A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

Table of contents

Title page

THE PREFACE.

TO THE READER.

ERRATA.

CHAP. I.

Our Agreement.

§

CHAP. II

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil.

[Page]A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination, &c.

§

[Page]

[Page]

A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination: OR, TEN ARGUMENTS FROM Scripture and Antiquity PROVING Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid. By I. O. Minister of the Gospel.

To which is prefixt an Epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quàm dispositionis Dominicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores. Hieron. in Ep. ad. Tit.

1 Cor. 4. 1. [...].

London: Printed for I. Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil over-against the Royal Exchange. 1694.

THE PREFACE.

[Page]

[Page]

THE Cause which these Papers Vindicate is not that of a Party, as some unthinking People may imagine, but of the Reformation in General, which has been propagated and supported, in its most flourishing Branches, by the Ministry here pleaded for. The Ancient Vaudois, or Waldenses, those eminent and faithful Witnesses against Antichristian Usurpations, have had no other for near 500 years pastPerrin's Hist. p. 53, 62.. The first guides of the People from Mystical Egypt, Hist. of the Vaudois, c. 3 were Presbyters Ordained by [Page] Presbyters. These are they that gathered the first Fruits unto God; under the Conduct of these the persecuted WOMAN FLED th [...]ough a Sea of Blood into the Wilderness: by their Ministry she hath been fed and nourished, these make the first Figure among the Witnesses that prophecy in Sackcloth; they have gone in mourning from one Generation to another. When others have assumed Beauty for Ashes, the Oyl of Ioy for mourning, the Garment of Praise for the Spirit of heaviness; these have been fed with the Bread of Tears, have been filled with bitterness, and made drunk with Wormwood. They have been Men of Sorrows, and acquainted with grief. They have been sore broken in the place of Dragons, and covered with the Shadow of Death, yet have they not forgotten the Name of their God, or stretched out their hand to a strange God.

It's by the Ministry of these that the Truth prevailed, the Eyes of Nations were opened, and vast Multitudes reduced to the Obedience of the Gospel. They seal'd their Ministry [Page] with their Blood, and Heaven sealed it with the most glorious success.

Contra Waldens. cap. 4. Rainerius, one of their Tormentors, complains of them, that they had spread through all Countries, and crept into every Corner.

Walsingham, our Country-man, tells us how the Lolards (as they were here called) had fill'd our Land,Walsing. Hist. p. 339. and had their Ministers Ordain'd by Presbyters without Bishops: that they justified these Ordinations, and asserted an inherent Power in Presbyters to put forth all Ecclesiastical Acts without distinction.

We may rationally presume that their practice was uniform in other Countries; and had we exact Records of their Church Administrations, we should find innumerable Instances of Ordination by Presbyters among them: but the account they give of themselves is so very imperfect, that had not their Enemies transmitted to Posterity a Narrative of their Actions and Sufferings (though very partially) we should have known little of them.

[Page]We have no reason to think that those blessed Worthies did either alter their Judgments, or supersede their Practice concerning Ordination by Presbyters; and therefore I take it for granted, that the same Ministry continued among them until the begining of the Reformation.

Here in England several of the Bishops were eminently instrumental in promoting the Reformation, which gave them a deserved esteem in the thoughts of all good men, especially of the poor Lolards, to whom that great Change was a Resurrection from the dead.

By this means the Bishops continued their stations in the Church, and were entrusted with the principal management of Ordination, which their Popish Predecessors had ingrossed into their hands long before.

But though Matters were thus settled, they were far from Claiming to themselves a superiour Power over Presbyters, or stamping a Ius Divinum upon their Office. They acknowledged the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, that Ordination by [Page] Presbyters was valid, and that Episcopacy was a bare Constitution of the Civil Magistrate Dr. Stillingfl. Iren. p. 393., for the better governing of the Church. All this will be fully proved in the following Discourse.

Thus it was in England, but in the forreign Churches it was quite otherwise; there the Bishops were implacable Enemies to the Reformation, which gave the Presbyters an Opportunity of re-assuming their inherent Power of Ordination, and of laying aside the pretended superiour Order of Bishops, as those who had appropriated to themselves the just Rights of Presbyters, and divested them of the inseparable Priviledges of their Order: and had been so far from answering the first design of their Constitution, of being a Remedy against Schism Hier. in Ep. ad Tit., that partly by their Arbitrary Impositions, and partly by their boundless Ambition, they had miserably torn and divided the Christian Church for several Ages before, and contributed to the establishment of the usurping Bishop of Rome. For these and other Reasons, they rejected Bishops [Page] from having any part in their Church-Government. This they committed to the Presbyters, as their ancient RightCommunī Concitio Presbyterorum gubernabatur Ecclesia. Hieron. ubi supra, & ad Evagr..

If a Popish Bishop happened to be Converted to the Protestant Religion, he was not capable of Exercising his Ministry among them, no not as a Presbyter, until he submitted to a new OrdinationSee La Rocque's Conform. of D [...]scipline. cap. 1. art. 3..

This Establishment enraged the Roman Prelates, and drew forth their strongest Efforts to assert their tottering Hierarchy, and to overthrow the Reformed Ordinations.

Therefore the principal and leading Antagonists we have to do with, in the present Controversie, are the Papists, especially the Iesuits, who with one Mouth condemn Ordinations by Presbyters.

With us it's a very small thing that we should be judg'd of Man's day, we acquiesce in that Judgment which will dispense Rewards and Punishments, not according to the disputable Modes of [Page] Mens entrance into the Office, but as they have faithfully, or otherwise, discharged the Duties of the Sacred Ministry.

Happy they, whose Record is on high, whose Witness is in Heaven, whose Testimony is in their own Bosoms, and in the Consciences of those that hear them.

I leave the following Discourse to recommend it self unto thee; Read with observation, weigh every thing in an even Ballance, and let the Impressions of Truth form an Impartial Judgment.

I. O.

TO THE READER.

[Page]

THE indispensible use of a Gospel Ministry must appear to such as at all consider, the ignorance of Mankind in the way of Eternal Life, the innate aversion to the terms of Reconciliation with God, the Mystery of Gospel Revelations, the subtle and unwearied Attempts of Seducers against the Truth, the backwardness to improvement in Grace and a Life according to the Rules of Christianity, which even they discern, who [Page] are not utter Strangers to the Impresses of a Divine Power, by the Word, in the illumination of their Minds, and renovation of their Wills. Yea further, who would sustain the Labour and Hazards of this holy Calling, or attend thereto with an assiduity requisite to the ends thereof, if not by Office obliged? Nay, how would it enervate our Pleadings with Sinners, and abate that Assurance given to Believers by the Word and Sacraments, if we did not transact between God and them, as cloathed with the Authority of Ambassadors, delegated by Christ thereto, and supportted by his Presence and Power in our Administrations?

The Lord Iesus, as Head of the Church, promiseth and dispenseth Gifts suitable to the Ministerial Office, and renders them so essential thereto, as that none can be duly admitted to this Trust, who are not in some good degree fit to teach, divide the Word aright, convince Gain-sayers; yea credibly appearing devoted to God, and concerned for the Salvation of Men. No Ordainers can dispense [Page] with the want of these; nor is the Ministerial Office conveighed by the greatest Solemnities to any Man void of these Qualifications; though the best accomplished may awfully say, [...], 2 Cor. 2. 16.

The same holy Instituter of this Office [...]ath wisely provided against Intruders; and also for the encouragement of such as are capable, by subjecting Probationers ordinarily to the Enquiry and Iudgment of Men fit, and authorized to determine of their Call and Endowments, and to invest them in the Office of a Presbyter, by Fasting and Prayer, with imposition of Hands: the Authority and Obligations of which Office are in the Scriptures adjusted by Christ, and can admit of no Change at the Will of the Ordainers.

Reason directs that the Ordainers should be fit to judge of the necessary Qualifications of such as are proposed to this Charge: The Scriptures determine that the Ordainers be such as are invested and exercised in the same holy Office. And [Page] who so capable to judge, or likely to be careful and faithful in their Admissions? These are appointed to make a Minister, though Churches are to elect who so approved shall be their Minister: Pastors invest in the Office, though the People do appropriate the more stated and usual Employment of the Officer. Confusion and a degenerate Ministry must ensue Mens attempting the Ministry, if they get but a good conceit of themselves, or that particular Churches assume the sending forth Preachers, or making Ministers for themselves, unless in Cases very extraordinary.

The Reverend Author in the following Treatise hath no design to reflect on Episcopal Ordination, nor to raise any unseasonable Debates among Protestants. But being in a peculiar manner assaulted as an Vsurper of the Ministerial Office, because separated thereto by the imposition of no Hands besides those of Presbyters. He herein affirms, and I think with great Iudgment and Evidence proveth, That Presbyters, though no Prelates, are [Page] authorized by the Lord Iesus to Ordain fit Persons to the Office of Presbyters, and that the Ordination of such is valid. Many have successfully engaged in this Debate heretofore, yet thou wilt find some very considerable Addition to what occurs in most other Authors. It's not unworthy the Animadversion of all concerned for the meer being of Religion, that there is a general Attempt this day, not only against the Exercise of the Ministry in an aptitude to its end, but against the very Office of the Ministry: many that widely differ in other things, do yet center herein. The fordwardness of some to nullifie the Mission of their Brethren, conduceth as much thereto as any thing, except the Personal Faults of Ministers. Such decisions of the Subject in debate, yields no small Advantage to the Romish Hierarchy, whiles most Protestants are unchurched, and their Holy Administrations arraigned as Nul [...]ities: A Notion that never obtained in the English Church till the Grotian design received Patronage here, and [Page] that to subserve purposes as little propitious to our Civil Rights, as to Religion it self. The Increase of Purity, Self-denial, Light and Love, would soon decide Cases more important; and render the Vitals of Christianity more secure, which are now so variously exposed.

Octob. 14. 1693.

I am thy Servant in our common Lord, Daniel Williams.

ERRATA.

PAge 65. l. 4. r. Writers. ibid. l. 18. r. occasionally. p. 91. l. 2. r. excluduntur. p. 100. l. 7. r. 100.

Through a Mistake of the Printer Chap. VI. Is made Chap. V. and Chap. VII. is made Chap. VI. and so unto the end of the Book. So Arg. V. is made Arg. IV. and Arg. VI. is made Arg. V. and so forward unto the last.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

The Vse and Efficacy of the Ministry. It's opposed by open Violence, false Teachers, Divisions; the last of which occasioned the present Vndertaking. The Case of Ordination by Presbyters stated.

THE Ministry of Reconciliation is that powerful Engine by which the strong Holds of Satan are demolished, the Gates of Hell [Page] broken down, Sin's Captives reduced, and Trophies erected in honour of the victorious Prince of Peace. The Dispensation of the Gospel is the Glory of Nations, the Support of Christianity, the Shield of Truth, and the Triumph of the Cross. By this despised means Christ divides him a portion with the great, Isa. 53. 12. and shares the spoil with the strong: by the foolishness of Preaching he confounds the Wise, and by weak earthen Vessels he breaks the Iron-Scepter of the Prince of the Power of the Air.

For this reason it is that Gospel Ministers are so much opposed in the world, while the Prince of Darkness hath a Kingdom in it, he'l bend all his Forces against them, as Invaders of his Dominions, and irreconcilable Enemies to his usurped Regiment.

Many and various are his Serpentine Devices and repeated Stratagems to render their Endeavours of winning Souls ineffectual. Sometimes he assaults them by open Violence, he pours upon them the strength of Battel, to the disgracing of their Persons, the spoiling of their Goods, the infringing of their Liberties, and the sacrificing of their very [Page] Lives to the insatiable Rage of unreasonable Men.Rom. 8. 36, 37. They are killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter, and yet in all these things are more then Conquerors through him that loved them, and hath promised his Presence with them to the end of Time: He holds the Stars in his right Hand, guides their Motions, and restores a declining World by their powerful Influences.

Their restless Adversary failing in his former method transforms himself into an Angel of Light, that he may more insensibly destroy the Angels of the Churches. What he cannot effect by Power, he will attempt by Craft. He'l send forth his daring Emissaries to undermine Preaching by Preaching. Thus the Adversaries of Iudah offered to build the Temple, that they might hinder the building of it. St. Paul's Enemies preached Christ of envy and strife, that they might obstruct his sincere Preaching. The Devil himself turns Preacher in the Pythonic Woman to scandalize the Apostle's Ministry. He emits Wolves in Sheeps cloathing to tear and devour the unwary Flock.

[Page]If he be defeated in this Attempt, he'l make trial of skill in as pernicious a way as either of the former, to wit, by alienating their Affections, and imbittering their Spirits towards one another. He arms them with Weapons that are forreign to the nature of their warfare, he turns their Plow-shares into Swords, and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War, and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord.Eph. 4. 11, 14. Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency; of all the Divisions of Ministers, those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive.

It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction, that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman, that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification.

But that which administers just cause of Sorrow, is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another. Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained[Page]by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ, not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism, which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers; if they are but meer Lay-men, their Baptism is no Baptism, and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many. This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism.

On the other hand, some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers, and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops; they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities, and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion; and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church: as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation, then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls, the Lord Jesus; and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops, were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them. But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest, if not the best [Page] part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men.

Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid, but they look upon them as Schismatical, where Bishops may be had. We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, but about the Charge of Schism, which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination.

Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches, who have no Bishops; but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities, where Bishops may be had, as in England. Our present Controversie is with these. For the stating of the Point in difference, we'l consider, 1. Wherein we are agreed; 2. Wherein the real difference lies.

Our Agreement.

We agree,

1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church. A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane, but of Divine [Page] Original. It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House.

2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time, Matth. 28.19, 20.

3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word, without a lawful Calling or Mission, Rom. 10.14, 15. Ier. 14.14. Heb. 5.4.

4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.21, 22.

5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office.

6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands, and Prayer with Fasting, Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22.

7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities, according to the Rules of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6, 7, 8, 9.

In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry, whatever [Page] more, we are fully agreed.

§

The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining. We say, Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters. Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say, That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops. The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is, That they are no true Ministers of Christ, but Intruders and false Prophets. And why so? Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine, for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England: Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal, for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities, exemplary Conversations, and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard, who seek not their own things, but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers. Where lies the defect then? why in this, they are not Ordained by Bishops. They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles. They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that [Page] have not the Ordaining Power, and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself.

