Letter to a Friend on Valid Ordination, Letter

Letter to a Friend on Valid Ordination · Letter

p. 1foreign: OR, A Letter to a Friend, tending to prove, 1. That Valid Ordination ought not to be repeated. 2. That ordination by Presbyters is valid.

SIR;

THat when you were invited to the conſtant preaching of the Word, I perſwaded you to be ordained, is no matter of my repentance, nor need it be any matter of your repentance, that things ſtanding as they then did, you made choice to be ordained by meer Presbyters, without a Biſhop.

I had in my eye that of the Apoſtle, How ſhall they preach, except they be ſent, Rom. 10.15. that of the Prophet, Jer. 23.21. I have not ſent theſe Prophets, yet they ran; I have not ſpoken to them, yet they propheſied; v. 32. I ſent them not, nor commanded them, p. 2therefore they ſhall not profit this people, ſaith the Lord. Nor could I forget what holy, zealous Luther, hath in his Commentary on the Galathians: Non ſatis eſt habere verbum & puram doctrinam; aportet etiam ut vocatio certa ſit, ſine qua qui ingreditur, ad mactandum & perdendum venit, nunquam enim fortunat Deus laborem eorum, qui non ſunt vocati, & quanquam quaedam ſalutaria afferunt, tamen nihil aedificant.

You, 'tis like, had in your thoughts the example of the Tranſmarine Reformed Churches, and the judgement of our own Proteſtant Divines at home unanimouſly, till of late, determining Ordination by Presbyters to be valid.

But now it ſeems you begin to queſtion, whether you may not do that which will be a virtual and interpretative renouncing of your former Orders, take a ſecond Ordination from ſome Biſhop, and his Chaplains; the grounds you go upon are: 1. Becauſe elſe it will not be poſſible to get any preferment in the Church: 3. Becauſe ſome that were voiced formerly to have more of the Presbyterian in them then you, have already actually ſubmitted to ſuch a ſecond Ordination.

To deal plainly with you, either you are not the man that I have ever taken you to be, or elſe you have alway had pectus praeparatum againſt all objections of this nature; either you did not ſit down and conſider before hand, what it would coſt you to be a Miniſter of the Goſpel, or it is not poſſible that the two things you mention ſhould weigh much with you.

Suppoſe the Anabaptiſtical Sectarian Phrenſie ſhould have ſo poſſeſſed the late Governours, as that they would have collated no livings but on thoſe, who though baptized in infancy, would afterwards take a ſecond baptiſm at adult years. Suppoſe alſo that ſome learned, and ſeemingly godly men had yielded to Re-baptization, would you forthwith have betaken your ſelf to ſome pond or river, and been dipped in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt? If ſo, then your Religion is very much at the mercy of your Superiours, and we may thank the Parliament for your Orthodoxy.

I preſume you will reply the caſe is different, that you may with better conſcience take a ſecond Ordination, then a ſecond Baptiſme: But I pray you where lies the difference? Is Baptiſme an Ordinance of God? ſo is Ordination: Is Baptiſme a p. 3Sacrament? ſo is not Ordination in the ſtrict ſenſe, but quid hoc ad Iphicli boves? It might be a Sacrament, and yet be iterable; for the Lords Supper is in the moſt proper and ſtrict notion a Sacrament, and yet by the appointment of God it is to be received more then once by all that have opportunity: That Ordination is not a Sacrament, makes it not iterable, becauſe the end unto which it is by God appointed, is ſufficiently attained by one adminiſtration of it, and the end of Ordination being once attained, to receive it a ſecond time, would be to take an Ordinance of God in vain, as I ſhall by and by have occaſion to prove more largely.

For this is the method I intend to uſe with you:

1. To ſhew that you ought not to take Ordination from the Biſhop, except your Ordination by Presbyters was a meer nullity, and in natura rei invalid.

2. To ſhew that your Ordination by Presbyters was not, cannot be rationally accounted, a meer nullity: Theſe two things done, 'twill not be difficult for you to gather my ſenſe about the caſe of conſcience by you propounded.

As to the firſt, I muſt premiſe two or three poſtulata, and they ſhall be ſuch things, as to ſave my ſelf a labour, I ſhall deſire may be granted, but if they ſhould not be granted, I ſhould be able eaſily to prove them.

1. I ſuppoſe that you are certain, you were ordained by Preſbyters; for if there could be an invincible doubt, whether you were de facto, ordained or no, I ſhould then grant you might for ſureneſs ſake be ordained in an Hypothetical form, ſi non ordinatus ſis, &c.

2. I ſuppoſe that when you were ordained by Presbyters, ſuch a form of words was uſed as made you a Miniſter, not of any particular, but of the Catholick Church, for had you been made Miniſter only of that particular Church unto which you were firſt called, then your relation to that Church ceaſing, you ceaſed to be a Miniſter, and ſo are returned to the condition of a private Chriſtian; and therefore you know that the rigid ſort of Independents do judge, that when their Paſtor preacheth out of his own Congregation, he preacheth only as a gifted Brother, and charitativè, not as a Church-Officer, or authoritativè.

3. I ſuppoſe that if you be ordained by a Biſhop, you are to be ordained in ſuch a form of words as is uſed when men are p. 4made ex non Miniſtris, Miniſtri, ex non Clericis, Clerici. This I ſuppoſe, becauſe I have all along heard, that as many as have been re-ordained by the Biſhops, have been by them looked upon and conſidered as Laicks, being firſt made Deacons, then Prieſts in the very ſelf-ſame form and order that they are ordained, who never had any Conſecration to the Ministerial Office.

Were your former Ordination only to be compleated and confirmed, I would not inject the leaſt ſcruple into your mind, becauſe I know, that though your Ordination by Presbyters was lawful, and ſufficient to make you a Miniſter, yet it was perhaps not exactly legal and Canonical (at leaſt, if there be any Law extant in England, declaring thoſe, and thoſe only that are ordained by Biſhops, to be lawfully ordained) & 'tis but prudential to procure ſome inſtrument to ratifie that which pieviſh people will be apt to take exception againſt.

You know the late Parliament hath made an Act, in and by which, all, whether ordained by Biſhops or Presbyters, are confirmed in their livings, though not inſtituted and inducted according to the letter of Laws in force, before theſe moſt unhappy unnatural diviſions. In this Act Miniſters rejoyce, and plead it againſt thoſe who diſturb them, yet do not think that they have been all this while Intruders, and Uſurpers.

Semblably would our Prelates ſo far conſult either their own credit, or the peace of the Church, as to emit a general confirmation of all Ordinations by Presbyters, provided that the perſons ſo ordained, be upon examination found ſufficient, ſuch a confirmation would not only be ſubmitted to, but alſo moſt thankfully received, for in ſo doing we ſhould ſtop the mouths of gain-ſayers, and yet give no occaſion to our friends to call into queſtion the validity of any Miniſterial Acts done by us all this while.

Nor would I in the leaſt diſlike it, if our Biſhops (ſuch of them as are holy, and may be ſuppoſed to have any intereſt and favour at the Throne of Grace) would when any are removed to a new charge, call their Presbyters, and pray for a bleſſing upon the endeavours of perſons ſo removed, yea, and lay hands on them. I am much miſtaken, or elſe ſuch a practiſe may be warranted from Acts 13.2, 3. As they miniſtred and faſted, the Holy Ghoſt ſaid, ſeparate now unto me Barnabas and Saul, for the work p. 5whereunto I have called them; and when they had faſted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they ſent them away. You need not tell me that Chryſoſtome, and ſome other Commentators of good eſteem, do underſtand this place of Ordination to an Eccleſiaſtical Office, I know they do; but yet ſeeing Paul was an Apoſtle before this time, ſeeing he expreſly affirmeth, Gal. 1.1. that he was an Apoſtle not of men, neither of man, but by Jeſus Chriſt; ſeeing alſo 'tis not ſaid, ſeparate unto me for the office, but for the work (foreign) whereunto I have called: I judge it moſt probable, that the foreign that is there ſpoken of, was not Ordinativa, but Optativa. Of this judgement is the learned Samuel Mareſius, in his Examen of ſome of the queſtions determined by our judicious Prideaux, p. 32. So was Mr. Richard Vines in his excellent Sermon before the Parliament, upon the day of humiliation for the growth of Errors, Hereſies, &c. p. 16. where you may find him alſo quoting Spalato, lib. 2. de Rep. Eccl. cap. 2. parag. 12.

But this I ſay, that he who hath once been ordained to the office and order of a Presbyter, and knows himſelf ſo to be, ought not by a ſecond Ordination to be ſet apart to the ſame office.

This I prove to you 1. from the (ſo called) Canons of the Apoſtles, Can. 67. Si quis Epiſcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus ſecundam 1ab aliquo Ordinationem ſuſceperit, deponitor tam ipſe, quam qui ipſum ordinavit.

About the Authority and Antiquity of theſe Canons I will not contend with you, Dr. H.H. in his Reply to Dr. Owen, p. 10. acknowledgeth. that they were not written by the Apoſtles, nor by Clemens at the appointment of the Apoſtles, p. 12. and that his meaning in calling the ſecond Canon genuine, was only to intimate, that it was not one of thoſe 35 later Canons that were eſteemed by learned men Novitii and Adulterate. The truth is, the opinion and eſteem of the Latin and Greek Church hath been very differing and contrary, concerning theſe Canons: 'Tis certain, that the Synod aſſembled in Trullo, Can. 2. ſpeaks honourably of all the eighty five Canons, for theſe are the words they uſe, foreign. John Damaſcen fears not to reckon them among, and equal them with the divinely …nſpired books of the New Teſtament; De fid. Orth. lib. 4. c. 18. p. 6But a Synod at Rome, about the year 494. decrees, that theſe Canons, as well the firſt fifty, as the other thirty five, are all ſpurious, and to be reckoned among thoſe writings quae ab Haereticis ſive Schiſmaticis conſcripta vel praedicata ſunt, quae que nullatenus recipit Catholica & Apoſtolica Romana Eccleſia. Nor doth it ſignifie much, that Dionyſius Exignus, who lived not long after that Roman Synod owneth fifty of thoſe Apoſtolical Canons, for he was, as Mr. D' ailee hath noted, p. 439. Homo ortu, ac natu, cultu que ac eruditione exterus; and therefore was willing to ſet off thoſe Canons the beſt he could to the Romaniſts; yet ſeeing all theſe Canons are of ſome conſiderable Antiquity, I thought it not amiſs to quote one of them, and let the Argument drawn thence fare as it will.

2I argue ſecondly from the practiſe of our Engliſh Church, If any one had received Ordination from the Papiſts, though ſuch an Ordination be very corrupt, very ſuperſtitious, yet becauſe it was judged valid, the party who had received it, was on his Converſion looked upon as a Miniſter, and admitted to exerciſe all offices miniſterial, without any new Ordination. In like manner, if any one in the Marian Perſecution was ordained beyond the Seas, I find not that it was required of him, that he ſhould be again ordained according to the form and mode uſed in the Engliſh Churches.

I could name you hundreds that were acknowledged as Miniſters, and ſuffered quietly to enjoy Eccleſiaſtical Benefices, and to perform all ſacerdotal offices, meerly on the ſcore of their Ordination by Presbyters beyond the Seas, or in Scotland: But leſt I ſhould be tedious, I ſhall only mind you of one example related in the Hiſtory of Scotland, penned by A. Biſhop Spotſwood, When ſome were to be ordained Biſhops for Scotland at Londonhouſe, Anno Dom. 1609. a queſtion was moved by Lancelot Andrews, Biſhop of Ely, touching the Conſecration of the Scottiſh Biſhops, who, as he ſaid, muſt firſt be ordained Presbyters, as having received no Ordination from a Biſhop; the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, that thereof there was no neceſſity, ſeeing where Biſhops could not be had, the Ordination given by Presbyters muſt be esteemed lawful. This applauded to by the other Biſhops, Ely acquieſced, and at the day, and in the place appointed, the three Scottiſh Biſhops were Conſecrated.

p. 7In which ſtory I deſire you to take notice, that the ground of Biſhop Andrews queſtion, whether they were not to be made Prieſts before they were conſecrated Biſhops, was his ſuppoſition, that having been ordained by meer Prieſts, they were not Prieſts: When it was once carried againſt him, that the Ordination by Prieſts was valid and lawful, he without ſcruple proceeded to the Conſecration of them, though never made Prieſts in the way that Prieſts are made in England.

I was alſo told, that in the late conference before his Majeſty, when it was moved, that they who had been ordained by Preſbyters, during the late diſtraction, might not be compelled to take any other Ordination: The Epiſcopal Divines refuſed to yield to that motion, and being preſſed with the judgement of Antiquity againſt Reordination; they anſwered, that in calling ſuch perſons to be ordained by a Biſhop, they did not call them to Reordination, but to Ordination, their former Ordination being not only irregular, and non-Canonical, but alſo null: And had they not fled to this, they muſt of neceſſity have been brought to repeat the Ordinations, that during the diſtractions, were made by Biſhops, they being not done without manifold irregularities, as to time or place, or ſome other ſuch circumſtances.

I prove thirdly, that he who is ordained with a valid ordination, 3ought not to be again reordained, becauſe by ſubmitting to ſuch reordination, he doth take an Ordinance of God in vain: You are not of the number of thoſe who deny Ordination to be an Ordinance of God, if you be, I muſt turn you over to D.Seaman, M. Lyford, the London Miniſters, who have largely diſcuſſed that queſtion, and irrefragably proved, that Ordination is ſo neceſſary, that no man can ordinarily, without breach of Gods Law; enter the Miniſtry without it: You will rather ſay, that by being reordained, a man doth not contract the guilt of taking an Ordinance of God in vain; but if that be your anſwer, I thus aſſault you, To take an Ordinance of God either for no end, or for no ſuch end as God hath appointed it unto, is to take an Ordinance of God in vain; but to be reordained after preceding valid Ordination, is to take an Ordinance of God either to no end, or to no ſuch end as he hath appointed it unto. Ergo. If either Propoſition need confirmation, it is the minor; but of the truth of that you will not long p. 8doubt, if you will but a little conſider what the end of Ordination is, and that cannot better be gathered, then from the definitions that are uſually given of Ordination, they are to this purpoſe, Ordination is an act, whereby in the Name of Chriſt, meet perſons are ſeparate and ſet apart to the work and office of the Miniſtry. Now I ask when you were ordained, were you thus ſeparate and ſet apart or not? If you were not, then you were not ordained; if you were, what uſe ſerves your reordination unto? Perhaps you'l ſay, by that means you ſhall procure inſtitution from the Biſhops, and be the more acceptable to the people: But I pray you, where do you find any (I will not ſay precept, but) allowance of God, to take Ordination to ſatisfie the humour of unreaſonable men? what example in Antiquity to incourage you to ſuch a compliance? Friend, think on't impartially, was the foreign the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, conveyed to you by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery? if it was not, you have much to anſwer, for taking upon you to command the people to recieve you as one of Chriſts Embaſſadors, they might have told you, that they were as much Embaſſadors as your ſelf; if it was, do you think it would be any thing leſs then ludere ſacris, to ſubmit to another examination, and to have the Biſhop and his Chaplains pray, that you may now receive that gift?

I will conclude this firſt head of my diſcourſe, when I have firſt minded you, that it is not long ſince, through the iniquity of the times, ſome Epiſcopally ordained, were conſtrained to have their reſidence either in the Gallican or Belgick Churches, where there is no Ordination but by Presbyters, would theſe Divines have been content to be reordained after the mode of thoſe Churches, before they had been permitted to receive the double honour due to them as Miniſters? if they would not, (as I preſume they would not) why do they require that from others, which they would not have been content others ſhould have required of them?

If you ſhould plead on their behalf, that their Ordination was valid, ſo is not Ordination by Presbyters; that I ſhall prove to be falſe and Popiſh by and by.

If ſecondly you ſhould alledge, that our Prelatiſts would not require reordination from Divines ordained beyond the Seas, becauſe they were not in a capacity to receive Ordination from a p. 9Biſhop, but ſo were we that lived in England; and therefore deſerve to be looked upon and dealt with as Laicks, till we have repented of our Schiſme and Hereſie, and that there's no better way to manifeſt our repentance, then by humbling our ſelves, and receiving orders from them.

Unto this allegation I have two things to ſay: 1. Suppoſing, (but not granting) that it was Schiſme for our young Divines to take Orders from Presbyters, when as with ſome little coſt and trouble they might have received them from ſome Biſhop. I ſay, that mens being Schiſmaticks, doth not invalidate or make null either the Orders which they give or receive, nor hath the Church of God ever been wont to puniſh Schiſme, by compelling the Schiſmatick to receive new Orders: For this, you may pleaſe to read Gisber. Voetius Deſper. cauſa Papat. lib. 2. ſec. 2. cap. 13, 14. Nay, nor do our Epiſcoparians call ſuch as were ordained by Epiſcopal hands to reordination, though ſundry of them have fallen off from their Government, and joyned in with Presbyterians, which yet they muſt have done, if Schiſme do evacuate and annihilate their Orders; if by being ordained by Presbyters, we fell into Schiſme, repentance, and the bloud of Chriſt muſt take off the guilt of that ſin, not reordination, and paying fees to the Biſhop, or his Officers.

