Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Diſſenters Juſtified in their Way of Managing Controverſies. Calvin Vindicated. Biſhops Lordly Titles Conſidered. The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the Engliſh Canons. Pariſh-Miniſters have no power of Diſcipline. The Waldenſes had no Superiour Biſhops, prov'd, 1. From their Doctrine; 2. From their own Teſtimony; 3. From F. Paul's Teſtimony; 4. By ſeveral Inſtances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England, before the Reformation. Of the uninterrupted ſucceſſion of Biſhops.
BEFORE he enters upon his Subject, he deſires his common Reader to obſerve the unfair way the Diſſenters have in managing Controverſies. Pref. p. 2.1. Do they pick up imperfect Notes of Sermons Preached a Year or two before, and take upon them to Confute them, when the Authors are dead, and cannot Vindicate themſelves? This were a little unfair; but he knows who did ſo, when he Preached his Sermon of Conſecration, in Anſwer to a Sermon of Mr. Baldwin, under the Fictitious Name of Calvin, (as I am told) becauſe, forſooth, Calvus is Bald, and Vin is Wine, and ſo you have the Engliſh of Calvin, que Bald-wine; Doubtleſs ſo Learned an Etymologiſt can give a Reaſon why the odd Epithet of Bald is attributed to Wine. I am apt to think Calvin himſelf, as Learned as he was, never thought of this rare Etymon of his Name. But to return to our Subject;
2. Do the Diſſenters uſe to lodge their Manuſcripts in ſome Friend's hand, with a charge that none ſhall ſee them, except they undertake to Anſwer them, and promiſe to return them the ſame Day? This is an unfair way of managing Controverſies, and it is much more unfair for a Man to triumph that a Manuſcript clog'd with inch unreaſonable Conditions is not Anſwer'd. The Rector can Name the unfair Man that hath thus managed the Controverſie of the Conſecration-Sermon, mention'd before.
3. Or do the Diſſenters pretend to Anſwer Books, and leave the greateſt part of them unanſwered? He knows who does ſo alſo, and Inſinuates in his Title Page, as if he had Anſwered the Whole, when indeed deed it is far otherwiſe. This is an unfair way of managing Controverſies, which ſomebody is guilty of.
But let's hear how he proves his Charge.
I. In moſt of their Books, be the Argument what it will, Pref.they repreſent us as Arminians, ſaith he.
Perſons that have a ſore place complain they are hurt, if one do but touch them. This Charge of Arminianiſm is either true, or falſe; if true, confeſs it, and give glory to God; if falſe, diſprove it. I doubt the Rector cannot acquit himſelf, whatever others do; for I ſee not why he ſhould mention it here, except it were to vent his Spleen againſt poor Calvin, not the Engliſh Calvin (alias Baldwin) but the French Miniſter of that Name, upon whom he paſſeth this Cenſure;
I am perſuaded, Page 3.if the moſt underſtanding Calviniſt would repreſent the Opinions of that great Man in their true Colours, he would fright more out of their Wits, than he could ſolidly ſatisfie, or Proſelyte to his Party.
If I ſhould attempt to repreſent the Opinions of Calvin in their true Colours, I deſpair of ſatisfying a Man of Mr. G's. Kidney; nor would I be ſo ſpiteful, as to fright him out of his Wits: However, I hope I may, without prejudice to his Intellect, refer him to the Seventeenth Article of the Church of England, concerning Predeſtination and Election, and to the Prayer at Burials, That God would ſhortly accompliſh the number of his Elect, which aſſert one of Calvin's moſt frightful Doctrines, namely, that of Election, which implies Reprobation, or Preterition. To chooſe, is to Select ſome from among others that are left.
I preſume he hath declared his Aſſent and Conſent to the Articles and Liturgy, with what Sincerity he knows beſt: Perhaps his pre-conceived Notions have given ſuch a Tincture to his Eyes, as happily ſecures him from the Intellectual danger of ſeeing ſome Truths in their own Colours.
He wonders with what Confidence the little Striplings which Mr. Frankl. Inſtructs, ſo ſoon as they have Commenced, Ibid.he knows not what Degree, are ready to determine the Cauſe between Arminius and Calvin, as if they were Doctors of the Chair.
I am afraid our Rector is no great Philoſopher; for a Philoſopher, who inquires into the Reaſons of things, wonders at nothing; but,
1. Why ſhould he wonder that Mr. Fr.'s Pupils ſhould with the ſame freedom determine for Calvin, that many raw Youths that come from the Ʋniverſities do for his beloved Arminius? Can that be a Crime in ours, which paſſes for a Vertue in theirs?
2. To cure his wonder, I will tell him the Reaſon why they determine againſt Arminius, beauſe Judicious and Learned Mr. Fr. who as little needs my Commendation, as he fears the Rector's Cenſure, directs his Pupils to the Study of the Scriptures, and their own Hearts, which will enable them betimes to exalt the Free Grace of God, and to depreſs the proud and enſlaved Will of Man.
3. One that is a Genuine Son of the Church, will not wonder that Mr. Fr. ſhould acquaint his Scholars with the Orthodox Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, whoſe Learned Divines Subſcribed the Decrees of the Calviniſtical Synod of Dort, in Conformity to the Doctrine of the Engliſh Church, which preferred them after their return, and never Cenſured that Act of theirs.
The Senſe of the Church of England may be ſeen in her Articles, whereof the Tenth is againſt Free-Will, the Thirteenth againſt Works preparatory to Grace, and the Seventeenth for Predeſtination and Election. The Articles were Compoſed, A. D. 1562. Some Years after, viz. A. 1595. the Lambeth Articles came out, which were drawn up by Arch-Biſhop Whitgift, with the Advice of ſeveral of his Clergy, and Subſcribed by the Arch-Biſhop of York, and afterwards Inſerted into the Articles of the Church of Ireland Theſe agree with that Determination of the Synod of Dort.*Fuller's Eccl. Hist. lib. IX. p. 230.
Why may not Mr Fr. …cholars as well Determine for the Doctrine contain'd in the Articles of the Church of England, which they Sincerely and Honeſtly Subſcribe, as Mr. G. and his Friends do determine againſt the Doctrine of the Church, under the odious Name of Calviniſm? Who yet make ſhift to Subſcribe her Articles, by the help of a ſorry diſtinction, that they Subſcribe them not as Articles of Faith, but as Articles of Peace; a Diſtinction that may help a Man to ſwallow the Maſs or the Alcoran, when his Peace and Temporal Advantages require it. Mr. Fr's. little Striplings, (as he calls them) Thanks be to God, are better inſtructed.
4. As to Scholaſtical Degrees, they are Ornamental Titles of no great Antiquity in the Chriſtian World, invented in the Lateran Council,Gentil. exam. Con. Trid. p. 6. Ann. Dom. 1215. A wiſe Man values Perſons by their real Worth, and not by empty Titles, which are moſt coveted by ſuch as are leaſt worthy of them; and ſince the new Conformity, clog'd with ſuch Conditions, as the Diſſenters cannot comply with. For the ſame Reaſon the Waldenſes and Bohemians rejected Popiſh Degrees, nor would Bucer accept of a Doctor's Degree in Cambridge, until the offenſive initiating Ceremonies were diſpenſed with.Hoorn. ſum Contr. l. 10 p. 754.
