Defense of Scripture Ordination, Title page – Preface 1
Tutamen Evangelicum: OR, A DEFENCE OF Scripture-Ordination, Againſt the EXCEPTIONS of T. G. In a Book Intituled, Tentamen Novum, Proving, That Ordination by Presbyters is Valid; Timothy and Titus were no Dioceſan Rulers; The Presbyters of Epheſus were the Apoſtles Succeſſors in the Government of that Church, and not Timothy; The Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was Written before the Meeting at Miletus; The Ancient Waldenſes had no Dioceſan Biſhops, &c.
By the Author of the Plea for Scripture-Ordination.
Confirmatio juvenum, Clericorum Ordinatio, locorum Conſecratio reſervatur Papae & Epiſcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis & honoris. Art. 28. Doctr. Joh. Wiclef. in Conc. Conſtantienſ.
London: Printed for Zachary Whitworth, Bookſeller in Mancheſter, 1697.
THE PREFACE.
J. O. Publiſhed ſome Years ſince, A Plea for Scripture-Ordination, Proving by Scripture and Antiquity, That Ordination by Presbyters, without Biſhops, is Valid.
Several Hands were ſaid to be at Work, preparing Remarks upon it; at length, after near Three Years Silence, comes forth a ſort of Anſwer, by one Mr. T. G. Rector of B. in Lancaſhire, an Author well known in his Countrey, by ſome Prerogative Sermons, which he Printed ſome Years ſince.
I. He Fronts his Engliſh Book with a Latine Title, and calls it Tentamen Novum, that is, A new Tryal of Skill. Here is an implicit Confeſſion of a baffled Cauſe; he dare not truſt to the Old Arguments for Epiſcopacy, but is glad to betake himſelf to New Shifts. It's a deſperate Cauſe that needs new Arts to ſupport it.
The plain Engliſh of Tentamen Novum is this: Gentlemen, I am very ſenſible the Cauſe I Plead for cannot ſtand on its old Foundations; therefore I will make a New Effort, and try, Whether the lofty Fabrick of Dioceſan Epiſcopacy may not be Supported on the Slender and Nice Foundations of a new Point of Chronology. If this fails, the Cauſe is loſt.
However, his Title looks a little Modeſt, but a Man of Aſſurance cannot be long Conceal'd under a Vizard, for in the very next Words he calls his Argument a Demonſtration. For thus his Title-Page runs; Tentamen Novum, Proving that Timothy and Titus were Dioceſan Rulers, by an Argument drawn frhm the time of St. Paul's beſeeching Timothy to abide at Epheſus, and leaving Titus at Crete, as it is demonſtrated by Biſhop Pearſon.
A Doubtful Attempt, and a Conſident Demonſtration, are ſomething inconſiſtent. But I have been ſo kind to him as to Reconcile the Title-Page to the Title of his Book, by proving his Suppoſed Demonſtration to be only a Tentamen Novum, a new and fruitleſs Attempt, to defend an Un-ſcriptural Hierarchy. This the Reader way find in the Third and Fourth Chapter of this Book.
II. I deſire the Reader to obſerve, That there is but one Chapter (Chap. V.) in the Rector's Book, which he calls an Anſwer to J. O's Plea, and in that he briefly touches upon Two or Three of Ten Arguments, which J. O. has urged for Ordination by Presbyters. This is Tentamen Novum, a new way of Anſwering Books. He pretends to Anſwer J. O's Plea for Scripture-Ordination, which is the Running-Title of the whole Book, and ſo would perſuade his Reader that he has Anſwer'd the whole.
I will not impeach his Candour in this Form of Speech, which ſhews his Skill in a Rhetorical Figure, that Subſtitutes a Part for the whole: As if a vain-glorious Captain, who had Attack'd a Company or two, ſhould ſay by a Romantick Syneedoche, he had beaten an Army.