But ſecondly, I am ſtill ſo blind, as not to ſee, that it was any Schiſme to be ordained by Presbyters, for all Schiſme is ſin, and all ſin is a tranſgreſſion of ſome good and righteous Law; but there was no tranſgreſſion of any good righteous Law, in receiving orders from Presbyters, for if ſo, then either of a divine or humane Law; not of a divine, for there is not a Law of God requiring us not to be ordained by any but a Biſhop; not of humane Law: For

1. I cannot find any Law of the Nation enacting, that all Ordinations ſhall be made by a Biſhop, and his Presbyters, and no otherwayes.

2. If there had been any ſuch Law, it might be queſtioned, whether it could oblige the conſcience in ſuch times of confuſion as we were fallen into.

3. If a man had been ordained by a Biſhop in thoſe daies, he could not have got any Ordination every way argeeable to the Laws of the Land: Our Biſhops tell us, that the Canons of 1603. are Law, if they be ſo, they themſelves, during the late diſtractions, did tranſgreſs them with a witneſs: What if I p. 10ſhould further add, that ſeeing our Biſhops had clogged Ordination with Subſcription to things unneceſſary, diſputable, to our apprehenſion ſinful, they are the Schiſmaticks who enjoyn ſuch Subſcriptions, not we who refuſe them.

Several weighty Arguments to prove this, might be tranſcribed out of Mr. Hales his Tract of Schiſme, a Diſcourſe ſo ſolid, and yet become ſo ſcarce, that if in ſtead of being re-ordained your ſelf, you would get that reprinted, it would much oblige me.

But it is time to come to the Second Part of my Task; which is to ſhew, That Ordination by Presbyters is valid: which I ſhall endeavour by theſe following Arguments:

1. If Presbyters and Biſhops be not different in Order, then Ordination by Presbyters is valid: But Presbyters and Biſhops are not different in Order, Ergo.

The Conſequence of the Major is founded on that Maxim, ſo frequently uſed by the moſt Reverend Uſher, Ordinis eſt conferre Ordines; Propoſition ſo evident, that it is acknowledged even by Dr. H. Ferne, one of the greateſt upholders of the lately declining Epiſcopacy, in his Compendious Diſcourſe, Page 115, 116, 117, &c.

The Minor, That Presbyters and Biſhops are of the ſame, and not a different Order, ſhall be proved by as good Authority and Teſtimony, as is produced, or can be expected in a Controverſie of this Nature, viz. It ſhall be ſhewed, that this was the general Sentiment.

1. Of our Proteſtant Divines, whether Engliſh or Tranſmarine.

2. Of very Learned, Famous Papiſts.

3. Of Ancient Fathers living before ſome of the Controverſies depending betwixt the Papal and Reformed Churches were in being.

In writing of the Judgment of ſuch Divines as are commonly called Reformed and Proteſtant, I might be large: Indeed I ſcarce know one againſt me. The Late Archbiſhop of Canterbury, when he was to anſwer for his Degree, did give this for one of his Queſtions, An Epiſcopatus ſit Ordo diſtinctus? Affir. But he was ſufficiently checked for that Heterodoxy, by Dr. Holland, the Regius Profeſſor, as you may find in Mr. Prynnes Hiſtory of him. If you ſhould be ſo curious, as to ask whence Mr. Prynne had that Relation? I can tell you, he had it from Dr. Prideaux, who was preſent at the Diſputation. I can further aſſure you, p. 11that the Doctor of the Chair was ſo moved, that he told his Wife when he came home, that he had a Papiſt that day to anſwer under him in the Schooles. Setting him aſide, and ſome violent Followers of his, Proteſtants generally hold, that a Presbyter and a Biſhop do differ, Gradu, not Ordine: I'le not trouble you with Quotations from the Tranſmarine Divines, leſt you ſhould ſay they did foreign. Nor yet will I tranſcribe any thing from Dr. Field or Dr. Whitaker, or Dr. Rainolds, becauſe 'tis yielded, that theſe, and ſeveral others held Epiſcopacy to be only ſome ſuperiour Degree and Eminence. Mr. Francis Maſon renowned for his Defenſio Miniſterii Anglicani, hath in a ſet Diſcourſe maintained, that Epiſcopacy and Presbytery are not diſtinct Orders, and that therefore the Ordinations of the Churches beyond the Seas are good and valid.

Go we to the Times of King Edward the Sixth, in which, he Foundations of our Reformation were firſt laid. You may gather from Mr. John Fox, Vol. 2. Pag. 658. Edit. London 1631. That that young Joſiah, by the Authority of his own Regal Lawes, appointed certain of the moſt Grave and beſt Learned Biſhops, and other of his Realm, to aſſemble together at his Caſtle of Windſor, there to argue and entreat, &c. Much I have longed to meet with an Author, from whom I might learn what was done at that Meeting; but could not hear of any one hat had met with any thing that might give me or others ſatisfaction, till of late caſting mine eye curſorily upon a Piece Publiſhed by Mr. Edward Stilling fleet, a very Judicious and Peaceable Divine, I underſtood, that by ſome ſingular Providence, there came to his hands an Authentick M.S. of the Proceedings here. From that, we are aſſured, that T. C. A. of C. afterwards Martyr, gave it in as his Judgment, That Biſhops and Prieſts were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Chriſts Religion. And from the ſame M.S. it further appears, That the Biſhop of Aſaph, Therleby, Redman, Cox, all employed in that Convention, were of the ſame Opinion, that at firſt Biſhops and Presbyters were the ſame; Redman and Cox expreſſely citing with approbation the Judgment of Jerome. Of the ſame Judgment undoubtedly were the Compoſers of that Tract, called the Inſtitution of a Chriſtian man, as may be ſeen in what they delivered about the (then ſo called) Sacrament of Orders. In a word, our Martyrs did p. 12ſo generally opine, that Epiſcopacy was no ſuperiour Order to Presbytery, that Dr. Heylin. in his Hiſtoria quinquarticular is, Part 2. p. 17. doth on purpoſe caution us that we ſhould not attribute too much to them, or meaſure the Doctrine of our Church by them, leſt we ſhould be forced to allow the parity or Identity rather of Biſhops and Prieſts, becauſe John Lambert (he might have named many others) did ſo conceive. In the Primitive Church, ſaith he, there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Biſhops and Deacons, that is to ſay, Miniſters, as witneſſeth, beſide Scripture, St. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epiſtles of St. Paul: Whereas thoſe whom we now call Prieſts, were all one and no other but Biſhops, and the Biſhops no other but Prieſts, men ancient both in age and Learning, ſo near as could be choſen; nor were they inſtituted and choſen as they be now a dayes, the Biſhop and his Officer, only oppoſing them, whether they can construe a Collect: But they were choſen alſo with the conſent of the people amongſt whom they were to have their Living, as ſheweth St. Cyprian: But alack for pity ſuch Elections are baniſhed, and new Faſhions brought in. By which, ſaith the Doctor, Truly (if it may ſerve for a Rule) our Biſhops muſt be reduced to the Rank of Prieſts: But falſely doth he add, that then the right of Preſentation muſt be put into the hands of the people, to the deſtruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom.

If I would produce all the Teſtimonies of the Learned among the Papiſts, my Papers would ſwell to too great a Bulk. D. Forbes the Scotchman, who hath deſerved well of the Hierarchy, doth amply prove, that it was the general Opinion of the Schoolmen, that Epiſcopacy and Presbytery are the ſame Order: See his Irenicum, Lib. 2. Cap. 11. P. 154, 155, 156, 157, 158. You may alſo have recourſe to Mr. Maſon in the before commended Treatiſe concerning Ordination beyond the Seas by Presbyters. This alſo did ſo much ſtick with Biſhop Hall, that he would not maintain Epiſcopacy to be a ſuperiour Order, though he were by Archbiſhop Laud much preſſed ſo to do. See the Letters that paſſed betwixt theſe two Prelates, recorded by Mr. Prynne in Canterburies Doom.

Would you have me go higher yet to the Fathers, that deſerve more reverence then theſe Popiſh Schoolmen.

I might bring you Michael Medina, a Pontifician Writer, p. 13acknowledging that Chryſoſtome, Jerome, Ambroſe, were of the ſame mind with Aerius: See him, Lib. 1. De Sacrorum Hominum Origine & Continentia, Cap. 5. But becauſe he is ſo ſeverely chaſtiſed by Bellarmine for this conceſſion, c. 15. De Clericis: I deſire you to conſider ſeriouſly, and impartially to ponder what is by Presbyterians produced out of theſe Authors themſelves.

Ambroſe his words are theſe; Poſt Epiſcopum Diaconatus Ordinationem ſubjicit: Quare? Niſi quia Epiſcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio eſt. Uter que enim Sacerdos eſt. Sed Epiſcopus primus eſt, ut omnis Epiſcopus Presbyter ſit, non tamen omnis Presbyter, Epiſcopus. Hic enim Epiſcopus eſt qui inter Presbyteros primus eſt. But theſe Commentaries, 'twill be ſaid, though bearing the name of Amb. are not his. To avoyd trouble and Diſpute about a Controverſie, which is not much ad rei ſummam; I grant the Commentaries are not the Commentaries of Ambroſe: but then they are the Commentaries of one Hilary, as ancient as Ambroſe, a Deacon of the Church of Rome. For it is obſerved by D. Blondel, that under that name Aug. quotes ſome words ſtill extant in thoſe Commentaries; and Auguſtine had a very reverend eſteem of this Author. Though, if I miſtake not, B. Hall in one of his replies to Smectymnuus, ſpeaks of him very ſlightly and contempt…bly.

Chryſoſtome in a Piece of his, never that I find, excepted againſt as ſpurious, his Homilies on 1 Tim. foreign. Ther's not, ſaith this Holy Father, much difference betwixt Presbyters and Biſhops: What think you? Did he mean they were of different Orders? He would then have ſaid, they differ as much as may be, as much as Presbyters and Deacons do.

The Collection of Queſtions on the Old and New Teſtament was very anciently aſcribed to St. Auguſtine, 'tis not now by Learned men thought to be his; but the Author, whoever he was, had Antiquity and Learning enough to ſet him above Contempt. Theſe are ſome of his words, Quid eſt Epiſcopus, niſiprimus Presbyter, hoc eſt, ſummus Sacerdos? Now I pray you, do not theſe words plainly imply, that a Biſhop is but of the ſame Order with a Presbyter? Suppoſe you ſhould meet with theſe words in any ancient Author, Quid eſt Praeſidens, niſi primus Socius? Would you not quickly thence infer, that that Author p. 14judged the Preſident to be of no higher an Order then that of a Fellow?

If this make you not of Michael Medina's Opinion, I then turn you over to Sixtus Senenſis Bibl. Sanctae, Lib. 6. Annot. 324.

Only you muſt give me leave to reply before I leave this Argument to two Objections, which would not be ſo great, had they not been uſed by ſo great Schollars.

Obj. 1 'Tis ſaid that Aerius is by Epiphanius reckoned among Hereticks, for aſſerting the Parity of Biſhops and Presbyters.

Anſw. It muſt be acknowledged that Aerius is by Epipha. on that account among others, branded for an Heretick, Hereſie 75. with whom alſo jumps St. Auguſt. de Haereſ. c 53. But,

1. Ther's no mention of any Aerian Hereſie either in Theodoret, or Socrates, or Sozomen, no not yet in the Hiſtory of Eustathius, Biſhop where Aerius was Presbyter.

2. 'Tis acknowledged by moſt Proteſtants, that ſome things charged upon Aerius as Heretical, are not truly ſuch. And if Epiphanius miſcalled ſome of his other Opinions, ſo might he this alſo about Church-Governours.

3. This Opinion of Aerius about Biſhops and Presbyters, was not condemned, nor ſo much as heard in any Council; and therefore ſome have judged that Epiphanius, though otherwiſe a good man, yet being hot and cholerick, and incenſed againſt Aerius, might condemn him out of private hatred.

4. If Aerius was, as he is repreſented, turbulent, and factious and cauſeleſſely ſeparated from thoſe Churches in which there was a Biſhop; I will eaſily grant, that he might juſtly be reputed an Here…ick in that large ſenſe in which the word foreign, is taken by Epiphanius and ſome other ancient Writers; for it is evident enough, that with them ſomtimes it denotes only a ſchiſmatick.

I muſt not conceal it from you, that Dr. Jer. Taylor hath made ſome reply to all or moſt of theſe Anſ. in his Epiſcopacy Aſſerted. Which Reply I am obliged to take notice of, leſt I ſhould ſeem to wave any thing that is brought againſt us. Thus therefore he, pag. 330. A Diſſent from a publick or a received Opinion, was never called Hereſie, unleſs the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine: For the Fathers many of them did ſo; as St. Auſtin, p. 15from the Millenary Opinion; yet none did ever reckon them in the Catalogues of Hereticks; but ſuch things did only ſet them down there, which were either directly oppoſite to Catholick Faith, though in minoribus articulis, or to a holy Life.

This is rather peremptory than ſatisfactory, If the Reverend Doctor had ſaid, that nothing ought to be called Hereſie, unleſs the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine, I might have let his Affirmation paſs without a cenſure. But to ſay, that never any thing ſet a man in the Catalogues of Hereticks made by Epiphanius, Auguſt. Philaſtrius, but what was either directly oppoſite to Catholick Belief, or to a holy life, is ſuch a —as hath ſcarce dropped from the Pen of a Learned man. What thinks he of the Quartodecimani? Was their Opinion contrary to a holy Life, or to the Catholick Belief? I trow not. Yet are they liſted among Hereticks. Philaſtrius alſo reckoneth thoſe in the number of Hereticks, who thought, that the breath of life was the rational Soul, and not the Grace of the holy Spirit: but I do not imagine, that the Doctor can think that this Opinion was either contrary to the publick Faith of the Church, or to holy Life. Let him proceed. p. 331. It is true that Epiphanius, and St. Auſtin reckon his denying Prayer for the dead, to be one of his own Opinions, and heretical; but I cannot help it if they did, let him and they agree it, they are able to anſwer for themſelves, but yet they accuſed him alſo of Arianiſm, and ſhall we therefore ſay that Arianiſm was no Hereſie, becauſe the Fathers called him Heretick in one particular upon a wrong Principle? We may as well ſay this, as deny the other.

Why then may not we alſo ſay, if Epiphan. and Austin condemned his aſſerting the parity of Miniſters for hereſie, we cannot help it; let Aerius and they agree it, &c. This is our Argument, they miſcall one of his Opinions, therefore it may be, they did miſcall the other. If they juſtly accuſed him of Arianiſm, (which whether they did or no, I find Learned men to doubt) then indeed he was an Heretick; but it will not thence follow, that whatever elſe he held was Hereſie. He hath not yet done; for ibid. He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his Hereſie was ridiculous, and a ſcorn to all wiſe men, as Epiphanius obſerves, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any conſiderable party. This is but juſt affirmed; and therefore it will be ſufficient Confutation to deny it. He that reads Hierom and p. 16Ambroſe, will not think the Opinion ridiculous, or a ſcorn to all ſober men. I ſhall follow him no further: for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople, is a huge Impertinence. Let it be Schiſme and Hereſie (which with the Fathers aſſembled in that Synod ſeem to be all one) to divide from Canonical Biſhops (ſuch are not they who are neither choſen by the Clergy, nor by the People) and to ſet up Conventicles contrary to theirs: How will it hence follow, that it is Hereſie to hold that Presbytery and Epiſcopacy are the ſame Order? To as little purpoſe, or leſſe, is what follows out of the Council of Paris. And concerning the Acephali, p. 332, 333. The Acephali were ſo called, ſaith Iſidore, becauſe the Head, Chief, and Firſt of them, could not be found. That ſeems to be a miſtake, for Severus was the Head of them. Let us therefore betake our ſelves to Niſephorus, (an Author certainly not very Reverend) to ſee whether he can give us any better Information about them. He tells, lib. 18. c. 45. That theſe Acephali were a madder ſort of Eutychians, who maintained, there was but one nature in Chriſt: Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind; but it may be ther's ſomthing in the Name that will touch them, and all that follow Hierom. Acephali ſaith Nicephorus, dicti ſunt, quod ſub Epiſcopis non fuerint: Proinde Epiſcopis & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, ne que Baptiſmus, juxta ſolennem & receptum Eccleſiae morem apud eos adminiſtratus, ne que oblatio, aut res aliqua divinafacta, Miniſteriumve eccleſiasticum, ſicuti mos eſt, celebratum eſt. They would it ſeems, have no Black-Coats, as the late Phraſe was. What is this to them, who would have Biſhops willingly enough, only deny that they are of a diſtinct ſuperiour Order to Presbyters?

Object. 2 The Second Objection is made from our Engliſh Church, which ſeems to make Epiſcopacy and Presbytery different in Order: For in the Preface of the Book Entituled, The Form and Manner of Conſecrating Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons: It is ſaid expreſſely, That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures, and ancient Authors, that from the Apoſtles time, there have been theſe Orders of Miniſters in Chriſt's Church, Biſhops, Prieſts, Deacons. It follows not long after, And therefore to the intent theſe Orders ſhould be continued, and reverently uſed and eſteemed in the Church of England, it is requiſite that no man (not p. 17being at this preſent, Biſhop, Prieſt or Deacon) ſhall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following: In the body of the Book it ſelf, we find a Prayer in theſe words following; Almighty God, Giver of all good things, who haſt appointed divers Orders of Miniſters in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy Servant, now called to the Work and Miniſtry of a Biſhop, &c.