Our Case then in short is this, Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's, without Diocesan Bishops, be valid. The Question needs but little Explanation.

By Ordination, I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry.

By Presbyters, I understand Gospel Ministers, who are called to the Oversight of Souls, and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed.

By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters, and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations, having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church.

By valid, I mean not what the Old Canons make so, but what the Scriptures determine to be so. Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration, and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising, are the Foundation of our Faith, and the infallible Standard by [Page] which Truth and Errour must be tried.

The Question being thus explained, I affirm,

That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers, without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters, are regularly Ordained, and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures.

This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments.

CHAP. II

[Page]

Presbyters have power to Ordain, because they are Scripture Bishops. The Syriac Translation useth not different Names. If there be a difference, the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter. Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered. 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants. 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops. 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church. 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians, as he doth in other Epistles. 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them, he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor, though he were present. [Page] 6. He did not reside at Ephesus. 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church, but a Parochial or Congregational. The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops: Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches, from Tyconius in Austin. Contents of our authoriz'd Bibles, and acceptation of Angel in the Jewish Church.

THAT Ordination which hath all the Scripture requisits is valid,Arg. 1. but Ordination by Presbyters hath all the Scripture requisits, Therefore—The Major is undeniable to Persons that own the inspired Writings to be a perfect Rule. The Minor I thus prove: The Scripture requisits of Ordination, are some in the Ordainers, some in the Ordained, some in the Circumstances of Ordination. As to the Ordained, they must have such Qualifications as the Scripture requires 1 Tim. 3.... These we are willing to be tried by. As to the Circumstances there must be Examination, Approbation, publick and solemn setting [Page] apart by imposition of Hands, with Fasting and Prayer. As to the Ordainers, 'tis enough that they were Presbyters, and as such had an inherent Power to Ordain; for according to Scripture, a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same, not only in Name, but in Office. The Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus are call'd Bishops of Ephesus, to whom the sole over-sight of that Church did belong, Acts 20. 17, 28. The Presbyters of the Jewish Diaspora, to whom St. Peter wrote, are requir'd [...], to feed or rule the Flock, and to perform the office and work of Bishops among them1 Pet. 5. 1, 2.: [...] signifies to ruleRev. 2. 27. They are called Rulers and Governours1 Tim. 5. 17- [...]. ... Iustin Martyr calls the chief Minister of the Church [...]. St. Paul's ruling Presbyter is Iustin's ruling Bishop. Bishops and Presbyters have one and the same Qualifications, Tit. 1. 5, 7. After he had given the Character of Persons to be Ordain'd Presbyters, v. 5, 6. he adds a reason, v. 7. [...], &c. There would be no force in the Apostles reasoning, if Bishops were of a superior Order to Presbyters.

[Page]The Scriptures own but two Orders of ordinary Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons1 Tim, 3. Phil. 1. 1., and of these Bishops there were more then one in every Church: So there was at Philippi and at Ephesus Acts 20. 17, 28.. To be sure then, they were not Bishops of the English Species, i. e. sole Governors of many Churches, but Presbyters in a proper sence; many of which were Ordain'd in every Church, Antioch it self not exceptedActs 14. 21, 22, 23. The Apostles gave that Church no Primacy above Lystra and Iconium, but settled the same sort of Officers in all. Though afterward it overtopt it's Neighbours, and became a Metropolitical Church. But from the beginning 'twas not so.

The Syriac Translation, which is so very ancient, that it comes nearest in time to the Original, useth not two words, one for Bishop, another for Presbyter, as our Translation and the Greek, but it hath only [...] the word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters. Tit. 1. 5. & Constitueres.. [...] Seniores in qualibet Civitate, v. 7 debet enim [...] Senior esse irreprehensibilis. I have left thee in Creet to ordain Elders in every City, for an Elder [we say Bishop] [Page] must be blameless... So in 1 Tim. 3. 1. The Office of a Bishop, as we render it out of the Greek: The Syriac reads it [...] the Office of a Presbyter. Instead of Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1. 1. the Syriac reads it Presbyters and Deacons. This is a strong proof that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made, for it useth not so much as different Names. Of the Antiquity of the Syriac Version vide Walt. Praef. de Edit. Bib. Polygl. p. 30—40. Walt.

If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter, the preheminence must be given by the Scripture to the Presbyters; for as our Bishops say, their Office distinct from Presbyters, is to Rule and Govern, and the Office of a Presbyter is to Preach and Administer the Sacraments. Now the Administration of the Sacraments and Preaching, are more excellent Works then Ruling and Governing. The Apostle saith expresly, that they that labour in the Word and Doctrine, deserve more honour then they that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17..

Moreover, the Apostles stile themselves Presbyters, but never Bishops. St. Peter calls himself Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. 1., but never [Page] calls himself a Bishop. And therefore it's a wonder the Pope, his pretended Successor, and those that derive their Canonical Succession from his Holiness, should call themselves Bishops, unless it be by the Divine Disposal to shew the fallibility of their Foundations.

The Papists,Object. who therein are imitated by some of our Adversaries, do say, That the Names are common, but the Offices are distinct. Thus Spensoeus Spens. contra Bucer., a Sorbonist, objects, Nominum quidem esse, sed non munerum confusionem.

The Instances mentioned above do clearly Evince an Indentity of Offices.Answ. When the Apostle bids the Presbyters of Ephesus take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops Acts 20. 28.; he doth not speak of the Name but the Office. And 'tis evident that St. Peter 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. [...]. speaks of the Office, when he Exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock, and to perform the Office of Bishops among them; so that there were as many Bishops as there were Presbyters in Churches of the Apostles planting.

How comes it to pass when the Apostle reckons up the severalEph. 4. 11. sorts of Ministers, which Christ had appointed in [Page] his Church, that he makes no mention of Superior Bishops, if they be so necessary as some would have us believe. He mentions Pastors and Teachers. The Patrons of Episcopacy will not say Bishops are meant by Teachers, their proper work being Ruling: nor can they be meant by Pastors, for Presbyters are Pastors, and exhorted to feed the Flock Acts 20. 17, 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2.. Our Learned Writers against Popery think it a good Argument to disprove the Pope's Headship, that he is not mention'd in the List of Church Officers1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. reckoned up in the New Testament: no more is a Bishop superior to Presbyters, so much as nam'd in those places. If any say 'tis omitted, because he was to succeed the Apostles, he hath the Pope ready to joyn with him in the same Plea for his Office.

Object. Object. Timothy and Titus were Scripture Bishops, superior to Presbyters.

Answ. 1.Answ. 1. The Papists urge this Objection against the Protestants. So doth Turrianus the JesuitVid. Turr. Sophis. inter Sadeel. Op. p. 598.; so doth Bellarmine. Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one Argument for it's Defence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish Prelacy. The Bishops best [Page] Weapons have been Consecrated in the Jesuits School, and have been dext'rously manag'd against the whole Reformation.

II II. But, I pray, where doth the Scripture give Timothy and Titus the Title of Bishops? The Postscripts to the Epistles directed to them, are confessedly no part of Scripture, nor are they very ancient. The Postscripts to the Syriac makes no mention of their being Bishops; nor can it be gathered from the Body of the Epistles, that they were Bishops. When the second Epistle to Timothy was written, he was an Evangelist, and therefore no Bishop. He is exhorted to do the work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said, Do the work of a Bishop: would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power? Who could do the Work of a Bishop, but a Bishop? In like manner we say, None can do the work of an Evangelist, but an Evangelist? Evangelists were extraordinary Officers, above Pastors and TeachersEph. 4. 11. The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large byEuseb. Hist. 111. 34. Eusebius: They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word [Page]of Faith, they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures, or dain'd Pastors, committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church, and they did [...], pass over unto other Countries and Nations. With whom agreesIn Eph 4. Chrysostom, [...].

A Learned Prelate of the Church of England, conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles, the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets, and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists; and if so, the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power; for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it, whose Successors they are. If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles, and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists, I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy.

Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him, L [...]y hands on no man suddenly 1 Tim. 5. 22.: Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him? It may [Page] as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him; for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2.. If it be said, Preaching is common to Presbyters, but so is not Ordination, it's gratis dictum, and a begging of the Question. Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise. He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands, but takes the Presbytery with him1 Tim. 4. 14.. He joyned Barnabas with him, if not others, in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Acts 14. 23. Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there; for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there, but besought him to abide there till he came1 Tim. 1. 3. & 4. 13, 14., which he intended shortly to do1 Tim. 3. 14, 15.. The Apostle sent him to Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, furnished, without doubt, with the same powers which he had at Ephesus, otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches; and was he Bishop of these places also?

Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against[Page]an Elder receive not an Accusation, &c. which Dr. Whittaker, Divinity Professor in Cambridge, undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters: his words are these, Ex Apostoli mente — According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation, is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Whitt. contr. 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16.. Which not only Superiors, but Equals, yea and Inferiors also may do.

The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop; are they therefore Superior to him?Cypr. Ep. 64—68. Cyprian writes to Epictetus, and the People of Assura, not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again, because he had denied the Faith. He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols.

III. When Timothy was made Bishop III of Ephesus, where we find several Presbyter-Bishops beforeActs 20. 17, 28.: what became of them? were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters, that they must no more Ordain or Govern, but be subject to Timothy? 'Twas thought no small [Page] punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form, and 'twas for some notorious Crime. What Crime were these guilty of?

IV IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus, whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor, and so not subject to him any more, how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. & 4. 13.. What had Paul to do in Ephesus now, if he had settled a Successor there, and had no power over him or his Church? He forbids others to be [...], busie bodies in other mens matters1 Tim. 5. 13.; and would he himself be such a one? [...] are condemned1 Pet. 4. 15., and shall we make Paul of this number?

It's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians (long after the first Epistle to Timothy) and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle, as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches, except that to the Galatians. It's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there, nor Resident there. We find him long after this at Rome, and invited by the Apostle thither, that he might be [Page] helpful to him in the Ministry2 Tim 4. 9, 10, 11., from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea Heb. 13. 23.: and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also? The truth is, he was no fixed Officer in any one place, but went up and down, sometimes as Paul's Companion, sometimes as his Messenger, to settle the Churches, as other Evangelists did. If Non-residency hath such a Patron, and Timothy hath taught Men, to leave their Churches year after year, and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant, it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty.

V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus, V when the first Epistle was written to him, he was none at all; for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power. He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters thereActs 20. 17, 28.. He commits to them the oversight of the Church, as the proper Bishops of it, without the least mention of Timothy, though he was then presentActs 20. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14.. The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters, befor their supposed Bishop's face: or if [Page] he had not been there at that time, how comes Paul to be so regardless (when he concluded he should never see their Faces any moreIb. v. 25.) as not to name his Successor? was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy 1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1. 18.. If he had not been qualified for this Office now, he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him, of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church. But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking? He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches1 Cor. 4. 17. Act. 17. 14. & 18. 5., whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellowRom. 16. 21., and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches2 Cor. 1. 1. 1 Thess. 1. 1. 3 Thess. 1. 1, could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus. How then comes the Apostle to over-look him, and to fix the Government, in the Presbyters of that ChurchAct. 20. 28 27.? He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus, that he had not spar'd to declare unto them all the Counsel of God. How can this be, when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Successor? [Page] If Ministry and Churches depend upon this Succession, 'twas no small part of the Counsel of God to be declar'd unto them. He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more Acts 20. 25.. Whether he did see them again, or no, is not material to the point. 'Tis certain he thought he should not; how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd, to defend them against those Wolves that should enter after his departureActs 20 29 V. 28.? The reason is obvious, he thought the Presbyters of Ephesus fit for this undertaking, without a superior Bishop.

Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time, nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Successor, but the first Epistle to Timothy (upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built) was written before this time; therefore no power given him in that Epistle, can prove him to be a Bishop.

That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome, when he went to Macedonia Acts 20. 1, 2, 4. 1 Tim. 3. 3., is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall Vind. p. 97., though he was a zealous Defender of the Ius Divinum of [Page] Episcopacy. Of this Opinion is Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Ludov. Capellus, Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, Cary, &c.

VI VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him,2 Tim. 4. 12 how comes he to be absent from Ephesus, when Paul writ the second Epistle to him? was Timothy a Non-resident Bishop? Paul sends Tychicus to Ephesus with an Epistle to the Church there, but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle, but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord, Eph. 6. 21, 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him, when he is supposed to be Bishop there, even when the second Epistle was written to him, 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus, how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge? 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say, it was to receive his dying words, must prove it. The Apostle gives another reason, 2 Tim. 4. 10, 11. that he had only Luke with him of all his Companions, and therefore desires him to come to him, and to bring Mark with him, as [Page] being profitable to him for the Ministry. He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis (Tit. 3. 12.) from his supposed Bishoprick of Creet, and was he to receive his dying words there also, about fourteen years before his death? for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf. harm. Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay, how comes the Apostle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia? 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also? I question whether Non-residency was allowed of, much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be.

It is true, some of the Fathers say, they were Bishops of those places. But it's considerable that Eusebius saith no more, then [...], it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus. He doth not affirm it. Theodoret calls him' [...], so he calls Titus, [...], and yet few will take them for real Apostles. They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet many of our Protestant Writers deny it; so dothReynolds against Hart, p. 110, 111—118. Reynolds against Hart, and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy. The Fathers and Councils speak of the Officers [Page] of former times, according to the style of their own.

To conclude; If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species, then there were no such in the Apostles times. That Timothy was not such, we have proved; and if Timothy was not, no more was Titus, whose power and work was the same with Timothy's. If the power of Ordination, invested in Timothy at Ephesus, doth not prove him Bishop there, no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet, Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there.

VII VII. But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops, or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet, it will be no Argument for Diocesan Bishops, except the Church of Ephesus, and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches, which can never be proved. Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes, or particular Congregations, under the conduct of their proper Presbyters, which were all subject to Timothy, as their Bishop? This must be proved, or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be impertinent [Page] to the present Case. Nay, there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place. That Church had but one Altar, at which the whole Congregation ordinarily received the Lord's Supper, in Ignatius his timeIgnat. Ep. ad Ephes. Voss. Edit. p. 25., which was many years after Timothy's death. [...], &c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God, and for praise, for when you often come into one place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, &c. I render [...] into one place, as our English Translators do, Acts 2. 1. He saith also, 'O [...].p. 20. He therefore that cometh not to the same place, is proud and condemneth himself. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he mentions one Altar, which further explains his meaningIgnat. ad Mag. p 34.: [...]. Let all of you come together, as into the Temple of God, as unto one Altar. The meaning [Page] of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors. Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare Cypr. Ep..: To be intra Altare, is to be in Church Communion; to be extra Altare, is to be without.