Degrees were freely given to all deſerving Perſons, before the Year 1616. when Subſcription beg…n to be urged, by the Intereſt of Dr. Laud, and his Party at Court, who procur'd an Order from K. James, directed to the Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Colledges and Halls, &c. in Oxon, That none ſhould take any Degrees, without Subſcribing the III. Articles in the XXXVI. Canon. Cambridge, not long after,Laud's life by Dr Heylin, p. 71, 72. ſubmitted to the ſame Innovation. For Mr. Hilderſam Commenced Batchelor, and Maſter of Arts, without any Subſcription: But about 1617. one Mr. Smith, Miniſter of Clavering in Eſſex, deſiring to Commence Doctor, it was impoſed to put him by, and ſo upon all Doctors and Batchelors in Divinity, by Letters from the King. It was afterward Impoſed alſo upon Maſters of Art and Batchelors.
II. Another common Topick, as our Author tells us, Is to repreſent the biſhops, proud and haughty Perſons, and chiefly, Pref. p. 4.becauſe of the Honourable Title of Lord given them, which is more excuſable, than for every I reacher to aſſume the Title of Maſter: For the Law hath beſtowed that Title upon the Biſhops, but not that of Maſter upon all Preachers.
This is a general Charge, and not prov'd. I am ſure. J. O. doth not Charge them with being Proud and Haughty. 'Tis true, ſome grave Diſſenters, and ſober Church-Men alſo, have expreſſed their wiſhes, that the Biſhops would diveſt themſelves of their Honourable Titles, and Secular Grandeur, for theſe Reaſons, among others.
1. Becauſe the Holy Apoſtles, whoſe Succeſſors, they ſay, they are, aſſumed to themſelves no ſuch Titles. We no where read of My Lord Peter, My Lord Paul. The Apoſtles little dreamt, that a ſort of Men ſhould ſucceed them, that would look more like the Princes of the Earth, than the plain and mortified Miniſters of the Humble Jeſus.
2. Lorldly Titles, and Spiritual Domination, ſeem to be forbidden by the Great Lord of the Church, Mat. 20.25, 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe dominion over them; and they that are great, exerciſe authority upon them, but it ſhall not be ſo among you.
That which diſtinguiſheth Civil Magiſtrates from Goſpel Miniſters, is the Exerciſe of Dominion, and Titles of Honour; both theſe are forbidden unto Miniſters. It ſhall not be ſo among you. You muſt not Exerciſe Lordſhip, and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Miniſtry. The Papiſts, and ſome others object, That Tyrannical, Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10.and not Lawful Dominion, is here forbidden. And therefore, ſay they, Matthew uſeth the Words foreign, and foreign, which ſignifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion.
But it will appear, that our Saviour forbids all Dominion, as well as Tyranny, if we conſider,
1. That St. Luke uſeth the Simple Verbs foreign, and foreign, Luke 22.25. which ſignifie Lawful, and not Tyrannical Dominion. And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke, becauſe the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of Spiritual Dominion, uſeth the ſimple Verb foreign, 2 Cor. 1.24. foreign, Not that we have dominion over your Faith. The Apoſtles did not exerciſe any Dominion over the Conſciences of Men; they reckon'd themſelves Miniſters, not Lords. They had the power of the Word, and not of the Sword. Their Weapons were not Carnal, but Spiritual; foreign ſignifies Lawful Dominion. Adam's Dominion over the Creatures, in a State of Innocency, which was far from Tyranny, is expreſſed by foreign, in the LXX. Gen. 1.28. foreign. Chriſt's Dominion, which is moſt Holy and Righteous, and infinitely remote from Tyranny, is ſet forth by the ſame Word, Pſal. 110.2. foreign, rule thou in the midſt of thine enemies.
2. Chriſt forbids that Dominion which the Apoſtles coveted, and were ambitious of. What was that? Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren, far be it from us to impute ſuch horrid wickedneſs to ſuch good Men; they were not ſo wicked as to deſire an abſolute Power to Tyrannize over the Conſciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects: The Strife among them was, which of them ſhould be accounted the greateſt, Luke 22.24. They expected to be ſo many Princes, dignified with Power, and Titles of Honour above others. They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Meſſiah was to ſet up, as moſt of the Jewiſh Nation did, and were Ambitious of the Chiefeſt Dignities in this Kingdom, Mat. 20.21. They thought Jeſus Chriſt would ſet up for a Temporal Prince, and they aſpire to a Temporal Dominion. He tells them, That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes, but it muſt not be ſo among his Miniſters.
It ill becomes Servants to aſſume the form of Princes, when their Great Prince aſſum'd the form of a Servant, Mat. 20.27, 28. Whoſoever will be chief— let him be your ſervant, even at the Son of Man came not to be Miniſtred unto, but to Miniſter.
3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted, for the Dominion they deſired was in Subordination to Jeſus Chriſt, as their Prince and King, under whom they deſired to be Chief Miniſters of State, next unto Jeſus Chriſt in Power and Dominion. One would ſit on his right hand, another at hi, left, in his Kingdom, Mat. 20.21. Now the Power which they deſir'd, being in Subordination to Jeſus Chriſt, as Lord and King, cannot be a Tyrannical Power, for this were to impute Tyranny to Chriſt Himſelf, which were Blaſphemy.
It cannot therefore be imagined, That Chriſt ſhould forbid Tyrannical Dominion here, which they had no thoughts of. Therefore all Dominion, like that of the Princes of the Earth, which conſiſts in a Coercive Power, worldly Grandeur, and ſwelling Titles of Honour, is here forbidden.
3. The Diſſenters are not the only Perſons who have oppoſed the Secular Dominion, and Lordly Titles of Biſhops.
In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs, which are the Province of Civil Magiſtrates, upon pain of Deprivation.
The Ancient Canons, call'd the Apoſtles, which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council, at Conſtantinople, Can. 2. Can. Apoſt. 6. al. 7. & 80. Saecularia officia negotia que abjiciant: Honorum gradus per ambitionem non ſubeant. Conc. Mogunt. Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati, nec ad militiam, ne que ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam. Quaſi bruta animalia, libertate a… deſiderio ſuo feruntur.do depoſe all Biſhops that engage themſelves in Publick Adminiſtrations, and Worldly Cares.
They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours, by the great Council of Chalcedon, Can. 7. foreign.
In the Council of Mentz, which was called by Charles the Great, A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abſtain from Secular Offices and Affairs, and from an ambitious Aſſuming of Degrees of Honour.
I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities.
Conc. Tribur. Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon, Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema againſt thoſe that violate this Determination, as the Council of Chalcedon had done before.
The Canon adds, That Iſidore compares thoſe Clergy-Men, who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities, to Hippocentaurs, who are neither Horſes nor Men, but are acted by a brutal Appetite.
Jerom deſires the Biſhops to remember,Meminerint Epiſcopi, ſe ſacerdotes eſſe, non dominos. Hie. ad Nepot. That they are Prieſts, not Lords.
Auſtin ſaith, Epiſcopacy is a name of work, and not of honour *De Civ. Dei XIX. 19..
Valentinian made a Law, recalling the Judicial Power of Biſhops in all Cauſes, except thoſe of Faith and Religion, unleſs voluntarily choſen by the contending Parties: Yet they graſp'd all Power into their Hands,Conc. Conſtant. VIII. Can. 14. until at laſt they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes, and Emperours muſt acknowledge them for their Equals.
This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe, inſomuch that Frederick the ſecond Emperour, about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity, as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England, and to the King of France, and to many other Princes,Nobilitatem & Dignitatem Ʋniverſalis Eccleſiae annullare. M. Weſt. ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the cloſe of which he ſignifies his Intention to diveſt the Ʋniverſal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity, and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility.