Anſw. This Objection ſeems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin, ſo very ſtrong, that he hath urged it in two ſeveral Treatiſes, the one called Reſpondet Petrus, p. 98, 99. The other called Certamen Epistolare. the particular Page I do not now remember: But,

1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion, it is ſo far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures, that there were from the Apoſtles times theſe Orders of Miniſters in the Church, Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons, that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove, that from no Teſtimony of Scripture it can be proved, that there were in the Apoſtles time any Prieſts or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken. He thinks that in the Apoſtolical Writings, foreign doth conſtantly ſignifie a Biſhop, and that all the Churches, of which any mention is made in Scripture, were gouerned only by Biſhops and Deacons.

2. The Doctor might have remembred what he preſſed againſt Mr. Hickman, That Apices Juris nihilponunt; then would he not ſo confidently have urged paſſages in the Preface.

3. At leaſt he might have done well to conſider, that his ſo much magnified Objection is a ſtale one, and hath received its Anſwer from Mr. Maſon, in the before-commended Treatiſe. It moſt unhappily falls out, that I have not the Book at hand; but if my Memory fail me not, more then ordinarily it doth, the Author of the Neceſſity of Reformation, gives you his full ſenſe, if not his very words. That Book when it ſpeaks of the making of Biſhops, calls that a Conſecration, not an Ordination, as it doth when it ſpeaks of making Deacons and Presbyters; calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons; the other, the Form of Ordering Prieſts: But when it speaks of the other, it changeth this word Ordering, and calls it the Form of Conſecrating an Archbiſhop or Biſhop; which ſhews plainly, that the Book of Ordination never means p. 18to make Biſhops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor, but in a diſtinct Order of Chriſt and his Apoſtles Inſtitution, ſuperiour to a Presbyter. Indeed the Preface doth not ſay, theſe three Orders, but only theſe Orders of Miniſters, and in the Prayer, it is not ſaid, that the Biſhop is called to the Order, but to the Work and Miniſtry of a Biſhop.

I had thought, here to have concluded my firſt Argument: But there is one Medium ſeems to me ſo conſiderable, to prove that a Presbyter is of the ſame Order with a Biſhop, that I cannot omit it. You know, that it was required that a Biſhop ſhould be Ordained by three Biſhops at leaſt: Yet Anaſtaſius in the Life of Pope Pelagius, tells us, that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Biſhops and one Presbyter, who is by him called Andreas Oſtienſis. Doth it not hence manifeſtly appear, that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the ſame Order with a Biſhop, and impowered in caſe of neceſſity, to confer the very degree of Epiſcopacy? At this Example, the Learned Author of Epiſcopacy aſſerted, is very angry, and tels us, p. 166. That, Pelagius his taking in the Priest, was but to cheat the Canon, & cozen himſelf into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination. Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three Biſhops, and better, becauſe, ſo they were Biſhops, the firſt Canon of the Apoſtles approves the Ordination, if done by two. But this is too ſlight a way of anſwering Antiquity. We muſt not till we ſee better reaſon, think that Pelagius and the two Biſhops were ſo unworthy, as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon, or ſo wicked, as to make uſe of an hand, that being impoſed, ſignified no more then would the Impoſition of a Lay hand. Nor do I think, that in thoſe dayes it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Biſhop or no: For the Council of Nice requires three at leaſt, and the conſent of thoſe that are abſent ſignified by their Letter. And Pope Damaſus in his fifth Epiſtle to the Biſhop of Numidia, and other Orthodox Biſhops, hath theſe words; quod Epiſcopi non ſint, qui minus quam atribus Ordinati ſunt, ordinati Epiſcopis, omnibus patet, quoniam ut bene noſtis. prohibitum a ſacris eſt partribus, ut qui ab u…o vel a duobus ſunt ordinati Epiſcopis, nominentur Epiſcopi. Si nomen non habent qualiter Officium habebunt. And in the 16 Canon of the African. Council, at which were preſent no fewer then 217 Biſhops, it p. 19was decreed in haec verba; forma antiqua ſervabitur, ut non minus quam tres ſufficiant, qui fuerint a Metropolitano directi, ad Epiſcopum Ordinandum: And this uſage they ſeem to have borrowed from the Synagogue, for it was a fundamental Conſtitution among the Jews, that Ordination of Presbyters, by laying on of hands, muſt be by three at leaſt, as may be ſeen, Miſna & Gem. tit. Sanhe. cap. 1. By the way, I deſire you to take notice, how our Epiſcopal Brethren deal with us in this controverſie; they call upon us to ſhew them an example of a Presbyter laying hands on a Biſhop; this caſe could not happen, but in the defect and abſence of Biſhops, for modeſty will not permit a Presbyter to lay on hands, Biſhops ſufficient to do the work being preſent, and ſuch defects of Biſhops could be but very rare; but once we find there chanced to be ſuch a defect, and then a Church of no mean denomination thought a Presbyter ſufficient to do what a Biſhop was to do: Now when we bring this example, they rail againſt it, and ſay, that it was done only in the want of a Biſhop, and it had better have been left undone.

My ſecond argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, I'le put into this form; Either Ordination by Preſbyters is valid, or elſe ſomething eſſential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters: But nothing eſſential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters; ergo, &c.

The major is evident, grounded on this plain Propoſition, that it is only ſome eſſential defect that can make a thing invalid or null; he that wants either body or ſoul, is no true man, he that hath them, is truly a man, though he want many of the integral parts which concur to the integrity and perfection of a man.

The minor I thus prove, if any thing eſſential to Ordination be wanting in Ordination by Presbyters, it is either material, formal, final, or efficient cauſe; but neither of theſe is wanting, ergo, nothing eſſential is wanting.

Let the material, formal, final cauſes be what they will, doubtleſs they may be found in Ordinations by Presbyters, as well as in Ordinations by a Biſhop, only we are told there is not a due efficient cauſe, for God hath appropriated Ordination to a Biſhop, and it cannot have its effect, if performed by any other then him that hath attained Epiſcopal Dignity.

This being that foundation, upon which the confidence of p. 20thoſe who nullifie all Ordinations by Presbyters, whether at home or abroad, is built, I ſhall take liberty to enquire,

1. Whether if there were a Law of God appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Biſhop, it would follow, that all Ordinations without a Biſhop are null?

2. Whether there be any ſuch Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Biſhop?

As to the firſt, I humbly conceive, that if a Law could be produced, appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Biſhop, it would not follow, that Ordination without a Biſhop were alway invalid and null, my reaſons are;

1. Becauſe 'tis generally agreed, that Jus Divinum rituale cedit morali, & neceſſitas quod cogit defendit.

2. I find, that whereas by the Law the Prieſts were to kill the ſacrifices, yet at ſuch a time, when the Prieſts were too few, the Levites did help them, 2 Chron. 29.34. and neither God, nor the King, nor the people, offended at their ſo doing.

3. Baptiſme is appropriated to the Miniſters of the Goſpel, yet if at any time it were adminiſtred by a Midwife, who neither was a Miniſter, nor was capable of being made ſuch, ſuch baptiſme was not by us here in England judged a nullity; yea, 'tis affirmed by ſundry Schoolmen, that if baptiſme were adminiſtred by one Excommunicate, it were valid, and not to be repeated; and either my notes do fail me, or elſe this was the judgement of St. Auguſtine, for Melancthon out of Auſtin, ad Fortunatum, tells us this ſtory, That two men were in a ſhip which was like to periſh in a storm at Sea, the one very godly, but yet not baptized, the other baptized, but excommunicated; there being no other Christian in the ſhip with them, and they fearing they ſhould be both caſt away, knew not what to do in that condition; he that was not baptized, deſired baptiſme by the hands of him that was excommunicate, and he that was excommunicate, deſired abſolution from the other, whereupon the queſtion was moved, whether theſe acts were valid and good; Auſtin anſwers they were, and commends the actious.

I come now to enquire, Whether there be any Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Biſhop; I ſay, there is not; if any ſay there is, illi incumbit probatio, he muſt proferre tabulas, produce the place where ſuch a Law is recorded: For my part, having read the Scriptures with my beſt eyes, I could never find any ſuch place, nor could I ever meet with that Epiſcopal Divine p. 21who could direct me to ſuch a place; ſome have ſent me to Tit. 1.5 foreign; and of late one hath ventured to tell us in print,Mr. Sandcrof Ordination Sermon. that this Text is as it were a kind of Magical glaſs, in which an eye, not blind with ignorance, nor bleered with paſſion, may ſee diſtinctly the face of the Primitive Church in that golden Age of the Apoſtles, the platform of her Government, the beautiful order of her Hierarchy, the original and derivation of her chief Officers, and their ſubordination both to one another, and to Chriſt the great Biſhop of our Souls in the laſt reſort; together with the manage, and direction of the moſt important acts of Government, both in point of Ordination and Juriſdiction too. This learned mans phraſifying thus concerning his Text, puts me in mind of that Impoſtor mentioned by Scultetus in his Annals, who perſwaded certain Noble men, that he had adorned their Temple with very exquiſite pictures, but ſuch as could be ſeen only by thoſe who were begotten in lawful wedlock; the Noble men, leſt they ſhould be thought not lawfully begotten, ſaid, that they very well ſaw that painting: So here we are told of great matters that may be ſeen in this Text, but only by thoſe whoſe eyes are not blinded with ignorance, nor bleered with paſſion; and ſo men will be ready to ſay, that they ſee theſe things, leſt their eyes ſhould be judged under theſe ſad diſtempers; but I (who have my conſcience to bear me witneſs, that I have often prayed for the eye-ſalve and Grace of the Spirit, that my underſtanding may neither be darkned with ignorance, nor bleered with paſſion) do ingenuouſly profeſs, that I am not able from this Scripture to collect, that the ſole power, either of Juriſdiction or Ordination, doth reſide in either Biſhop or Archbiſhop. For,

1. It's not improbable that Titus was left in Creet, and acted there, not as a fixed Biſhop, but as an extraordinary Officer, an Evangeliſt.

2. 'Tis here ſaid, that Titus was left to ordain Elders, but how? as Paul had appointed him: So that the queſtion ſtill emains, how Paul had appointed him to ordain, whether alone, or with his Sym-presbyters: Paul himſelf ordained not alone, for ought appears; for though he once ſpake of the gift that Timothy had received by the laying on of his hands, yet elſewhere p. 22'tis called, the gift received, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: If it ſhould be ſaid, that this Presbytery was a company of Biſhops, who in that firſt age of the Church, were called Presbyters, there needs no other anſwer, but that this is only ſaid, and not proved: If it ſhould be ſaid, that this Preſbytery did only act aſſociative, and not authoritative, which, if I miſtake not, is the deſtinction and foreign of the learned Biſhop Prideaux in his Faſciculus: I could eaſily reply, that the terms are not oppoſite, and that the gift and authority is plainly ſaid to come by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, as well as by the laying on of the hands of the Apoſtle; which anſwer will alſo ſerve to that evaſion which is excogitated concerning the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage; Presbyter cum ordinatur, Epiſcopo eum benedicente, manum ſuper caput ejus tenente, etiamomnes Presbyteri qui praeſentes ſunt, manus ſuas juxta manum Epiſcopi ſuper caput illius teneant; brought by Preſbyterians to prove, that there is an intrinſecal power of Ordination in Presbyters, and that in the judgement of thoſe who made that Canon, the Biſhop alone ſhould not ordain. Doctor Downham, and another learned Doctor, (but lately dead) would bear us in hand, that this was only done for greater ſolemnity, not as if the Presbyters had any power to confer orders, but only to teſtifie their conſent. But can any one who is inquiſitive after truth be thus ſatisfied? Let any one inſtance be produced of any ones laying on of hands in Ordination, only to teſtifie their conſent: The people did in the firſt and pureſt Ages, teſtifie their conſent, as might be proved, by ſix hundred teſtimonies, yet were they never allowed to lay on hands in any Ordination of Presbyters, or Deacons.

3. I do much queſtion, whether if this example did every way fit and ſuit our Epiſcopal Ordinations, it were ſufficient to argue a Divine Right. I know no party, no intereſt, no perſwaſion of men, that count themſelves obliged to conform to all Apoſtolical examples.

Object. But Epiſcopacy is of Divine Right, and if ſo, what ſhould be proper and peculiar to it, if Ordination be not?

Anſw. In this objection you put me upon a new task, which yet I will not decline, and ſhall ſhew you: Firſt, that our Prelatical brethren have not been able to prove Epiſcopacy to be of p. 23Divine Right: Secondly, give you my reaſons why I conceive it is not of Divine Right.

1. I ſay, the Prelatiſts have not been able to prove its Divine Right; to evince this, I muſt examine the arguments brought by them.

Lately one preaching at St. Maries, Oxon, took an occaſion, where his Text offered him none, to aſſert the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy in his Sermon, he quoted a place out of the Old Teſtament, in which the 72 Interpreters have foreign: Now, quoth he, had there been but foreign, it had been foreign. And ſome ſay, that Elijah was Biſhop of Samaria, and we know that our Saviour was a Biſhop, and he made his Apoſtles Biſhops, and they made Timothy and Titus Biſhops; and therefore Epiſcopacy being founded on Old and New Teſtament, I cannot but think it is Jure Divino, for I cannot imagine, that it was a Ceremony to be aboliſhed at the coming of John Calvin: Are you able to ſtand before this mighty argument? doth not the reading of it cauſe a greater trepidation in you, then ever was in the eighth ſphere? Well, to cure you of your palpitation, I ſhall tell you, that the ſame Gentleman made Hernia to be a Feaver, and yet Phyſitians notwithſtanding are reſolved to think it is burſted bellineſs, and that Hercules brought the River Eridanus through the Augaean Stable; and yet the unhappy School-boyes will ſay, it was not the River Eridanus, but the River Alpheus; and therefore it is not impoſſible that the Gentleman might be out in his Divinity alſo, and that he was ſo, you will eaſily diſcern, ſo ſoon as your fear is a little over. I might put you upon too merry a pin, if I ſhould play upon all the weakneſſes of this Theologaſters argumentations, and therefore I ſhall let it paſs,

Take notice of thoſe arguments which are brought to prove the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, by men of better learning and judgement, having only premiſed this, that a thing can be of Divine Right but one of theſe two wayes, either by the Law of Nature, or by ſome poſitive Law of God; they that would go about to prove that either Prelacy or Presbytery, or any other particular form of Church Government, is determined by the Law of Nature, would quickly bewray their weakneſs, all the divine right that Hierarchy can pretend to, muſt be founded upon ſome poſitive Law of God, and muſt be either ſome Law under p. 24the Old Teſtament ſtill obliging, becauſe not repealed, or elſe ſome new Law made under the Goſpel. Our Prelatiſts love to have both theſe ſtrings to their bow: 1. They inſiſt much on the inequality that was in the Tribe of Levi under the Old Law, to prove, that there ſhould be ſtill an inequality among Church-Governours under the Goſpel, the ſtrength of which will ſoon be tryed, if we firſt enquire what inequality there was in the Tribe of Levi, it muſt be acknowledged, that there was no univerſal equality in that Tribe, the Prieſts doubtleſs were above the Levites, being imployed in a neerer attendance upon Gods ſervice: 'Tis alſo obvious, that among the Prieſts there was a ſuperiority, Eleazer is by God placed over the Prieſts; but then I judge (as do moſt skilled in Jewiſh Antiquity whom I have met with) that much, if not all of this inequality, which is ſo largely deſcribed, Numb. 3.4. did not belong to the Tribe of Levi, as it was a Tribe, conſiſting of perſons called out for the ſervice of God, but as it was a Tribe: Every one of the Tribes of the children of Iſrael had its chief father, as may be ſeen, Numb. 34. The ſeveral families of the Tribe of Levi had their ſeveral heads, and Eleazar was appointed to be the head of theſe heads; ſo that to prove any thing hence, we muſt firſt ſuppoſe the Judicial Law to be in force, which would gratifie the Anabaptiſts, and ſome other Fanaticks, more then we are aware of: I demand, would our brethren prove hence, that as there was ſuperiority and inferiority of offices under the Law, ſo there may be, or muſt be under the Goſpel; we'll not contend, for we can yield it to them, without any detriment to the cauſe of the Presbyterians, they have Presbyters and Deacons, and the office of a Presbyter is by all thought to be above the office of a Deacon; but I had thought they would from the Jewiſh pattern, have endeavoured to prove the Biſhops power of Juriſdiction and Ordination, whence they will fetch that I wot not, not, I hope, from the ſupereminent power of the High-Prieſt, the type of Chriſt, for then we ſhall bring in a Pope, not from the ſuperiority of the Prieſts over the Levites, for the Prieſts had no Juriſdiction over the Levites, they had the ſeveral heads of their families, under whoſe juriſdiction they were; as for any power of Ordination, it could have no place, the Levites coming to their honour without Ordination, by ſucceſſion; beſides, in a p. 25caſe of neceſſity, I proved before, that a Levite might do the work of a Prieſt: If our brethren will grant, that a Presbyter may, in ſuch a caſe, do the work of a Biſhop, we ſhall be neerer an agreement then as yet we are. Thus have we, without any great difficulty, rid our hands of the argument drawn from the Old Teſtament.