III. The Deſign of his Book is to prove, That meer Presbyters have no Inherent Power of Ordination; and that all Ordinations by Presbyters are a Nullity. This Notion is very ſingular, and I hope has but few Patrons in the Church of England, becauſe,
1. It Ʋn-churches all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, who have no Biſhops of the Engliſh Species, and by this Gentleman's Principles, no Miniſtry, no Sacraments, and conſequently no Salvation. He owns a true Miniſtry in the Popiſh Church, and overthrows the Miniſtry of the Reformed Churches. His Neighbours of the Romiſh Communion are obliged to conn him Thanks for the Service he would have done to their Cauſe againſt the Reformed Intereſt. To ſay, Theirs is a Caſe of Neceſſity, but ſo is not ours, is to triſte, as J. O. hath prov'd in his Book, but Mr. G. wiſely paſſed over that Chapter, as if it were not there.
2. This uncharitable Hypotheſis contradicts the Moderate and Learned Defenders of Epiſcopacy, who generally grant the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, though they judge it irregular where Biſhops may be had.
Mr. Hooker allows the Ordination of Presbyters alone, on this Principle, That the Church can give them Power, for according to him all Power is originally in the whole Body. Eccl. Polit. VII. p. 37, 38.
Biſhop Downame grants, That extraordinarily, in caſe of neceſſity, Presbyters may ordain without Biſhops, and gives this Reaſon for the Validity of their Ordination; becauſe Impoſition of Hands in Confirmation, and Reconciliation of Penitents, were reſerv'd to Biſhops, as well as Ordination, and yet in the abſence of Biſhops may be done by Presbyters. Def. of his Conſ. Serm. III. 3. P. 69, 108.
Forbes acknowledges, That Jure Divino Presbyters have the Power of Ordaining, as well as of I reaching and Baptizing, though they muſt uſe it under the Biſhop's Inſpection, in thoſe places that have Biſhops. Iren. p. 164.
The ſame was the Judgment of Arch-Biſhop Uſher. See his Life and Reduct. by Dr. Bernard. The Arch-Biſhop of Spalato ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe. De Rep. Eccleſ. in ſeveral places. He ſaith, That the Presbyterial Order hath always the Keys annexed, and that when any is Ordain'd Presbyter, the Keys are given him, and Juriſdiction with Orders, by Divine Right. Lib. V. Cap. 12. p. 473.
3. This Hypotheſis condemns the very Church of England, who in her Articles (Compoſed by the Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and the Clergy in Convocation, and Confirm'd by Parliament, 13. Eliz. 12.) allows the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, which are by Presbyters.
Art. 23. Thoſe we ought to Judge lawfully Call'd and Sent, which be choſen and call'd to this Work by Men who have Publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and ſend Miniſters into the Lord's Vineyard *Vid. Rog. in Prop. 5..
The Article doth not ſay, None are Lawfully call'd but by Biſhops, but that Miniſters ought to be Call'd by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation, which Ordaining Presbyters may have, and actually have in the Foreign Reform'd Congregations
The Church of England acknowledged Ordinations by Presbyters, and look'd upon Superiour Biſhops to be but a prudential Conſtitution of the Civil Magiſtrate, as J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Book, Cap. IX which Mr. G. alſo prudently overlooks. We may preſume he hath good Reaſon for his Omiſſions.
The Ordinations of Foreign Churches were not Queſtion'd here before Biſhop Laud's time. My Lord Bacon complains of it, as a new thing, and uncommon in his days. Some indiſcreet Perſons, ſaith he, have been told *Forte Leg. Bold.in open preaching, to uſe derogatory Speech and Cenſure of the Churches abroad, and that ſo far, as ſome of our Men, as I have heard, Ordain'd in Foreign Parts, have been pronounced to be no Lawful Miniſters †Reſuſc. Part I. P. 137..
The Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy began to be urged about that time, to the great Joy and Advantage of the Popiſh Party, as appears by a Letter to a Popiſh Peer in Ireland, from T. White, Dat. Lond. Feb. 12. 1639. in which are theſe Words. We be in a fair way e'er long, to Aſſwage Hereſie and her Epiſcopacy, for Exetor's Book hath done more for the Catholicks than they could have done themſelves: For having written that Epiſcopacy in Office and Juriſdiction is abſolutely Jure Divino, which was the old Quarrel between our Biſhops, and K. H. VIII. (during his Hereſie) then diſputed upon, which Book doth not a little trouble our Adverſaries, who declare this Tenent of Exetor's to be contrary to the Laws of the Land.
This Letter was found, with other Papers, at the taking of Droghedah, after the Rout of Remines. Copia vera ab Origin. ut fuit cum Hen. Midenſ. Epiſcopo.