The Bishop of Salisbury doth acknowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church; his words are theseBurn. Vindic. of the Ch. of Scotland, p. 51.: By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles, especially that to Smyrna, it would appear, that there was but one Church, at least but one place, where there was but one Altar and Communion, in each of these Parishes, [which was the Bishops whole Charge.]

And if so, then the Church of Ephesus, to whom he directed one of his Epistles, was of no larger extent, except we imagine it was decreased in Ignatius's time from what it was in Timothy's days, which is absurd. The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age, then they were in the Apostles time. And yet we find in the beginning of the fourth Century the Believers, in greater Cities then Ephesus, were no more then could meet in one place, or in two at the most. For Constantine [Page] the Great thought two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople; the one he called the Temple of the Apostles;Trlp. Hist. lib. 2. c. 18. In Gent. Exam. p. 399. Vt doceret Scripturas, Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum, in Templis praedicandas esse: the other he called, the Temple of Peace; Quia Concilii Nicaeni Operâ, quod celebrandum curaverat, Ecclesiae pacem restituerat, & Arrianorum impias controversias compescuerat. Constantius added one more; and there were but five Temples in that great City, that was little inferior to Rome, in the days of Iustinian. See Gentiletus his Exam. Concil. Trid. lib. 5. sect. 48. Some of our greater Parishes have as many Chappels, or Places of Publick Worship, as there were Temples in Constantinople, which are but a small part of an English Diocess. But the Learned Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Clarkson, have so fully proved the English Species of Episcopacy to be destructive of the Scripture and Primitive Form, that until they be solidly answered, we will take it for granted, that it is a Humane Creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did, and owes it's being to the meer favour of Secular Powers, who [Page] can as easily reduce it to it's primitive Nothing.

Some have pretended to make Bishops of the seven Asian Angels, when they have proved their power of Jurisdiction, and the extent of their Diocesses to be the same with ours, they shall be heard. The state of Ephesus, one of the seven Asian Churches, we have seen already, by which we may guess at the rest.

The Church of Smyrna, another of the seven Churches of Asia, consisted of a single Congregation that ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one place.Epist. ad Smyr p. 6. [...]. Let all follow the Bishop, as Iesus Christ doth the Father, and the Presbytery as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as God's Commandment. Let none mannage any Church matters without the Bishop. And a little after he adds, [...]. [Page] Where the Bishop is, there let the Multitude be, even as where Christ is, there the Catholick Church is; it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize, or to make Love-feasts. Here it is evident, 1. That the Multitude, which were the Bishops Flock, ordinarily worshipped God together. 2. That they did this under the conduct of their respective Bishop, who was ordinarily present with every Church Assembly. 3. That he was the ordinary Administrator of Baptism to his Flock, which he could not do, had it been as large as our present Dioceses. 4. That the same Assemblies had a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons: For the same Multitude is to follow the same Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons; and how could one Parish follow all the Presbyters of all other Parish Churches of a Diocess whom they never knew?Ignat. ad Polyc. p. 12 Ignatius's Epistle to Polycarp, who was then Bishop of Smyrna, makes it more evident, that he was Bishop of a single Congregation, [...]. Keep frequent Congregations, inquire[Page]after all by name, despise not Men-servants and Maid servants. I leave it to such as are willing to understand the Truth, to consider how great Polycarp's Church then was, when the Bishop himself was to look after every one by name, even the Men-servants and the Maids.

We find by Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelphians (another of these Churches) that the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia had no larger a Diocess then those of Ephesus and Smyrna Ignat. ad Philadelph. p.40.: [...]. Study therefore to use one Eucharist [or Eucharistical Communion] for there is one Flesh [or Body] of our Lord Iesus Christ, [which is represented in the Sacramental Bread] and one Cup [which is Sacramentally given] into the union of his Blood, one Altar, one Bishop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants. Nothing can be more full than this Testimony: They are all to joyn in one Assembly [Page] for the Eucharist, and there must be but one Altar for this Communion, and one Bishop, and one Presbytery with the Deacons with him; and such a Bishop is a Parish Minister or Rector, assisted by his Curates and Deacons, the latter of which were originally instituted to serve Tables, Acts 6.

II. Tyconius's old Exposition mentioned II by Austin, hath not been yet disproved, which is this, That by the Angels are meant the whole Churches, and not any single Persons: Aug. lib. 3. 30. de Doctr. Christian. The whole style of the Text countenances this Exposition; for as every Message begins with (To the Angel) so it endeth with (To the Churches.)

III. In the Contents of our authorized III Bibles they are expounded Ministers. By which we may understand the sense of the Old Church of England, agreeable to many of the Ancients; such as Aretas, Primasius, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Bede, Haymo, and many more.

Scripture is it's own best Interpreter; we find there that the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20.17.28. over which one of these Angels presided, had several Bishops in it, and [Page] all the other Churches had several Ministers in them, as will be acknowledg'd by our Antagonists: Now these other Ministers are included, either under the name of Candlesticks, and so reckoned among the People, which is absurd; or under the name of Stars and Angels. Many may be intended by one Angel, as afterward by one Beast, cap. 13. and one Head, cap. 17. It's remarkable, that it is spoken of the Candlesticks, the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches; but of the Stars it's said indefinitely,Rev. 1.20. the seven Stars are the Angels (not seven Angels) of the seven Churches.

IV IV. Angel is a name of Office, and not of Order, as is agreed by the Learned; it is a strange Consequence, To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, therefore the Angel was a Bishop, and had Authority over other Ministers. St. Iohn placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ himself,Rev. 5.11. and the Angels further off at a greater distance; shall we therefore say that the Presbyters are more honourable then the Bishops? the Inference is much more natural then the other, if Angels be Bishops, as our [Page] Adversaries affirm.1 Tim. 5.17. St. Paul prefers the preaching, before the ruling Presbyter.

V. It's observed by many Chronologers,V that Timothy was alive when the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was written,Rev. 2.2 and shall we think that he had left his first love, whom Paul so often commends for his Zeal and Diligence in the Work of God.

VI. To put this matter out of doubt,VI St. Iohn, a Jew, calls the Ministers of Particular or Parochial Churches, the Angels of the Churches, in the style of the Jewish Church, who call'd the Publick Minister of every Synagogue [...] the Angel of the Church. vid. Lights Vol. 2. p. 133. They call'd him also [...], or Bishop of the Congregation. Every Synagogue, or Congregation, had its Bishop, or Angel of the Church. Now the Service and Worship of the Temple being abolished, as being Ceremonial, God transplanted the Worship and Publick Adoration used in the Synagogues, which was Moral, into the Christian Church, to wit, the Publick Ministry, Publick Prayers, reading God's Word, and Preaching, &c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel [Page] were the very same, the Angel of the Church, and the Bishop, which belong'd to the Ministers in the Synagogues. We love Bishops so well, that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are Parishes in England, as the Jewish Synagogues had, to which St. Iohn alludes, when he calls them Angels of the Churches.

In sum, If Presbyters be Scripture Bishops, as we have proved, and Diocesan Bishops have no footing there, as hath been evinced, then our Ordinations are Iure Divino, and therefore valid.

CHAP. III.

[Page]

Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in Scripture. St. Paul and Barnabas Ordain'd by Presbyters. Their Ordination a Pattern to the Gentile Churches, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. vindicated. Turrianus's Evasion confuted. Timothy Ordained by Presbyters, 1 Tim. 4.14. explained. The Particles [...] and [...] used promiscuously.

THAT Ordination of which we have Scripture Examples is valid,Arg. II. but of Ordination by Presbyters we have Scripture Examples, therefore Ordination by Presbyters is valid. The Major I hope will not be denied, it carries its own Evidence with it to such as are willing to be guided by the practise of Apostolical Churches, which is the first, and best Antiquity. The Minor I thus prove, St. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained [Page] by Presbyters, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. so was Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14.

These two Instances deserve a more particular consideration. Concerning the first, in Acts 13. these two things are evident: 1. That Luke speaks of Ordination, he mentions the separating of Paul and Barnabas to a Ministerial Work, by Fasting and Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands; and what more can be done in Ordination? It's true, they had an extraordinary Call before, Gal. 1.1. yet being now to plant the Gospel among the Gentiles, they enter upon their Work at the ordinary Door of Ordination.Vol. 1. p. 289. Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was for this reason, That the Lord hereby might set down a Plat-form of Ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles to future times.

2. The Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers, Acts 13.1, 2. Now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters, who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers, both in 1 Cor. 12.28. and in Eph. 4.12. Every Presbyter is a Teacher by Office.Vid. Sade [...]l. Oper. p. 600. Turrianus the Jesuit thinks to avoid the force of this quotation, by affirming the Prophets [Page] mentioned in this Ordination to have been Bishops, and the Teachers to have been meer Presbyters, and that these Presbyters were Paul and Barnabas, who were now created Bishops. But this is a most ridiculous evasion. Was St. Paul, the chief of Apostles, but a meer Presbyter? was he inferior to Lucius, Niger, and Manaen? Apostles were superior to Prophets, much more to Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. The Prophets here could not be Bishops, because they were extraordinary Officers, and there were more then one in this Church, and in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.29. Neither is there any ground in the Text of this distribution, that Teachers should refer to the Ordained, and Prophets to the Ordainers. This is a meer fiction of the Jesuit to support the Cause of Prelacy.

If any say, This separation of Paul and Barnabas was not to the Office of the Ministry, but to a special Exercise of it. I answer, it doth not alter the Case: For here are all the outward Actions of an Ordination properly so called, Fasting, Prayer, with Imposition of Hands to a Ministerial Work. Now the [Page] Question is, Who have power to perform these Actions▪ here the Presbyters do it. They to whom all the outward Actions of Ordination belong, to them the Ordaining Power belongs, as he that hath power to wash a Child with Water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath power to Baptize; for what else is baptizing, but washing with Water in the Name of the Sacred Trinity for special Dedication to God? He that hath power to set apart Bread and Wine for Sacramental use, hath power to Administer the Lord's Supper: So here, they that have power to dedicate Persons to God for the Work of the Ministry by Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, have power of Ordination. It's true, a Lay-Patron may give one power to exercise his Ministry, that cannot give the Office; but can he do this by repeating all the solemn Acts of Ordination? Can he use the same form of Ordination with the Ordaining Bishop? Can he lay hands upon the Person ordained, and by Fasting and Prayer devote him to God in the Publick Congregation? I think none will affirm it. If he cannot invest a Person [Page] by repeating the whole form of Ordination, because he is a Lay-man, and hath not the Ordaining Power, therefore they that can use the form of Ordination have power to Ordain. The Bishops would not like it, if all those that are Ordained by them in Scotland should be declared uncapable of Exercising their Office there, until they were admitted by a Classis of Presbyters with solemn Imposition of Hands. It would scarce satisfie them to say, That the Presbyters imposed Hands only to impower the Person in the Exercise of his Office, and not to give the Office it self, when they performed all the outward Actions of Ordination, which are the ordinary means of conveying the Office.

I proceed to the second Instance of Ordaining Presbyters mentioned in 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Here Timothy is Ordained by the Presbytery; nothing can be more express then this Testimony. Two things are usually objected to this Scripture.

[Page] Object. 1.Obj. 1. By [...] is meant the Office of Presbytery, and not the Colledge of Presbyters, saith Turrianus the Jesuit, who is followed by some Protestants.

I answer; Answ. 1. The word [...] is never taken in this sense in the New Testament; it always signifies a Company of Presbyters; see Luke 22.66. Acts 22.5. Presbyterium is used by Cyprian for a Consistory of Elders, Lib. 2. Ep. 8. & 10. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, Cypr. lib. 3. ep. 11. in an Epistle to Cyprian, saith, Omni actu, ad me perlato, placuit contrahi Presbyterium: Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque, &c. The Office of Presbytery is expressed by [...].

2. What sence can be made of the Text according to this Interpretation? Neglect not the gift — given thee by prophecy, Vid. Camer. Myroth. p. 280. with the laying on of the hands of the office of Presbytery. Hands belong to the Persons, and not to the Office. Nor can [...] be the Genitive Case to [...]. Neglect not the gift — of the office of Presbytery; for [...] and [...] come between. Thus the Text, M [...]. [Page] To refer [...] to [...] would invert the natural order of the words, which is not to be done without evident necessity, otherwise the Scriptures may be made a Nose of Wax, and the clearest Expressions wrested to a contrary sense by such Transpositions and Dislocations.

3. But suppose this sense were admitted, and [...] be taken for the Office of Presbytery, it will not prejudice our Argument; for it will follow, that Timothy was but a meer Presbyter by Office, and that it belongs to the Office of a Presbyter to impose Hands for Ordination, because Timothy, a Presbyter, did so, 1 Tim. 5. 22. So that whether we understand the place of a Bench of Presbyters Ordaining Timothy; or, of the Office of a Presbyter, into which Timothy was Ordained, and by virtue of which he had power to Ordain others, it equally proves our assertion, that meer Presbyters did Ordain.

Object. 2. Obj. 2. Timothy was Ordained by Paul, with the concurrence of the Presbyters.Inter Op. Sad. p. 788. Non excluduntur Presbyteri ab impositione manus approbante, sed ab impositione[Page]manus ordinante, saith the Jesuit; who is followed by some of our own; they say, The efficacy of Timothy's Presbyteratus was in Paul, as in a Bishop (and therefore he saith in 2 Tim. 1.6. [...]) and in the Presbyters by a bare concurrence, and therefore it's said [...] denotes Authority, and [...] a meer Instrumentality.