Come we to enquire, whether J. Ch. by any action of his, did inſtitute any ſuch Hierarchy as is contended for; that he did, is thus argued by a learned Doctor, Epiſco. Aſſer. p. 22, 23. This office of the ordinary Apoſtleſhip, or Epiſcopacy, derives its fountain from a rock, Chriſts own diſtinguiſhing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters; for when our bleſſed Saviour had gathered many Diſciples, who believed him at his firſt preaching, Vocavit Diſcipulos ſuos & elegit duodecem ex ipſis, quos & Apoſtolos nominavit, ſaith S. Luke; he called his Diſciples, Luke 10.Luke 10and out of them he choſe twelve, and called them Apoſtles, that was the firſt Election: Poſthaec autem deſignavit Dominus & alios ſeptuaginta duos, that was his ſecond Election; the firſt were called Apoſtles, the ſecond were not, and yet he ſent them two by two: We hear but of one Commiſſion granted them, which when they had performed, and returned joyful at their power over devils, we hear no more of them in the Goſpel, but that their names were written in heaven; we are likely therefore to hear of them after the paſſion, if they can but hold their own, and ſo we do, for after the paſſion, the Apoſtles gathered them together, and joyned them in Clerical Commiſſion, by virtue of Chriſts firſt Ordination of them, for a new Ordination we find none, before we find them doing Clerical Offices. Ananias, we read, baptizing of Saul, Philip the Evangeliſt, we find preaching in Samaria, and baptizing his Converts; others alſo we find, Presbyters at Jeruſalem, eſpecially at the firſt Council, for there was Judas ſirnamed Juſtus, and Silas, and S. Mark, and John (a Presbyter, not an Apoſtle, as Euſebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas, who tarried there till he was made Biſhop of Jeruſalem: Theſe, and divers others, are reckoned to be of the number of the 72, by Euſebius and Dorotheus. Here are plainly two Offices of Eccleſiaſtical Miniſters, Apoſtles, and Presbyters, ſo the Scripture calls them; theſe were diſtinct, and not temporary, but ſucceeded to, and if ſo, then here is clearly a divine inſtitution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them.

Anſw. This is a marvellous diſcourſe, the tendency whereof p. 26I underſtand not; I think that Chriſt did neither inſtitute Biſhops nor Presbyters, in this firſt or ſecond Miſſion.

Both theſe Miſſions ſeem only temporary, and the 70, after their return, remained in the nature of private Diſciples, till after the Reſurrection they received a new Commiſſion to preach and plant Churches; and the twelve, after this Miſſion, muſt needs be but a kind of Probationers, till Chriſt ſolemnly authorized them, and gave them that plenitude of power, which we find him not to do, till after his Reſurrection from the dead, Mat. 28.18. Joh. 20.21.

Of any power of juriſdiction or order that the twelve had over the ſeventy, by virtue of their Miſſion, there is not the leaſt vola or veſtigium in Scripture; the ſeventy had their power immediately from Chriſt, as had the twelve, and their Commiſſion was as full and large, as was the Commiſſion granted to the twelve, as will ſoon appear, by comparing Mat. 10. with Luke 10.

I obſerve indeed from John 4.2. that Chriſts Diſciples did baptize, but ſee no neceſſity of reſtraining that phraſe to the twelve, who were called his Diſciples; foreign. All the Writers of the harmony of the Goſpel do agree, that this baptizing was before any Goſpel Miniſtry was inſtituted, yea, before that Peter and Andrew, James and John, were called to be fiſhers of men; that baptiſme therefore might be adminiſtred by any of theſe that did uſually accompany the Meſſias, he appointing them ſo to do, and ſo being chief in the action, the learned Iſaac Cauſabons words are conſiderable, Etſi non Chriſtus ipſe, ſedejus Diſcipuli baptizabant; Chriſti tamen, non Diſcipulorum baptiſmus & creditus eſt, & vocatus: qua de re placet perelegantem Tertulliani locum proferre, ſic ille in libro de baptiſmo: Sed ecce, inquiunt, venit Dominus, & non tinxit. Legimus enim, & tamen is non tingebat, ſed Diſcipuli ejus; quaſi revera ipſum ſuis manibus tincturum Johannes praedicaſſet, non uti que ſic intelligendum eſt, ſed ſimpliciter dictum more communi, ſicut eſt verbi gratia, imperator propoſuit edictum, aut praefectus fuſtibus caecidit, nunquid ipſe proponit, aut nunquid ipſe caedit: ſemper is dicitur facere cui praeminiſtratur, ſimile eſt quod Juriſconſulti tradunt videri eum facere, qui per alium facit.

Beſides, Chriſt in his adminiſtrations did, though in ſome p. 27things forſake, yet in many, if not in moſt things, follow the Jewiſh mode, and Mr. Lightfoot in his harmony of the New Teſtament, page 18. tells us out of Maimony in Iſſure, that to the Jewiſh baptiſme, it did ſuffice, if there were but three, though private perſons preſent.

In a word, we do not find that Chriſt before his Reſurrection gave any order for the gathering of Goſpel Churches, and therefore gave not any power to his Apoſtles over them, or any Officers belonging to them; conſider we therefore what he did when he was riſen from the dead, we find him appearing betwixt his Reſurrection and Aſcenſion ſeven times, at the third time of his appearance, he ſaid to the Diſciples, John 20.21. As the Father ſent me, ſo ſend I you, and when he had ſaid this, he breathed on them, and ſaid, Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, whoſoever ſins ye remit, they are remitted to them, and whoſoever ſins ye retain, they are retained.

In theſe words, Totius familiae foreign aut principatus in ipſa clavium promiſſione ante promiſſus ſingulis concredebatur, ſaith the learned Doctor Hammond, Diſſer. 3. page 150. and preſently after, page 151. His duodecim in terris Chriſti vicariis ejus mandato aut diplomate munitis, eadem que ratione a Christo Miſſis, qua ille a patre mittebatur; adeo omnis in Eccleſia authorit as in ſolidum & in integrum commiſſa eſt, ut non ea cuivis mortalium (demptis pauculis, &c.) recte tribui poſſit, niſi quem Apostolorum aliquis in profectionibus aut Provinciis ipſorum aut immediate aut mediate in poteſtatis & authoritatis ſuae participationem aut ſucceſſionem admiſerit.

Let us therefore a little view that text in St. John 1. there are who ſay, that in thoſe words, no Apoſtolical power is given, but only promiſed, As the Father hath ſent me, even ſo ſend I you, i.e. ſaith Grotius, Brevi mittam praeſens pro futuro: In this Expoſition he is not ſingular, ſome antienter then himſelf, by many years, went that way before him; his, and their ground ſo to do, was the ſpeech of our Saviour, John 16.7. I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will ſend him unto you.

But I judge, with Tolet, that Chriſts very breathing on them, makes it highly probable, that he gave them preſent Commiſſion and Authority to that place, John 16.7. Cyril anſwers, that Chriſt did anticipate his promiſe, and that it was uſual with p. 28him to give before hand ſome ſpecimina of thoſe things which he promiſed to do after his return into heaven: Another obſerves, that Chriſt doth not ſay, if I depart, I will give him unto you, but if I depart, I will ſend him unto you; and that the ſpirit is not properly ſaid to be ſent, but when he appears in ſome viſible ſhape, which he did not till Pentecoſt, the Diſciples did now receive the Holy Ghoſt, yet they did not now receive foreign: To uſe Theophilacts phraſe, they received him not to all the intents and purpoſes unto which they were afterwards to receive him, they were to wait at Jeruſalem to receive the ſpirit, in order to thoſe extraordinary gifts of working Miracles, ſpeaking with Tongues, &c.

But to whom is this Commiſſion given? ſurely to all the Apoſtles, for though, as we read in the following verſes, Thomas was abſent at this apparition, yet his abſence notwithſtanding, the ſpirit might be,Vid. Cyrillum. and was given to him: When the ſpirit of Moſes was to be put on the ſeventy, it came upon Eldad and Medad, though they were in the Camp, Num. 11. The greateſt queſtion to me is, whether theſe words were ſpoken only to the eleven, and not alſo to the ſeventy, or at leaſt ſome of the ſeventy, becauſe I find, that the two Diſciples that were going to Emaus, told the joyful news of Chriſts Reſurrection to the eleven, and to them that were with them, Luke 24.33. And as they thus ſpake, Jeſus ſtood in the midſt of them, and ſaith unto them, Peace be unto you, ver. 35. Nor is there any thing in Saint John, that can neceſſitate me to think otherwiſe: yet nevertheleſs, upon ſome other reaſons, I am content it ſhould be ſuppoſed, that this Commiſſion was granted only to the eleven, as alſo that Mat. 28.18, 19.

But what hence can be gained, that will in the leaſt prejudice Presbyterians, I wot not, the Apoſtles were all equal, and for thoſe forty daies that Chriſt continued with them, it appears not that there were any Church-Officers beſides them; and therefore it cannot from any action of Chriſt be collected, that there ought to be an inequality among the Miniſters of the Goſpel.

Doctor Hammond ſuppoſeth that Matthias was one of the ſeventy, who was by the Apoſtles and Diſciples, or rather by God himſelf, deſigned and choſen to come into the room of Judas, and this he calls Exemplum Presbyterianorum foreign peſſi… …inans▪ page 153.

p. 29But why he ſhould ſo call it, I know not, for the Presbyterians do not ſay, that there are not divers Orders in the Church, but only that there are not divers orders of Miniſters of the Goſpel, and that Matthias his being choſen from a private Diſciple, to be an Apoſtle, ſhould prove, that there are divers orders of preaching Miniſters, would be ſtrange.

Indeed, ſhould Presbyterians grant the Biſhops do ſucceed Apoſtles, and Presbyters do ſucceed the Seventy, then Matthias his being choſen to be an Apoſtle (ſuppoſing him to have been one of the Seventy) might with ſome colour be urged; but many Presbyterians there be, who grant no ſuch thing, nor doth Dr. Hammond think, that the Seventy were Presbyters by virtue of their Miſſion: For he contends for the opinion of Epiphanius, who makes ſeven of the ſeventy to be the men that were choſen Deacons, and further adds, that the reſt were made Evangeliſts, but that Evangeliſts and Deacons were much the ſame: In idem plane recidit quantum ad 70 Diſcipulos attinet ſive ad Evangeliſtarum, ſive ad Diaconatus gradum aſcendiſſe eos dicamus, page 159.

Yet he thinks not meet to quit Chriſts making and Commiſſionating of the eleven Apoſtles, till it have afforded him an argument for his Epiſcopacy, which is briefly propounded in his anſwer to the London Miniſters, page 4. The power derived, as from God the Father to Chriſt, ſo from Chriſt to the Apoſtles, was derived to them, not as to a Common Councell of ſocial Rulers, but as ſo many ſeveral Planters and Governours of the Church, each having all power committed to him, and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apoſtles for the exerciſe of it. This is more largely deduced in his Latine book againſt Blondell, Diſs. 3. c. 1, 2, 3, 4.

The Reverend Doctor hath no where put this argument into a ſyllogiſtical form, nor will I venture to do it, becauſe I am not able to frame out of it any concluſion that will any way incommodate the Presbyterian plat-form of Government. Be it ſo, that a ſingle Apoſtle had power over the Churches planted by him, what is that to a ſingle Biſhops having power, ſole power of juriſdiction, not only over the Churches in his Dioceſs, but alſo over the Presbyters and Rectors of thoſe Churches? 2. How doth it appear, that it was the mind of Chriſt, that any ſingle Apoſtle p. 30ſhould put forth his power of Ordination without the conjunction of ſome other or others, either Apoſtles, or Apoſtolical perſons, or Presbyters, in all the New Teſtament, I cannot find they did ſo, but I find many Inſtances and examples, by which it appears, that either they might not do ſo, or at leaſt did not think meet ſo to do. When Paul was Ordained, if Ordained, was it not by three? When Timothy, was it not by a Presbytery?

But I will not go about further to fit a ſhooe to a foot I know not; only give me leave to tell you, that there is one Hypotheſis which I perceive, the Doctor laies much ſtreſſe upon in that and other Diſcourſes, the which, unleſs it be granted to him, (and Adverſaries are not now adayes ſo kind, as to grant much) he can never be able to prove: I'le give you it in his own words, Diſſer. p. 147, 148. ſpeaking of the words of Chriſt to his Diſciples, Mat. 28.19. He thus expreſſeth himſelf; Illud ſine dubio non univerſorum ad omnes, ſed ſingulorum ad ſingulas mundi plagas, ut ad totidem Provincias, aut foreign, administrandas profectione praeſtandum erat, &c. Quod & factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Matthias in traditoris Judae, locum ſurrogandus & eligendus proponatur, foreign ſimul que foreign, v. 25. (Sic ut verba iſta, non ad Judam defunctum, ſed ad Succeſſorem ejus ſuperſtitem pertineant adeo que in praecedente foreign, conjungantur) ut ad locum, i. e. Provinciam propriam, aut peculiarem, aut ſingularem proficiſcatur.

You ſee to gain ſome countenance to his Opinion from Scripture, he is fain to make thoſe words, from which Judas fell, to come in by way of Parentheſis, and to refer the laſt words, that he might go to his own place, not to Judas the Son of Perdition, but to Matthias or Barſabas, one of which was now to be, by the Lot falling on him, choſen to make up the number. But whom doth the Doctor follow in ſo doing? Our Engliſh Tranſlation? No. His Friend Grotius? Neither. His words are, ſignificatur eventus ſcelera ipſius juſto Dei judicio conſecutus. Proprium, i.e. qui ipſi melius conveniebat quam Apoſtolica Functio: And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuſcript, a very ancient one, in which, in ſtead of foreign, it is foreign, the place which he deſerved, that is the Gallows, or Hell it ſelf.

p. 31I would fain know, whether Provinces were divided to ſeveral Apoſtles by Chriſt, or by agreement among the Apoſtles themſelves. If Chriſt deſigned each Apoſtle his diſtinct Province, let it be ſhewn where and when. If it be ſaid, that ſuch Diviſion was agreed upon among themſelves, I ask when? Before their Maſters Aſcenſion or after? 'Tis not like 'twas made before, the Diſciples then not being out of their Golden Dream, of a temporal Kingdom, as appears, Acts 1.6. After the Aſcention, we find them all waiting at Jeruſalem for the Promiſe of the Father, and when they had received it,V…de hanc hypotheſin ſolide & proliae refutatam a doctiſſimo Stilling-fleet, Irenici, p. 233, 234, 235, 236. they ſtill at leaſt for ſome time, continued at Jeruſalem, Acts 8.1. When they removed, common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way, nor do I think they did, but they diſpoſed of themſelves as God in his Providence directed, and offered opportunity. But ſo far were they from parcelling out of the world among themſelves, that ſometime paſſed ere they were convinced, that it was their duty, or ſo much as lawful, to preach unto the Gentiles.

By this time, I hope you ſee, that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, it muſt be Apoſtolical practiſe, and I ſhall eaſily grant that the Apoſtles being by their Commiſſion intruſted with the Government of the Church of God, whatever they did with an intent to oblige ſucceeding ages, may well be accounted to be eſtabliſhed Jure Divino.

But then I do with ſome confidence challenge all the Prelatiſts to ſhew me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Biſhop having Presbyters under him, and yet engroſſing all power of Juriſdiction and Order to himſelf. Yea I do challenge them to ſhew me any one Biſhop that had under his Charge ſo many Souls as are in your Pariſhes of Stepney and Cripplegate.

I take the Apoſtles to be unfixed Officers, and ſuch were Timothy and Titus. Dr. Hammond himſelf (who hath deſerved beſt of the Epiſcopal Cauſe) Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath theſe words, Although this Title of foreign, Elders, have been alſo extended to a 2^d Order in the Church, and is now only in uſe for them, under the name of Presbyters, yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally▪ if not alone to Biſhops, there being no evidence, that any of that ſecond Order were then inſtituted; though ſoon after, before the writing of Ignatius his Epiſtles, there were ſuch instituted in all Churches.

p. 32Well then, if there be no evidence that any ſuch were inſtituted, we ſhall think there were none ſuch; for de non exiſtentibus & non apparentibus, eadem eſt ratio. And if there were no Presbyters, then there were no Biſhops exerciſing Juriſdiction over Presbyters. And 'tis plain enough, that every worſhipping Congregation had its Biſhop in the Apoſtles times.

But the Reverend Doctor in his Anſwer to the London Aſſemblers (as he cals them) p. 107. thus brings himſelf off; John I know was an Apoſtle, and John I believe, ordained Presbyters, and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apoſtolical Inſtitution, i. e. in effect, the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters.

I alſo know that St. John was an Apoſtle; but what ſhould induce me to believe, that he inſtituted a ſecond ſort of Presbyters, who were only to preach and adminiſter Sacraments, but had no power either of Order or Juriſdiction? Muſt I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith? If with a divine Faith, ſhew me ſome infallible Teſtimony for it. If an humane Faith be the greateſt and higheſt Faith a man can attain unto, what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in, that can only have ſome probable perſwaſion that their Order is Jure Divino. Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter, that can have no greater aſſurance that it was the mind of Chriſt, that there ſhould be any ſuch Office in the Church? Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to inſtitute this ſecond Order of Presbyters, as well as St. John in his? If they had not, how was their power equal? If they had, why did they not put it forth? It will not I ſuppoſe, be ſaid, they wanted care, but only that the number of Believers was not ſo increaſed, during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle, as to require ſuch kind of Presbyters. Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted, to be governed by a Biſhop and Deacons, how will it be clearly and evidently proved, that it was thoſe Apoſtles intention, that the Biſhop, who when they left him, had power over the Deacons and people only, ſhould when the Churches neceſſity did require, conſtitute Presbyters, and have power over them. This Intention muſt be manifeſted and declared from ſome paſſages in Scripture, or elſe it will not by Proteſtants be looked on as a Law of Chriſt, or as a thing of perpetual concernment to his Church: For either the Scripture is a ſufficient and full Record of Chriſts p. 33univerſal Laws, or it hath not that Perfection, which the Reformed in their Controverſies with Catholicks, do aſcribe unto it.