It cannot be imagined, that he deſign'd to deprive Biſhops of a neceſſary and juſt Maintenance, but of their exceſſive and ſuperfluous Wealth, and of their lordly Dignities. But the Time was not yet come, the Eccleſiaſtical was too hard for the Temporal Power, the Emperour was at laſt depoſed by Pope Innocent IVth, and his Council of Biſhops at Lyons, and at laſt deſtroy'd by Manfred, his Natural or rather Unnatural Son.
In the Year of Chriſt, 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy, confirm'd by a ſolemn Oath, to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity. They Publiſhed an Inſtrument, ſignifying, That the Clergy had ſwallow'd up the Juriſdiction of ſecular Princes, and that the Sons of Slaves, or Servants, did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws, who ought to have been judg'd by the Nobles. They put us in a worſe Condition (ſay the Confederate Nobles) then God would have the Pagans to be in, when he ſaid, Render to Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, and to God the things that are Gods. We Decree and Enact, that from henceforth no Clerk, or Lay-Man bring any Cauſe before the Ordinary or his Delegate, except it be that of Hereſie, Matrimony or Uſury: That ſo our Juriſdiction being revived, and that they, who are enrich'd by our Impoveriſhment, may be reduced to the State of the Primitive Church. They conclude in the Words of the Emperor's Letter, It was always our Intention to oblige the Clergy of every Order, eſpecially the greateſt, to continue the ſame in the Faith, that they were in the Primitive Church, leading an Apoſtolical Life,M. Weſt. ad An. 1247. p. 217, 218. and imitating the Humility of the Lord Jeſus.
The Civil Dominion of the Clergy was one of the main Grievances of the Bohemians, which they would have redreſs'd in the Council of Baſil. Fox's Acts and Mon. ad An. 1438.Their Delegates Diſputed fifty Days upon this, and three other Articles in the Council.
The Lordly Titles and Dominion of the Clergy were very offenſive to ſeveral Confeſſors, and Martyrs in this Kingdom before the Reformation.
That eminent Light of his Age Jo. Wickliff affirm'd;Non ſtat purè Clericum abſque Mortali peccato civiliter dominari. that it was a Mortal Sin for a Clergy-Man to exerciſe Civil Dominion.
My Lord Cobham calls the Poſſeſſions and Lordſhips of Biſhops the Venom of the Church.
Swinderby, Walſ. Hiſt. p. 208.a learned Confeſſor (and Martyr, as Mr. Fox thinks) hath theſe Words. If Men ſpeaken of worldly Power, and Lordſhips, Fox ad Ann. Do. 1413.and Worſhips, with other Vices that reignen therein, what Prieſt that deſires, and has moſt hereof (in what Degree ſoever he be) he is moſt Antichriſt of all the Prieſts that ben on Earth.
John Purvey, Fox ad A. D. 1390.a Learned Writer againſt Popery, whom Thomas Walden calls the Library of Lollards and Gloſer upon Wickliff, ſaith, It is a great Abomination that Biſhops, Monks and other Prelates, Ibid. p. 5.30. Edit 1576.be ſo great Lords in this World, whereas Chriſt with his Apoſtles and Diſciples never took upon then ſecular Dominion
He adds, That all Chriſtians ought to the utmoſt of their Power and Strength to ſwear that they will reduce ſuch ſhavelings to the Humility and Poverty of Chriſt and his Apoſtles.
William Tindal, that famous Inſtrument of Reformation, who was burnt in Flanders by the Inſtigation of the Engliſh Monks, becauſe he had tranſlated the Scriptures to the Engliſh Tongue, writes, That it was a ſhame of all ſhames, and a monſtrous thing that Biſhops ſhould deal in Civil Cauſes. See his Works, p. 124. and in p. 140. What Names have they? My Lord Biſhop, my Lord Arch-Biſhop, if it pleaſe your Lordſhip, if it pleaſe your Grace!
The brightneſs of this Truth hath ſhined upon ſome Doctors of the Roman Church in the darkeſt Times.
Ocham wrote againſt the temporal Dominion of the Pope and Prelates,Gen. 45. ad An. Dom. 1338. Ad nihilum deducens poteſtatem Papae & Praelatorum in temporali Dominio. Acts and Mon. p. 667. as Nauclerus tells us.
One of the Cardinals in the Council of Baſil in a warm Speech for Amedeus, Duke of Savoy, Candidate for the Popedom, hath theſe Words. I have often conſented unto their Opinion, which ſaid it was expedient that the Temporal Dominions ſhould be divided from the Eccleſiaſtical Eſtate; For I did think, that the Prieſts ſhould thereby be made more apt to the Divine Miniſtry.
The Roman Pagan Prieſts medled not in Civil Affairs, becauſe if they had, they muſt of Neceſſity either foreign, neglect the Worſhip of the Gods, or foreign, prejudice the Citizens, by omitting the Duties owing to the one or the other, which would often interfere.Plut. Queſt. Rom. ult. The very Light of Nature, taught the Heathen that the Service of the Gods, and Attendance upon ſecular Imployments were inconſiſtent. For this Reaſon, the Apoſtle forbids the Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt, eſpecially Biſhops, To entangle themſelves with the Affairs of this Life, 2 Tim. 2.3, 4.
I will conclude this Head with a Paſſage or two out of Mounſ. Jurieu's Paſtoral Letters to the perſecuted French Proteſtants.
In his firſt Paſtoral Letter, Paſt. Let. 1. p. 4, 5.he thus animadverts upon The Paſtoral Letter of my Lord the Biſhop of Meaux. Theſe Gentlemen are well advanc'd, ſince the Authors and Founders of Chriſtianity, who call'd themſelves plainly by their own Names, without any other Title than that of Servants of Jeſus Chriſt, and Apoſtles of our Lord. My Lord's St. Peter, and St. Paul had forgotten to ſet the Character of their Grandeur on the Front of their Paſtoral Letters or Epiſtles. 'Tis not very Edifying to ſee the marks of Pride and worldly Vanity on the front of a Paſtoral Letter.
He adds a little after, Do not ſuffer your ſelves to be abuſed by thoſe that tell you, that in ſome Proteſtants States, the Biſhops retain the ſame Honours. The Biſhops of England have this to ſay for themſelves, that they are Peers of the Realm, to which State and Condition the Name and Title of my Lord doth appertain and belong: But beſides, I am perſwaded that the wiſer of theſe Gentlemen, will willingly ſacrifice theſe Titles (which do not ſuff ciently beſpeak the Humility of a Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt) to a general Reformation in the Church when it ſhall be receiv'd.
I hope by this Time, the Reader is convinced how impertinently Mr. G. Appeals to the Quakers,Pref. p. 4. whom he calls indifferent Perſons, and honeſt in this Caſe, becauſe they have quarrell'd, not at the Title of Lord only, but at that of Maſter alſo.
Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the General Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers, Princes, Confeſſors, and Doctors here witneſſing againſt the Lordly Titles and Dominion of Biſhops, were no Quakers. J. O. will not contend for the Title of Maſter, which Mr. G. in Conformity to his indifferent Quaker, doth not think fit to give him in his whole Book.
3. A third Way (ſaith the Rector) is to accuſe us of ſymbolizing with Papiſts. p. 5.I cou'd wiſh there were no occaſion for this Charge. Our Diſagreement with the Church of England is in thoſe things, wherein ſhe agrees with that of Rome, and in which both of them diſagree with the Practiſe of the Apoſtles, and the Reformed Churches abroad.