The Book which White refers to, is Biſhop Hall's Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, which was alter'd, and put into the Form in which we now have it, by Arch-Biſhop Laud. Biſhop Hall's firſt Draught, call'd, Epiſcopacy an Ancient, Holy, and Divine Inſtitution, the Arch-Biſhop directed him to alter it into, So Ancient, as that it is of Divine Inſtitution. Hall defined Epiſcopacy, by being joyn'd with Imparity and Superiority of Juriſdiction, Laud directs him to define it by a diſtinction of Orden. Hall grants that the Presbyterian Government may be of uſe where Epiſcopacy may not be had. Laud tells him this is of dangerous Conſequence, and that we muſt not uſe any mincing Terms, nor hamper our ſelves for fear of ſpeaking plain Truth, though it be againſt Amſterdam or Geneva.
The Biſhop of Exon found good Cauſe (ſaith my Author*Dr. Heyl. Life of A. Biſh. Laud, p. 400, 401, 402.) to Correct the Obliquity of his Opinion, according to the Rules of theſe Animadverſions.
Biſhop Hall's Book being finiſhed, the Arch-Biſhop read it over with care and diligence. In the peruſal of which, he took notice amongſt other things, That the ſtrict Superſtition of the Sabbatarians, was but lightly touch'd at; whereas he thought, that ſome ſmarter Plaiſter to that Sore might have done no harm. He obſerved alſo, that he had paſſed by this Point, viz. Whether Epiſcopacy be an Order or a Degree, as not material: Whereas, in the Judgment of ſuch Learned Men as he had conſulted, it was the main ground of the whole Cauſe, and therefore deſir'd him to alter it with his own Pen. But that which gave him moſt offence was, That the Title of Antichriſt was poſitively and determinately beſtowed on the Pope, which he allow'd not of.
According to which good advice, ſaith Dr. Heylin, the Biſhop of Exon qualified ſome of his Expreſſions, and deleted others. ubi ſupr. p. 406. It is remarkable, that at the ſame time that the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy began to be aſſerted here, the Divine Right of the Chriſtian Sabbath was call'd in queſtion, and the Conſciencious Obſervers of it were branded with the odious Name of Sabbatarians. At the ſame time alſo, the old Doctrine of the Church of England, That the Pope is Anti-Chriſt, began to be out of requeſt.
4. This Hypotheſis condemns the late Epiſcopal Church of Scotland, which admitted Ordination by Presbyters to be valid, as Dr. Burnet, Biſhops of Sarum affirms. Thus he: The Biſhops of Scotland never required the Presbyterian Miniſters there to take Epiſcopal Ordination; they required them only to come and act with them in Church-Judicatories. Even Arch-Biſhop Sharp himſelf, when he was to be Conſecrated Arch-Biſhop of St. Andrews, ſtood out for ſome time here in England, before he would ſubmit to take Prieſt's Orders. — No Biſhop during my ſtay in that Kingdom, ever did ſo much as deſire any of the Presbyterians to be Re-ordained*Biſhops of Sarum's Vindie. p. 84, 85. Lond. 1696
The advancing of an Hypotheſis ſo favourable to the Romiſh Church, ſo deſtructive to the Reformed Churches abroad, ſo inconſiſtent with the Articles of the Church of England, (which Mr. G. hath ſubſcribed) and ſo contrary to the Practice of the Scottiſh Biſhops, and the repeated Declarations of ſeveral of our Engliſh Biſhops, may tempt Perſons to ſuſpect the deſign of the Book, if not of the Author. But we will charitably hope he meant well, and in a tranſport of Zeal, which excludes freedom of thought, might eaſily over-look the fatal Conſequences of his indigeſted Principles.
IV. He tells us a long Story in his Preface of the occaſion of his publiſhing of his Book, p. 1. and 2. and complains that his Sermon of the Conſecration and Holineſs of Churches has not been Anſwered by the Diſſenters, and, ſaith he, there is good reaſon for it, which I ſhall not here repeat. To repeat a thing not mentioned before is a little improper. I confeſs there is good Reaſon why that Sermon has not been anſwered, and that is, his not Printing it; let him Publiſh it, and he ſhall not long complain, That that Controverſie is dropt.