But why do I ſtay ſo long about this? The place produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus, to prove that St. John in Aſia inſtituted theſe ſecondary Presbyters, proveth no ſuch thing. Read it, and you will agree with me: It is recorded in Euſebius, l. 3. c. 23. after the Greek diviſion. (In Mr. Hanmers Engliſh Tranſlation, 'tis the 20 chap.)

As for the place in Epiphanius, that ſo often occurs in Dr. Hammond, of the foreign, &c.

1. 'Tis a place very obſcure, and ſo unfit to build an Opinion on.

2. It may ſeem to ſavour of the opinion of thoſe who ſay, there is no particular Form of Church-Government by divine right.

3. It hath nothing in it peculiar to St. John: It no more proves that St. John inſtituted ſecond Presbyters, then that St. Peter inſtituted ſuch.

4. I might tell you that as Ancient and Reverend Eccleſiaſtical Writers as Epiphanius, when they have been ingaged, have boaſted of a falſe matter, and talked of Records and Traditions where there were no ſuch things.

You will now expect before I take my leave of the Arguments brought for Epiſcopacy, that I ſhould anſwer that brought from Succeſſion: For it is ſaid, that in all places Biſhops did ſucceed the Apoſtles. But this Argument I have alway accounted but ſlight, ſuch as will not weigh much with you, if you conſider,

1. That the Queſtion is not whether Biſhops did ſucceed, but whether Biſhops exerciſing Juriſdiction over Presbyters?

2. That the Catalogues that are brought of the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles were made by conjecture, and delivered down to us by men that lived at a great diſtance from the Apoſtolical times. Read the ingenuous Confeſſion of Euſebius, l. 3. c. 4. If he, ſo ſtudious in ſearching into antiquity, that he is by a Learned man of our own called the Father and Fountain of Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, was at ſuch a loſs in the matter of Succeſſion, at what a loſs muſt they needs be that lived after him? Leſt this ſhould ſeem a meer ſhift, I will take notice of one Authority produced, I think by almoſt every one, who hath ingaged in the Epiſcopal Cauſe, but moſt magnified by Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Epiſcopacy aſſerted. Theſe are his words, p. 79, 80. I ſhall tranſcribe no more testimomonies p. 34for this particular, but that of the General Council of Calcedon, in the caſe of Baſſianus and Stephanus: Leontius the Biſhop of Magneſia ſpake it in full Council, foreign. The ſplendid Name of the General Council of Calcedon, made me curious to enquire into the very bottom of this Teſtimony. I have ſo done, and thus I find the matter to ſtand: The Calcedonian Council was called by the Emperour Martian, Anno 451. or 452. or 454. as ſome compute. In it, ſaith Dr. Prideaux, Matters were mostly tranſacted by favouring Parties between Leo the firſt of Rome, and Anatholius Patriarch of Conſtantinople; Let that paſs: In the 11th. Action of this Synod, I find in Binius and Crabbe, that Leontius did uſe the words that are quoted from him: But what was this Leontius? A man, ſaith the L. Brooks, in his Diſcourſe of Epiſcopacy, p. 66. whoſe Writings have not delivered him Famous to us, for Learning, nor his exemplary Holineſs (mentioned by others) famous for Piety. Surely not of Credit enough to ſway our Faith in this Point, becauſe he is contradicted and convicted of falſhood, by Philip, a Reverend Presbyter of the Church of Conſtantinople, and by Aetius, Archdeacon, who inſtance in divers others beſides Baſilius, that had been Ordained by the Biſhop of Conſtantinople: So that the General Council of Chalcedon proves to be the Teſtimony but of one man, and of one who was either ignorant of the Truth, or elſe did love Falſhood. In a word, what is it in antiquity, from whence out Epiſcopal Brethren will argue the Divine right of Epiſcopacy? From the word foreign? We will grant, that all along from the Apoſtles times, there have been thoſe in the Church, who were called, and might not unfitly be called foreign, or Biſhops: But we deny that thoſe whom the Ancients did call Epiſcopos, were Biſhops in our ſenſe, i.e. We deny, that they were looked on as having the ſole power of Juriſdiction and Order. Let the Prelatiſts prove, that for 1500 years, or for 800 years, Presbyters have been looked upon as poor inferiour Creatures, having only power to preach the Word, and not to adminiſter Diſcipline, I for my part, promiſe faithfully to yield the Cauſe; and my heart would even leap for joy, that I were ſo conquered: For I do aſſure you, it goes more againſt the hair with me, to put forth one act of Diſcipline, then to ſtudy twenty Sermons. Are our p. 35Brethren offended with us, that we argue from the word foreign, in Scripture, and will they argue from the word foreign in Eccleſiaſtical Writers? That is not fair play.

But I ſhall now give you my Arguments to prove that Epiſcopacy is not of Divine Right, and they ſhall be two: The firſt, I ſhall caſt into the Form of a disjunctive Syllogiſme, thus; If Epiſcopacy be of Divine Right, then either the Romiſh or the Engliſh Epiſcopacy: But neither the Romiſh nor the Engliſh: Ergo, none at all. As for the Major, it contains a ſufficient enumeration: For though there be Epiſcopacy of a different mode exerciſed in other places, yet that Epiſcopacy which is eſtabliſhed in the Roman Churches, and the Reformed Engliſh Church, doth moſt pretend to Divine Right. You dodbtleſs will deny my Minor, and ſay, that our Engliſh Epiſcopacy is of Divine Right. But I prove it is not: thus, If our Engliſh Epiſcopacy be of divine Right, then either all the Circumſtances and Appendages are of Divine Right, or only the ſubſtance of it: But neither: Ergo. All the Circumſtances or Appendages of it, to be ſure, are not Jure Divine.

1. their way of Election is not jure divino; ther's no Command of Chriſt for a Conge d'eſlire, I would not be thought to ſay, that the Magiſtrates interpoſing in making of Church-Governours, is againſt the Law of Chriſt; I only ſay, that ther's no Law of Chriſt requiring, that the Civil Magiſtrate ſhould either make Biſhops, or require others to chuſe. I add, that we have no Primitive Example of ſuch a thing as a Conge d'eſlire. Rather we find, that all Biſhops were made and choſen, not without the conſent and ſuffrage of the Clergy, and all the people over whom he was to praeſide and govern. I confeſs, I had thought as to the people, this had been plain from the Epiſtle of Clemens ad Corinthios: The words are theſe, Pag. 57. Edit. Junianae. foreign, &c. But Dr. Hammond hath rendred the laſt words applaudante aut congratulante Eccleſiatota; and ſaith upon the Phraſe by way of Parentheſis, Diſſer. 5. p. 278. Nihil hic de acceptatione totius Eccleſiae, ſine qua Epiſcopos & Diacones p. 36ab Apoſtolis & Apoſtolicis viris conſtitutos non eſſe, concludit D. Blondellus, quaſi qui ex Dei juſſu & approbatione conſtituebantur, populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi eſſent. The Grammatical ſenſe and meaning of this Parentheſis, I think I underſtand, but the Purport and Drift of it, I cannot gueſs at. The bleſſed Clemens ſaith, that Church-Officers were made, the whole Church applauding or conſenting. Is there nothing in this Phraſe from whence Blondel might conclude, that Biſhops and Deacons were not then made without the Acceptation of the whole Church?

It may be I ſhall be able to find out the meaning of the Learned Doctor; by his Reply to Dr. Owen: In that thus he expreſſeth himſelf, p. 86. Blondel made the peoples acceptation a ſine qua non, a neceſſary condition; affirming that Biſhops, &c. were never conſtituted by the Apoſtles and Apoſtolical men, niſi unleſs they had this; which I ſuppoſe, makes the peoples acceptation praevious to the Apoſtles Act: For, if it followed after, it can be of no moment; the Act of the Apoſtles was compleat without it, and ſtood valid without it: and though it was moſt happy when it followed, yet ſtill this, as any other conſequent, muſt be accidental to the Conſtitution of Biſhops, as that which advenit enti in actu exiſtenti, comes to it, when it is, is no way required to, or conſtitutive of its Being.

'Twas no doubt, the Opinion of Blondel, that the Peoples conſent was praevions; but I do much queſtion, whether any ſuch thing can be inferred from the word niſi, uſed by him, p. 11. of his Apology; and I ſee not but that ſo much may be fairly inferred from the foreign, I do not ſay, the phraſe doth neceſſarily import ſo much; for I might properly ſay, that the King was Crowned foreign, though the Conſent of the City be not Conditio ſine qua non, of his Coronation: But if either Law or Cuſtom did require that the King ſhould not be Crowned except the City of London did conſent, then if I ſhould ſay that he was Crowned conſentiente amni Civitate, all would ſay and think my Meaning was, that the Conſent of the City was firſt asked, and obtained, before he was Crowned. Now this is our Caſe, we are ſure from the 6. of the Acts, the Apoſtles would not ordain any to the Office of p. 37Deacons, till the Diſciples had choſen them; nor do we find, that ever they did otherwiſe, except happily where God himſelf made the Choyce; therefore Clemens his Genitive put abſolutely, may well be thought to imply ſo much.

But I need not much contend about Clemens his Meaning: Cyprian a very ancient Father and pious Martyr, is plainer then that he can be eluded. I'le not tranſcribe all that he hath ſaid to this purpoſe, but yet enough to prove the Point, out of that 68 Epiſtle ſent to the Clergy and people of Spain, in anſwer to a Queſtion propounded to the African Churches. Plebs obſequens Praeceptis Dominicis, & Deum metuens, a peccatore praepoſito ſeparare ſe debet, nec ſe ad ſacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia miſcere, quando ipſa maxime habeat poteſtatem vel eligendi dignos ſacerdotes, vel indignos recuſandi; quod & ipſum de Divina auctoritate deſcendere videmus, ut Sacerdos, plebe preſente, ſub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus at que idoneus publico judicio at que teſtimonio comprobetur, ſicut in Numeris, Dominus Moiſi praecipit, dicens, Apprehende Aaron fratrem tuum, & Eleazarum filium ejus, & impones eos in montem, coram omni Synagoga, & exue Aaron ſtolam ejus, & indue Eleazarum filium ejus, & Aaron appoſitus moriatur illic. And not long after, Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina & Apoſtolica obſervatione obſervandum eſt & tenendum, quod apud nos quo que & fere per Provincias univerſas tenetur, ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam Plebem, cui praepoſitus ordinatur, Epiſcopi ejuſdem Provinciae proximi qui que conveniant, & Epiſcopus deligatur, Plebe praeſente, quae ſingulorum vitam pleniſſime novit, & uniuscujuſ que actum de ejus converſatione perspexit; quod ut apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae noſtri Ordinatione, ut de univerſae fraternitatis ſuffragio, & de Epiſcoporum, qui in praeſentia convenerant, quiq, de eo ad vos Literas fecerant, judicio, epiſcopatus ei deferretur, & manus ei in locum Baſilidis imponeretur. How horribly Pamelius is put to it to reconcile the Papal Ordinations to the ſeveral expreſſions of St. Cyprian in this Epiſtle, you may ſee in his Annotations, and in the Replies of Simon Golartius, to them, which alſo will ſufficiently fortifie you againſt the (in this caſe I hope I may ſay it without offence) trifling and weak Objections of the Author of Epiſcopacy aſſerted, p. 273, 274.

2. I ſuppoſe it will not be ſaid, that there is any Divine Law requiring that our Biſhops ſhould be Lords, have Votes in the Upper p. 38Houſe of Parliament, and exerciſe Temporal Dominion and Juriſdiction in their Dioceſſes. Rather it may be queſtioned, whether any of theſe be ſo much as lawfull. The Work of an ordinary Presbyter, much more of an Engliſh Biſhop, requires the whole man. Who is ſufficient for theſe things? 2 Cor. 2.16. The Apoſtles put off from themſelves the very burden of diſtributing to the neceſſities of the poor, Acts 6.4. And Paul laies it down as a general Rule, 2 Tim. 2.4. No man that warreth, entangleth himſelf with the affairs of this Life, that he may pleaſe him who hath choſen him to be a Souldier. Shall I plant two or three of the Canons called Apoſtolical, againſt our Prelates medling with ſecular affairs? Can. 6. vel 7. Epiſcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, nequaquam ſeculares cur as aſſumat, ſin aliter dejiciatur. And the 82. vel 83. Epiſcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, qui militiae vacaverit, & ſimul utrum que retinere voluerit, tam officium Romanum, quam functionem ſacerdotalem, deponitor: Quae enim Caeſaris ſunt, Caeſari, quae Dei, Deo. Read alſo the 7th. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, but eſpecially the 66 Epiſtle of St. Cyprian, in which you ſhall find the Holy Father puritanizing to purpoſe. Hugo Grotius is but of yeſterday, yet becauſe he is much magnified by our Prelatiſts, I ſhall account it no loſt labour, to tranſcribe ſomthing out of him upon the 12 of Luke & 14. Theſe are his words, Si quis expendat quantum ſit negotii ſermonem divinum, recte diſpenſare, quod ut facerent ipſi Apoſtoli tanto inſtructi ſpiritu curam Pauperum aliis delegavere, facile intelliget quoſvis alios potius adhibendos componendis privatorum controverſiis, quam eos quos docendi munus occupat. Eſt quidem horum imo horum praecipue diſcordias praecidere, ſed ſi in brevi admonitione fieri poſſit, quomodo Oneſimum Philemoni reconciliat Paulus, non ſi cauſae ambages diſcutiendae, & magno temporis dispendio conſtabit res paucorum.

3. Nor can it be thought that it is of divine right that Biſhops ſhould delegate their power of Juriſdiction to Chancellors, Commiſſaries, and other Lay-Officers. Rather again, 'tis queſtionable, whether this be not flatly againſt the Law of Chriſt. To be ſure, 'tis contrary to the practiſe Primitive, as is acknowledged even by B. Downam, one of the greateſt ſticklers for Epiſcopacy. See his Defence of his Sermon, L. 1.

I believe therefore it will be ſaid, that only the ſubſtance of our Epiſcopacy is of Divine Right. Well, what is that? One p. 39W. C. at the end of that Diſcourſe Printed at Oxom, called Confeſſions and Proofs of Proteſtant Divines, that Epiſco. &c. hath theſe words; If we abſtract from Epiſcopal Government all accidentals, we ſhall find it no more but this, an appointment of one man of eminent ſanctity and ſufficiency, to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Dioceſs. Then belike if one be not of eminent ſanctity and ſufficiency, he is no Biſhop, cui non convenit definitio, &c. But to let this paſs, one man, 'tis ſaid, muſt have the care of all the Churches, within a certain Precinct or Dioceſs: Well, but how big muſt this Precinct or Dioceſs be? Muſt it be the whole Chriſtian world, as the Pope ſaith, or will it ſuffice that it conſiſt of 2 or 3 Pariſh-Churches?

For this I am told by Mr. Sandcroft, p. 21. That the Apoſtles preached the Goſpel not only in Cities, but in the Countries adjoyning, yet planted Churches in Cities ſtill, and ſetled ſingle perſons their Succeſſors there, to govern both the cities & Regions round about (from whence a City & a Church come to be equipollent terms, even in the Apoſtolical Writings, foreign, Acts 14.23. the ſame with foreign; Tit. 1.5. And yet further, that they left the Churches of inferiour Cities, and their Biſhops in dependance upon the Metropolis, which were the cheife according to the civill diviſion (and that the only true ground of the Superiority of one Church above another) hath been rendred as manifeſt as any thing almoſt in Eccleſiaſtical Antiquity, againſt all Adverſaries (both thoſe of the hils, and thoſe of the Lake too) by the Learned and well placed Labours of thoſe excellent perſons in both pages of the Dipticks, whom I ſhall not need to name, ſince their own works praiſe them in the gate. And p. 23. foreign is the ſtanding Rule and failes nor, a City and a Biſhop, generally adequate one to another: For as on the one ſide, an Univerſal Biſhop, with the whole world for his Juriſdiction, is a proud pretence, & too vaſt for Humanity to graſp; ſo on the other ſide, Rural Biſhops too is a poor and mean deſign, and not only retrives the Italian Epiſcopelli, ſo ſcorned at Trent, but worſe, & p. 2.4. foreign, non in vicis, aut villis, aut modica Civitate. No Biſhops there, leſt they grow contemptible, ſo run the Canons p. 40of the Ancient Church, both Greek and Latine, and therefore the Twelfth Council of Toledo unmitred one Convildus, formerly an Abbot in a little Village, and diſſolved the Biſhoprick which Bamba the Gothick King had violently procured to be erected there, and that by this Rule of the Church; and the very foreign of my Text, which they actually plead in the Front of their Decree, to juſtifie their Proceedings.

But (with reverence to ſo Learned a man be it ſpoken) much of this ſeems to be delivered with more Confidence then Truth. And indeed before we can gather the Divine Right of any particular Form of Government from Apoſtolical Practiſe, we muſt firſt prove the Univerſality of that Practiſe. We muſt evince, that not ſome few, but all the Apoſtles did ſo practiſe. Now I think it huge difficult, if not impoſſible, from any credible Records, to make out what Order and Method was obſerved by all the Apoſtles in their planting of Churches, it being but very little, if any thing, that is ſaid by Hiſtorians, concerning ſome of them.