Answ. Answ. It cannot be denied but Paul laid hands upon Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. but how doth it appear that it was for Ordination? it might be, for any thing appears to the contrary, for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, which was given by the Laying on of the Apostles Hands, Acts 8. [...]17, 18. But if he laid Hands for Ordination, it's certain he joyned the Presbyters with him, which he had not done, if there had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as such. The Apostles did not assume to themselves the sole Power of Ordination, but took the Presbyters for their Associates in this Action. Paul joyns Barnabas with him, Acts 14.23. who, if he were one of the Seventy [Page] Disciples (as Dorotheus affirms,Doroth. Synopf. Euseb. lib. 1. c. 12. with whom agrees Eusebius) then was he of the Order of Presbyters, according to that Hypothesis that makes Bishops to succeed the twelve Apostles, and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples, and so we have another Example of a Presbyter ordaining. The like must be said of Timothy, who laid on Hands in Ephesus, not without the Presbyters joyning with him, who were made Bishops there by the Holy Ghost, Acts 20.17, 28. He would not assume a greater Power to himself then Paul did; but Paul joyned the Presbyters with him in the Act of Ordination, therefore Timothy did the like.

Nothing can be gathered from the Particle [...] applied to Paul's Act, and [...] as applied to the Presbyters Act, for they are used promiscuously in the New Testament, and the signification of them must be determined by the subject matter. [...] in 1 Tim. 4.14. respects the moving Cause that encouraged Paul, with the Presbyters, to lay Hands on Timothy; see 1 Tim. 1.18.

But usually [...] with a Genitive Case signifies an instrumental working, or efficiency. [Page] See Matth. 8.17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken [...], by Esaias the Prophet. We are said to be justified [...], Rom. 3.30. It signifies also a way, or medium, that respects a certain end. See Matth. 2.12. & 7.13. & 12.43.

I find [...] and [...] used promiscuously in Acts 15.4, 12. & 14.27. [...] by them, is rendred [...] in v. 12. and yet the same thing is intended, viz. what God did by them as Instruments.

Paul's [...], and the Presbyters [...]—do equally imply an instrumental efficiency. For all Ordainers are Ministerial Deliverers of Possession, and none of them principal efficient Donors, Christ is the Authoritative Giver of the Ministerial Power, by his Law, which is the Fundamentum Iuris. As the King's Charter to a Corporation determines who shall be capable of being Mayor, how he shall be chosen, and how invested, here the Mayor's Power is immediately from the King's Charter, as the efficient constitutive Instrument, and all that others do is but to determine of the Recipient, and [Page] Invest him: so the Lord Jesus Christ hath hath in his Law determined the Office of the Ministry, the qualifications of the Persons, and how they are to be separated for the Work, all that belongs to the Ordainers is but ministerialty to Invest a capable Recipient. They are no Efficients of the Power, that is immediately from Christ's Law, which is the Fountain and Measure of their Power.

Thus the Presbyters, in the purest and first Age of the Church, had the Ordaining Power, which they kept for a considerable time, as we shall see [...]non, though as the Church degenerated from the first Purity, and the number of Presbyters increased, one was chosen, as President of the rest, who [...]hould Impose Hands in the Name of [...]is Collegues. Hence the Superior Dignity of Bishops, who at length [...]ubjected not only to their Hands, but [...]o their Feet also, not Presbyters alone, [...]ut Sovereign Princes and Emperours, that we may not forget the Bishop [...]f Rome) so that at length the poor [...]resbyters were no more then the [Page] Bishops Curates, as our Liturgy distinguisheth them, in the Prayer for Bishops and Curates. The easiest and more honourable Parts of the Ministerial Work (as they were reckon'd) they reserved in their own hands; and committed the rest to their Presbyters.

CHAP. IV.

[Page]

Presbyters have power of Ordination, because they have power to Preach, Baptize, and Administer the Lord's Supper. These are not inferior to Ordination, proved from the Nature of these Acts, from Christ's Commission, from the Sense of the Ancients. Object. The Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves and Successors. Answ. 1. They joyned the Presbyters with them. 2. The Apostles as such had no Successors, prov'd from the Peculiars of their Office, from the the Testimonies of Sadeel, Barrow, Lightfoot. Another Objection answered.

THey who have power to Preach the Gospel,Arg. III. to Baptize, and Administer the Lord's Supper, have power [Page] of Ordination, but meer Presbyters have power to Preach, Baptize, and Administer the Lord's Supper, therefore they have power of Ordination.

The Major only requires proof, which I thus prove; Preaching, Baptizing, and Administring the Lord's Supper are Ministerial Acts not of an inferiour Nature to Ordination, & parium par est ratio. That they are not inferiour to Ordination appears both from the nature of the thing, and from Scripture. It appears,

1 1. From the nature of the thing it self. Let us consider each apart: As to Preaching the Gospel Authoritatively in the Name of Christ, it's a most glorious Ordinance; the Publishers of it are called Ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5.20. And is an Ordainer any thing more? In the Act of Preaching they represent the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Prophet of the Church, Matth. 10. 40. and can any thing be more honourable? They are said to be workers together with God, 2 Cor. 6. 1. and is an Ordainer more then this?

As to Baptism, It's a solemn dedication of a Person to God; Ordination [Page] is no more; only the former is to Christianity as such, the latter to a particular work. In this, Baptism hath the preference, for it is a Sacramental Dedication, which Ordination is not.

In the Lord's Supper, the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine, as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ, who is exhibited with all his Benefits to worthy Receivers. Ierom saith of Presbyters, Ad quorum preces, Corpus & Sanguis Christi conficitur. Now which is greater, to impose Hands, or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ? If they have power to consecrate holy Things, why not holy Persons also?

2 2. It will appear from Scripture that the Ministerial Acts now mentioned are not inferiour to Ordination. When St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 1. 17. That Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, surely he means one of the highest Ministerial Acts, else he would have said, Christ sent me, neither to baptize, nor to preach, but to ordain Ministers. I would fain know, whether Christ did not mention the chiefest parts of a Ministers work in the Commission [Page] given in Matth. 28. 19, 20. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part, he would have said, Go, ordain Ministers, preach, and baptize. Christ's not mentioning it, is an Argument that it is not the principal part of a Minister's Office, but rather subordinate to preaching and baptizing, and therefore included here, as the lesser in the greater, though not expressed. A Commission usually specifies the Principal Acts which a Person is impower'd to do, when others of an inferiour Nature may be implied. Commissions do dot run à minori ad majus, a superiour Office may include the Duties of an Inferiour, but not on the contrary. It is the rather to be presumed Christ would have mentioned the Ordaining Power in the Ministers Commission, if it had been superiour to Preaching and Baptizing, because the Commission was immediately directed to the Apostles, whose Successors Diocesan Bishops pretend to be, and from whom they derive the Ordaining Power, as proper to themselves.

It may be, it will be said, That administring the Lord's Supper is not [Page] mentioned in their Commission, though it be not inferiour to Preaching and Baptizing. True, but the not mentioning of it, is an Argument it is not a greater Ministerial Act then those that are mentioned, and that it is not to be Administred by Officers superiour to those that Preach and Baptize, but that the same Persons may Preach, Baptize, and Administer the Lord's Supper. The same I say of Ordination, it's not being expressed here is a sign it is not greater then those Ministerial Acts that are mentioned, and that they that have power to Preach and Baptize, have also to Ordain. Though this Objection be grounded on a Mistake of the Text, for the Lord's Supper is mentioned in the following words of the Commission, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, among which the Lord's Supper is one, Matth. 26. 26, 27.

3. The Ancients argued from Baptism to Ordination,Lomb. [...]. 4. distinct. 25. as is observed by the Master of the Sentences.

Object. Some may say, The Power of Ordination is denied to Presbyters, not because Ordination is greater then other [Page] Ministerial Acts, but because the Apostles thought fit to reserve it to themselves, and proper Successors, who are Diocesan Bishops.

Answ. Answ. This is to beg the Question. We have proved already that the Apostles reserved not the Power of Ordination to themselves, but joyned the Presbyters with them. Nor are the Bishops the Apostles Successors as such, for the Apostles had their Call immediately from Heaven, Gal. 1. 1. had extraordinary qualifications, could confer the Holy Ghost, were infallibly assisted in their Ministerial Conduct, and were Universal Officers, none of which can belong to Diocesan Bishops. The Apostles were not tied to any one Nation, Province, or City; they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations; but they ordained Presbyters or Bishops in every Church, Acts 14. 23. or City, Tit. 1. 5. to whom they committed the ordinary Government of the Church: These were not sent to preach the Gospel to all NaNations, but to feed the particular Flock, over which the Holy Ghost made them Bishops, Acts 20. 28. Now these stated particular, and fixed Church-Officers [Page] vastly differ from universal, unlimited, and unfixed Officers. You may as well say, that a petty Constable, whose power is confined to the narrow limits of a little Village, succeeds the King, who governs a whole Kingdom. When I see Bishops immediately sent of God, infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, travelling to the remotest Kingdoms to preach the Gospel in their own Language to the Infidel Nations, and confirming their Doctrine by undoubted Miracles, I shall believe them to be the Apostles true Successors in the Apostolical Office.

Our Learned Writers against the Papists do unanimously deny the Apostles,Sad. contra. Turr. p. 570. as such, to have any Successors. Nemo sanè nisi planè sit [...], Apostolatum cum Episcopatu confuderit, saith the Noble and Learned Sadeel.

Dr. Barrow of Supremacy, p. 120, 121. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent, for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office, charged with the instruction and government of the whole World. — Episcopacy is an ordinary standing Charge affixed to one place — Now he that hath[Page]such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office, Barr. supr. p. 120,121 and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance, can hardly look well to so general a Charge. A disparagement to the Apostolical Ministry, for him [Peter] to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome, as if the King should become Mayor of London, as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras. He saith a little before, St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome, would confound the Offices which God made distinct; for God did appoint first Apostles, then Prophets, then Pastors and Teachers; wherefore St. Peter, after he was an Apostle, could not well become a Bishop, it would be such an irregularity, as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon. To the same purpose-speaks Dr. Lightfoot, Lightf. Vol.I. p.187. who proves by several Arguments, That Apostles were an Order unimitable in the Church.

Object. The Ordainers gave not the Ordaining Power to Presbyters, therefore it belongs not to them.

Answ. They are Ordained to the Offfice of the Ministry, of which the Ordaining Power is a Branch. It's not the intention of the Ordainer, but the Office as constituted by Christ, that [Page] [...]s the measure of the Power. The Ordaining Power is not mentioned in the Apostles Commission, Matth. 28. 20. yet it is included in it. If Presbyters are sent to Preach and Baptize in the words of Christ's Commission to them, they are sent also to Ordain (as opportunities are offered to perform that Ministerial Act in a regular manner) for it's included in their Commission. Popish Ordainers did not intentionally give the Reforming Power to the first Reformers, yet no Protestant will question but it was annext to their Office as Ministers. Now the Office of the Ministry being from Christ, and not from Man, we must not go to the words of the Ordainer, but to the instituting Law of Christ, to know what the Office is. As if the City and Recorder should chuse and invest a Lord Mayor, and tell him,Vide Baxter against Dodwel, p.30. you shall not have all the Power given by the King's Charter, it's a Nullity, he shall have all the Power that the Charter giveth him, by virtue of his Office.

CHAP. V.

[Page]

The Ordinations of the greater part of the Reformed Churches are by Presbyters. Their not having superiour Bishops cannot unchurch them; nor is it a Case of Necessity, as is pretended by some: For, 1. They might have Bishops if they would. 2. Some of them refused them, when offered. 3. Their Learned Writers assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain, and never use this Plea of Necessity. 4. Their Confessions make all Ministers equal.

THAT Ordination which is the same with the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches beyond Sea,Arg.IV. is valid, but such is Ordination by meer Presbyters, Therefore — If theirs be [Page] null, and the Roman or Popish Ordinations valid, then it's better be of the Roman Popish Church, then of the Reformed; but the Consequence is absurd.

I know but two things can be replied to this Argument:

1. That the Reformed Churches have no true Ministers, for want of Episcopal 1 Ordination. Thus Mr. Dodwel and others, who would have us believe the Romish Church to be a true Church, and receive the Pope as the Patriarch of the West. These Gentlemen have cast off their Vizard, and give us to know what they would be at. They condemn the forreign Reformed Churches as no Churches, their Sacraments as no Sacraments, and consequently no Salvation to be had in their Communion. Like the Donatists of old, they confine Salvation to their own Party and Way. It's unaccountable that any who call themselves Protestants, should unchurch the greatest and purest part of Reform'd Christians in favour of a Despotick Prelacy, which hath no foundation in Scripture, or the best Antiquity. The being of Ministry and Churches must depend [Page] upon a few Men, who look more like State-Ministers, then Ministers of Christ, and are generally more busie in managing Intrigues of Government, then in preaching the word in season and out of season. Can any imagine that such Pastors as rarely preach the Gospel, as not above once in three years visit their Flock, that have many thousands of Souls under their charge whose Faces they never saw, that assume to themselves a Grandeur more agreeable to the Princes of the World,Matth. 20. 25, 26. then to the Simplicity and Humility required in the Ministers of the Gospel, that entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life,2 T [...]m. 2.4. Can. Ap.7. & 80. contrary to the Scriptures and the Old Canons: I say, can any imagine such Pastors to be so necessary to the Church, that there must be neither Ministry, nor Sacraments, nor Worship of God, nor Salvation without them? O happy Rome! O miserable Reformed Churches! if the Case be thus.

2. Others that are more moderate, say, The Case of the Reformed Churches is a Case of Necessity, they have no Bishops, nor can have them. Ordinations by meer Presbyters may be lawful, where Bishops cannot be had.

[Page]I answer, 1 The Case of the forreign 1 Churches is no Case of Necessity; for if they have a mind of Bishops, what hinders their having of them? Is it the Magistrates? It cannot be said of Holland, Switzerland, Geneva, &c. where they have Magistrates of their own. Suppose France, and some other places, would not have admitted of it, that should have been no bar to the Order, if they had been desirous of it. The primitive Christians were under Heathen Magistrates for three hundred years, who were generally professed Enemies to the Ministry and Churches, yet they wanted no Ministerial Order of Christ's appointment. Christ never appointed an Order of Ministers in his Church, which may not be had in the most difficult times. It's true, if the Civil Magistrate be against Bishops, it may eclipse their Lordly greatness, but it need not prejudice their Ius Divinum, if they have any. Why cannot the Apostles Successors subsist with as little dependance upon Authority, as the Apostles themselves did? Do Spiritual Men need Carnal Weapons to defend their Order? yet it cannot be denied, but that even [Page] in France the Protestants had their Immunities, and a Polity of their own, by virtue of the Edict of Nants, which enabled them, had they pleas'd, to get Diocesan Bishops. They had their Synods for Church Government, and Moderators to preside in them; and why not Bishops also, had they judged them necessary? Nor is it to be supposed that their French Masters would have liked them the worse, for conforming to their own Ecclesiastical Government. Thuanus, a moderate Papist, thinks it was an Errour in their Constitution, that they neglected the superiour Order of Bishops in their first Reformation, for the supporting of their interest. The want of them did not prejudice their Constancy to the Truth, as appears by their late Sufferings.