I am a Stranger to that Sermon, but I expect he ſhould prove the Conſecration and Holineſs of Churches by the Scripture, for he allows (Pref. p. 13.) That we ought to be Govern'd by Scripture, and to keep cloſe to Scripture-practice. I am ſure he cannot prove it from the New Teſtament, which is the peculiar Law of Chriſt, and the Rule of Chriſtians. It doth not appear, that Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, ever Conſecrated any Places of Worſhip. Nor can he prove it from the Old Teſtament. By the Ceremonial Law (which in the main Branches of it was more Ancient than Moſes, and expired with the Jewiſh Temple) our publick Churches are ſo far from being holy, that they are unclean, becauſe the Dead are buried there. He that touched a Grave was unclean by the old Law, Num. 19.16. The Jews buried their Dead not in their Temple, or Synagogues, but in places appropriated to that uſe, which they accounted unclean. They buried ordinarily without the Cities, Lu. 7.12 *Vid. Ligh. vol. II. p. 323..
Their Synagogues, which anſwer to our Pariſh Churches, were not Conſecrated as the Temple was: nor was there any Law for the Conſecration of them, nor of their Divinity-Schools, which they judged more Holy than their Synagogues‖Maim. in Godw. Moſes and Aaron, II. 2..
Optatus obſerves, That the Donatiſts began to bury in Churches in his time, and adds, That it was not Lawful to Bury in the Houſe of God *Ad Parm. lib. 3. p. 36.He ſeems to refer to a Law of Gratian the Emperor, as Baldwin obſerves in his Annotations on Optatus.
The pureſt Ages of Chriſtianity had no Conſecrated Temples nor Altars‖Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. VI.. For this Reaſon Caecilius in Minucius Foelix, reproaches the Chriſtians, and asks, Cur nullas Aras habent, nulla Templa? Why have they no Altars, no Temples, no viſible Images†Min. Foel. Octav. p. 29. Oxon.? Minucius anſwers, What Temple can I build unto Him, whom the World, which is Created by His Power, cannot contain? And ſince I, a Man, dwell more at large, ſhall I include ſo great a Majeſty within one little Houſe? Is He not better Conſecrated in the bottom of our Hearts *Ibid. p. 94.?
To the ſame purpoſe ſpeaks Clemens Alexandrinus; He that is endued with Knowledge, ſaith he, Honours God, that is, gives Thanks for the knowledge of an upright Life, neither in a definitive place, nor in a ſelect Temple, nor on certain ſtated Feſtivals, but through his whole Life, and in every place. And a little after, Every place is truly Sacred in which we Converſe with God ‖Strom. 7..
The Heathen built their Temples upon the Graves, or Aſhes of their Dead, as Arnobius affirms†Lib. VI.. For this reaſon Clemens Alexandrinus calls them Sepulchers; You call them, ſaith he, by the ſpecious Name of Temples, but they were Sepulchers, that is, Sepulchers were call'd Temples *In foreign..
Theſe they dedicated by certain Ceremonies to the Memory of their deceas'd Friends, whom they honoured as Gods, and accounted their Temples Sacred, as Caecilius ſpeaks‖Ʋbi ſupr. p. 18, 19.. He complains that the Chriſtians deſpiſed them as polluted Graves†p. 25.. The wiſer ſort of Heathens acknowledged, that their Conſecrated Temples had no real Holineſs in them. No Edifice, ſaith Plato in Clemens Alexandrinus, is of any great worth, or truly Holy, that is built by ſordid Mechanicks *Strom. V..
In imitation of them the Chriſtians, as they degenerated from the Apoſtolical Simplicity, built Temples in honour of departed Saints and Martyrs. They call'd their Temples after their Names, Dedicated them to ſuch and ſuch Saints, in Memory of which they kept Feſtivals, which gave occaſion to our Wakes. We have ſome Inſtances of theſe Dedications and Feſtivals in the Fourth Century. Euſeb. Vit. Conſtant. IV. Nazian. Orat. in Nov. Dominic.
