , we are often confronted with the Doctrine and Practice of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Churches , and called upon to have a more favourable , charitable , and just Opinion of them , and their Ministry . Hereunto it will suffice me only to answer with St. Paul , What have I to do to judge them that are without ? But I farther consider with what Difficulties they at first struggled , and still labour under , and am apt to think that the same good God that would have Mercy , and not Sacrifice , and so dispensed with his own appointed Sabbath , may ( and I hope ) will accept their Sacrifices , though they be not prepared according to the purification of the sanctuary . I also consider that the Foreign Protestants are by this time , ( many of them , even the most Learned ) quite Captivated by a long Prejudice , which the continuance of the Presbyterian Government among them for so many Years , since the Reformation has now perhaps , rendred unconquerable , and that therefore God may ( and I hope does ) wink at this Ignorance ; for such I reckon an inveterate Prejudice to be . Besides , though many of the Foreign Protestant Ministers have Zealously defended the Presbyterian Government , and seem not at all willing , or inclined to Model themselves into the Episcopal Platform , though it were in their power , and opportunity served ; yet others of them have been contrary minded , and even in the 〈◊〉 of that darkness , wherein they lay , have been able do discover the Truth , which shined through the Clouds of their Hardships and Prepossessions . I will not here mention the French Letters written unto the present Honourable , and Right Reverend Bishop of London . Mr. O. has most maliciously Suggested as if the Authors were Brib'd , or by some indirect means induc'd to write as they did . I do not know upon what Authority he has published this scandalous surmize , and if it had been fit to take up Reports by Conjecture , or uncertain Fame meerly to blast the Credit of a Writer , I could have told him 〈◊〉 now , what I have heard ( from one who was no stranger to the Presbyterian Intregues in 1640. and so on , and may be presumed to speak what he had 〈◊〉 to know , sc. ) that Mounsieur Blondel came into England , with hopes to be preferred in our Church by Archbishop 〈◊〉 , but it seems mist his aim : That he was afterwards hired by the Presbyterians to write for them against Episcopacy . Thus Revenge and the Love of Money were the Parents of that Celebrated Book entituled — Apologia pro Hieronymi Sententia : And Lastly , that even in the Apology its self some things were intermixed , which undid and overthrew all he seemed to have advanced in defence of Presbytery : Which therefore he was forced to expunge before he recovered the Promised Reward of his Labour . But after this let us now hear what a Learned Protestant , a Foreign Divine has written upon this Subject , I mean Peter Du Moulin , in a Letter to a Scotch Man Anno 1640. He says — That the French Protestant Church never put down Bishops ( p. 6. ) nor encouraged others to do it : That necessity not Choice keeps 'em from setting up Episcopal Order : That at Geneva , where Episcopacy was changed into the Presbyterian Form , necessity bore more sway than Council , and Policie than Divinity : That the Reformation in France began among the People , in Scotland ( and England ) at Court : No wonder then that due Regard was not had unto the Primitive Government in the one as well as the other , that the French Protestants have much ado to maintain their Ministers by reason of their Poverty : That if they should establish Bishops , it would provoke their Adversaries and raise them to Jealousy , and 〈◊〉 would look more like direct Schism , two Bishops being at the same time in oneSee : That they are a Body prepar'd for Bishops , when Bishops will reform : He gives an Instance , that somewhere the Bishop in his Cathedral preach'd the pure Word of God , and the Protestants submitted to him . He farther Apologizes , that their King will not suffer them to have Bishops . I only add , hereunto Bishop Hall's Observation , how that , when our Bishop of Landaff at the Synod of Dort , charg'd the Divisions there ( in Holland ) upon their want of Episcopacy he received this only in Answer — Domine nos non sumus adeo faelices . Whether this was spoken by way of Modest excuse , and a tacit approbation of Bishops , I know not of certaitny ; but believe so ; at least I look upon it as a shifting off the Question about Episcopacy the President not caring to enter into the Lists with the Bishop upon that Argument . But if he intended it ( as perhaps Mr. O. will think ) for a Scoff , I will take the Liberty to say , that as the High-Priest prophesied a great Truth but intended it not , neither understood it ; so might the President too stumble upon a great Truth , and intimate Episcopacy to be the Happiness of a Church , tho' at the same time he was otherwise perswaded or did not discern it . For there are a sort of Creatures , which cannot endure the Light , and by how much clearer the Sun shines see so much the worse : Like Saul going to Damascus before his Conversion , are struck blind with the Glory and Lustre of Truth which surrounds them . This we are assured of by manifold and woful Experience , and therefore need not wonder at it . The Eyes of the Understanding labour under the same natural Weakness , as those of the Body do . When we have continued long in the dark or have shut our Eyes for somewhile , we are not able to behold the Objects of Sense , though placed at their proper distance , and in a Medium duly fitted for their Reception . Thus when Pride , 〈◊〉 and Prepossession , when Passion , Sturdiness and Secular Interest , when contentiousness Opposition , and Hatred have for some time drawn a veil over the Understanding , it is not easy for these Men to admit any Notions , that thwart and contradict those , which they have for a long time before entertained , let the Evidence brought for their Conviction be never so bright and clear . For instance , Mr. O. as has been noted in the former Chapter has frankly acknowledged it as fit and warrantable , that some Grave Divines be set over the Churches for Peace and Order sake , whilst the Younger sort are for the present to be excluded or suspended from the exercise of their Inherent Power . Now Mr. O. is not able ( I perceive ) to see , that this very reasonable Concession of his , if rightly pursu'd and improved as it ought ; puts an end unto 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 to be Ordained Bishops , and a Synod was held by our English Bishops for that purpose , Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely said , that they ought first to be Ordained Presbyters as having not been Ordained by Bishops but by Presbyters only . Bancroft Archbishop of C. maintained , that there was no necessity of that , because where Bishops could not be had Ordination though by Presbyters ( only , ) must be esteemed lawful , else it might be doubted , whether there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches . This applauded to by the other Bishops , Ely acquiesc'd . From hence I inferr , not that the Protestant Bishops of England approved of Presbyterian Ordination , but that in the Judgment of this English Synod , nothing but necessity can justify it ; now what Degree of necessity is requisite , I 'll not here dispute . 