2 2. Time hath been when the French Churches were earnestly sollicited, particularly by Bishop Morton, to receive a Clergy by the Ordination of the English Bishops, which they refused.

Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bp. of Winchester, excusing himself for not making the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment;[Page]he pleads, That if he had laid the difference on that foundation, the French Churches would have silenced him.

3. How come the Learned Wri [...]te of the forreign Churches, that vindicate their Ordinations against the Papists to forget this Plea of Necessity? They never say, They would have Bishops, but cannot have them; but they justifie their Ordinations as according to Scripture, and assert an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to Ordain. This is undeniable to any body that reads their Dicourses upon this Subject. See Daillé, Melancth. loc. com. p. 234. Musc. loc. com.p.199 Zanch. Tom 7. p.537. Ravan. in verb. Episcop. Synop. pur Theolog. p.614. Moulin, Bucer, Voetius, Sadeel, &c. that professedly write of Ordination against the Papists, besides the vast numbers that treat occasionly of this Subject in their Common Places, and other Writings, such as Melancthon, Musculus, Zanchy, Ravanel, the Leyden Professors, &c. who all insist upon the Right of Presbyters to Ordain. It's true, of late years some Arts have been used to pro [...]ure Letters from some eminent for [...]eign Divines to condemn the Noncon [...]ormists here, without an impartial hear [...]ng of our Case. That we have been misrepresented to them, is evident by [Page] Dr. Morley's Letter to the famous Bochart, Boch. Phal. & Cap. addend. p.66. who vindicates us from the Doctor's Calumny. Some also have o [...] late submitted to Re-ordination, who are more to be pitied then censured, fo [...] they wanted Bread, and could have no [...] Relief without Conforming to the Church of England; the Ceremonies, i [...] seems, being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity. That Charity which [...] King of the Roman Communion impower'd them to receive, though of another Religion, was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion, [...] they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them, as being Natives of another Kingdom, and no way subject to our Constitution. See the first Brief for the French Protestants. Besides, that the French Ministers hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times [...] there be occasion; and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle.

4. We may judge of the forreig [...] Churches by their Confessions, which are the most Authentick Testimony o [...] [Page] their sense about Episcopacy. The French Confession asserts an equality of Power [...]n all Pastors.Art. 30. Credimus omnes Pastores [...]bicunque collocati sint, eâdem & aequali [...]otestate inter se esse praeditos, sub uno [...]llo capite, summoque & solo universali Episcopo, Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable, because no Man is [...]o be Ordained a Minister, or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches, [...]ut he must subscribe the Publick Con [...]ession of their Faith, and also the Constitutions agreed on at Paris, commonly known by the name of their Discipline. See Durel. p. 52. & La Rocque's Conformity of the French Discipline, cap. 1. art. [...]. & cap. 3. art. 1.

The Dutch Confession speaks the [...]ame thing.Conf. Belg. Art. 31. Caeterum ubicunque loco [...]um sint Verbi Dei Ministri, eandem at [...]ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem [...]um authoritatem, qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi, & Capitis Ecclesiae, Ministri. By read [...]ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort, I [...]nd that, Session 144. notice was given [...]hat it was the will of the States, that [...]he Belgick Confession of Faith should [...]e read and examined by the Synod, [Page] the Exteri being also present. Upon the reading of this 31 Article, that asserts the parity of Ministers, the Bishop of Landaff in his Name, and the Name of his Brethren, made open Protestation, That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ, he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point. No dislike was shewn to this Article, asserting the parity of Ministers, by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English, by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point. So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops, nor desire them, for they make all Ministers equal.

CHAP. V.

[Page]

Our Ordination better then that of Rome, (which is accounted valid in the Church of England) because in Roman Ordinations; 1. Their Ordainers are incapable, as wanting Scriptural and Canonical Qualifications. 2. The manner of Ordaining grosly Superstitious and Vnscriptural. 3. The Ordained not Elected by the People. Sworn to the Pope. 4. Their Office Idolatrous. Their Ordinations are by Bishops, ours without, answered.

THAT Ordination which is better then that of the Church of Rome is valid,Arg.IV. but Ordination by meer Presbyters is much better then that of the Church of Rome, Therefore 'tis valid. The Major will not be denied by [Page] the Church of England, because she owns the Ordination of the Church of Rome, and doth not re-ordain their Priests — The Minor I prove, Ordination by Presbyters is better then the Ordinations of Rome, because in the Church of Rome.

I. The Ordainers are incapable, and that upon these Accounts:

(1.) They have not Scriptural Qualifications: Paul's Bishop must be found in the Faith 1 Tit. 9.. Popish ordaining Bishops are studious Maintainers of corrupt Doctrine, and Enemies to the Faith, as is acknowledg'd by all Orthodox Protestants. Paul's Bishop must be apt to teach 1 Tim 3. 2 & 2 Tim. 4.2.. Popish Bishops are for the most part illiterate unpreaching Prelates, and justified herein by their own WritersRhem. Annot. in 1 Tim. 1. 7—. Paul's Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife 1 Tim. 3 2.. Popish Bishops forbid to marry, and yet allow FornicationVid. Emanuel [...]a's Aphor. Epis. 20.. Paul's Bishop must be a lover of good men Tit. 1.8.. Popish Prelates are not such, for they mortally hate the sincere Professors of the Gospel, and are all sworn to contribute their Endeavours for their Extirpation, under the Notion [Page] of Hereticks. The words of the Oath are these; Haereticos, Schismaticos, & Rebelles eidem Domino nostro [Papae] vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar & impugnabo Vid. Pontif. de Co [...] sec. Elect. in Episc.: i.e. I A. B. do swear that I will to the utmost of my endeavour prosecute and destroy all Hereticks, Schismaticks, and all other Opposers of our Soveraign Lord the Pope, and his Successors.

Shall the sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Ministers of Christ, and the Ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no Ministers? Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the uncircumcised triumph. But I proceed. A Bishop indeed must be a Pattern of Humility and Self-denial to the FlockMatth. 20, 25, 26. 1 Pet. 5.3.. Romish Bishops are Lords over God's Heritage, have Dominion over their Faith, and bind them to blind Obedience.

Now if the Ordinations of such usurping Monsters as these, that have nothing but the empty name of Bishops, be valid, as the Church of England saith they are; how much more are the Ordinations of Orthodox faithful Gospel Ministers or Bishops, to be judg'd lawful? [Page] Can any thing be more absurd then that the Ministers of Antichrist, should make true Ministers, and the Ministers of Christ make false Prophets by one and the same Ordaining Act. It's the received Doctrine of the Church of England that the Pope is Antichrist. See Homily against Idolatry, part 3. p. 69. and the sixth part of the Sermon against Rebellion, p. 316.

(2.) They derive their Power from the Pope, who hath no right to the Universal Headship, either from Scripture or true Antiquity. The very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Christ, and consequently is a most Treasonable Usurpation.

II. II. The manner of their Ordaining is Unscriptural and SuperstitiousPontifical. Rom.. They ascend to the Priesthood by several Steps or Degrees, which have no footsteps in the Sacred Writings. They make them

(1.) Ostiarij, or Door-keepers, whose Office is to ring the Bell, to open the Church-Vestry, and the Priest's Book. Espencaeus Esp. in 1 Tim. p. 226. g. a Popish Writer, sheweth out of Chrysostom that it belong'd to the Office of a Deacon, to admit into the Church, and shut out.

[Page]Then (2.) they make them Lectores, Readers, whose work is to read and sing the Lessons, and to bless the Bread and all the first Fruits. In the primitive Church this was not a distinct Office, for in some places 'twas the Office of a Deacon, in some, of the Minister, and in some, it belonged to the Bishops to read the Scriptures, especially on Festivals.

(3.) The next step is that of Exorcists, whose pretended Office is to cast out Devils, in a feigned imitation of the miraculous Operations of the first Ages of Christianity. These Sacred Conjurers, who take upon them to dispossess Devils, are inferiour to the very Deacons that serve Tables, and yet equal to the very Apostles, were they able to perform what they undertake. Though one would wonder, why the Bishops, the pretended Successors of the Apostles, did not reserve to themselves the power of casting out unclean Spirits, as well as that of conferring the H. Spirit, which, as they say, none but themselves can do. But these Exorcists are Men of that extraordinary power, that they out-do the very Apostles, for they did not cast out Devils by laying on of Hands, as these pretend to do.

[Page]The Bishop tells them that they are Spirituales Imperatores ad abjiciendos Daemones de Corporibus obsessis Pontif. de ord. Exorc. — i. e. they are Spiritual Governours to cast out Devils, &c. to which purpose he gives them power of laying Hands super Energumenos sive Baptizatos sive Catechumenos ....

(4.) The next degree is that of the Acolythi Pontif. de ord. Acolyth., whose Office is to be Taperbearers, to light Candles, to bring Wine and Water for the Eucharist. They who were Spiritual Emperours a little before to conquer Devils, are now degraded, (which yet must be called an advancement) to the mean occupation of under-Servitors. The badge of their Office is a Candlestick and a Pot, which are delivered to them by the Bishop. As he delivers the Candlestick, he saith, Accipite cero-ferarium, & sciatis vos ad accendenda Ecclesiae lumina mancipari.... And as he delivers the Pot, he saith, Accipite urceolum ad suggerendum vinum & aquam in Eucharistiam Sanguinis Christi ....

(5.) They climb after this to the degree of Sub-deacons Pontif. de ord. Subd., whose business is to prepare Water for the Ministry of [Page] the Altar, to Minister to the Deacons, to wash the Palls of the Corporals, to present the Cup and Paten for the use of their abominable Sacrifice. The Bishop puts a Garment upon their Heads to signifie the Castigation of the Speech, and then puts the Manipulus upon their left Arm, to signifie Good Works, ib. After this he cloaths them with a Coat, to signifie Joy and Gladness, ibid. Last of all, he delivers to them the Book of Epistles to be read for the Living and the Dead, ibid. The Sub-deacons of old were but Letter-Carriers to the BishopsEspen. in Tim. p. 214.a..

(6.) Then they make them Deacons Ib. de Ord. Diac., whose Office is to Minister at the Altar, to Baptize and Preach, after the example of Stephen, as is pretended. The Bishop pretends to give them the Holy Ghost, cloaths them in significant white Garments, and delivers to them the Book of the Gospels, saying, Accipe potestatem — i. e. Take power to read the Gospel in the Church both for the living and the dead.

(7.) From DeaconsPontif. de Ord. Presb. they ascend to the Order of Priesthood. The Form of making them is very ridiculous: [Page] scarce any footsteps of the Apostolical Practice to be found in it.

The Person to be Ordained presents himself to the Bishop with a multitude of superstitious Rags, such as the Alb, Cingulum, Stola, the Manipulus, the Planeta, &c. holding a Candle in his right hand, to signifie he must be a shining Light to the People. Then the Bishop binds the Stole about his neck, to put him in mind of the Yoke of Christ, ib. After this the Capsula being folded, is put over his Shoulders to denote Charity, then the Bishop unfolds it again, and cloaths the Priest with it, to signifie Innocence, ib. The same white Garment signifies Charity when 'tis folded up, and Innocency when 'tis unfolded. You must not ask the reason of this different signification, for profound Mysteries are wrapt up in all the foldings of this sacred Garment, which is apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the remembrance of his duty.

When they have adorn'd them in this beggarly Garment, and made them look partly like those Priests that serv'd the old Tabernacle, and partly like those that ministred at Heathen Altars, they [Page] anoint their Hands with Oyl, greasing them with the sign of the Cross, and adding these words, Consecrentur .... istae manus ... ut quaecunque benedixerint, benedicantur. The Bishop also shaves their Heads, saying, Dominus pars haereditatis meae Pontif. de Cler. faciend., &c. Their Learned Authors tell us of unaccountable Mysteries that are contained in this Pagan Ceremony. Lombard saith, the shaven Crown signifies Kingly DignityMag. Sent. lib. 4. dist. 6.; Corona regale decus significat. The signification is not very improper, for they lord it over God's Heritage, and exalt themselves above Kings and Princes. The same Author adds, That Denudatio Capitis est revelatio mentis; Clericus enim secretorum Dei non ignarus esse debet.... And no wonder their shaveling Priests are such great Clerks, since shaving the Pate is the mysterious Path to Knowledge. He tells us also, ob vitae continentiam caput radebant, ibid. They shav'd themselves for Chastity's sake. The unclean Stories of Monkish Lives are convincing Evidences of their Mortification.

[Page] Optatus Lib. contra Parmen. reproveth the Donatists for their symbolizing with the silly Custom of the Heathen, in shaving the Heads of their Priests. Docete ubi vobis mandatum est, capita Sacerdotum radere ... cum è contra sint tot Exempla proposita fieri non debere. This Ceremony is of an Heathen Original, as appears by Minutius Foelix De Idol. van. p. 61. Oxon. Edit., with whom agrees the Council of Eliberis Can. 55., who excommunicated such as did so, and after the expiration of two years received them into Communion, upon supposition they continued in the Faith.

The Council of Trent Anathematizes any that will reject or speak against these foolish fopperiesSess. 23. de sac. ord. Can. 5..

How different is this Form of Ordination from the Scripture-Ordinations? Ministers in the Apostles times were Ordained by Fasting and Prayer, with imposition of Hands, without any other Ceremonies that we read of. Let the World judge, whether our Ordinations, which follow the Scripture Pattern, or the Romish Ordinations, which are a meer Pageantry, are the better; and if theirs be admitted as valid, why should ours be condemned?