No Inſtance can be given of any Dedication of Temples till about Conſtantine's time, and the Dedications of that Age were no Ceremonious Conſecrations; they were only celebrated with Solemn Prayers, Praiſes, Preaching, and Adminiſtring the Euchariſt, which are the ſtated Duties to be performed in ſuch places. The firſt performance of theſe Religious Duties can have no more Vertue for Conſecration of the Place, than the continued Series of them. Euſebius mentions alſo ſome Orations in Commendation of the Benefactor, and the Magnificency of the Structure, which were delivered at thoſe Solemnities*Vit. Conſt. IV. 45.. Theſe had no Conſecrating Vertue in them.
Ceremonious Conſecrations appropriated unto Biſhops, were unknown in the three firſt Centuries.
I find but one Inſtance of it in the Fourth Century, and that in the Roman Church, in which Superſtitions grew faſter than in other Churches, and this inſtance is very dubious. The Roman Council under Sylveſter is ſaid to Decree, That no Presbyter preſume to Celebrate Maſs, but in Places Conſecrated by the Biſhop ‖Epit. Syn. Rom. Sub. Sylveſt..
The Acts of this Council are juſtly ſuſpected to be Spurious, for certain the Twentieth Canon, which forbids Judging the firſt Seat is ſo. Vid. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6..
Above a hundred Years after, A. D. 456. an Iriſh Council under St. Patrick determin'd, That no Presbyter, who had built a Church, do offer (the Euchariſtic Sacrifice) until he bring the Biſhop to Conſecrate it, C. 23.
About the Year 494. the Power of Conſecrating Churches, which the Biſhops had before appropriated to themſelves, was reſtrained to Metropolitans by Pope Gelaſius †Ep. IX. c. 4. & 25..
In the Year 619. the Second Council of Sevil acknowledges, That the Conſecration of Churches is forbidden Presbyters, Novellis & Eccleſiaſticis regulis, by certain new Eccleſiaſtical Canons*Con. Hiſ. 2 Can. 7..
The Conſecration of Altars is almoſt as ancient as the Conſecration of Churches. It is mention'd about the Year of Chriſt 506. in the Council of Agatha, Can. 10. & 29. and about the Year 563. in the Council of Braga ‖Conc. Bracar. Can. 37..
For the ſame reaſon that we have laid aſide the Conſecration of Altars, we may alſo that of Churches.
We conceive that all places are equally near to Heaven, and that all Places where the Worſhip of God is Celebrated, are equally Holy. God looks more on the diſpoſition of the Worſhipper, than he doth on the place of Worſhip †Aug. de Ʋnit. Cap. 16., as Auſtin well ſpeaks.
1. Mr. G. will do well to ſhew us, 1. ſome Warrant from the New Teſtament, for Conſecration and Holineſs of Places, which he ſeems ſo fond of.
2. When he hath done that, let him ſhew us what Authority from the New Teſtament the Biſhops have to appropriate the Conſecration of Churches to their Order. Did Timothy or Titus, whom he calls Biſhops, Conſecrate Churches?
3. If the Goſpel give them no ſuch Power, can he ſhew any Canons made ſince the Reformation, that do impower them to Conſecrate Places of Worſhip. We have Forms for the Ordering of Prieſts and Deacons, and for the Conſecrating of Biſhops and Arch-Biſhops; we have a Form for Confirmation alſo; but no Form, nor Order, nor Direction, about the Conſecration of Churches that ever I cou'd meet with. Indeed the Roman Pontifical can ſupply us with one.
Dr. Heylin tells us, that Arch-Biſhop Laud had a deſign to draw up an Engliſh Pontifical, to be approv'd by the Convocation, in the Year 1640. This new Pontifical was to contain, among other things, a Form to be obſerved by all Arch-Biſhops and Biſhops, for Conſecrating Churches, Church-Yards, and Chapels*Laud's. Life, p. 441.. But the Troubles of the Time obliged him to defer the proſecution of it till a fitter conjuncture. When King Charles II. returned, and the Biſhops had all the advantage they could deſire, they did not proſecute the deſign, not being ſo violent in that Point, as Laud and his Party had been.
4. Wherein doth a Conſecration promote the acceptance of our Devotions with. God? Is the Worſhip of God more acceptable in a Conſecrated, than in an Ʋnconſecrated Place? If it be not, what are we the better for Conſecration? If it be, let the Rector prove it. Can he ſhew any Promiſe that is made to Conſecrated Places as ſuch, under the Goſpel? He cannot produce either a Command of Precedent for Conſecration of Places under the Goſpel, nor a Promiſe to ſuch Places above others. Jeſus Chriſt Promiſes to meet his People in all places, without diſtinction, Mat. 18.20. John 4.21, 23. 1 Tim. 2.8. He dwelleth not in material temple, Acts 7.49. and 17.24.