He tells us out of Euſeb. Lib. 1. (it ſhould have been Lib. 2.) c. 16. That Mark conſtituted Churches in Alexandria, that ſo great a Multitude both of Men and Women there embraced the Chriſtian Faith, &c. Theſe Churches Mark govern'd, and after him Biſhop Anianus, as is ſhew'd in theſe Papers. This Quotation he the rather produces, becauſe it has been over-look'd of late.
This Paſſage is a little unluckily produced, for
1. It over-throws the Notion of the learned Aſſertors of Epiſcopacy, that a Dioceſs is the loweſt Species of a Church, and that particular Congregations are but Oratories, and no Churches: A Biſhop and a Church being Relatives. But Euſebius ſpeaks of Churches of Alexandria, therefore there muſt be Biſhops of Alexandria, not one Biſhop, and this agreeable enough to the Apoſtolical Platforms, who appointed ſeveral Biſhops in one City, Acts 20.17, 28. Phil. 1.1.
2. Mark was an Evangeliſt, an extraordinary unfixed Officer, Eph. 4.11. 1 Pet. 5.13. Euſebius calls him Peter's Companion, and an Evangeliſt.Hiſt. 11.14.23. Ibid.
3. Anianus ſucceeded Mark the Evangeliſt in the Miniſtry of the Church of Alexandria, not as a Biſhop of a Superior Order to the Presbyters there, but as an honourable Preſident in their Aſſemblies, ſuch a Moderator as the Reformed Churches have in their Synods and Aſſemblies, without Power of Juriſdiction over his Collegues: And that he was no more,Cap. to. p. 126. 130. J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Plea, out of Jerom and Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, where we have a clear Proof of Presbyters Ordaining for almoſt two hundred Years together. The Rector did not judge it adviſeable, to meddle with J. O's. Remarks upon the Church of Alexandria. Either he had read that Chapter in J. O's Book, or he had not: If he had, he is inexcuſable; if not, he ſhould read Books before he undertake to anſwer them, Prov. 18.13. He that anſwereth a Matter before he heareth (or underſtandeth it) it is Folly and Shame unto him.
4. Moreover ſo great a Multitude (ſaith the Rector out of Euſeb.) there embraced the Faith, &c. He ſuppreſſeth the reſt of the Sentence, which is thus, that even Philo judg'd it worth while to deſcribe their way of Living. Our Author would perſwade us by this half Sentence, that there were vaſt numbers of Converts in Alexandria in Mark's Time, but leaves out the reſt by a Cunning, &c. for he knew the invalidity of Euſeb's Reaſon, that Philo had deſcribed the Chriſtians in Egypt, whereas the Truth is, he writes of the Eſſenes, and not of the Chriſtians, as the Learned have prov'd
This I Note only by the by, as an Inſtance of this Gentleman's unfairneſs in quoting Authors, otherwiſe I am not concern'd in the numbers of the Alexandrian Converts, for as they increas'd there and in other Places, they multiplied into more Churches, who had Paſtors aſſign'd them, with Power of Diſcipline over their reſpective Flocks.
In ſhort, the inſtance of the Alexandrian Biſhop makes altogether for us, for he was but the chief Presbyter (as an Arch-Deacon was the chief Deacon) choſen and named by the Presbyters without any Conſecration, and in his room the Presbyters ordain'd another, as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea.
Mr. G. in the next Place, ſhews the Parallel between their Church Goverment, and that of the Apoſtles. Our Epiſcopal Government (ſaith he) 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, their Repreſentatives in Parliament. And thus it was in the Council of Jeruſalem, Acts 15.
Let's a little conſider this Paragraph,
1. I expected, he would have ſaid the Epiſcopal Government is eſtabliſhed upon the Word of God, but he ingeniouſly confeſſeth the Truth of the Matter, that it is eſtabliſhed upon certain Canons and Laws of humane deviſing. We conceive the Laws of Chriſt and the Canons of the Apoſtles, contained in the New Teſtament, ſufficient for the Government of the Church.
2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jeruſalem, to be as the Repreſentatives of the People in Parliament. Many of our Learned Antiquaries have induſtriouſly laboured to ſearch into the Original of Parliaments, ſome conceive they owe their beginning to the Normans, ſome to the Saxons, others derive them higher, all confeſs the Riſe of them, like the Head of Nilus very obſcure; but this Gentleman by an unparallel'd Felicity of Invention, has found them in the Council at Jeruſalem, Acts 15. where no Body before ever dreamt of them.
However, I am glad to find him ſpeaking any thing in favour of Parliaments, for ſome Years ago, when they were out of Requeſt, he advanced the Prerogative to that Degree, that Parliaments, the Bulwarks of the Subjects Liberty, were very inſignificant things with him. I will give a few Inſtances, 1. He would exempt the Clergy from the Power of Parliaments in Point of Taxes. We the Clergy, ſaith he, are hook'd in, Three Sermons of Subjection, Pr. 1683, Pref. p. 4.I know not how, to Pay Taxes without the conſent of the Convocation. 2. He will not allow the aggriev'd Subject, the benefit of Petitioning and Addreſſing their Prince, eſpecially when he is under ſome diſadvantage. 3. He makes the King in Effect the ſole Proprietor of our Eſtates, and ſaith,Sermon 1. p. 11 we muſt ſupply his Occaſions, the five hundred at once (i. e. a Houſe of Commons) ſhould forbid us, becauſe our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superſcription. p. 13.The meaning is this, the King has Power to Tax us without the Conſent of Parliament. 4. He adds, and to this (i. e. to ſupply the King without the Conſent of Parliament) we are bound in Conſcience, though the Prince ſhould be an Ʋ ſurper and a Tyrant: p. 13, 14, 15.Nay, ſaith our Author, a Violent and Originally unjuſt Power, by ſucceſs becomes a Legal and Righteous Authority. 5. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much ſweld, their Properties too much enlarged, their Liberties too much extended. p. 17.This was in the Year 1683. when the Popiſh Plot had been ſtifled, ſham-Plots ſet on Foot for the Deſtruction of the beſt Patriots, the Rights and Franchiſes of Cities and Corporations undermined and violated, Parliaments diſgraced, Popery and Slavery breaking in irreſiſtibly upon us under the Conduct and Influence of the then Duke of York. 6. He affirms, that the Prince is accountable to none but God for any miſgovernment, nay he is in Effect, continues he, the ſole Sovereign Power, if he pleaſes to Ʋſurp and Exerciſe it, nor can the Subject conſcientiouſly reſiſt him. p. 21.7. He thinks it's one main ground of Political Government, to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Aſſerter of his own Priviledges. 8.p. 22. He conceives the Kings Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, unto which he is not obliged by the Fundamental Conſtitution. P. 23.9. If a Prince ſhould not give this Aſſurance, it is my Judgment (ſaith he) he is not obliged to govern ſtrictly by the preſent Law.Ibid.
I doubt I have tired the Reader with theſe Political Maxims. Sibthorp and Mainwaring were dull Fellows to this grand Maſter of Politicks, who has left it wholly to his Prince's good Nature, whether he will make uſe of his multitude of Believers, or no. He is the ſole ſoveraign Power, and not obliged to take the Coronation Oath, or to govern according to the Eſtabliſhed Laws, if we may believe our Rector.