2. That where Episcopal Ordination may be had there Presbyterian Ordination is unlawful . 3. That the necessity here pleaded in Defence of Presbyterian Orders implies , that Episcopal Ordination is of Divine Right : otherwise it had been impertinent to excuse Presbyterian Ordination , only from the necessity of it . But I crave leave to interpose my own Judgment , and I humbly conceive there was no need of flying unto this Refuge of necessity , for still the Ordination of these Scotch Gentlemen might have proceeded , Salvo etiam Episcopalis Ordinationis Jure Divino ; for I do affirm that by the practice of the Church a Lay-man may be immediately elevated into the Throne , and effectually receive the Episcopal Character without being first Ordained Deacon and Priest. This latter is indeed more safe and regular in Ordinary : Nevertheless in extraordinary Cases , the former has been practised . Thus the Learned Dr. Cave has observed , that Monks were wont to be made Bishops without going through the usual intermediate Orders of the Church . He instances in Serapion , Apollos , Agathus , Ariston , &c. mentioned by St. Athan. Tom. 1. p. 957. However this be I shall produce two notable and unquestionable instances of it . The first is of Nectarius P. C. He being but a Catechumen , i. e. an unbaptized Christian ( if I may so say ) one of the Senatorian Order , and a Praetor was nominated and Chosen Bishop of Constantinople , when Greg. Nazianzen had abdicated it , and immediately after 〈◊〉 was Ordained Bishop without the intermediate Orders of Deacon or Presbyter . The other is of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milain . He also a Catechumen only , and at that time the Consular Governour of the Province was chosen , and after Baptism Ordained Bishop thereof without the intermediate Orders of Deacon or Presbyter : For a Bishop according to St. Chrysostom's Maxim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has in him the whole Ministerial Power . I alledge this principally with this Design to Vindicate the succession of the Scotch Episcopal Ordinations . The End. ERRATA . PART . I. PAge 1. line 17. read managing , l. 18. r. endeavour'd , p. 5. l. 9. r. Diocesan , p. 6. l. 33. r. Epist. 2. 1. 6. p. 12. l. 40. r. denoting , p. 13. l. ult r. designat , p. 15. l. 34. r. the for that , p. 23. l. 3. r. Angels , ibid. l. 37. after they , add are , p. 24. l. 5. r. Haggai . ibid. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ibid. l. 33. after manner , add to be , p. 28. l. 28. after that , add they , p. 32. l. 25. r. Months , p. 46. l. 2. r. Argument , p. 52. l. 3. r. conclude , p. 65. l. 25. r. Successors , p. 67. l. 35. r. pretend , p. 73. l. 17. after of , add the People , p. 76. l. 15. 1. Gal. 2. 9. p. 80. l. 5. r. Penance . PART II. PAge 21. line 7. read bold , p. 22. l. 38. r. Christians , ibid. l. 45. for no , r. do , p. 42. l. 24. r. Maximinus , p. 45. l. 11. r. Asturica , p. 51. l. 33. r. Council . p. 55. l. 26. r. Counterfeit . p. 59. l. 4. r. valid , ibid. l. 8. r. intrinsick , p. 62. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. l. 9. r. received , ibid. l. 11. dele is , ibid. l. 43. r. ordaining , p. 63. l. 15. r. Ischyras , p. 74. l. 16. r. Adversaries , p. 76. l. 26. for this r. the , p. 82. l. 35. dele . be , p. 92. l. 23. r. Liberty , p. 102. l. 18. r. Joannes , ibid. l. 37. r. because , p. 106. l. 37. r. dislike , ibid. l. 43. r. out , p. 108. l. 3. r. sufficient , p. 109. l. 2. r. divers , p. 110. l. 10. r. voluntary , p. 112. l. 35. dele that , l. 37. r. ceterosque p. 114. l. 28. r. Counsellors , p. 117. l. 32. after days dele : p. 119 l. 37. r. Bishops , p. 123. l. 37. r. Intrigues , ibid. l. seq . r. opportunity , ibid. r. Monsieur . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A42789-e2660 Gal. 5. v. 3. Def. p. 25. See Justellus . Def. p. 26. Calv. Ep. 136. Baz . Ep. 29. Def. p. 27. Vide Office of Visitation of the Sick. Def. p. 68. Def. p. 74. Def. p. 79. Def. p. 82. And so was Barnabas also . Def. p. 84. Def. p. 85. Jo. Ep. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 5. 1. Deut. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. 25. Def. 88. 89. Def. Ibid. Def. p. 90. Synop. Crit. 〈◊〉 . p. 91. Def. p. 95. Def. p. 97. See Office of Consecrating Presbyters in the 〈◊〉 . Def. p. 48. Def. p. 77. Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. Theodoret. Hist. l. 5. c. 9. E. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. L. 4. c. 22. Jer. Cat. Ser. Def. p. 54. * De Repub. Dial. 8. † Polit. l. 3. c. 7 , 8. * Thalia or l. 3. c. 80. † In libel . de Mon. Olig . & Dem. * Lexic . voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † Arist. ubi supra . Def. p. 99. 100 , 101 , 102 , 103. P. 99 , 100. Def. p. 102. Def. p. 103. Def. p. 103. * De serie & Succes . p. 73. Def. p. 104. Def. p. 106. Sc. Edit . Par. Eus. H. E. l. 3. c. l. 23. l. 5. c. 24. * De Praescrip . adv . Haer. c. 32. Def. p. 108. * Dan. 10. 13. ch . 12 1. 1 Thes. 4. 16. Judge . 9. Col. 1. 16. *** Ep. ad Corinth . cont . Celsum . l. 5. p. 250. Edit . Cant. Comment . in Dan. c. 7. 2. * Comment . in Zach. 1. 8. Dan. 7. 2. † Strom. l. 6. * Homil. in cap. 3. S. Lucae . † Cont. Parmen . l. 2. p. 44 , 45. Ed. Mer. Casaub. Tit. 1. 5. 11. 13. 2. 15. 3. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 poem . 27. p. 169. Sopbron . & Hierom. in Cat. Scrip. Eccles. Def. p. 121. Tit. 1. 5. T. N. p. 64. Def. p. 122. * Catal. scr . † Cod. 254. Col. 1041. Mr. Bur. Def. p. 124. In Dissertat . de Serie & Succes . P. 75. Def. p. 124. * Near 700. † Or 38. 1 Tim. 3. 14 , 15. Def. p 126. Def. p. 126. Def. p 129. Def. p. 130. Def. p. 131. Def. p. 131. Def. p. 132. Def. p. 133. Def. p. 134. Def. p. 134. * As Mr. O. has elsewhere supposed . Hesych . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Cortex Arboris . * As also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a smooth Piece of Wood to write on , Tabula . Def. p. 135. Def. p. 138. " 2 Tim. 4. 21. Acts. 20. Def. p. 139. Def. p. 139. 2 Tim. 4. 10. Def. p. 123. Lanc. Lev. reb . by N. N. Def. p. 124 , 125. Rom. 15. 19. Orig. Britan. P. 36 , &c. Cyril . l. 2. 〈◊〉 . Is. Orat. 1. Def. p. 〈◊〉 . Def. p. 126. Def. p. 143. Def. p. 144. See L. 5. 24. l. 3. 39. Catal. Script . Def. p. 144. Jerom. Catal. Script . Def. p. 145. Def. p. 146. Euseb. H. E. l. 2. c. 24. Ib. l. 3. c. 14. Def. p. 148. Def. p. 149. N. B. Object . 1. Bursc . p. 92. * Kal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . † Ep. 23. Comment . ad Ephes. Hom. 14. in 6. Act. See Quaest. nov . Test. 14. apud Aug. c. 4. v. 11. 〈◊〉 Ael . Verus 〈◊〉 . c. 1. Object . 2. Object . 3. Object . 4. Soc. l. 1. c. 19. Soz. l. 2. c. 23. Histor. Account of the Bishop of St. As. Ch. 5. 6. Def. p. 142. St. Chrysost. in 4. Cap. ad Ephes . Serm. 11. Def. p. 146. Annotat. in Euseb. p. 37. col . 1. B. † In my Jerom 't is Anianus , Cat. Script . Marcus. I also read in Socrates & Soz. of one Annianus Bishop of Antioch , and of another ( if another ) who subscrib'd the Sardic Council . Athanas. Apol. 2. contra Arian . p. 767. Def. p. 148. Def. p. 150. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 4. Catal. scr . Eccles. * We find him acknowledged Bishop of Ephesus , in the Apostolical Constitutions , by Chrysost . Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. and by Theodoret Argument . in 1 Tim. and in his Comment . 1 Tim. 3. 