[Page]Shall they who pass under such unscriptural Forms and Shapes of Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, &c. be accounted Ministers of Christ, and must those who vary not from the Scriptures in their Ordinations, be reckon'd Intruders? Can any of the sincere Patrons of the Protestant Interest pass such a partial unjust Censure? Are they true Ministers, who recede from the Apostles practice as far as the East is from the West, and must those be none who make it their Rule? Shall those Ordinations which are Humane and Antichristian (and therefore laid aside in the Church of England) be received, and theirs which are Divine and Apostolical be rejected? The thing is so very clear to such as are not wilfully blinded with Prejudice and Interest, that one may justly wonder how it should ever come into debate.

III. Our Ordinations are better then III the Ordinations of Rome, if we consider the Persons ordained. That which we have said concerning the want of Qualifications in the Ordainers, may be also applied to the ordained in the Roman Communion. Their Priests are [Page] made without the Election of the People;Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1 cap. 7 & 8. and Bellarmine saith that neither their Suffragium, Concilium, or Consensus is required, which is contrary to Scripture, and Antiquity,Vid. Cypr. Ep. 68. Euseb. VI. 10. as our Protestant Writers have proved against the Papists. See Willet's Synops. Papismi, 5 Controver. Quest. 2. p. 260...

All the Popish Priests are sworn to observe the Decrees of the Council of Trent, whereby their Consciences are captivated to all the Idolatries, Superstitions, and Errours of the Church of Rome; they take also an Oath of Canonical Obedience to their Bishops, which makes them more the Servants of Men, then of Crist, 1 Cor. 7.23. Gal. 1. 10. This Oath is forbidden by an old Council at Chalons; Dictam. est interea de quibusdam fratribus, quod eos quos ordinaturi sunt, jurare cogant .... quod contra Canones non sint facturi, & obedientes sint Episcopo qui eos ordinat, & Ecclesiae in quâ ordinantur. Quod juramentum quia periculosum est, omnes und inhibendum statuimus.

The Romish Bishops about the Eleventh Century, obliged all the Bishops at their Examinations to promise Subjection [Page] and Fealty in all things to St. Peter, and to his Church, to his Vicar, and to his Successors, as appears by the Roman Order,Tom. 10. Probl. Patr. p. 107. which in all likelyhood was writ about that time, and where is to be seen amongst the Questions made to the Bishop which was examined, those which regard Obedience and Fidelity. The form of the Oath may be seen in the Roman Pontifical.

Dr. Willet makes the Oath of Obedience to the Pope a mark of Antichrist.Controv. 4. q. 10. p. 233, 234. If it be bad in the Pope, the chief Bishop, to require such an Oath, it cannot be good in inferiour Bishops, unless they were more infallible then the Head of their Succession.

The first Instance that I can find of an Oath required by Ecclesiastical Guides to bind Persons to their Communion,Eccl. Hist. lib. 6. c. 43. is that of Novatus the Heretick, who swore all his Communicants not to return to Cornelius. Vide Epist. Cornel. ad Fabium Antioch. praesidem, in Euseb. This is much of the same nature with the Oath De jure parendo, administred in Ecclesiastical Courts to Excommunicated Persons at their Reconciliation.

[Page]In short, our Ordinations are better then Popish Ordinations, because our Candidates are admitted upon sufficient trial of their Qualifications, are not obtruded upon the People without their choice and consent, and nothing is required of them but Obedience to the Laws of Christ; all which are otherwise in the Ordinations of Rome.

IV IV. Ours are better then Popish Ordinations, if we consider the Office to which they are Ordained, which is one of the grossest pieces of Idolatry that ever was in the World, viz. the offering up of their Bread-Idol, under the Notion of a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead.Aug. Hunn. de Sacr. Ordin. Axiom 65 Forma Sacerdotii haec est (saith Hunnaeus) Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro Vivis & Mortuis, in Nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti. The words of Consecration in the Roman Pontifical are with this Addition;Pontific. Rom. de Ord. Pres. Accipe potestatem offere Sacrificium Deo, Missásque celebrare. Lib. 4. dist. 24. J. They make the very Essence of the Priestly Office to consist in potestate placabiles Deo hostias offerendi, as the Master of the Sentences speaks. The [Page] Council of Trent makes Preaching of the Word, which is the first thing in the Apostles Commission, to be a separable Accident. Si quis dixerit, non esse in Novo Testamento Sacerdotium visibile, & externum, vel non esse potestatem aliquam consecrandi & offerendi verum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini, & peccata remittendi & retinendi; sed officium tantùm, & nudum ministerium praedicandi Evangelium. VEL EOS QVI NON PRAEDICANT, PRORSVS NON ESSE SACERDOTES, anathema sit.

For these Reasons the Reformed Churches of France did not admit Popish Priests,Fr. Discipl. cap. 1. art. 2 & 3. that had forsaken the Roman Communion, into the Ministry, without long and diligent Inspection and Examination,Vide B [...]z. contra S [...] rav. they must be approved of at least for two years from the time of their Conversion: nor were they then suffered to exercise as Ministers, until they submitted to another Ordination; and they were not to receive Imposition of Hands any more then if they were Strangers, without the advice of Provincial and National Synods.

[Page]Now these Idolatrous Shavelings, whose Ordainers are the Pope's Creatures, whose Ordination is the product of a prophane Invention, and whose work is to make a Wafer-God: I say, these are taken for true Ministers in the Church of England, though it be as hard to find the Essentials of the Ministry among them, as to find a Pearl in a Dunghil. Therefore the Ordination of Presbyters, now in question, should be admitted for valid, as being more agreeable to the Scriptures in all the respects mentioned, and not to be justly charged with any defect in things essential to the Ministry.

Object. Object. Popish Ordinations are done by Diocesan Bishops, which you have not, therefore your Ordinations are null.

Answ. Answ. This Objection hath been answered already. It supposeth three things which are notoriously false. The first is, That the sole Power of Ordination was in the Apostles. 2. That they had Successors in the Apostolica [...] Office; both which we have disproved▪ And 3dly, it supposeth Popish Bishops to be the Apostles Successors, which [Page] sounds harsh in Protestant Ears: Can they be the Apostles Successors, who have not the Apostolical Doctrine? when they urge this Succession against the first Reformers, and quote the Fathers, Tertullian, Irenaeus, &c. who argue from this Topick against the old Hereticks, they are answered by our Protestants Writers,Sa [...] de voc. Ministr. p. 545. that the Ancients spoke not de solâ Episcoporum successione, sed de Doctrinae successione, ac ejus fidei, quam primi Episcopi ab Apostolis acceptam atque haustam ad posteros continuâ serie transfudernnt. To the same purpose speak our Iewel, Whittaker, Reynolds, Willet, &c.

If either of these three Points fail, this Objection is impertinent, how much more when all the three are precarious. Our Ordinations are in all things confessedly good, except the concurrence of a Diocesan Bishop; the Popish Ordinations have nothing to recommend them but the desiled hand of a nominal Bishop, so that the bare touch of his hand imprints an indelible Character, where the Spirit of Christ hath left no impressions of his Image. This is to ascribe greater virtue to the Fingers of [Page] a Prelate in making Ministers, then to the Spirit of God. Let a Person Ordained by Presbyters be never so well qualified, be never so faithful in the discharge of his Office; let another Person that is Ordained by a Bishop, be never so defective in Qualifications, suppose a Reading Curate that cannot preach, let him be never so prophane in his Life, yet this Man must pass for a true Minister, because he had the ineffectual Blessing of a Bishop, and the other a meer Usurper, and all his, Administrations must be null and void, for want of this Ceremony. Let the Spirit of God indue a Man with never such excellent Gifts for the Ministry, it shall be in the power of a Prelate to exclude him, that he shall be no Minister of Christ, though he devote himself to the Work, and be solemnly set apart for it: nay more, it will be in his power to make a Minister of another Person, whom the Holy Ghost never designed for that Office, by any real work of Sanctification upon his heart, or conferring upon him any tolerable degree of Minist [...]rial Abilities. They that can believe such Fancies may please themselves [Page] therewith, Christ gave us another Rule to discern between false and true Pastors, Matth. 7. 15, 16—20. Ye shall know them by their fruits; that is, by their Doctrine and Conversation. The Reformers vindicate their Ministry against the Papists by this Argument: Christus hanc nobis regulam praef [...]verit, quâ possimus falsos à veris Doctoribus discernere, Sad. ubl supra, p. 554. nempe eos à suis fructibus esse dignoscendos, cur eq non contenti, alias praeterea temerè, & pro arbitrio confingamus? Itaque judicetur tum de pontificiis, tum etiam de nostris Pastoribus, ex Doctrinâ quae verus est fructus, atque etiam, si placet, utrorumque vita in disquisitionem vocetur. Quod si fiat, certò speramus, Deo favente, nos facilè in hâc causâ fore superiores. We are very willing to put our Case to the same Issue, to be judged according to this Rule of Christ, by our Doctrine and Conversation.

CHAP. VI.

[Page]

Presbyters Power of Ordination prov'd from their Imposition of Hands in Ordination, not as bare Approvers. Turrianus, Heylin, J. Taylor, &c. confuted. Two other Objections answered.

Arg. V. THose that have power to impose Hands in Ordination have power to Ordain, but Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination, therefore to Ordain.

The Minor, viz. that Presbyters may impose Hands, will not be denied. 'Tis required by the Old CanonsConc. Carth. 4. Can. 3. Vid. Can. Presb. dist. 23. — Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius Ordinandi Presbyteri. teneant. Chrysostom was charged in a Libel put in by Isaacius (how justly is not certain) that he Ordained Ministers without the Concurrence of his Presbyters: [...] [Page] [...]. Phot. Biblioth. v [...]. p. 27. Edit. Aug. Vindelic. 1601. However, the Presbyters continued to lay Hands with the Bishops, even in the darkest Ages of the Church, as might be proved by several Instances if necessity required. But this is so undeniable, that to this day the Presbyters are admitted to joyn with the Bishop in imposition of Hands, in the Church of England. And in the present Church of Rome also, all the Presbyters that are present are required to lay Hands with the BishopPont [...]f. de Ord. Presb..

The Major will be deny'd (that though they impose Hands they have not the Ordaining Power) I thus prove it; That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power; but imposition of Hands in Ordination is an Ordaining Act, therefore \h. The Major is evident, for Actus praesupponit potentiam. As to the Minor, If imposing of Hands in Ordination be not Actus ordinans, what is it? I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles times of Persons laying on Hands in Ordination, that had no Ordaining Power.

[Page]If imposition of Hands in Ordination be no evidence of an Ordaining Power, how come the Bishops to urge that Scripture (1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly on no man) in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power, and thence to infer he was Bishop of Ephesus? Timothy might lay Hands for Ordination, and yet have no Ordaining Power, and so be no Bishop of Ephesus. Thus they unwarily undermine their own Foundations.

It's a meer Subterfuge, and indeed such as betrays the Cause, to acknowledge that Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination, but not as Ordainers. 'Tis as if one should say, a Presbyter hath Power to apply Water to a Child in Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but he hath no power to Baptize. He may set apart Bread and Wine, and distribute it to the People according to Christ's Institution; but he hath no power to Administer the Lord's Supper.

If Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie no Ordaining Power, what doth it signifie? Turrianus the Jesuit saith it [Page] signifies their Approbation of the Bishops act—non Excludantur Presbyteri ab impositione manûs approbante, sed ab ordinante. He is followed herein by many of our own. Dr. Heylin Heyl. Hist. of Ep. p. 162. saith, The Presbyters Hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the Party ordained, but only testifie their consent unto the business, and approbation of the man. To the same purpose speaks Dr. I. Taylor Vide his Episc. asserted.. But that cannot be the meaning of it; for they could signifie their approbation some other way, without imposition of Hands; their saying Amen to the Ordination Prayer would be a sufficient expression of their Consent. The Peoples approbation was required in primitive OrdinationsCypr. Ep. 68.; who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop. The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of DeaconsAct. 6.3., yet did they not lay Hands on themv. 5, 6.. If no more be intended by it, then a bare approbation, how come the Bishops alone to lay Hands upon Deacons without their Presbyters. Hi cum ordinantur solus Episcopus eis manum imponit Pont [...]f. de Ord. D [...]ac.. But this signification is deserted by a Learned Bishop, who saith, [Page] I think rather they dedicate him to God for the Ministry, which is conferred on him by the Bishop. This specious Evasion is equally disserviceable to the present Point, with the former. Where in all the New Testament have we any ground for this distinction? How can it be said that the Ministry is conferred by the Bishop first, and afterwards the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God, when both Bishops and Presbyters do lay Hands together; Can he be ordained and dedicated to God as two distinct Acts, the one inferiour to the other, and that in the same moment of time, by the same Ceremony of Imposition of Hands, and by the same words?

How comes the Bishops Hand to confer the Ministry more then the Presbyters? not by any inherent virtue in the one more then in the other; not from any Institution of Christ or his Apostles, appropriating an Ordaining, or Minisher making Power to the Bishops Hand, and a bare dedication to the Ministry actually conferred, to the Presbyters Hands.

[Page]The Scriptures of the New Testament make no mention of such distinct significations of that Ceremony, and therefore they cannot be ex instituto; and it's plain they are not ex naturâ rei. Might not the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God without the laying on of Hands? Can there be no dedication to God without laying Hands on the Persons so dedicated? The whole Church dedicates him to God by Prayer, and yet don't lay on Hands, so that meer dedication to God in the Learned Bishop's sense as distinct from Ordination, cannot be the meaning of this Ceremony.

But, I pray, what is Ordination it self but a dedication of the Person to God for the Ministry? what more doth the Bishop do in conferring the Ministry? He cannot confer it by a meer Physical Contact, if so, every touch of his Hand on the Head of a Man, Woman, or Child would make them Ministers. It must be therefore by a Moral Act that he doth it, i. e. by laying on Hands on a fit Person according to the appointment of God, to dedicate him to God for the Ministry. [Page] The power is immediately from Christ and not from the Bishop: Men do but open the door, or determine the Person that from Christ shall receive the power, and then put him solemnly into possession, Acts 20.28. The moderate asserters of Episcopacy do acknowledge that the Presbyters lay on Hands as OrdainersSo Forbes in his Iren. l. 2. c. 11. p. 163.: Imponunt manus Presbyteri ... tanquam Ordinantes, seu ordinem Conferentes, & ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato, hoc adhibito ritu, apprecantes. With whom agrees the Arch-bishop of Spalato Spalat. de Rep. Eccl. II. 2. p. 187.. Dr. Fulk speaks to the same purpose in his Anti-Rhemish Annotations Fulk in Tit. 1. §. 2..