2. If we could prove univerſality of Practiſe, we muſt alſo prove, that ſuch univerſal practiſe was not upon ſome grounds, proper and peculiar to thoſe Times in which the Apoſtles lived.

Well, I for my part, will take no advantage from either of theſe two Conſiderations, but yet will give you my Reaſons, why I cannot look upon the Platform by him laid down, as Apoſtolical.

1. It ſavours ſtrongly of foreign or foreign, both which were undoubtedly far from any one of Apoſtolical Spirit. For ſeeing the Goſpel was preached in Towns, as well as Cities, let us imagine, that by preaching of the Goſpel, five hundred were converted in a Town, but one hundred in a City, would it not be a ſinful accepting of perſons, to appoint the hundred Citizens a Biſhop, and to leave the five hundred without a Biſhop? It matters not whether this caſe did ever actually happen, 'tis plain it might have happened, and we may argue a poſſibili. And let any rational man ſay, whether it be probable, that this is an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, that Peterborough and Ely ſhould have a Biſhop reſident in them, Northampton, Leicester, Cambridge none.

p. 412. This model is deſtructive to Epiſcopacy it ſelf, for if this be an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, that there ſhould be no Biſhops but in Cities, then if it ſhould ſeem meet to any Chriſtian Magiſtrate to have no Cities in all his Territories, we muſt have no Biſhops; if he ſhould ſee meet to make all Cities equal, we muſt have no Archbiſhops or Metropolitanes: We know, that lately a certain thing, that called it ſelf the Supreme Authority of England, did uncity Chester; ſuppoſe this had been done by a lawful Authority, ſo as that it could not have been recalled, the Church of England would have been loath to have loſt a Biſhop, yet ſhe muſt, if this be true, that no City, no Biſhop: Or what if our King, by the advice of his Councel, ſhould make every market Town in England and Wales a City, muſt our Biſhops preſently be multiplied according to that proportion.

3. 'Tis plain, that in one City there was more Biſhops then one, plain from Scripture, for S. Paul writes, Phil. 1.1. To all the Saints in Chriſt Jeſus, which are at Philippi, with the Biſhops and Deacons.

To this I know it is replyed, that Philippi was a Metropolis, and ſo in writing to the Biſhops in the plural, he would be underſtood of all the Biſhops in inferiour Cities, ſubject to that Metropolis: But I affirm, there is no ground for ſuch a reply, Philippi was not a Metropolis, but foreign, as we learn from Theophilact. But it is ſaid, this deſcription belonged to it as anciently it was, not as it was when the Apoſtle did write to them: If once it were no Metropolis, how can it be proved, that it was ſuch at the writing of this Apoſtolical Epiſtle; forſooth, from Acts 16.12. the words are, foreign. But this is too obſcure and ambiguous a place to build an opinion upon, the beſt Criticks not agreeing concerning the Syntax here uſed: If any thing can hence be gathered, that may prove Philippi a Metropolis, it will be either its being called foreign, or its being foreign: As for its being called foreign, that will not prove any thing of that nature, for there is no neceſſity of rendring foreign, the chief City, it may as well ſignifie the firſt for ſcituation; this way very learned men go, particularly Zanchius in his Commentaries on the Philip.

p. 42Againſt this it may be objected, that not Philippi, but Neapolis, was the firſt City of Macedomia; but perhaps Neapolis was not urbs but pagus, perhaps it belonged rather to Thracia then Macedonia: Theſe two anſwers are hinted by Cauſabon, but a more ſatisfactory anſwer is ſuggeſted by Zanchius, I'le tranſcribe his words, though ſomewhat large, that the doubt may be wholly removed: Neapolis civitas eſt ad mare, ex adverſo Thraciae. Inde venitur ad flumen quod Strymon vocatur: ultra quod flumen eſt urbs Philippi. Fluvius autem Strymon (ut ait Plinius) terminus eſt Macedoniae, hoc eſt, ejus partis, quae Thraciam verſus ſpectat, ex quo fit, ut prima, cis Strymonem fluvium in continenti, urbs Macedoniae, ſit ipſa urbs Philippi; at que huc ſpectavit Lucas in Actis: conſentanee cum Plinio, & aliis Prophanis Scriptoribus loquens. Coeterum licet terminus dividens Macedoniam a Thracia eſſet, & ſit ille flavius Strymon, tamen Neapolis quo que quae erat ultra fluvium ad Mare, pertinebat ad Macedoniam & confinium quoddam erat Macedoniae & Thraciae; & hoc ſibi voluerunt Prolomaeus & Plinius & alii, cum inter urbes Macedoniae primo loco poſuerunt Neapolim. Philippi, prima urbs eſt Macedoniae, ſi verum terminum spectes, fluvium ſc. Strymonem, dividentem Macedoniam a Thracia; non fuit autem ſimpliciter prima, ſed ipſa Neapolis fuit prima ſi quae etimm ultra Strymonem ad Macedoniam pertinentia complectaris. But ſeeing it is called a Colony, it muſt needs be a Metropolis. I anſwer, if it had been the only Colony in Macedonia, we might have thought it probable, that it was a Metropolis in the civil ſenſe, but it was not the only Colony, as is evident from Hiſtory. Further, the officers before whom Paul was brought, ver. 19, 20. of this Chap. make it ſomewhat more then probable, that the Proconſul of Macedonia had not his reſidence at Philippi; and 'tis evident, that Theſſalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia, in the civil ſenſe: Theſſalonica Metropolis eſt, utnorunt omnes Macedoniae; ſo we find it was in the Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe alſo; ſome hundred of years paſſed ere Philippi had the honorary title of a Metropolitan Church. Indeed, I think, I might have ſpared my ſelf and you all this trouble, for I believe it never came into your head to think, that when the Apoſtle writes to the Church of Philippi, he intended to write to aany more then the Chriſtians and Officers of that City of Philippi, for had he intended it to all the other Churches that were p. 43in Macedonia, then muſt the Epiſtle to the Church of the Theſſalonians be intended to all the Churches of Macedonia; and ſo the learned Annotator fears not to aſſert, that he may make the foreign ſpoken of, 1 Theſ. 5.12. be Biſhops, and yet not grant a plurality of Biſhops in one City. But do you try to carry on this notion throughout the whole Epiſtle, and you will make ſtrange work: The Apoſtle, 1 Chap. 1. ſalutes the Church of the Theſſalonians, commends their faith and charity, and receiving the Word in much affliction, ſo as that they were enſamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia, ver. 7. and he meant in ver. 1. by the Church of Theſſ. all the Churches of Macedonia, then he muſt in ver. 7. ſay, that the Chriſtians of Macedonia were enſamples to the Chriſtians of Macedonia.

If I would deſcend to Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, I would not thank any man to grant me:

1. That there have been Biſhops in Villages and Towns, or at leaſt in Cities not ſo populous, not ſo wealthy, as many Market Towns among us are; Baſilius Caeſareae Cappadociae fuit Epiſcopus; Gregorius autem Nazianzenae civitatis omnino viliſſimae, quae est poſita vicina Caeſareae Hiſto. Tripar. lib. 7. cap. 22. libro 9. cap. 3. we find one Maris made Biſhop of Dolicha, which was but a little City: Of what a poor place Spiridion was Biſhop, may be ſeen lib. 1. cap. 10. and lib. 6. cap. 4. there's a moſt famous hiſtory of Maioma continuing to have a Biſhop, even when it ceaſed to have any longer the priviledges of a City. In Ireland, S. Patrick is ſaid to have ſetled 365 Biſhopricks at the firſt plantation, I ſcarce think there were then ſo many Cities.

2. That there have been two Biſhops in one City. Vid. Poſſid. in vita Aug.

3. That ſometime there was but one Biſhop to many Cities, examples are too obvious and common to be produced: We in England are not without ſome Preſidents of this nature: If Councels be produced againſt this, you will remember, that Councels, moſtly conſiſting of Biſhops, they may be looked on as parties forward enough to eſtabliſh any thing that might make for their own pomp and grandure.

Laſtly; whereas it is ſo confidently affirmed, that the Apoſtles did leave the Churches of inferiour Cities, and their Biſhops, in dependance upon the Metropolis: I do with ſome confidence p. 44reply, that there is no ſufficient proof for ſuch an aſſertion: I do not, in my poor reading find, that the proof of it from Scripture, hath been much attempted, only he, whoſe diligence nothing is wont to eſcape, argues, by comparing Acts 16.1.4. with Acts 15.2. I ſhall give you his words, as he himſelf hath Engliſhed them to us. Anſ. to D. Owen; p. 195. According to the Image of the Civil Government among the Jews, and the like again in their Temple, the Apoſtles appear to have diſpoſed of Churches every where, and in all their plantations, to have conſtituted a ſubordination and dependance of the Churches in the inferiour Cities, to thoſe in the chief or Metropolis: An example of this we have in the ſtory of the Acts, concerning Syria and Cilicia, and the ſeveral Cities thereof, in relation to Antioch the Metropolis; for when the queſtion Acts 15.2. was referred, and brought to Jeruſalem from the Church (peculiarly) of Antioch, Chap. 14.26. and 15.3. and the Decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the queſtion was propoſed, i. e. to the Church of Antioch, ver. 22. yet in the Epiſtle in which that Decree was contained, we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia, i. e. all the Chriſtians of that Province, to be expreſſed and joyned with thoſe of Antioch, v. 23. and after, when that Decretal Epiſtle was delivered to the Church of Antioch, v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia, v. 41, 42. and as they went, they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel, cap. 16.4. which is an evidence, that the Churches of thoſe Cities, related either immediately to Antioch, or as Antioch it ſelf did to Jeruſalem, and were in ſubordination to it, as to the principal Metropolis of ſo wide a Province, &c.

I heartily wiſh this argumentation had been put into a Syllogiſtical form, then it would have been eaſie enough to find out a Propoſition that might ſafely be denied: But ſeeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his diſcourſe into that dreſs, I ſhall not do it for him, leſt I ſhould be thought not to do it according to his mind: Taking it as we find it, I ſay:

1. That which he ſuppoſeth, may well admit ſome diſpute, viz. Whether the queſtion referred to Jeruſalem, was referred to it by the ſingle Church of Antioch (but that as Metropolis of all Syria) for if it can be proved, that this reference was made only p. 45by the Church of Antioch, and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria, it will ſtill be unproved, that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis; for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church, which are not done by it as ſuch.

2. There's no evidence, that the ground of the reference to Jeruſalem was, becauſe that it was the principal Metropolis, more probable it is, that the reaſons of referring this controverſie to a determination at Jeruſalem, were becauſe of the authority of thoſe Apoſtles that were at Jeruſalem, in which it was ſuppoſed thoſe who contended with Paul would acquieſce, and becauſe thoſe Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commiſſion of the Apoſtles for their doctrine.

Againſt theſe, let us examine what is objected; 'tis ſaid, page 204, 205. That the firſt taken alone could not be the reaſon, becauſe there being but two Apoſtles there at that time, Peter and John:

1. There might be ſo many in ſome other City.

2. Paul and Barnabas being before this ſeparated, by Gods Commands, to the Apostolick Office, were in this reſpect of equal authority with them, and ſo in this ſenſe the words of S. Paul have truth, Gal. 2.6. foreign.

3. The reference is made not to the Apoſtles alone, but to the Apoſtles and Elders, Acts 15.2.

4. The cauſe of the reference, was not only the contention of thoſe who came out of Judea, but the Antiochean Chriſtians being taught, i. e. being ſeduced by them, Acts 15.1. and accordingly the Decree reſpected them peculiarly; and ſo this firſt reaſon is of no force.

Anſw.

1. 'Tis certain, that the reference was made not only to the Apoſtles, but alſo to the Elders (from which perhaps ſomething might be deduced, no way advantagious to the cauſe of the Epiſcoparians.)

2. We'll grant it probable, that theſe Judaizers did not only teach, but alſo had perſwaded ſome of the Antiochean Chriſtians to imbrace their errour: But then

3. We deny that there were at Jeruſalem but two Apoſtles, viz. Peter and John, James undoubtedly was there, and it is by very learned men thought, that when the other James had run his courſe, he was taken into the Apoſtolical rank, office, and imployment. Now it will never be proved, either from Scripture, or any other credible teſtimony, that there were in any one City three perſons ſo fit to be appealed to as theſe three: As for Paul and Barnabas, granting them to be ſeparated by Gods command to p. 46the Apoſtolick Office, and ſo of equal authority with Peter, &c. yet their Apoſtleſhip might be more queſtioned by theſe Judaizing Teachers, to ſtop their mouths, and let the Antiochean Chriſtians know, that they did not go about to aboliſh any thing which Peter, James, and John (who did moſtly converſe with thoſe of the Circumciſion) did reckon obligatory, this reference is made, this journey undertaken.

The learned Doctor ſeems not to deny, but that thoſe who came from Jeruſalem might pretend Commiſſion and Commandment from the Apoſtles to teach what they taught, but thinks this is uſeful, not diſadvantagious to him: For hence he thinks it follows, That if theſe certain men had been truly ſent and commiſſionated by the Church of Jeruſalem, then this would have been of ſome force at Antioch, which it could not be, if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jeruſalem, page 205. But who can ſwallow this? what Chriſtian doth not think, that if theſe men had come at that time into England, with a Commiſſion to preach, that except we be circumciſed, we cannot be ſaved, it ſhould be of no force, becauſe we are a Church independent on Jeruſalem?

3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, becauſe Antioch or Jeruſalem was their Metropolis, but becauſe the Decrees were made by Apoſtles, men acted by an infallible ſpirit, who could not but know the mind of Chriſt their Lord and Maſter: Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Chriſtians that had any certain knowledge of them, whether they were under the Metropolis of Jeruſalem or no.

My ſecond argument, to prove that Epiſcopacy is not of Divine Right, ſhall be taken from the teſtimonies of thoſe Authors who do clearly, and plainly make it to be but of humane inſtitution. I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus, made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri ſciunt ſe ex Eccleſiae conſuetudine ei qui ſibi praepoſitus fuerit, eſſe ſubjectos, ita Epiſcopi noverint ſe magis conſuetudine, quam diſpoſitionis Dominicae veritate, Presbyteris eſſe majores. In his Epiſtle to Evagrius, Quod autem unus poſteà electus eſt, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in Schiſmatis remedium factum est, ne unuſquiſ que ad ſe trahens Chriſti Eccleſiam rumperet. If you ſay that Hierom was a Presbyter, and provoked, p. 47and ſo may be thought to write all this in a fit of ſpleen and malice, I ſhall (without retorting the argument, which you know is obvious) refer you to Iſidore, who was a Biſhop himſelf; he ſaith in his ſecond book, De Divinis Officiis, cap. 7. that Presbyters have moſt things in common with Biſhops, Sed ſola, propter authoritatem, ſummo ſacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio & Conſecratio reſervata eſt. And the Councel of Sevill ſaith, that the Conſecration of Presbyters, Deacons, &c. is forbidden, Novellis & Eccleſiaſticis regulis.

To anſwer that, the Councel follows Iſidore, and Iſidore follows Hierome, and ſo all three make but one ſingle teſtimony, is too eaſie a way of anſwering, not worth taking notice of, therefore we are further told:

1. That Ignatius is a more conſiderable Author then Hierome, and that Ignatius, all along his Epiſtles, bears witneſs to Epiſcopacy: I acknowledge more reverence is due to Ignatius then to Hierome, becauſe he lived neerer the age of the Apoſtles: But then 1. We are not ſo ſure that Ignatius his writings are incorrupt, as we are that Hieromes are.

2. Ignatius doth no where, that I can find, aſſert the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy; and yet I have read over all Ignatius his Epiſtles, and read them over with an impartial deſire to find out any thing from which I might collect what was the ancient form of Diſcipline: I am confirmed, that I was not miſtaken, by reading the diſſertations of the very learned Dr. H. Hammond: The ſecond of thoſe four diſſertations, is concerning Ignatius, and his teſtimonies, the whole 25th Chap. of that diſſertation, is taken up in producing teſtimonies out of that holy Martyr, and bleſſed Father in favour of Hierarchy: In the 26 Chap. he gives us the opinion of Ignatius in ſix concluſions. The ſecond is, Epiſcopos ſingulares, per omnes mundi plagas ubicunque Chriſtiana fides viguit, Chriſto ſi non praecipiente, ſaltem approbante, institutos fuiſſe: But wot you how he proves this concluſion? why, he proves it but by one teſtimony out of Ignatius his Epiſtle to the Epheſians, the words, as by him quoted, are theſe, foreign.

But 1. Theſe words are not to be found in the old Greek Editions of Ignatius: Now ſeeing this Doctor doth himſelf, in ſome particulars, prefer other Editions to the Edition of Iſaac p. 48Voſſius, what if I ſhould ſo do in this matter, what would become of the Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy?

2. The Laurentian Copy doth not exhibit the words, as they are by the Doctor repreſented to us, for in it I find not foreign, but foreign: The old Latin Verſion reads thus: Etenim Jeſus Chriſtus, incomparabile noſtrum vivere patris ſententia, ut & ipſi ſecundum terrae fines determinati Jeſu Chriſti ſententia ſunt; not mentioning the word Epiſcopi.