The Rector hath ſtudied this Subject, and can reſolve theſe Difficulties, which we ſhall expect in his Celebrated Conſecration-Sermon.
V. But to return to the main Subject. Our Author would ſay ſomething, if he knew what, for the Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy, but his Diſcourſe is ſo cloudy, confuſed, and inconſiſten, that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in ſeveral places.
His Book conſiſts of Five Chapters.
1. In the firſt Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apoſtles and Prophets did Ordain. Suppoſe this were granted him, which I have prov'd to be falſe, I cannot ſee what advantage he can make of it; for Biſhops are neither Apoſtles nor Prophets. He himſelf makes 'em Evangeliſts, which are different from Apoſtles and Prophets, Eph. 4.11.
2. In the ſecond Chapter he would prove, That St. Paul, towards the declining part of his Life, made Timothy and Titus Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete. In Anſwer to which, I have fully prov'd, from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Epheſus, and by undeniable conſequence of all other Churches, was committed to the Presbyters in Parity, and not to one Supreme Preſident.
I have evidenced this Government to be Divine, Perpetual, and an apt Remedy againſt Schiſm. I have ſhew'd that it was ſettled by the Apoſtle, when he could Over-ſee that Church no more, and had no proſpect of ever ſeeing it again.
It's pretended by the late Aſſerters of Epiſcopacy, That the Apoſtles when they took their laſt leave of the Churches, ſettled Biſhops for their Succeſſors to preſide over the Presbyters, as a Remedy againſt: the growing Schiſms. I have demonſtrated from the 20th of the Acts, That it is quite otherwiſe, that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Epheſus as his ordinary Succeſſors in the. Government of that Church, and that in proſpect of Schiſms, and of his final departure from them.
The evidence of this Eſtabliſhment is ſo bright and convincing, that our Author cannot but acknowledge it, p. 47. and the poor ſhifts which he uſeth there to avoid the force of this unanſwerable Argument, ſhews the power of Intereſt and Temptation upon ſelf-convicted minds.
The Proofs for Timothy's being Biſhop of Epheſus, depends upon a nice Point of Chronology, which at beſt is doubtful, and amounts to no more than a probability, and is not capable of a Demonſtration. This leaves the Foundations of Epiſcopacy doubtful and uncertain.
But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Epheſus was ſettled in the Elders of that Church, is grounded upon plain matter of Fact, that cannot he deny'd.
It's certain that the Apoſtle had no proſpect of ſeeing the Epheſian Elders any more, when he committed the Government of that Church to them, Acts 20.25, 28. and therefore the Elders of Epheſus ſucceeded the Apoſtle in the Government of that Church.
But it is not certain that the Apoſtle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards. Moſt Chronologers, the Defenders of Epiſcopacy not excepted, are of Opinion, That the Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written before the Congreſs at Miletus, mention'd in Acts 20.17. whence it naturally follows, that his Charge in Epheſus was occaſional and temporary, as an unfixed Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4.5. and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it, Acts 20.17, 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apoſtle Paul.
It ſeemeth no ſmall diſparagement to the Dioceſan Cauſe, that the grand Patrons of it ſo extreamly differ among themſelves, and cannot agree about the Foundations of it.
The Popiſh Writers, Jeſuits and others, do generally affirm, That Biſhops were ſettled betimes by the Apoſtles in all Churches, and that though the Names of Biſhops and Presbyters were common, the Offices were diſtinct.
The old Proteſtant Writers confeſs, That God hath preſcribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Teſtament, ſo Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded, therefore not the Prelatical.
Others, both Papiſts and Proteſtants do ſay, That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Teſtament, were Biſhops in a proper Senſe, thus Petavius and Hammond, but with this difference; Petavius thinks there were many Biſhops in one Church, as in Epheſus, and that the ſimple manners of the Church would then bear this, till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Biſhop in one Church. This Notion of Biſhops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus, as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth.