I will not trouble my ſelf, or the Reader, by making Remarks upon theſe Paſſages, which are but a few, of many, with which his Three Sermons abound. All theſe you may find in the firſt.
Theſe Sermons were deſign'd (as he tells us,Pref. 10 the Serm. p. 3. and I dare believe him) To aſſure the higher Powers of his ſteadineſs and fidelity, and of may more in theſe Northern Climates. It was a Point of mighty Conſequence to the higher Powers, to be aſſured of the Rector's Fidelity, eſpecially in a time when the Prince was under ſome diſadvantage. Moſt happy Prince! who can aſſure himſelf of the Fidelity of ſuch a Man as Mr. G. for in him he aſſures himſelf of many more in theſe Northern Climates. The higher Powers then in being, were highly obliged to ſo Profound a Caſuiſt, who by another Tentamen Novum, attempted to prove the Jus Divinum of Abſolute Monarchy, and Arbitrary Government: But all well-deſerving Expectants have not the Happineſs of being Preferred according to their Merits.
But to return to his Parallel.
3. The Council at Jeruſalem, under the Conduct of the Holy Ghoſt, injoyn'd the neceſſary forbearance of a few things to avoid offence, Acts 15.28. The Convocation has made Canons, injoyning the Practiſe of abundance of unneceſſary things to create offence. That Council widen'd the Door to Church-Fellowſhip, by taking away the ancient ceremonial Terms of Communion, and breaking down the partition Wall between Jews and Gentiles: The Convocation has ſtraitned the Door to Church-Fellowſhip, by ſetting up new ceremonial Terms of Communion, and erecting a partition Wall between Brethren.
4. The Council at Jeruſalem freed the Chriſtians from a divine Yoke, namely, Circumciſion; the Convocation binds a humane Yoke of burthenſome Ceremonies on our Necks. The Apoſtles aſſerted that Chriſtian Liberty, which the Lord Jeſus purchaſed at a dear rate, and obliged us to maintain, Gal. 5.1. Others unjuſtly deprive us of it, and mancipate us under more beggarly Elements than thoſe of the Jewiſh Pedagogy, Gal. 4.9. Had the Apoſtles Succeſſors imitated the excellent temper of their wiſe Fathers in this Council, the Chriſtian World had not been divided into ſo many Factions as it is at this Day. When Rehoboam's little Finger proves heavier than Solomon's Loins, no wonder there is a Schiſm in Iſrael.
5. The Council at Jeruſalem made no new Canon, only thought fit to continue ſome divine Prohibitions, that were obliging before, Acts 15.29. The Convocation hath made but 141 new Canons, concerning moſt of which there is no Divine Law. The Canons of that Council are contained in one ſhort Verſe, v. 29. The Canons of our Synod make a large Volume.
6. The Canons of that Council have no Penalty annexed; the Decree of the Council ends thus, v. 29. From which if ye keep your ſelves, ye ſhall do well. Fare ye well. Our Canons thunder out terrible Anathema's, and Excommunications, ipſo facto, not known to the Apoſtles, againſt all the breakers of them.
7. The Canons at Jeruſalem were made by the Apoſtles, Elders, and the whole Church, v. 22. Our Canons are made by the Biſhops and Presbyters in Convocation, which are the true Church of England by repreſentation, as Can. 139. obligeth us to believe, on pain of Excommunication. Mr. G. makes the Parliament to repreſent the Multitude of Believers, that is, the Church, according to his Parallel; for he makes the Biſhops to anſwer the Apoſtles, the Presbyters the Elders, and the Parliament the whole Church, or multitude of Believers.
I leave the Rector to the Cenſure of his Dioceſan, who is obliged by the Canon, to Excommunicate, and not to reſtore him, until he repent, and publickly revoke this his wicked error *Can. 139, in affirming the Parliament to be the Church repreſentative, inſtead of the Convocation.
I hope the Impartial Reader is now fully convinced how exactly the Epiſcopal Government, as deſcribed by this Gentlemen, agrees with the Council at Jeruſalem.
He is angry with J. O. for ſaying Pariſh Prieſts have no power of Diſcipline; Pref. p. 14and Anſwers, They have power to rebuke and admoniſh, and ſuſpend for a while from the Lord's Supper.
This is in effect an acknowledgment of the Truth of what J. O. Aſſerts. They have power to rebuke and admoniſh, ſo have private Perſons, Lev. 19.17. Col. 3.16. The Admonitions of a Maſter, who hath no Power to uſe the Rod, will have little influence upon froward Lads. But Pariſh Miniſters can ſuſpend for a while: For how long? But for fourteen Days at the fartheſt; and then they are obliged to put the whole Matter out of their Power, and to commit it to the Ordinary. See the Rubrick before the Communion.
The true State of the Caſe is this:
1. They have no power left them to judge whom to Baptize, and whom not,Can. 68. but muſt Baptize all that are offered, though the Children of Jews, Infidels, Deiſts, &c. who have no right to the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace.
2. They have no power to forbear giving the Euchariſt to any one, how notorious an Offender ſoever, unleſs they will proſecute him at the Biſhop's Court, nor then, but for once: So that if he pays his Fees, and be Abſolved there, though the Miniſter know him to be never ſo Impenitent, he muſt give it him the next time. And the Proſecution is ſo troubleſome, odious and fruitleſs, that it is very rarely undertaken.
3. They have no Power to call Perſons to Repentance openly before the Church.
4. They have no Power to judge any Perſon to be Excommunicate, nor to abſolve any Perſon that is Penitent after Excommunication; they only read the Chancellor's Sentence (who is uſually a Lay-man) ſent them in the Biſhop's Name; much like our Cryers in Civil Courts, that publiſh the Orders of the Court. Yea, though they are ſatisfied in their Conſciences, that the Chancellor's Decree is ſometimes unjuſt, Et clave errante, Excommunicating a Conſciencious Perſon ſcrupling a Ceremony (as was done in the late Reigns) or abſolving an Impenitent Perſon, who hath Commuted for Notorious Scandal, yet they muſt publiſh it, or be Suſpended. All the Power left them, is the Privilege of being the Chancellor's Servants to execute all his Decrees, without once Examining whether they be right or wrong.
Many Sober Conformiſts, who have a tender concern for the Souls under their Charge, have complained of this Reſtraint, and impute the growing Debaucheries of the People to the want of Pariſh Diſcipline.
The very Liturgy complains, That the Godly Primitive Diſcipline is wanting in our Churches. See the Office of Commination.
If the Pariſh-Miniſters have the Power of Diſcipline, as the Rector would have us believe, the more to blame they for admitting all Perſons promiſcuouſly to the Lord's Supper. It is rarely that any ſcandalous Perſons are excluded, as they ought to be, Mat 18.15, 16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.2 Cor. 3.6.
His Fancy that our Miniſters ask leave of the Lay-Elders to Suſpend is a great miſtake. Though common Senſe might teach him, that two or three Experienced Perſons of the Congregation (whom he Stiles Lay-Elders) in conjunction with the Miniſters, are more competent Judges of Offences within the Congregation, than a Lay-Chancellor, who lives at a diſtance, and is a meer Stranger, and uſually makes the beſt advantage of his Office, without any great regard to the Salvation of Souls.
He complains, That the Diſſenters call them Prieſts in contempt, P. 13.though the Word he but Presbyter contracted.