3. I can give the Doctor his own reading, and yet the place will not make for him, for a ſenſe different from that which he affixeth to them, may be given of them, and is given by Maſter Stilling fleet, page 309. And all this, you know, by a friend of ours, was aſſerted in a Latin ſuppoſition at a publick act in Oxford, four or five years ago. Indeed, there is in the Epiſtle to the Magneſians, a place which might with good colour and probability be urged for the Divine Right of Presbytery.

But if this firſt anſwer ſucceed not, we are further told, that Hierome is not againſt the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, but rather for it; or elſe, if one while he be againſt it, at another time he is for it. We have proved plainly enough, that he was againſt it, let's therefore hear whether any thing can be produced out of him that makes for it; two places are moſt inſiſted on, the one in the Epiſtle to Evagrius, Ut ſciamus traditiones Apoſtolicas 01 ſumptas de veteri Teſtamento, quod Aaron, & filii ejus at que Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc ſibi Epiſcopi, & Presbyteri, & Diaconi vindicent in Eccleſia. Here the ſuperiority of Biſhops above Preſbyters, is placed among Apoſtolical Traditions, that the learned Diſſertator, page 123. Diſſer. 2. breaks out into theſe words, Quid ad hoc reſponderi poſſit; aut quo foreign artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diſerta affirmatio, fateor ego me divinando aſſequi non poſſe, ſed e contra ex iis, quae D. Blondellus, quae Walo, quae Ludovicus Capellus, hac in re praeſtiterunt, mihi perſuaſiſſimum eſſe, nihil uſpiam contratam apertam lucem obtendi poſſe. But this Reverend Doctor need not make uſe of, or puzzle his divining faculty, to find out how this place may be anſwered, it was anſwered, and ſatisfactorily anſwered by Gerſom Bucer, De gubernatione Eccleſiaſtica, almoſt forty years before the coming out of theſe Anti-Blondellian Diſſertations; the ſum of the anſwer is: 1. That p. 49traditio Apostolica need not ſignifie that which was inſtituted by the Apoſtles, it may denote no more then an Eccleſiaſtical cuſtom.

But can there be any reaſon to imagine that Hierom or any man ſhould ſet down that for an Inſtance of Apoſtolical Tradition, which the ſame perſon doth not believe to be delivered by the Apoſtles, but to be of a later Date? Anſw. to Lond. Miniſt. 176. Why ſure a reaſon may well be imagined, as well as there may be a reaſon imagined, why Dr. Hammond cals thoſe ancient Conſtitutions and Canons, Canons and Conſtitutions Apostolical; though he do not think, that they were either of them made by the Apoſtles, but by perſons far inferiour to them, for Authority, and born long after they were fallen aſleep. It was not unuſual to call that an Apoſtolical Tradition, which had been long practiſed. To this end, let Dr. Jer. Taylor be read in his Liberty of Propheſying, ſec. 5. p. 88, 89.2. He anſwers, that Hier. intended not here a particular and disjoyned Compariſon, firſt of Biſhops with the High Prieſt Aaron, then of Presbyters with the Sons of Aaron, and Laſtly of Deacons with Levites: but his meaning is, that as Aaron and his ſons the Prieſts were above the Levites; So under the New Teſtament, the Biſhop and Presbyter are above Deacons: And therefore it was intolerable Pride in the Deacon of his age, to ſet himſelf above the Presbyters. Audio quendam in tantam erupiſſe vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris, i. e. Epiſcopis anteferret. So he begins his Epiſtle; and in the Proceſs of it, he doth magno conatu, labour to prove, that Presbyters are the ſame with Biſhops: and at laſt concludes with theſe words, ut ſciamus Traditiones Apoſtolicas, &c.

The ſecond place urged out of Hierom, to prove the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, is in his Comment on Titus; Idem eſt ergo Presbyter qui & Epiſcopus, & antequam Diaboli inſtinctu, ſtudia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego ſum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum conſilio Eccleſiae gubernabantur, poſtquam vero unuſquiſ que eos quos baptizaverat ſuos putavit eſſe, non Chriſti, in toto Orbe decretum eſt: ut unus de Presbyteris electus, ſuperponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Eccleſiae cura pertineret, & Schiſmatum ſemina tolerentur.

Before this can any way advantage the pretenſions of thoſe who aſcribe a Jus Divinum to Epiſcopacy, it muſt be proved, that the in toto orbe decretum eſt doth refer to ſome Decree made p. 50by the Apoſtles, and that the time of the Inſtitution of Biſhops was when it was ſaid at Corinth, I am of Paul, &c. Now that neither of theſe will ever be proved, you will ſoon ſee, if you read the Annotations of Blondel on the Text of Hierom.

I paſs now, having only begged your pardon for my prolixity in this Second, unto a Third Argument for proof of the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters; it ſhall be drawn from the practice among the Jews; and thus I form it:

If among the Jews any one that was ordained himſelf, might ordain another, then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters: But, among the Jews, any one that was himſelf ordained, might Ordain others: Ergo.

The Conſequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledged by moſt Learned men, that the Government of the Church-Chriſtian was formed after the Jewiſh Pattern; Chriſt all along accommodating and lightly changing the Jewiſh Cuſtomes into Chriſtian Inſtitutions.

The Minor I prove, there was among Jews, as Dr. Lightfoot hath obſerved, Harm. p. 97. an Ordination with laying on of hands, and without laying on of hands. Maym. in Sanhed. 4. How is Ordination to be for perpetuity? Not that they lay on their hands on the head of the Elder, but call him Rabbi, and ſay, behold thou art Ordained, &c. But there was alſo Ordination by the laying on of hands. Take Ordination which way you will, 'twill never be proved, that he who was himſelf in Office, might not ordain another to the ſame Office. For though we are told of a Conſtitution, that none ſhould ordain, but thoſe to whom leave was granted by Rabbi Hillel, yet a principio non fuit ſic. To which purpoſe, I ſhall only need to tranſcribe the words of P. Cunaeus, one as well skilled in the Hebrew Rites and Cuſtoms, as any that ever did write concerning them, l. 1. de Rep. Heb. c. 12. Senatoria Dignitas, quoniam ampliſſima erat, nemini data ſine legitimo actu eſt, manuum enim impoſitione opus fuit, quam Judaei foreign vocant, at Graeci foreign dixerunt. Ita Moſes Joſuae & 70 Senatoribus manum impoſuit; qua ſolennitate peracta, ſtatim delapſus aetheriis ſedibus Spiritus pectora eorum implevit, & hi porro, in hunc modum initiati cum eſsent, alios eadem lege auctoraverunt; non tamen potuit is ritus extraterraem ſanctam peragi quia vis ejus omnis concluſa Paleſtinae finibus erat. Perinſigne eſt quod R. p. 51Maimonides tradidit in Halacha Sanh. c. 4. Cum enimoſim ſolennem hunc actum pro arbitrio ſuo omnes celebrarent, quibus impoſita ſemel manus fuerat coarctatum eſſe, id jus a ſapientibus eſſe ait, conſtitutum que uti deinceps nemo illud uſurparet niſi cui id conceſſiſſet divinus Senex R. Hillel, is autem magni concilii princeps erat, & alterum ſub ſe Praeſidem habuit Sameam hominem truculentum, ambitioſum que , &c. Tandem haec manuum impoſitio quae uſitata diu fuerat receſſavit recitatum tantum enim carmen quoddam conceptis verbis eſt. The Learned Selden in his firſt Book de Synedr. c. 14. takes notice of this, and ſaith, that St. Pauls creating of Presbyters, was according to the Jewiſh cuſtom of creating Elders; that Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, as his diſciple: This Gamaliel was the Nephew of Hillel, and Prince of the Sanhedrim at that time, and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul a Jewiſh Elder, before he was a Chriſtian; and that afterwards, when Paul became an Apoſtle, knowing that the true Judaiſme was by the appointment of God, to be communicated to Gentiles, as well as Jews, and thinking that it was lawful to create Elders out of the Holy Land, and that he and other Apoſtles were free from that new ſuper-induced Law of not making Elders without the Licenſe of the Prince of the Sanhedrim, and ſo the cuſtom prevailed in creating Chriſtian Elders, that every one that was duly created himſelf, might alſo duly create his own Diſciples; he did upon this account, create or appoint Elders in every Church, Acts 14.23. Dr. Hammond in his ſix Queries, p. 344, 345, 346, 347. muſtereth up many Inconveniences, which ſeemed to him, neceſſarily to follow this Conjecture or Obſervation. I cannot think my ſelf obliged to defend Mr. Selden. The Reverend Doctor granteth as much as I would wiſh, viz. p. 349. That the Government of the Church was formed after the Jewiſh Pattern: And p. 324. That Impoſition of hands in Ordination, ſo often mentioned in the New Teſtament, is anſwerable to the laying on of hands uſed by the Jews, when they did create Succeſſors in any Power, or communicate any part of their Power to others as aſſiſtants. If all this be true, why may not a Chriſtian Presbyter ordain a Presbyter, as well as a Jewiſh Elder ordain an Elder?

My Fourth Argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, ſhall be taken from the many Examples that do occurre p. 52in Antiquity of ſuch Ordinations, which were never reputed null and voyd.

I begin with that known place of Hierom in his Epiſtle to Evagrius: Alexandriae Marco Evangeliſta uſ que ad Heraclam & Dionyſium Epiſcopos Presbyteri ſemper unum ex ſe electum, in excelſiori gradu collocatum Epiſcopum nominabant; quomodo ſi exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de ſe, quem induſtrium noverint, & Archi-Diaconum vocent. To this Teſtimony it is wont to be anſwered, that only the Election is aſcribed to Presbyters, the Ordination might notwithſtanding be performed by Biſhops.

But the Queſtion is not, what might be done, but was done?

And Eutychius publiſhed by Mr. Selden moſt plainly and expreſſely affirms, that from the time of Mark the Founder of the Church of Alexandria, unto Demetrius Biſh. of the ſame Church, the ſeveral Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria were choſen and ordained with Impoſition of hands, by the 12 Presbyters, and that by ſpecial command from St. Mark himſelf. To this the Learned Diſſertator ſaith, p. 177. Facilis eſt Reſponſio, nullam hac in re Eutychio fidem deberi, ut qui aſſertioni huic aperta foreign viam muniverit. This is indeed an eaſie anſwer, but a little too eaſie to be received by one who is awake, to which nothing need be confronted ſave only this, that ſome Credit is due in this matter to Eutychius.

And from him, we ſhall go, to thoſe who ſpeak concerning the Church of Scotland, in her firſt Converſion. Jo. Major, in the Second Book of his Hiſtory, c. 2. writes that the Scots were inſtructed in the Faith by Prieſts & Monks without biſhops, until the year of our L. 429. So as that that Church muſt needs be without Biſhops above two hundred years; as is acknowledged by the Learned Forbes, in his Irenicum, p. 159. To this, the Doctor anſwereth without book, not having John Maior by him to conſult, he ſaith, that John Maior's affirmation hath very little appearance o… ruth in it, Anſw. to Lond. Miniſt. p. 160, & 161. that neither Bede nor any other affirmeth, that before the coming of Palladius, they were ruled by a Presbytery, or ſo much as that they had any Presbyter among them. But this is too great confidence. Blondel, who he choſe for his Antagoniſt, had produced Johan. Fordonus, who in his Scotiſchron. l. 3. c. 8. hath theſe words, Ante Palladii adventum, habebant Scoti fidei Doctores p. 53ac Sacramentorum Miniſtratores Presbyteros ſolummodo, vel Monachos, ritum ſequentes Primitivae Eccleſiae. And if it ſhould be ſaid, that theſe Presbyters and Monks were commiſſionated by ſome Biſhop, thus to preach and adminiſter Sacraments, the ſame Blondel, Apol. Sec. 3. p. 315. quoteth Hector Boethius Scotor. Hiſ. l. 6. fol. 92. in theſe words, Caepere nostri eo temporis …circa annum 263.) Chriſti dogma accuratiſſime amplexari; Monachorum quorundam ductu & adhortatione (qui quod ſedulo praedicationi vacarent, eſſent que frequentes in oratione) ab incolis cultores dei ſunt appellati. Invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum ut ſacerdotes omnes ad noſtra pene tempora vulgo Culdaei, i. e. cultores Dei ſine diſcrimine vocitarentur. Pontificem inter ſe communi ſuffragio deligebant, penes quem divinarum rerum eſſet poteſtas; is multos deinceps annos Scotorum Epiſcopus (ut noſtris traditur Annalibus) est appellatus. & lib. 7. f. 128. Palladius primus omnium qui ſacrum inter Scotos egere Magiſtratum, a ſummo Pontifice, A. D. 430. Pontifex creatus; cum antea populi ſuffragiis ex Monachis & Culdaeis Pontifices aſſumerentur.

Now that I am upon the Iſle of Great Britain, it will not be amiſſe, to take notice what Walſingham the Monk relates concerning the Lollards, A. D. 1389. Winning very many to their Sect, they grew ſo audacious, that their Presbyters, like Biſhops, created & ordained new Presbyters; affirming that every Prieſt had received as much power to bind & looſe, & to miniſter other Eccleſiaſtical things, as the Pope himſelf giveth, or could give. This Power of Ordination they exerciſed in the Dioceſs of Salisbury, and thoſe who were ordained by them, thinking all things to be lawful to them, preſumed to celebrate Maſſes, and feared not to handle divine things, and adminiſter the Sacraments.

I might alſo reckon up the Ordinations made by the Chorepiſcopi, among Ordinations by Presbyters: For I am not yet convinced by all that is written, that they were Biſhops. See what is ſaid in this matter by Forbes Irenicum, lib. 2. c. 11. Nor do I yet believe that the Sayings of thoſe two Ancient Authors, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri conſignant, ſi praeſens non ſit Epiſcopus. In Alexandria & per totum Aegyptum, ſi deſit Epiſcopus, conſecrat Presbyter: are impertinently alledged to prove Ordination by Presbyters. For I judge it more probable that conſignare and p. 54conſecrare do ſignifie ordinare, then that they ſhould ſignifie only conficere Sacramentum Euchariſtiae, But let theſe paſſe.

Caſſianus as you may find in Blondel, p. 357. reports, that Paphanutius a Presbyter, did make Daniel his Diſciple firſt Deacon, then Presbyter, the Biſhops that at that time governed the Ch…ch, not cenſuring him for it. More Examples you may find in Blondel; If you have him not by you, you may find ſome of them tranſcribed out of him, as I ſuppoſe, by Mr. Stillingfl. towards the latter end of the ſecond Book of his Irenicum.

And for Examples of latter times, Mr. Prynne will furniſh you in his Unbiſhopping of Timothy and Titus.

Laſtly, I thus prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, If the Ministry of thoſe who have been Ordained by Presbyters, hath been ordinarily bleſſed to the Confirmation and Converſion of ſouls, then is Ordination by Presbyters valid: But the Miniſtry of thoſe, &c. Ergo.

The Conſequence of the Major is proved, becauſe God cannot any way more eminently atteſt and own the Miniſtry of any perſon, then by making him inſtrumental to the Converſion and Confirmation of the ſoules of his Hearers and Followers. When the Apoſtleſhip of Paul was called in queſtion, how did he prove it? 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. Am I not an Apoſtle? Am I not free? Have I not ſeen Jeſus Chriſt our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? You ſee he doth not lay more ſtreſſe upon his having ſeen Jeſus Chriſt the Lord, then he doth upon their being his Workmanſhip in the Lord. More plainly in the ſecond verſe: If I be not an Apoſtle unto others, yet doubtleſſe I am to you; for the Seal of my Apoſtleſhip are ye in the Lord. The Learned Grotius would have us after foreign to ſupply foreign, you are the Seal of my Apoſtleſhip, eo ipſo quod eſtis in Chriſto, quod eſtis Chriſtiani. Becauſe this Author is ſo much admired by thoſe againſt whoſe oppoſitions I am now fortifying you, I ſhall tranſcribe his whole Annotation on this ſecond Verſe. Si Alii dubitarent, an Apoſtolus eſſem, vos certe dubitare non deberetis, propter ingentia ſigna apoſtolatus quae apud vos edidi: Sicut per ſigna appoſita conſtat inſtrumentum aliquod eſſe ſincerum, ita per vestram converſionem conſtat me eſſe Apoſtolum.

As for the Minor, if any one ſhould be ſo monſtrouſly uncharitable and impudent, as to deny it, he need only enquire in p. 55Germany, Holland, France, Scotland, and he will hear of hundreds of Thouſands of Examples to convince him. As for England, it hath been the ſad complaint of many, that God hath of late much withdrawn his converting preſence from his Ordinances. But hath he more withdrawn it from his Ordinances adminiſtred by thoſe that were Presbyterianly ordained, then from the ſame Ordinances adminiſtred by ſuch as were Epiſcopally Ordained? Nay, hath not the ſucceſs of Presbyterians been greater, if their Adverſaries ſhould be Judges? Were it convenient to boaſt, many of us could ſay invenimus Eccleſiam Chriſti lateritiam, reliquimus marmoream. We had prophane, rude ignorant people left us by our Epiſcopal Predeceſſors; but our Succeſſors will find them civil, knowing, praying Chriſtians. Might we but find ſo much Favour in the eyes of our Soveraign, as to be permitted to exerciſe our Miniſtry, if at the years end it did not appear, that we and our People were as good Subjects to God and his Vice-gerent, as any that favour the Hierarchy, we would not then refuſe to ſuffer the puniſhments due to men really as bad as we are falſely reported to be: But if we muſt, becauſe we cannot embrace an opinion which was never till of late maintained by any that called himſelf a Proteſtant, be accountted Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, nothing remaines, but that we commit our cauſe to God, and till he ſee meet to plead it, poſſeſſe our ſouls in Patience.