Some late Writers acknowledge, That Biſhops and Presbyters were the ſame at firſt, but that the Apoſtles, towards the latter end of their Days, appointed the new Order of Superiour Biſhops. Biſhop Pearſon, Dr. Beveridge, and others go this way. The former Hypotheſis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Teſtament to be real Biſhops, and this makes all the Biſhops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters, and pretends that Dioceſan Biſhops were ſettled afterwards.
Our Author eſpouſes this laſt Opinion, and pleads for it in his looſe and confuſed way.
This Hypotheſis is no leſs precarious than the former, and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum.
It were much more honourable, and ſafer for the Defenders of Epiſcopacy, to fix it on the beſt Foundation it hath, to wit, the Laws of the Land, by which the firſt Reformers profeſſedly held it. It was the expreſs Doctrine of the Old Church of England, before Biſhop Land's time, That Biſhops, as Superiour to Presbyters, are an appointment of the Civil Magiſtrate, as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea, p. 113, 114.
This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land, which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Biſhop, but his being a Presbyter.
37. Hen. VIII. Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared, That Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Arch-Deacons, and other Eccleſiaſtical Perſons, have no manner of Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtical, but by, under, and from his Royal Majeſty — the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland, to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given, to hear and determine all manner of Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical.
The ſame is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in theſe Words: All Authority of Juriſdiction, Spiritual and Temporal, is derived and deduced from the King's Majeſty, as Supream Head of theſe Churches and Realms of England and Ireland. See Cook's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8.
The Inſtitution of a Chriſtian Man, Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houſes of Parliament, mentions two Orders only, viz. Prieſts and Deacons, as of Divine Right.
3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove, That the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's firſt Bonds at Rome, and conſequently after the Meeting at Miletus, Acts 20.17. In my Animadverſions on this Chapter, I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers, and prov'd by ſeveral Arguments, That that Epiſtle was written before the Meeting at Miletus, and by neceſſary conſequence, the Government of the Church of Epheſus was in the Presbytery after the writing of that Epiſtle, on which Timothy's ſuppoſed Epiſcopal Power is grounded. I do not pretend that my Arguments are Demonſtrations (as he calls his for the contrary Opinion) but they carry with them the greateſt probability, That that Epiſtle was written earlier than the Rector pretends, whoſe Arguments I have evinced to be weak and fallacious. Tho' if it were written after, it doth not prejudice my Argument from Acts 20.
4. In the Fourth Chapter he pretends to prove, That Evangeliſts were fixed Church-Governours, that is, Biſhops. His main Argument, by which he would Eſtabliſh this fancy, is a begging of the Queſtion; he takes it for granted, that Timothy was a fixed Evangeliſt at Epheſus, and Titus at Crete. That they were Evangeliſts he cannot deny; that they were unfixed, I have prov'd, in my Remarks on this Chapter. I have prov'd Philip alſo to be no fixed Evangeliſt, and vindicated Euſebius and Chryſoſtom.
5. In the Fifth Chapter he makes a flouriſh as if he would anſwer J. O's Plea, but leaves the greateſt Part untouched, and anſwers only the three firſt Arguments, and that very ſlatterinly.
Thus you have a ſhort Idea of his Book, in which he diſcovers little of Argument, leſs of Reading, and nothing of Candor. Tedious Digreſſions, Nauſeous Repetitions, and Scornful Reflections on J. O. and the Diſſenters, make up very near one Third of his Book. The Truth of this will appear to any intelligent and impartial Reader.
I ſhould not have thought it worth while to have Anſwer'd it, but for the clamorous Confidence of ſome weak People, who reckon a Book unanſwerable, when no Reply is made unto it.
His Preface being large, I muſt conſider the main parts of it in a diſtinct Chapter, and in the following Chapters ſhall Examine the ſeveral Chapters of his Book, ſo as my ſecond will anſwer to his firſt, and my third to his ſecond, and ſo of the reſt.
He muſt pardon me, if I be more juſt to him, than he has been to the Author of the Plea, and if I follow him Paragraph by Paragraph, in all that is material, and may ſeem worth Anſwering throughout his Book: For I judge it below a Scholar, and a Man of Ingenuity, to pick quarrels with a few Paſſages here and there, in a Book, and leave the greateſt Part unanſwer'd, as he hath done by
J. O.