1. I know no Reaſon why this Gentleman ſhould be offended that we call them by a Name which themſelves are ſo fond of. The Words Pri…ſthood and Prieſts are uſed five or ſix times in the Form of Ordination: And the Word Miniſter was chang'd by the Reformers of the Common Prayer, in 1662. into that of Prieſt, at leaſt in five places, in the Abſolution, in the Reſponſes, in the Litany, and at the Communion, &c.
2. Admit it to be a Contraction of Presbyter, we muſt conſider Words non a quo, ſed ad quid, as the School-men ſpeak, not as they did Originally ſignifie, but as they do at Preſent. It is certain that the Learned Tranſlators of the New Teſtament never render the Greek Presbyter by Prieſt in Engliſh, and they had reaſon for it, becauſe the Word Prieſt in common uſe, ſignifies the Sacrificing Prieſts of the Law, whoſe name is never in the New Teſtament given to Miniſters of the Church, as Dr. Fulk obſerves againſt the Rhemiſh Seminary, Rhem. in Act 14. S. 4.who quarrel with our firſt Reformers, for Tranſlating foreign Elder and not Prieſt.
The Hebrew foreign, and the Greek foreign, are generally Tranſlated Prieſt in our Engliſh Bibles, and they properly ſignifie Sacrificing Priefts.
Our Author confeſſeth,Pref. p. 14. That it is very requiſite that we ſhould not know of any interruption in the Succeſſion of Holy Orders; but it is infinite Satisfaction when we have a moral aſſurance that there has been none.
J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea, that the Succeſſion has been interrupted,P. 168. to 178. and that it's morally impoſſible by this Principle, for any Man to know himſelf to be a true Miniſter of Chriſt: But our Rector never takes notice of it; not unlike ſome ſort of Diſputants, who reſolve to hold the Concluſion, let what will come of the Premiſes.
He that has moral aſſurance that there has been no Interruption, which begets in the Rector infinite Satisfaction, muſt be ſure, that he who Ordain'd him was Ordain'd by a Canonical Biſhop: that that Biſhop's Ordination was not void by Canon; particularly he muſt be ſure to know he came not in by Simony, that he was not an Heretick, or Erroneous in the Fundamentals, or Ordain'd by a Biſhop out of his own Province: He muſt know that all the Biſhops ſucceſſively, from the Apoſtles times, by whom he derives his claim, were thus Ordain'd: one Interruption ſpoils the whole Line. He muſt be able to diſprove all the Interruptions mention'd by Hiſtorians. He muſt prove that Sergius the II. not obtain the Popedom by Magie, Naucl. p. 742.which he himſelf confeſſed he did, that Liberius did not ſubſcribe the Arian Confeſſion in the Council of Sirmium, that Pope Honorius in the ſecond General Council was wrongfully condemn'd for a Heretick, that Marcellinus was no Idolater, nor Celeſtine a Neſtorian Heretick, that the Charge of Simony put in againſt the Engliſh Biſhops,Vide Fox Acts-ad A. D. 1405. ſcarce one excepted among King Henry IVth's Biſhops was falſe.
If any one of theſe be true, as all may be for ought we know to the contrary, and a thouſand the like, the Succeſſion of Ordaining Biſhops is interrupted, and the Ordinations of all that derive from them are a nullity. See the Learned Reaſons of the Biſhop of Worceſter againſt this Succeſſion.Iren. p. 299.
The Scriptures no where mention this Succeſſion. Where was the Succeſſion of the Jewiſh High-Prieſts, when the Roman Governours ſet up whom they pleas'd, and chang'd them annually, without regard to the Divine Law? See John 11.51.Joſeph Antiq. xviii. 3.
Where ſhall we find the Succeſſion when the Woman is in the Wilderneſs, and the Witneſſes ſlain? Goſpel Ordinances are plain things and not clog'd with inſuperable difficulties.
But ſo much is ſaid to this Subject in J. O's Plea, that it is needleſs to add more.
To juſtifie their Ordinations, ſaith Mr. G. by the Example of the Lollards,Pref. p. 15. is but to talk of Yeſterday, of thoſe who appeared not in the World till about Henry III's Reign.
1. J. O. gave about twelve Inſtances of Ordination by Presbyters, Plea cap. x. p. 125.all more Ancient than this of the Followers of Wickliff. Our Author according to his great Candor, overlooks all the reſt, and attacks only this late Inſtance: And why this? That he might ſay, it was but of Yeſterday. And yet his Yeſterday is above four hundred Years ago, for King Henry III. dyed in the Year 1272.
2. The Lollards, as they were call'd in contempt, were famous Witneſſes againſt Antichriſtian Errors in their Time, and abundance of them ſeal'd their Teſtimony with their Blood. We cannot therefore judge ſo lightly of their Practiſe as the Rector doth.
It is true, they labour'd under great Difficulties, as he obſerveth, but that was not the Reaſon of Presbyters Ordaining among them, but their aſſerting an inherent Power in Presbyters as ſuch to ordain, as J. O. hath prov'd out of Walſingham's Hiſt. p. 339. in the very Place, which he animadverts upon, but it was not his Intereſt to take notice of it.
3. This Inſtance is the more conſiderable, becauſe the Lollards were the off-ſpring of the Ancient Waldenſes, as Perrin obſerves, In England,Hiſt. Wald. lib. 1. c 3. ſaith he, they were call'd Lollards from one Lollard who taught there. The perſecuted Waldenſes being ſcatter'd fled into Provence, and the Alps, ſome into Calabria, Bohemia, Polonia, and into Britain, as Thuanus obſerves.Lib. v. ad A. D. 1550. Pref.
So that this is a further Confirmation that the Waldenſes had no Biſhops of the preſent Engliſh Species.
But, ſaith our Author,P. 15, and 16. As for Waldenſes, or Vaudois having had no other Miniſters than Presbyters, ordain'd by Presbyters for near five hundred Years paſt, as J. O. affirms, it may prove one, and not the leaſt of his miſtakes, when I ſhall here have ſet down what a Learned Neighbour of mine communicated to me. He told me, that he finds in the Hiſtory of the Church of Bohemia. That the Brethren of Bohemia, ſuſpecting the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, ſent unto the Waldenſes (A. D. 1467.) Michael Zamburgius, their Rector, with two others. Theſe find Stephen the Waldenſian Biſhop, who with another Biſhop, and ſome Miniſters create Zamburgius, and his two Companions, Biſhops, conferring on them the Power to Ordain Miniſters. This is ſufficient, ſaith he, to make a Man doubt J. O's Quotations.
This Quotation, which Mr. G. borrow'd of his Learned Neighbour, and Triumphs in as a wonderful diſcovery of the State of the Waldenſes, he might have found in J. O's Plea, p. 157. quoted out of the Hiſtory of Bohemia, to which he refers his Reader in the Margin of his Book.
The Rector is a ſingular Man for anſwering Books, who muſt be obliged to his Learned Neighbours for a Quotation, which any Common Reader cou'd find in the Book which he undertakes to Anſwer. A Man who reads Books with ſo little Obſervation, may be preſum'd to anſwer them with lèſs Judgment.
The Reader may ſee the Remarks upon that Story in J. O's Plea, which may convince him, that the Waldenſian Biſhops were only the Senior Paſtors, with whom the Power of Ordination was entruſted for Orders ſake, as was done here in the late Times of Presbytery, and is ſtill both here and in the Foreign Reformed Churches. In all Ordinations by Presbyters, there is a Moderator, or Preſident, who is the Chief Manager of the Action for Order's ſake, but in Conjunction with his Brethren, over whom he claims no Juriſdiction or Superiority in Power. This was the State of the Waldenſes, their Biſhops were only Nominal and Titular, but had no Power over their Brethren: They were only for Orders ſake the Principal Managers of Ordination. This appears,
1. Becauſe it was their received Doctrine that all Presbyters are in a State of Parity. To this purpoſe they ſpeak in a certain Confeſſion of their Faith, Perr. Hiſt. I. 13.Art. V. We hold that the Miniſters of the Church ought not to have any Superiority over the Clergy.