Object. Where do you read that Presbyters did ordain without a Bishop?

Answ. This Objection grants my Argument, that Presbyters have power of Ordination, but not to be put forth without the Bishop. Admit they have an inherent Power, and it's all I plead for; I am sure no Law of God restrains the Exercise of it, while it is managed regularly for the Edification of the Church. We oppose not any Rules of Order, while the main End is promoted.

[Page]The old Canons restrain the Bishop, that he must not Ordain without his PresbytersConc. Carth. 4. c. 22.; we may say as well then, that Bishops have no power to Ordain, because they were not ordinarily to do it without their Presbyters.

All the Ordinations of Presbyters in the Apostles time, and in the three first Centuries were done by Presbyters without Bishops of the present Species, i. e. the sole Governours of 100 or 200 Churches, for there were no such Bishops in the Primitive Church, as hath been proved by several handsDr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Clarkson.. The very Office is humane and new. The primitive Bishop was but the chief Presbyter, who was President for orders sake, but pretended not to be of a superior Order.

Bishop Vsher answered this Objection from the Example of the Church of Alexandria (as Mr. B. affirms) which shall be consider'd anon, when we come to Instances of Ordaining Presbyters in Antiquity.

CHAP. VII.

[Page]

Among the Iews any one that was Ordained himself might Ordain another, prov'd from Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Selden, P. Cuneus.

Arg. VI. IF among the Jews any one that was Ordain'd himself might Ordain another, then may Presbyters Ordain Presbyters. But the former is true— Therefore, &c.

The Consequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledg'd by most Learned Men, that the Government of the Christian Church was formed after the Jewish Pattern.

The Minor I prove from Dr. Lightfoot:Lightfoot Harm. Vol. 1. p. 612. Thus he; Before they had restrained themselves of their own Liberties, then the general Rule for Ordinations among them was, [...] every one regularly Ordained himself, had the power of Ordaining his Disciples, as Ben Maimon affirms. Mr. Selden gives many [Page] Instances to this purpose out of Gemar. Babylon. de Synedr. lib. 2. c. 7. §. 1. But in the time of Hi [...]lel they were rest [...]ain'd from [...] former Liberty; whether out of V [...]ration to his House, or whether from the inconveniency of such common Ordinations, is not certain; and so it was resolved that none might Ordain without the presence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin, or a License from him.

Per insigne est, saith P. Cunoeus quod R. Maimonides tradidit in Salach.cunoe. de Rep. Hebr. l. 1. c. 12. Sanhed. c. 4. Cum enim olim solennem hunc actum pro arbitrio suo omnes celebrarent, quibus imposita semel manus fuerat, coarctatum esse id jus à sapientibus, constitutúmque ut deinceps nemo illud usurparet, nisi cui id concessisset divinus senex R. Hillel.

Selden, De Synedr. c. 14. saith that St. Paul's creating of Presbyters was according to the Custom of creating Elders, Paul being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, as his Disciple. This Gamaliel was Nephew, or Grandchild of Hillel, and Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time, and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul, a Jewish Elder, [Page] before he was a Christian; by virtue of which Ordination in all likelyhood the Jews admitted him to preach in their Synagogues, Acts 9. 20.

Now when Paul became an Apostle, he knew himself and other Apostles to be free from the new Law, of not makeing Elders without the licence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin, which was not to be expected in their Case; for this R. Gamaliel, though otherwise a fair Man, had an inveterate prejudice against the Christians, and authorized a Prayer against them, under the notion of Hereticks, commanding its constant use in the Synagogues, asVol. 1. p. 278. Lightfoot observes out of Maimonides; which Prayer is used among the Jews to this day, containing bitter Curses and Execrations against the Christians,Synag. Judaic. c. 5. as Buxtorf notes.

Hamm. 6 Quer. p. 349. Dr. Hammond himself granteth that the Government of the Church was formed after the Jewish manner, though he reckoneth up many Inconveniencies which would follow promiscuous Ordinations.

[Page]The Analogy between the Government of the Jewish Synagogues and the Christian Church seems very evident in the Case of Deacons, who succeed the Jewish [...] Parnas [...]n, of which there were two or three in every Synagogue to take care of the Poor. Vide Lightf. Harm. on Act. 6. & 7.

To sum up this Argument, the Case of Presbyters in point of Ordination, is the same with that of Jewish [...] or Elders. Every one that was Ordained himself had originally the Power of Ordaining others, the Exercise of which Power was afterwards restrained by a Canon of that Church: So in the Christian Church, at first in Scripture times, Presbyters had a common power of Ordination; but afterwards ut schismatum semina evellerentur, the power was by degrees devolved upon a few chief Presbyters, whom we call Bishops, and the ordinary Presbyters were restrained by common consent, as Ierom observes in Tit. 1.Hier. in Tit. 1. andDecr. I. 24. Panormitan after him.

[Page]How well the new Order of superiour Bishops hath cured the World of Schism, the Distractions and Confusions of the Church, occasioned by the Pride and Grandeur of that Order, for above a thousand years together, are Instances to palpable to be deny'd.

CHAP. VIII.

[Page]

Ordination an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys, acknowledged by Cornelius à Lapide, Chamier, Camero, &c. The Keys of Iurisdiction and Order given to Presbyters, and consequently Power of Ordination.

THAT Ordination which is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them, is valid;Arg. VII but Ordination by Presbyters is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them, Therefore it is valid.

The Major I prove: Either Ordination is an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys, or of some other Power, but of no other; If any other, it's either of a Secular Power, or of an [Page] Ecclesiastical; but neither of these: Not an Ecclesiastical, for there is no Ecclesiastical Power, (at least, which Ordination can be pretended to belong to) but the Power of the Keys; not of a Secular Power, for that belongs not to Ministers.

That the Keys do contain in them the Power of Ordination is acknowledged by Papists and Protestants, particularly by Cornelius à Lapide, Chemnitius, Bucer, Chamier. Nomine clavium significatur omnis potestas Ecclesiastica, Suppl. Cham. lib. 4. c. 4.

Traditio Clavium, saith Camero, Cam. Myroth. p. 40, 41. Symbolum est potestatis atque auctoritatis collatoe, Isa. 22.22. Rev. 3.7. Clavium traditione Doctorum apud Iudoeos inauguratio veteri instituto peragebatur. The Keys delivered to the Jewish Teachers included the power of Ordination; for, as we observed before, Every one, regularly Ordained himself, had the power of Ordaining his Disciples, Maimon.

The Minor is in part granted by all, to wit, That Presbyters have the Key of Doctrine; that they have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order also, as some [Page] distinguish them, I thus prove; They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order; but Presbyters have the former, therefore they have the latter.

The Major I thus prove; Christ gave the Keys together, and did not divide them, therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order. To thee I give the Keys, saith our Lord, Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23. He did not give one Key to one, and both to another; he gives no single Key to any Person, but Keys, and so whatever these Keys serve for. We know no distribution of the Keys, but what is grounded upon Scripture.

He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him, hath power to admit or exclude Persons, as he seeth cause. Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission, his power extends to all Persons without exception. Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys; therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism, they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination.

CHAP. IX.

[Page]

All that have the Power of Order may confer it; acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally. Proved, 1. By the Ancient Fathers. 2. By Schoolmen. Lombard, Bonaventure, &c. 3. By the Canonists, Gratian, Joh. Semeca, &c. 4. By Councils, as that of Aquisgranum, Hispalis, Constance, Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent. 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England, in the Canons of Elfrick, and by J. Wicklef, Lambert the Martyr, the Provincial [Page] Synod of 1537. Cranmer, Juel, Morton, Bilson, &c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury, and by the Bishop of Worcester. Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England. Instances of it.

ORders conferred by such as are in Orders,Arg. VIII. and have the power of Order equal with the highest Bishop, are valid; but Orders conferred by Presbyters, are conferred by such as are in Orders, and have the power of Order equally with the highest Bishop, Therefore Orders conferred by Presbyters are valid.

As to the Major, it's founded on that Maxim frequently used by Arch-Bishop Vsher, Ordinis est conferre▪ Ordines, a Man that is in Orders, quoad Presbyteratum, may coeteris paribus confer Orders, it being like Generation, or Univocal Causation. This Maxim is acknowledged by Dr. H. Fern Fern's Comp. Disc. p. 115—, in his Compendious Discourse, p. 115, 116, 117.

[Page]If among the Papists Men of an inferiour Order do make the Pope, and among our selves Bishops do make Arch-Bishops; how much more may Men of the same Order give what they have, that is, Ordinem Sacerdotii, as the School-men call it. Why may not Presbyters make Presbyters, as Physicians make Physicians? All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind, but the impotent Order of Presbyters must prove extinct, if the favourable Influences of a superiour Order do not propagate it, by a sort of equivocal Generation. Must Presbyters be reckoned amongst those Monsters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation?

The Minor, That Bishops and Presbyters have the power of Order equally, will be acknowledged by most Protestants and Papists. The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Order among ordinary Ministers. Neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination; then certainly there can be but one Order of Presbyters, or Gospel-Ministers, properly so called; for two distinct Orders cannot be conferred [Page] in the same Instant, by the same words, and by the same actions. Let a Man shew me from Scripture, that Timothy or Titus, or any other were Ordained twice, made first Presbyters, then Bishops, which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct Characters. This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers, School-men, Canonists, Councils, and of the Old Church of England.

(1.) As to the Fathers,Blond. Apol. pro Senten. Hieron. Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion, quotes most that are considerable, who unanimously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Irenoeus, Clemens Alexandrin. Ierom, Austin, Hilarius, Isidore, &c. may be seen at large in the said Learned Author. To which I could add several more, if it were needful.

(2. The Judgment of the Schoolmen is the same in this Point.

The Master of the Sentences saith,Lib. 4. dist. 24. J. Apud veteres iidem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt. He adds, Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari[Page]censent, Diaconatus sc. & Presbyteratus, quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis proeceptum Apostoli habemus.

Bonaventure, in 4 sent. dist. 24. q. 1. A. 1. Episcopatus deficit ab Ordine, &c. includit necessariò Ordinem perfectissimum, sc. Sacerdotium. With whom agree Durand. Dominic. Soto, Aureolus, &c. who all Comment upon Lombard's Text. See Aquinas's Supplem. quaest. 37. Art. 2. Mr. Fran. Mason in his Defence of the Ordinations of Ministers beyond the Seas, hath more Quotations of Schoolmen.

(3.) To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe.

Gratian, Dist. 60. c [...]uli ex verb. Papa. Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatu [...] & Presbyteratum, hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur.

Iohannes Se [...]eca in his Gloss on the Ca [...]on La [...] [...]unt quidem quod in Ecclesia primâ primitivâ▪ Commune erat Officium Episcoporum & Sacerdotum, & nomina erant Communia. Dist. 95. c. olim. Et Officium erat Commune, sed in secunda primitivâ caeperunt distingui, & Nomina & Officia, &c. Gloss. in Dist. [Page] 95. c. Legimus, in verb. postea.

Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine,De Succ. & Stat. Eccl. cap. 1. p. 19. and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline, as well as Doctrine?

See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason, ubi supra.

(4.) Some Councils also attest to this Truth.

The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters;Conc. Aquisgr. Can. 8. Sed solum propter authoritatem, summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est.

To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis, or Sevil. Concil. Hispal. 2. Can 7.

In the Councils of Constance and Basil, after long debate, it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils, as well as Bishops, because by the Law of God, Bishops were no more then Presbyters, and it's expresly given them, Acts 15. 23.

In the Council of Trent, Hist. of the Council of Trent. l. 7. p. 619. all the Spaniards, with some others, moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino [Page] might be defined; next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs, six Arch-Bishops, and eleven Bishops, with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon, that the Superiority is de jure Divino, because it savoured of Ambition, and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause; and besides, the greater part would not have it put in. At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed, and was inserted into the Canon, though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party. The words of the Canon are these;Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 7. Si quis dixerit, Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi, & ordinandi, vel eam quam habent, illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem — anathema sit. This Decision was made, 1.Hist. of the C. of Trent. ibid. p. 604, 606, 607, & 619. In opposition to the Lutherans: This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata (in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562.) and of Zarah, as also by the Bishop of Segovia. 2. In favour of the Pope, for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied, [Page] the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head. So the Bishop of Segovia; If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd, that of the Pope is weaken'd also. To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata, being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished, the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also.

The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters, and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters, and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation, is in opposition to the Protestants, and in favour of the Pope. Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance, where that blessed Man of God, Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick,Error. Wickleff. 28 in Conc. Const. Sess. 8 and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt. One of the Articles for which he was condemned, was this, Confirmatio juvenum, Clericorum Ordinatio, locorum consecratio reservantur Papae & Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis, & honoris.

[Page](5.) This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England, both Popish and Protestant.

The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery, we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc. In Spelm. p. 576. where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter. Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum & Episcopum, quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas, & ad visitandum seu inspiciendum, curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent, quod nimiae crederetur multitudini, si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret. Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem, quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi.

The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind.

It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff, Catal. Test. Tom. 2. that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Diaconos.

Iohn Lambert, a holy Martyr, saith, In the primitive Church, Fox's Acts and Mon. when Vertue bare (as ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same) most room, there were no more [Page]Officers in the Church of God, then Bishops and Deacons.

The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes.

The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind.

The Institution of a Christian Man, made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod, Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament, and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom, mentions but two Orders, Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum, aut distinctionum in Ordinibus, sed Diaconorum, vel Ministrorum, & Presbyterorum, sive Episcorum.

To which agrees the MS. In Dr. Stillingfl. Irenic. mention'd [...]y the now Bishop of Worcester, setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer, That Bishops and Priests were [...]ne Office in the beginning of Christs Re [...]igion. The Bishop of St. Asaph, Thirlby, See Dr. Burnet's Collect. part. 1. p. 228. Redman, Cox, all imployed in that Con [...]ention were of the same Opinion, [...]hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were [...]he same. Redman and Cox expresly [...]ite the Judgment of Ierom with appro [...]ation.

[Page]The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus; We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation, Iren. p.393. that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery, of Divine Right; but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE, for the better governing of the Church.