1. all before the Council of Chalcedon . Def. p. 147. Def. p. 151. Def. p. 152. Def. p. 153. Def. p. 156. Def. p. 157. Def. p. 162. Def. p. 163. Euseb. E. H. l. 3. c. 37. Def. p. 165. Def. p. 153. Des. p. 156. Def. p. 159. Rhemish Argument before the first Epistle to Timothy . Def. p. 163. Def. p. 166. Def. p. 167. Def. p. 178. Notes for div A42789-e50610 Def. p. 49. 50 , 51. B. 2. p. 435. Ib. p. 413. St. Cyp. Ep. 3. Oxon. Ep. 4. 59. 66. 69. and 73. Edit . Pat. Jun. We have a like story of Greg. Nazianzen Bishop of Con. who whilst many were contending about that Bishoprick , even when he was legally possess'd of it , openly before all and of his own accord , said — If I be the Jonas that raises the Storm , throw me into the Sea , and let these Tempests cease ; I am willing to undergo whatever you have a mind to , to be Banished the Throne , and to be cast out of the City . Only be careful to Love Truth and Peace . And so he Voluntarily departed . See St. Chrys. Hom. 11. in Ephes. Epiph. Vol. 1. l. 1. Advers . Haeres . To. 2. n. 6. Edit . Paris . Apud Clementem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. P. 40 , 41. Id. Ct. Strom. and Paedag. cited by Bishop Pearson in his Vindiciae Ign. Epist. Opt. Milev . Ed. Casaub. Lond. p. 66. In Ep. ad Philip . ch . 1. 1. St. Cyp. Ep. 33. Tract . Concil . Carthag . de Baptis . Haeret. P. 229. Def. p. 110. Plea , p. 29. Def. ubi 〈◊〉 . Voss. Edit . p. 31. Is. Voss. Ed. P. 45. Ep. ad Magnesad Trall . & alibi . Pliny his contemporary Witnesseth , That Christianity had not only over-run City and Country , but had infected many of every Sex , Age and Order of Men. Plin. l. 10. E. 97. T. N. p. 139. 140 , 141. B. 2. p. 414. Ed. Me. Ca. saub . Lond. 1631. l. 1. p. 16. † Con Cart. Int. Cyp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Har. p. 23 2. Ed. Ox. Def. p. 18. Eus. E. H. Lib. 2. Ch. 24. Soc. l. 6. c. 8. and Theod. l. 2. c. 24. Say Ignatius introduced singing alternately at Antioch . Def. p. 146. Eus. Ec. Hist. lib. 2. ch . 15. l. 3. ch . 39. l. 5. c. 8. E. H. l. c. 24. E. ad Evag. Jer. S. E. in Tim. 〈◊〉 . in Comm. sup . mat . Def. p. 128. 129. E. H. lib. 2. ch . 15. Lib. 2. ch . 24. Preface ad Evang. Page 14 : Ep. 67. Ox. Cod. Can. Vind. I. 1. c. 4. Vind. Ig. Epis. Part. 1. c. 10. Ubi Supra . 〈◊〉 . of Sep. 2d . Ed. p. 320. Orig. Bri. c. 1. Tertul. adv . 〈◊〉 . c. 7. Lib. de mundo C. 3. Cam. Brit. EngEdit . 1. fol. p. 23. & . 〈◊〉 . see Heyl Cosm. † Dion . de situ Orb. Edit . Lond. 1658. Carm. 565. 566. Brit. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . p. 〈◊〉 . † Id. p. 198. Plea p. 142. 143. Plea p. 144. Plea p. 146. See Bellar. de S. E. p. 91. Hist. Account p. 66. §. 7. Def. p. 148. De Prim. E. B. p. 800. 801. Plea 152. Plea p. 153. Hist. Account p. 101. 102. H. E. l. 3. c. 4. Ib. lib. 3. c. 5. Plea p. 156. Bede E. H. l. 3. c. 4. Plea p. 149. Lib. 8. c. 14. L. 9. C. 4. de morte Pers. c. 36. Sozom. l. 5. c : 16. Antiq. of Brit. Churches c. 2. Def. p. 21. Edit . Ox. Annal. Cyp. p. 46. Edit . Oxon. Cypr. Ep. 14. Edit . Oxon. Cyp. Ep. 38. Ep. id . and Epis. 41. Philosto . l. 2. ch . 5. Photius Bibliothec . ch . 40. p. 26. Eus. l. 3. Vit. Con. c. 7. Soc. l. 2. c. 41. Soz. l. 6. c. 21. Soc. l. 4. c. 33. * Soz. l. 6. c. 37. The. li. 4. c. 47. Soc. l. 1. ch . 41. Can. 10. Ant. Can. 7th Plea p. 141. 10. Of Ant. Def. p. 142. Eccles. Cas. P , 146. In vit . Dam. l. de Scrip. Eccles. Def. p. 135. Sol. l. 1. c. 9. Soz. l. 1. c. 24. Annot. in Locum . Ubi Supra . Eus. Hist. Cons. 〈◊〉 . 4. c. 18. Apol. 2. Ep. Syn. Alex. p. 722. apud . Ath. Id. p. 135. Ap. 2. Ep. Syn. Sard. ad Eg. & Afr. p. 764. Apol. 2. p. 781. P. 782. Ap. 2. p. 788. 789. Ap. 2. Ep. Mar. Presb. & Diac. ad Curiosum . p. 792. Ap. 2. Epist. Maret . Presb. & Diac. ad Curiosum . p. 794. Ap. 2. Ep. Syn. Hier. p. 802. Apol. pro sent . Hieronymi . Sect. 3. p. 317. &c. Epis. ad Curlosum . Ep. Syn. Alex. ubi Supra . Ap. 2. p. 789. Ap. 2. p. 735. Apol. 2. p. 788. 