Aeneas Silvias, who wrote a Book of their Doctrines,Inter ſacerdotes nullum diſcrimen, Boh. Hiſt. de Vald. Dogm. reports this concerning them, that they affirm the Roman Biſhop to be equal to other Biſhops, and that between Prieſts there is no difference.
The ſame is affirm'd concerning them by Nauclerus, he repreſents them ſaying, That all Prieſts are equal, Chronog. Vol. 2. Gen. 47.and it is not any Superiour Dignity, but the Merits of their Converſation that advances ſome above others.
This was the conſtant Doctrine of our Engliſh Apoſtle John Wickliff, Vide Hiſt. Arg. ad Ann. Dom 1389.and his Followers, as Walſingham Notes, in ſeveral Places.
This alſo was the Doctrine of the Bohemians, who were enlighten'd by Wickliff's Books. The Taborites in their Confeſſion ſay, That the conferring of Orders only by Biſhops, Ex conſuetudine habertur eccleſiae. Lyd. Wald. p. 23.and that they have greater Authority than other Miniſters, is not from any Faith or Authority of the Scriptures, but from the Cuſtom of the Church.
The Biſhops they receiv'd from the Waldenſes, were made by two of their Titular Biſhops, Hiſt. of the Perſec. of Bohem.and ſome Presbyters, which beſpeaks them to be no Superiour Order of Miniſters, for Presbyters cannot make Biſhops of the Engliſh Species.
One of the Articles againſt John Hus, the Bohemian Martyr, was that he affirm'd, That all Prieſts are of like Power, Acts and Mon. in Conc. Conſtant.and that the Reſervation of the Caſualties, the ordering of Biſhops, and the Conſecration of Prieſts were invented only for Covetouſneſs.
2. That they had no real Biſhops Superiour to Presbyters is evident from their own Teſtimony. The Papiſts miſrepreſented them (as ſome others would do now) that they had Biſhops, to whom they paid a mighty deference. This was moſt falſe,Hiſt. Wald. l. 10. as Perrin evinceth out of their own Writings. The Monk Rainerius (ſaith he) reports many things touching the Vocation of the Paſtors of the Waldenſes, which never were. As that which is impoſed upon them, that they have one greater Biſhop, and two Followers, which he calls the Elder Sou and the Younger, and a Deacon, that he laid his Hands on others with Sovereign Authority, and ſent them whither he thought good, like a Pope. That they had no ſuch Biſhop, he proves out of the Book of the Paſtors, George Maurel, and Peter Maſcon, who give this account of their Diſcipline.
The laſt that are Receiv'd (or Ordain'd) are to do nothing without the Leave and Licenſe of their Seniours Receiv'd (or Ordain'd) before them; as alſo, they that are firſt ought not to attempt any thing without the Approbation of their Companions, to the end that all things might be done amongſt us in Order.
The Reader may note here,
1. That the Waldenſian Biſhops were only the Seniour Paſtors.
2. That theſe had no Power over other Miniſters.
3. That they cou'd not put forth any Act of Government, without the Approbation of their Brethren: So that the Waldenſian Churches were Govern'd by the Common Council of the Presbyters or Paſtors.
4. All this was for Order's ſake. I leave it to the Impartial, to Judge whether this ſort of Government has any thing of the Form of our Epiſcopal Government.
Theſe Teſtimonies are ſufficient to ſatisfie unprejudiced Perſons, that the Waldenſes had no Biſhops Superiour to Presbyters, but I will add a few more ex abundanti.
3. That they had no Biſhops in a proper Senſe appears by Father Paul's deſcription of them. The People of the Valleys were a part of the Waldenſes, who four hundred Years ſince*He ends his Hiſtory with the Year 1563. forſook the Church of Rome, and in regard of the Perſecutions, fled into Polonia, Germany, Puglia, Provence, and ſome of them into the Valleys of Mountſenis, Lucerna, Angronia, Peroſa, and St. Martin. Theſe having always continued in their Separation with certain Miniſters of their own, whom they called Paſtors, when the Doctrine of Zuinglius was planted in Geneva, did preſently unite themſelves with thoſe, as agreeing with them in Points of Doctrine and principal Rites.Hist. of C. of Trent, Lib. V. ad A. D. 1559 Thus he.
Obſerve in this Quotation,
1. He aſcribes to the Waldenſes certain Miniſters (not Biſhops) whom they call'd Paſtors. If there had been any Superiour Biſhops among them, ſo exact an Hiſtorian would not have omitted them.
2. He ſaith, they agreed in Doctrinos and Rites with thoſe of Geneva.
3. They preſently united with them by reaſon of this agreement.
I hope the Rector will not affirm, That the Proteſtants of Geneva had Biſhops; no more had the Waldenſes, who agreed with them in Rites and Doctrines, and among other Doctrines in this of the Parity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and ſo readily united with them.
I doubt it will not be ſo eaſie to reconcile this Gentleman to the Doctrines and Rites of Geneva. To be ſure then his Notions of Epiſcopacy are very different from thoſe of the Anti-Popiſh Waldenſes.
4. That they had no Biſhops may be further evidenced by their Ordinations here in England, which were by Presbyters and not by Biſhops.
Walſingham ſaith,Vt eorum Presbyteri, more Ponti…icum, novos crearent Presbyteros. Hiſt. Arg. p. 339. ad A. D. 1389 That their Presbyters, after the manner of Pontifs (or Biſhops) created new Presbyters, affirming that every Prieſt had as great power of binding and looſing, and performing all other Eccleſiaſtical Acts, as the Pope himſelf hath or can give.
This was not a caſe of meer neceſſity, for they aſſert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain. Theſe Presbyters made by Presbyters, were the eminent Witneſſes againſt Anti-chriſtian Uſurpations in this Land, and many of them Sacrificed their Lives for the Teſtimony of Jeſus.
Their Ordinations, though private, by reaſon of the Iniquity of the Times, were many and conſiderable. If they Ordain'd Miniſters in K. Rich. II. time, as Walſingham ſaith they did,Ʋbi ſupra. much more under K. Henry IV. and the following Reigns, when they could not have Epiſcopal Ordinations, if they had deſired them; the Biſhops being become their mortal Enemies, and conſpiring their Deſtruction by the bloody Statute de Haereticis comburendis, and Arch-Biſhop Arundel's wicked Conſtitutions.
In the Year 1401. I find one of their Presbyters burnt at Smithfield. Walſingham, according to the old Popiſh Hypotheſis, that none but Biſhops cou'd Ordain, calls him Pſeudo-Presbyter, Hiſt p. 364a falſe Presbyter.
In the Year 1414. William Cleydon, an inveterate Lollard (as the Monk calls him) made his own Son a Prieſt.In tantam dementiam ruerat—ut etiam ſilium proprium ſacerdotem conſtitueret. Hiſt. Arg. p. 390. Act & Mon. ad A. D. 1391. It is not to be doubted but he was a Presbyter himſelf, though not Popiſhly Ordain'd, and with the Aſſiſtance of others Ordain'd his Son.