There are ſome Objections againſt the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination, to be removed, and then I ſhall exerciſe your Patience no longer.

1. The firſt is grounded upon the Authority of two Fathers, Hierom and Chryſoſtom: Hieroms words are in his Epiſtle to Evagrius, Quid enim facit Epiſcopus, excepta Ordinatione, quod non faciat Presbyter? To anſwer this Teſtimony, I might obſerve, that they who produce it, will not ſtick to it, but are verily perſwaded that there are many things beſides Ordination, which a Biſhop may do, that yet a Presbyter cannot do. But I need not flee to ſo indirect an Anſwer: For,

1. Marſilius Patavinus, in his Book which he cals Defenſor Pacis, takes the word Ordinatio to ſignifie quite another thing then the conferring of Holy Orders. His words are theſe; Ordinatio p. 56ibi non ſignificat poteſtatem conferendi, ſeu collationem ſacrorum Ordinum, ſed Oeconomicam poteſtatem regulandi vel dirigendi Eccleſiae ritus, at que perſonas, quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in Templo; unde ab antiquis Legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi.

2. 'Tis certain that ſomtimes the word Ordinatio doth ſignifie the external Rite or Ceremony uſed in Ordination, viz. Impoſition of hands; if ſo it be taken here, as why may it not? I can grant that Ordination in many places was ſo managed; it is freely confeſſed by Calvin: Unum puta foreign vices ſuſtinentem ut plurimum omnium nomine manus impoſuiſſe.

3. Grotius ſaith, nothing hinders, but that we may ſo interpret the place, as that it ſhall mean no more then that Presbyters can ordain none in contempt of the Biſhops.

4. I finally anſwer, that Hierom ſpeaks not here of any Divine Law appropriating Ordination to Biſhops, but only of the Eccleſiaſtical cuſtom that obtained in his age; 'tis as if he had ſaid, what is there now adaies done by a Biſhop, that a Presbyter may not do without Breach of Eccleſiaſtical Canons, except only the buſineſs of Ordination? He had before ſaid, that a principio non fuit ſic, originally the Presbyters might and did make the very Biſhop himſelf.

The place of Chryſ. is in his 11 Hom. on 1 Tim. the words are, foreign. Here again I might tell you, that if this Saying of Chryſoſtomes muſt determine the Controverſie, our Prelatiſts muſt throw open that which they account the beſt part of their Encloſure, they muſt acknowledge that the Presbyters have a foreign, that they exceed the Presbyter in the Power of Order only not in the power of Juriſdiction. 2. I could much weaken the Authority of Chryſoſtome as to the point of Ordination by acquainting you that it was one of the accuſations made againſt that Father, that he did engroſſe Ordination to himſelf, not taking in the aſſiſtance of his Presbyters, foreign, are the words p. 57of his Charge in the Synod ad Quercum, An. 403. But if theſe two Anſwers ſeem to you but ſhifts, (though why they ſhould ſeem no more then ſhifts, I wot not) I reply thirdly, that foreign, the word uſed by Chryſoſtom is ambiguous, uſed by good authors in very different, if not quite contrary ſignifications; as is noted (among others) by Suidas, his words are theſe, foreign. (that foreign with a Genitive caſe ſignifies to exceed or excell; but with an Accuſative, to injure or do wrong.) Now if we ſhould ſo render the word foreign here, ſeeing it hath an Accuſative caſe after it, Biſhops muſt from hence be concluded not lawfull poſſeſſors, but uſurpers of the power of ſole Ordination.

If yet you are not ſatisfied, I turn you over fourthly to Gerſom Bucer, who page 357, 358. takes notice of this authority, as placed by Biſhop Downham in the margin of that Sermon which he took upon him to confute; one of his anſwers is, that Biſhops are here made Superiour to Presbyters, only by the voluntary election of their Sym-Presbyters, or Colleagues, not by any Divine Right, he renders the words thus, Sola-enim horum (ſubaudi Presbyterorum) electione aſcenderunt, at que hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri videntur habere; then the plain meaning is, that the Presbyters, for order ſake, do chuſe ſome one to be their Preſident; and this is all that the Biſhop hath above the Presbyters.

The ſecond objection againſt the validity of Ordinations by Presbyters, is taken alſo from Eccleſiaſtical Writers, among whom we do find Ordinations by Presbyters pronounced null and void: Of this nature there are three principally inſiſted upon, the which before we particularly examine, I ſhall crave leave to premiſe this one thing, viz. that it is very manifeſt, that Councels have pronounced ſome Ordinations null and void, which yet could not be null in natura rei. I inſtance only in the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch, pronouncing Ordinations, though made by a Biſhop to be void, if the perſon ordained, were ordained either without a title, or in another Biſhops Dioceſs, yet ſuch Ordinations are not nullities, many examples of this nature are brought by the learned Blondell, page 168, 169. Now ſo it might be in the caſe of Ordinations by Presbyters, and ſo it p. 58is by many averred that it was; but let us hear the examples.

One Colythus, a Presbyter, took upon him, being but a Preſbyter, to ordain Iſchiras, this Iſchiras, notwithſtanding this Ordination, was looked upon but as a Laick.

I anſwer, there are ſo many diſſimilitudes betwixt the Ordinations of Colythus, and thoſe Ordinations made by Presbyters, which we contend for, that from the condemning of his Ordinations, no argument can be drawn to prove, that ours ought to be condemned.

1. Colythus acted not as a Presbyter, but pretended himſelf to be a Biſhop, ſo do not our Presbyters.

2. He acted alone, whereas our Ordinations are not by one ſingle perſon.

3. He was an open declared Heretick.

4. He that was ordained had no title, he was not foreign: He was not choſen by any Church, but our Ordinations are not of ſine-titular perſons.

A ſecond example is the caſe of Maximus, who being no Biſhop, yet ordained Presbyters, but all his Ordinations were by the Fathers aſſembled in Councel at Conſtantinople pronounced null.

Anſw. The ſtory of Maximus is too large to be here recited, ſee it in Blondell: I ſay briefly, that what was by the Synod determined againſt his Ordinations, is not prejudicial to Ordinations made by Presbyters, for (as Blondell well) if Presbyters had never ſo full power of Ordination, yet had the Synod good reaſon to depoſe thoſe who were ordained by Maximus, becauſe he was a Presbyter, as well as a Biſhop in the ayr, never had he been ordained Presbyter, either by Gregory, or any other.

A third example, is that of the blind Biſhop, who did lay hands on one Presbyter, and two Deacons, but his Ordinations were pronounced invalid, becauſe not he, but his Presbyters read the words of Ordination.

This was decreed, ſaith Dr. J. Tay. Epiſcopacy aſſerted, 182. by the firſt Councel of Sevill, too haſtily, for it was done not by the firſt, but ſecond Councel of Sevill, about the year 619. He that reads the Decree of thoſe Fathers, would think they were blinder then the deceaſed Biſhop, whom they condemned; for what if the Presbyter did at the command of his Biſhop read the words which the Biſhop could not read, doth this make the Ordination void? by what Law, either of God, or man; ſhall we p. 59ſay, that the Judge with us doth not condemn the malefactor, becauſe he appoints the Clerk to read the ſentence? Be it as it will, the Decree it ſelf ſaith, that the Presbyter in reading the words, did only ſin contra eccleſiaſticum ordinem; and we cannot think that an Ordination is preſently void, becauſe all Eccleſiaſtical Rites are not obſerved in it.

Againſt theſe examples I might, if it were needful, bring the judgement of Leo, Anno 452. in his Epiſtle to Ruſticus Narbonenſis, but in this Maſter Stilling fleet hath prevented me, page 380.

The third objection againſt the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters, is taken from the words of the Apoſtle, Heb. 7.7. without contradiction, the leſs is bleſſed of the better.

Anſw. This is ſo poor and pitiful an objection, that I ſhould never have named it, had I not found it in the writings of ſome famous for learning. When it is ſaid, that the leſs is bleſſed of the greater, would they inferre, that he who ordains, muſt be greater then he who is ordained, is before or after Ordination; if he muſt be greater then he is after Ordination, then a Biſhop may not ordain a Biſhop, if they ſay he muſt be greater then the party is before his Ordination; why ſo, I hope, a Presbyter ordaining a Presbyter, is greater then the Presbyter ordained by him, till he be actually ordained, and ſo brought into the ſame order with him.

But I muſt come to that argument in which Dr. H. Ham. doth ſo triumph, that he confeſſeth he was not acute enough to ſee what could be replied to it, you will find it in his praemonition to the Reader, before his Latin Diſſertations, he frames it into a Dilemna, either Hierome had power to Ordain, or he had not, if he had, why then doth he ſay, Quid facit Epiſcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter; if he had not, how come our Presbyters to have that power, which he the Hyperaſpiſtes of Preſbyters had not.

I anſwer, Hierome had power to Ordain, taking in other Preſbyters to his aſſiſtance; what he meant by his Quid facit excepta Ordinatione, I told you before.

But the ſame learned Doctor proceeds, It ſhall ſuffice us to remember thee of one thing, viz. that no Presbyter Ordained by Biſhops here in the Engliſh Church, had any power of Ordaining p. 60others beſtowed on him, and therefore can no more take any ſuch power to himſelf, then can a Deacon, or a meer Laick.

Anſw. This profound Objection was, as you know, brought at a publick Act in Oxon. ſome years ſince, and urged by a learned Doctor, againſt one who maintained the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination, it was then, in the judgement of the hearers, ſatisfactorily anſwered, and ſo, I doubt not, but it will be now in your judgement: I ſay, thoſe Biſhops who Ordained Presbyters here in England, did give them a power of Ordaining others, whether they had any intention ſo to do, I know not, but this I ſay, that he who maketh any one a Prieſt, giveth him a Power of Ordaining, and if when he is made a Prieſt, he ſhould through fear or ignorance promiſe not to Ordain, if he ſhould afterwards be convinced, that as Prieſt he hath a power of Ordaining, he ought to repent of his promiſe, and it notwithſtanding, to joyn with his brethren in laying on of hands, if either there be no Biſhops, or none that will ordain, without impoſing ſuch ſubſcriptions, as contain in them matters very doubtful, if not unlawful.

2. The form of words uſed in ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of England is this, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe ſins thou remittest, &c. did theſe words, when uſed by our Lord Chriſt to his Diſciples, confer a power of Ordaining? If they did not, I then demand when, and by what form of words was that power conferred on the Apoſtles? If they did, how come they not to convey a power of ordaining others unto the Presbyter, in whoſe Ordination they are uſed? If a man, when he is made a Prieſt in the Church of England, receive not a power of Ordaining others, nor doth he receive it when he is conſecrated Biſhop, for having read over the Form appointed for the conſecrating of a Biſhop, I cannot find any words that give the Biſhop a power of Ordaining, except any one be ſo hypercritical, as to imagine, that Take the Holy Ghoſt impowers a perſon to Ordain, and Receive the Holy Ghoſt doth not: But why then do Preſbyterians complain, that the Biſhops reſerve the power of Ordination and Juriſdiction to themſelves, indulging to Presbyters only ſome inferiour Acts (ab omni excuſatione eos procul eſſe concludimus, qui, quas ſibi neutiquam conceſſas conquerantur, poteſtates, p. 61ſibi ſic ſacrilege arripiunt.) A. Presbyterians do not complain, that they had ſuch an Ordination as did not confer on them a power of Ordaining, but they complain, that they are not permitted the exerciſe of that power; nor do they ſay, that they have no power to ſuſpend and excommunicate, but that they are not ſuffered to put forth that power, but only (which the ſimpleſt Church-Warden may do) to preſent ſcandalous offenders.

But it is further objected, That when one is by the laying on of the hands of the Biſhop, advanced to the degree of a Presbyter, an indeterminate and indefinite power is not by the Fathers of the Church committed to him, but a power, ſuis finibus fiquido diſpuncta, ſuis cancellis & limitibus diſtincta, & dilucida actuum ſpecialium ad quos admittitur enumeratione definita & concluſa; there is a particular enumeration of all the Acts unto which the power of a Presbyter doth extend, among which there is no mention of creating of Presbyters and Deacons. D.H.H. in his preface to his Diſſertations.

Anſw. I anſwer, that when one is made Presbyter, an indefinite and indeterminate power is not given to him, and that there is an enumeration of the particular acts about which a Preſbyter is moſt converſant, but deny, that that enumeration was ever by the Church intended for a perfect enumeration; 'tis not ſaid, this thou haſt power to do, but nothing elſe; if it were, how comes a Presbyter to have power of voting in an Aſſembly, or Convocation, when he is called to it. There is an enumeration of the Acts of a Biſhop, among which there is no mention of ordaining Prieſts and Deacons, may we thence conclude, that the Biſhop hath no power of conferring orders.

Obj. In our Engliſh Church, before and after the Reformation, it was alway held as an undoubted truth, that Presbyters neither ſingle, nor in conjunction, had any power of ordaining Deacons and Prieſts. Id. ibid.

Anſw. Strange confidence! Was this ever held as an undoubted truth, and that both before and after our Reformation? What Confeſſion of the Church of England ſaith ſo? What one man eminent in our Reformation, or before our Reformation, ſaid ſo? Do not Uſher, Davenant, Maſon, Field, &c. ſay, Ordination by Presbyters is valid, which it could not be, if they had p. 62no power of ordaining? For my part, I ſhall as ſoon be brought to think there were no ſuch men as Cran…er, Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Jewel, as to think, that they judged that Presbyters had not power to make either Deacons or Presbyters; I may now at laſt, I hope, conclude with the learned and induſtrious Gerhard, Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidem proferri poteſt, quo demonſtretur, immutabili quadam neceſſitate, ac ipſius Dei inſtitutione poteſtatem ordinandi eo modo competere Epiſcopo, ut ſi minister ab Epiſcopo ordinetur, ejus vocatio & ordinatio cenſeatur rata, ſin a Presbytero, quod tunc irrita coran… Deo, & fruſtranea ſit habenda. Loc. Com. de Miniſ. Eccleſ.

But methinks after all this, I hear you ſay, you are not ſatisfied, becauſe that when you talk with Epiſcopal men, they conſtantly tell you, that in receiving Ordination from Presbyters, you go againſt the judgement of the Catholick Church for 1600 years and upward. Let me ask you who are thoſe Epiſcopal men that tell you ſo? are they ſuch as you can ſuppoſe to have read the moſt conſiderable books that were written in all ages of the Church? For my part I have uſually obſerved that thoſe who thus boaſt of all Antiquity, are very ſtrangers to all Antiquity, and never ſo much as ſaw the Fathers and Councels they ſo prate of. If you are reſolved to cloſe with every one that ſaith he hath all the Fathers on his ſide, you muſt preſently turn Papiſt, for who more pretends Antiquity for his opinions than doth the Papiſt? But if you will not beleeve every one that pretends to have all Antiquity on his ſide, then I hope you may think it reaſonable to examine the Epiſcoparians pretences to Antiquity; which if you will do, you will find that prime Antiquity is no friend to ſuch an Hierarchy as they now would obtrude upon us. My advice to you is,

1. That if it be poſſible, and as much as in you lieth, you would avoid all Diſputations of this nature, which I have but rarely obſerved to have any good ſucceſs.

2. If you cannot avoid Diſputation, then if it be poſſible confine your diſpute to Scripture times: Put him that contends for Epiſcopacy as earneſtly as if the very being of the Church did depend upon it, to prove the Divine Inſtitution of it; and aſſure your ſelf, that which cannot be proved out of the Scriptures, is not neceſſary to the being of the Church;

3. If you muſt needs enter into the liſts about the Antiquity of your Opinion, then my counſell is,

p. 631. Do not take every thing to be the ſaying of a Father, which is quoted as ſuch, but forbear anſwering, till you have time to examine whether that be indeed in the Fathers, which is brought out of them: For nothing is more common than for men in the heat of Diſputation, to lay the brats of their own brain at the Fathers doors.

2. If you find that which is produced out of any Father, to be indeed in him, then enquire whether it were the intent of the Father to deliver his mind in that place concerning that matter, for which his authority is urged. For if we will gather the opinion of Fathers from paſſages let fall on the by, we may eaſily make one Father contradict another, yea every Father contradict himſelf.

3. You muſt alſo enquire, whether what a Father delivers, be delivered by him as his own private opinion, or as the opinion of the Church; and if as the opinion of the Church, whether only as the opinion of that part of the Church in which he lived, or of the Univerſal Church: If it be but his own private opinion and judgement, you cannot think your ſelf obliged to believe it, except confirmed by ſtrength of reaſon and evidence of Scripture. If it be delivered as the opinion of the whole Church, more reverence is to be given to it; but then it is certain that the Fathers did humanum aliquid pati, and ſometimes affirm that to be Doctrine of the Church Univerſal, which was far enough from being ſuch. Theſe and many other directions are given to you by the Incomparable D'aillee in his learned Treatiſe of the Right uſe of the Fathers, which Book is moſt heartily recommended to your reading, as you are to the grace of God and guidance of his Spirit, by, Sir,

Your moſt affectionate friend and ſervant, R. A.

For his much reſpected Friend H. A. Miniſter as —

Poſtſcript.