789. Ap. 2. p. 764. Ap. 2. p. 792. 794. Ap. 2. p. 732. 781. Ap. 2. p. 732. Id. p. 794. Ap. 2. p. 732. 794. 1 Tim. 3. 3. See Cod. Ec. Afr. apud Just. Apol. p. 326. Ep. Synod . Hier. Plea. p. 181. See his Lexic . Jurid . St. Aust. de Haer. 5. 3. Ep. Haeres . 56. sive . 77. * Page 114. 123. 124. Aust. de nat & grat . cont . Pel. c. 62. It. ad Bonif. 1. 4. p. 916. * 〈◊〉 . Pelag. Pars. 1. p. 168. Comment . in 3. Cap. 1. Ep. ad Tim. Aug. cont . Jul. Pelag. L. l. Vol. 3. Tom. 7. p. 490. Hier. Dial. Orth. & Lucif . Tom. 1. p. 627. Ap. Sect. 2. ch . 22. p. 59. Quaest. 101. * Acts 15. Def. p. 145. Epiphan . Haer. 56. seu . 57. Questi . 101. Apol. 2. 2. c. 21. Lectiones in Act. Apost . De Scr. Ec. * Phil. 2. 25. Can. Apos . 1. 2. and others . Jer. com . in 2d . Ep. ad Tim. c. 1. v. 6. Tom. 4. Id. in Philip. c. 1. v. 1. Tom. 3. Id. Com. ad Phil. 2. Tom. 3. † Com. in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Galatas . * Ep. Evag. Ep 2. ad Nepot . * Jer. Ep. 54. Id. in Psal. 45. Id. Ep. 13. ad Palin . † Id. Ep. 1. ad Heliodor . * Id. Ep. 85. Evag. * Cat. S. E. Clem. † Id. Ignat. in C. S. E. Id. Pap. P. 126. Page 127. * Plea Ibid. Soz l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 . † P. 128. * Plea Ibid. Edir . Novi . Bat. 1671. p. 336. P. 129. Cyp. Ep. 67. * P. 159. † An. 397. Can. 98. An. 407. * P. 88. † Held Anno 〈◊〉 . Can. 22. P. 89. * P. 90. * P. 91. * Con. Carth. 4. Can. 3. * Apud Caranz . Conc. Carth. 4. * Def. p. 117. † Can. 23d . * Def. p. 63. Con. Carth. 4. Can. 98. Anno 390 Page 131. * Annot. in Soc. P. 7. & 112. 1 Cor. 5. 12. * Cyp. Ep. 52. * Eus. E. H. l. 6. c. 43. * Apol. 358. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 22. P. 131. P. 158. * Or Ceylon . Zos. l. 2. c. 9. 14. De Vit. Pont. P. 140. Plat. Vita ejus . * Anasta . 〈◊〉 Pla. ubi supra . Bed. E. H. l. 1. c. 27. * Bede E. H. 〈◊〉 . 1. c. 27. Resp. 8. * Hist. Wal. l. 1. p. 8. * Com. p. 24 * Morland , lib. 1. p. 10. † Id. p. 11. § Morl. Introd . ¶ Allix . History of the Churches of Piedmont . p. 238. * M. Par. 317. Bib. Pat. Tom. 4. pt . 2. p. 752. † Com. H. W. Pres. ad Rat. Discip. &c. † Fascic . rerum expetendarum . Allin p. 243. † Lect. p. 380. † C. 35. p. 14. * Adv. Haer. l. 11. p. 337. Reinerus Bib. Pat. Tom. 4. Part. 2. p. 758. Com. p. 4. P. 5. Id. ibid. † Hist. Bohem . Persec . c 1. p. 1. P. 7. C. 4. p. 9. C. 5. p. 11. P. 35 , 36. † Com. p. 15. P. 20. † P. 21. † Com. p. 20. * It may be 〈◊〉 died in the mean time . * Com. p. 23 , 24 , 25. H. Boh. Per. p. 59 , 60. † Com. Pref. ad Rat. Dis. His. Boh. Pers. ubi supra . * P. 79. † P. 81. § P. 82. Com. p. 33 , 36. Id. p. 38. P. 40. Id. ubi supra . § P. 44. † P. 46. P. 48 , 49 , 51. ¶ Com. Ded. 〈◊〉 . p. 8 , 9. These Conseniors very much resemble our Arch. 〈◊〉 . † P. 157. P. 126. P. 112. Strypes Mem A. B. Cranmer . l. 1. c. 13. p. 50. * B. of Mar. Vol. 2. P. 114. † Mem. p. 53. P. 113. Id. ibid. Par. I. Par. 2. Par. 5. Par. 6. Preface . P. 113. Stripes Men. l. 2. c. 1. Burn. Abri . B. 1. p. 250. and p. 4. 5. b. 2. p. 22. Plea. p. 113. Iren. p. 389. 390. Mem. in Appen . n. 27. Id. ibid. 28. N. B. Durel . Vinc. Eccl. An. c. 28. p. 328. * Goodw. de Pres. Eccl. Anglicanae . Mem. App. ubi supra . Burnet's Abr. l. 2. p. 57. 58 , 〈◊〉 's Mem. p. 234 , 237 , 239 , 241. Hist. Reflect . l. 3. p , 289. * Abr. b. 1. p. 250. Plea p. 118. † Memor . p. 171. * Sp. Coll. p. 123. 124. 125. &c. Cook' s Insti . Part 4. p. 323. Tit. of Subscription . Vid. Acta . Syn. Dor. in the Rem . of Mr. Jo. Hales of Eaton . S. Cyp. Ep. 55. Id. Ep. 63. Id. Ep. 33. Jer. Com. in Ps. 45. Div. Right of Episco . p. 9. * Past. Charge . p. 105 , 108. Id. p. 106. Spots . Hist. of Sc. p. 514. 3 d Edit . Prim. Christianity . Soc. E. H. l. 5. c. 8. p. 265. Soz. l. 7. c. 8. p. 713. 714. Soc. l. 4. c. 30. Theod. l. 4. c. 7. c. 19.