Mr. William Swinderby, an Eminent and Learned Confeſſor, in the Sentence which the Biſhop of Hereford paſt upon him, is ſaid to pretend himſelf to be a Prieſt. Had he been Ordain'd by a Biſhop, he had been a real Prieſt, in the Biſhop's account, but having no ſuch Ordination he calls him a pretended Prieſt.
Mr. W. Thorp went to the Lollards, and by them was ſent to Preach. The Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury tells him,Ibid ad A. 1407. p. 514, 516. That no Biſhop would admit him to Preach, and that he was not ſent or licenſed by them,
They could not ſubmit to Epiſcopal Ordinations,Ibid. without taking unlawful Oaths, as Mr. Thorp ſaith to the Arch-Biſhop; before whom he proves the Truth of their Miſſion, from the Succeſs of their Miniſtry in the Converſion of Souls.Letters of Licerſe from the Biſhop were invented here about this time, to obſtruct the courſe of the Goſpel. Since this aforeſaid witneſſing of God, ſaith he, ſufficeth to all true Preachers, we think that we do not the office of Prieſthood, if that we leave our Preaching becauſe that we have not, or may not have duly Biſhops Letters to witneſs, that we are ſent of them to Preach.
John Purvey, a Learned Writer againſt Popery, ſaith in one of his Books, That every holy Man, who is a Miniſter of Chriſt, although he be not ſhaven, is a true Prieſt Ordain'd of God, Act & Mon. p. 529.although no Mitred Biſhop ever lay his Character upon him.
We read of Four Miniſters in the famous Congregation at Hamerſham, who all died Martyrs for the Truth. Tho. Man, call'd Dr. Man, one of them, confeſſed that he had turn'd 700 People to his Doctrine. He was burnt in Smithfield. Another of them, Tileſworth, call'd Dr. Tilſworth, was burnt at Amerſham: The third, Rob. Coſin, otherwiſe call'd Dr. Coſin, was burnt in Buckingham: The fourth was hang'd in the Biſhop of Lincoln's Priſon. The three former were formally declared Hereticks, and delivered up to the Secular Power, but none of them are own'd for Prieſts by their Judges, or degraded by them, which they muſt have been by the Popiſh Laws, had they been Ordain'd by Biſhops, before the Secular Arm could reach them.
One Tho. Arthur, who at length Abjured (as ſeveral others did, and yet afterwards died Martyrs) about the Year 1531. as he anſwer'd to ſome Articles of Wickliff's Doctrine laid to his Charge, told the People, Good People, if I ſhould ſuffer Perſecution for the preaching of the Goſpel of God, Ib. p. 973.yet there is ſ…ven Thouſand more that would preach the Goſpel of God, as I do now. Note here,
1. That the Preachers of Wickliff's Doctrine were very numerous here at this time; Mr. Arthur affirms them to be 7000, perhaps he puts a definite for an indefinite Number, alluding to the 7000 in Iſrael, that had not bow'd down the Knee to Baal. It cannot be denied but by 7000 he intends a great number.
2. This great number of Miniſters muſt be Ordain'd by Presbyters, for the Biſhops would ſend none of them, as was obſerved before. They clog'd their. Ordinations with ſuch hard conditions, as the Conſcientious Lollards could not comply with, and uſed all the precautions poſſible to hinder their Preaching.
We ſee here, notwithſtanding the ſevere Perſecutions againſt the poor Lollards, they grew and increas'd exceedingly, as the Iſraelites in Egypt, and had ſo many Thouſands of Faithful and Laborious Miniſters, who muſt be Ordain'd by Presbyters, the Biſhops being their Sworn Enemies, and obliged by their Pontifical Oath to extirpate them.
The Lollards here were a Branch of the old Waldenſes, as we prov'd before, and as may be gathered from that Paſſage in Rainerius, who ſaith,Contra. Wald. c. 4. There is hardly any Country, into which this Sect hath not made a ſhift to creep.
And being I am upon this Quotation, I will obſerve one thing in Rainerius; he ſaith they were more pernicious to the Church of Rome, than any other Sect, for three Reaſons. 1. Becauſe more laſting; for ſome ſay that it hath been ever ſince the time of Silveſter, and others deduce it ſince the time of the Apoſtles. 2. Becauſe more general; there is hardly any Country into which it hath not crept. 3. Becauſe all others are abominable to God for the immanity of their Blaſphemies; but this of the Waldenſes only carries with it a great ſhew of Piety, becauſe they live juſtly before Men, and believe truly of God, and all the Articles of the Creed, only they blaſpheme and hate the Roman Church.
If they are ſo Ancient as Rainerius ſeems to confeſs, and had no Biſhops, as I have prov'd, J. O's. Aſſertion, That they had no Biſhops for 500 Years holds good, nay, he might have ſaid 1500 Years, according to this account of Rainerius.
I hope I have ſufficiently prov'd that the Waldenſes had Superiour Biſhops for 500 Years laſt paſt, and Explain'd, or rather Vindicated his Learned Neighbour's (as he calls it) but indeed J. O's. Quotation.
He concludes his Preface with a ſtrong preſumption and moral aſſurance of the uninterrupted Succeſſion of Orders.p. 17.
It ſhould ſeem, if I underſtand him, that a ſtrong preſumption and moral aſſurance, are one and the ſame with him, which moſt will acknowledge to be very different things. Or does he mean, that ſome of them have ſtrong preſumptions, others have moral aſſurance of the Succeſſion? Or rather, that their moral aſſurance is no more than a ſtrong preſumption, and ſo the meaning is, they ſtrongly preſume they are Miniſters, but cannot be certain upon this Principle. This is but very cold comfort to one who labours under Fears and Temptations, about his acceptance with God in the Exerciſe of his Miniſtry. The inextricable difficulties about the Succeſſion, which have puzzled the moſt Learned and diligent Inquirers, may increaſe, but can have no tendency to remove his Doubts.
The Waldenſes prov'd their Call to the Miniſtry by the Succeſs, Act & Mon. p. 234.and not by the Sueceſſion of it, as we noted before; and inſtead of perplexing their Heads with an uninterrupted Succeſſion, they aſſerted this Poſition, Such as hear (or obey) the word of God, and have a right Faith, are the right Church of Chriſt; and to this Church the Keys of the Church are given, to drive away Wolves, and to inſtitute true Paſtors.
Nor are they ſingular in this Principle, it is aſſerted by the Learned Defenders of the Reformation (in their Diſcourſes againſt the Jeſuits, the ſtiff Maintainers of this Succeſſion) and they have demonſtrated, That the Being of the Chriſtian Church cannot depend upon this Succeſſion, and that it hath been interrupted again and again. There may be a ſort of Succeſſion without a true Church, as in the Romiſh falſe Church; there may be a true Church without a Succeſſion, as the Foreign Reformed Churches.Eccl. Polit. Lib. VII. p. 37, 38. Mr. Hooker affirms the whole Church viſible, the true original Subject of all Power, and thence infers, that a continued Succeſſion of Biſhops is not neceſſary to Ordination.
This Strongly Preſumptuous Gentleman ſhould have anſwered .J. O's Reaſons againſt this Succeſſion, before he had talk'd of his moral aſſurance concerning it. But ſome people are never more ſure, than when they are furtheſt from Truth.
Thus I have follow'd him through his tedious Preface, let not the Reader blame me for want of Method in ſome places, becauſe I follow the Author in his Digreſſions.