The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty, who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed (in a Book called, The Bishops Book, to be seen in Fox's Martyrology) that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers, and not mentioned in Scripture.

Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind.

Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology,See part.2. c.3. divis.5. &c. 9. divis.1. proves against Harding, that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino: and [...] ting Ieróm, &c. concludes in thes [...] words, All these, with many more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle St Paul, for thus saying, must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks.

[Page]The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal. Vid. Hooker,l.1. s.10, 16.l.7.s.11. by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries. Dr.Hall's Apol. & Def. s. 14. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp. Rationes, Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel, Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester, in his Irenic. Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury, in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland, his words are these: I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office, and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church — The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel, to manage the Worship, and to dispense the Sacraments: and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry, in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers, p. 331.

The truth is, this Notion of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy, as a superiour Order, was first promoted in the Church of England by Arch-Bishop Laud. Dr. Holland, the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxon, was much offended with Dr. Laud, for asserting it in a Disputation for his Degrees, he checked him publickly, and told him, He was a Schismatick, and went about to make a division between the English and other Reformed[Page]Churches. This Prelate had inured his Tongue to say, Ecclesia Romana, and Turba Genevensis.

Cressy, who apostatized to the Romish Church,Exomolog. c.7. p.37. conceives that the reason why Episcopacy took no firm rooting in the Consciences of English Subjects before Archbishop Lauds time, was because the Succession and Authority of Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Orders received from the Roman Church, was never confidently and generally taught in England to be of Divine Right. His Disciples since have rectified that Errour, by obliging all the Conforming Ministers to subscribe, That Episcopacy is a distinct Order, Vid. Pref. to the Book of Ordin. and that it is manifest in God's Word, that it is so: This goes beyond the determination of the Council of Trent. And to make the Fabrick lasting, which was built upon this new Foundation, all Ministers must be sworn to support it, and that they will not remove one Stone out of the Building by any endeavours to alter the Government, as established in Church and State. The Substance of this Oath, as it relates to Ecclesiastical Government, is the same with the &c. Oath, which was imposed in the year 1640. only [Page] it includes also the Civil Government, and requires Passive Obedience and Non-resistance in all Cases whatever, which rendred it acceptable to the Powers then in being, and gave them incouragement to trample upon Fundamental Laws and Constitutions, as presuming upon the security of an Oath, that neither they, nor any commissioned by them, must be resisted upon any pretence whatsoever.

The Proofs brought for this distinction and superiority of Order are so very weak, that scarce two of the Asserters of Episcopacy agree in any one of them. No Scripture, no primitive General Council, no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers, no not one Father of note in the first Ages, speak particularly and home to this purpose.

The Point of Re-ordination began to be urged here in Arch-Bishop Laud's time, his Influence was such, and the Cause then in hand did work so powerfully upon good Bishop Hall himself, that he adventured, as Mr. Prin tells us, to Re-ordain Mr. Iohn Dury, though he had been before Ordained in some [Page] Reformed Church. But from the beginning it was not so. The old Church of England did not require Re-ordination, as is now done.

In King Edward the Sixth his time, Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and P. Fagius had Ecclesiastical Preferments in the Church of England, but Cranmer, whose Judgment of Episcopacy we have seen before, never required Re-ordination of them. He was most familiar with Martyr, Vid. Buc. script. Angl. p.154. nether did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might Ordain.

Iohn à Lasco, with his Congregation of Germans, was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's Patent, he to be Super-intendent, and four other Ministers with him; and though he wrote against some Orders of our Church,Burn. Hisl. p.154, 197. was with others called to Reform our Ecclesiastical Laws.

In Queen Elizabeth's time, Ordination by Presbyters was allowed, as appears by the Statute of Reformation, &c. 13 Eliz. cap. 12. It cannot refer to Popish Ordinations only, if at all: For, 1. the words are general, Be it enacted—that every person—which doth[Page]or shall pretend to be a Priest, or Minister of God's holy Word. The Title of Minister of God's holy Word is rarely used among the Papists, and in common use among the Reformed Churches. The Ministry with the Papists is a real Priesthood,Conc. Trid. S [...]ss.23. C [...]n. 1. and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests. And it's an old Maxim, Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit. 2. The Subscription seems to intend those that scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies, which the Papists do not. For the assent and subscription required is, to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. By this they gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to Subscribe all the Articles absolutely, because the Approbation of the Homilies, and Book of Consecration were included in them, which are no Articles of the Catholick Church, but private Articles of the Church of England; as Mr. T. Rogers observes.Rogers in Art.35, 36. Therefore the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments.

[Page]By the way, I cannot but take notice of the following Clause in that Statute—If any Person Ecclesiastical—shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine directly contrary, or repugnant to any of the said Articles, and being convented before the Bishop of the Diocess, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen's Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical, shall persist therein, and not revoke his Errour, or after such Revocation eftsoons affirm such untrue Doctrine; such maintaining, or affirming, or persisting—shall be just cause to deprive such Person of his Ecclesiastical Promotions: And it shall be lawful to the Bishop of the Diocess, or the said Commissioners to deprive such a Person so persisting—and upon such Sentence of Deprivation pronounced, he shall be indeed deprived. Quaere, Whether the Profession of Arminianism be not directly contrary to the Seventeenth Article of Predestination and Election, to the Tenth Article of Free-will, and to the Thirteenth of Works preparatory to Grace? and if so, Whether the Guilty do not deserve Deprivation by this Statute? The best of it is, they are like to [Page] meet with favourable Judges, who will not be over-strict to mark the Errours of those, who do but write after the Copy they have set before them. Surely the Case is altered from what it was formerly: It was Baro's unhappiness that he lived in a peevish Age, for when he delivered himself unwarily in favour of those Opinions, the Heads of the University of Cambridge sent up Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Tindal to Arch-Bishop Whitguift, that by the interposition of his Authority those Errours might be crushed in the Egg. Hereupon Baro, being obnoxious to this Statute, was expelled the University, and the Lambeth-Articles were made, which come nothing short of the Determinations of Dort. But tempora mutantur, nos & mutamur in illis. But to return from this short digression; some that were Ordained by Presbyters were admitted to the Publick Exercise of their Ministry, and had Preferment in the Church of England without Re-ordination in Queen Elizabeth's time.

Mr. William Whittingham was made Dean of Durham about 1563. though Ordained by Presbyters only.

[Page]Mr. Travers, Ordained by a Presbytery beyond Sea, was Seven years Lecturer in the Temple, and had the Bishop of London's Letter for it. In his Supplication to the Council printed at the end of Mr. Hooker's Eccl. Polit. he saith, One reason why he was Suspended by Arch-Bishop Whitgift was because not lawfully called (in Whitgift's Opinion) to the Ministry, nor allowed to preach according to the Laws of this Church. But Mr. Hooker in his Answer wholly waves that, and Replies only to the Contests between them.

The French Church in Thred-needle-street was allowed by the Queen, as also the Dutch Church. In the Year 1684. a Quo Warranto was brought against them.

In King Iames the First his time, the like allowance was made unto Ministers Ordained by Presbyters.

The famous Mr. Iohn Camero, who was Ordained in France, Ioh. Cam. [...] Evang. came hither in the Year 1621. and set up a Divinity-Lecture in a private House in London [...] the Permission of King Iames the [...], and a License from the then [...] of London.

[Page]Before the Consecration of the three Scottish Bishops at London, Andrews Bishop of Ely said, They must be first Ordained, as having received no Ordination by a Bishop. Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury maintain'd, That thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the Ordination [...] given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful,Spotsw. Hist.lib.7. p.514. otherwise it might be doubted, if there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches. This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and the three Bishops were consecrated.

Thus we see the Judgment and Practise of the Old Church of England in King Edward the Sixth's time, in Queen Elizabeth's, and in King Iames the First his time, they required not Re-ordination, as the New Conformity doth since the Year 1660. They acted from Catholick Principles that comprehended the Forreign Ordinations, asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters.

Object. Aerius is branded for an Heretick by Austin and Epiphanius, for affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be the same. So Bishop Hall in his Divine [Page] Right of Episcopacy, Part I. pag. 64.

Answ. The great mannagers of this Objection are the Papists (as we observed before) from whom some Defenders of Episcopacy have borrowed it. That Aerius was a Heretick is past doubt; but he is so called by the Fathers, because he was an Arian: Epiphanius saith,Epiph. Haeres. 75. Aust. de Haer. 53. he did Arium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare. Austin saith, in Arianorum haeresin lapsus, which is more then a favouring of it, as some interpret their words. Several of our Learned Writers against Popery have justified him against the Charge of Heresie, for holding the equality of Bishops and Presbyters. Chemnit. exam. Conc. Trid. part. 4.

CHAP. X.

[Page]

Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in the Primitive Church. 1. At Alexandria. 2. At Scetis by Paphnutius. 3. By the Presbyters mentioned by Leo the Great. 4. By the Captive Presbyters beyond Isther. 5. By the Boiarii. 6. By the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius. 7. By the Presbyters mentioned by Hilary the Deacon. 8. By Andreas Presbyter de Hostia. 9. By the Chorepiscopi. 10. By the Presbyters at Hy. Objections answered. 11. By the Ancient Waldenses. 12. By Wickliff's Followers in England. 13. By the Presbyter of Taprobane.

[Page] Arg. IX. THAT Ordination which was valid in the Primitive Church is valid now: But Ordination by meer Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church; Therefore it is valid now.

The Major will be granted. The Minor I prove.

1. The Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops for almost two hundred years together. Ierom Ad Evagr. having shewed at large from the Epistles of Peter, Paul, and Iohn, That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first; he adds, Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur, in Schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam, rumperet: Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant: quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligunt ex se quem industrium noverint, & Archidiaconum vocant.

Note here, 1. That Ierom undertaking to shew the Original way of making [Page] Bishops of Alexandria, would leave nothing out that was material in the Constituting of them.

2. He mentions no other way of Constituting them but this by the Presbyters.

3. He brings this as an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, that Presbyters at first made Bishops: A Bishop in Ierom's Opinion is that to the Presbyters, that an Arch-deacon is to the Deacons. As an Arch-deacon chosen out of the Deacons is but a Deacon still, though the chief Deacon; so a Bishop set over Presbyters is but a Presbyter still, though the chief Presbyter. Is Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus. Hilar. in Ambr. in Tit. 3. The other Comparison of an Army making their General, is not between the power of a General and that of a Bishop, but it respects only the manner of their Creation. As a General is made by the consent and choice of an Army, so Bishops had their first being from the Presbyters consent.

4. He ascribeth to the Presbyters the election, the placing him in a higher degree, and the naming of him a Bishop. [Page] Neither do we read of any other Consecration. Polydor Virgil confesseth that anciently in the making of a Bishop,De Invent. rer. l. 4. c 6. there were no Ceremonies used, but the People met together to give their Testimony and Suffrage in their Election, both Ministers and People did pray, and Presbyters gave Imposition of Hands.

5. He saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius. What Custom? not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People, for that continued long after: Therefore it must be the Constitution, which afterwards was done by neighbouring Bishops in the way of Consecration.

This Testimony of Ierom is seconded by a more full one of Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria, who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church, in his Arabick Originals thereof, saith, (according to Selden's Translation in his Comment. p. 29, 30.) Constituit item Marcus Evangelista, duodecim Presbyteros cum Hananiâ, qui semper manerent cum Patriarchâ, adeò ut cùm vacaret Patriarchatus eligerent unum è duodecim Presbyteris, cujus capiti reliqui undecim[Page] [...], eumque benedicerent, & Patriarcham eum crearent: & dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent, eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent, loco ejus qui sic factus est Patriarcha, ita ut semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae ins [...]utum hoc de Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchae crearentur è Prsebyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alexandrini, qui fuit ex numero illo 318. Is autem vetuit, nè deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent, & decrevit ut mortuo Patriarchâ convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham Ordinarent. Decrevit item ut vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex quacunque regione, sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis ut res ferebat, virum aliquem eximium, eumque Patriarcham vocarent; atque ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus à Presbyteris Patriarcha, & successit in locum ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando.

Here is a full proof of Presbyters choosing and creating their Bishop, (whom Eutychius speaking in the language of his Age, calls Patriarch) and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction, [Page] or Prayer, without any other Consecration, which Custom continued several Ages, until at last the neighbouring Bishops usurped the power of Consecration, and left the Presbyters neither the Choice nor the Creation of their Bishop.

Here we have also an Instance of Presbyters making Presbyters; for Eutychius tells us, That the same Presbyters that made their Bishop, chose and ordained another person Presbyter in his room; and so constituted both Presbyters and Bishops for several Ages together.

II. The Bishop of Worcester tells us out of Iohannes Cassianus, that about the Year 390. one Abbot Daniel, inferiour to none in the Desert of Scetis, Stilling. Iren. p. 380. was made a Deacon, à B. Paphnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero, in tantum enim virtutibus ejus adgaudebat, ut quem vitae merits sibi & gr [...]tiâ parem noverat, coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii honore festinaret; Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum Ministerio diutiùs immorari, optánsque sibimet successionem dignissimam providere, superstes eum Presbyterij honore provexit.

[Page]Here is a Presbyter Ordained by a Presbyter, which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus, then Bishop of Alexandria, or any other of that time. Had it been either irregular or unusual, doubtless it had been censured.

Possibly the Concession in the Canon Law is grounded upon this Example, Abbas si est Presbyter conferre potest ordinem Clericalem. Decret. Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 14. c. 11. Innocent. 3.

III. Leo Mag. being consulted by Rusticus Narbonensis, about some Presbyters that took upon them to Ordain as Bishops, resolves the Case thus; Nulla ratio sinit, nt inter Episcopos habeantur qui nec in Clericis sunt electi, nec à plebibus expetiti, nec à provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. Vnde cùm saepe quaestio de malè accepto honore nascatur, quis ambigat, NEQUAQUAM ISTIS TRIBVENDVM quod non docetur fuisse collatum? Leon: Epist. 92. ad Rust. Narbon. c. 1. si qui autem Clerici ab istis Pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quae ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant, & Ordinatio ecrum cum consensu & judicio praesidentium facta est,[Page]potest rata haberi, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent.

Two things are remarkable in this Decision of Leo the Great.

1. They that want the Election of the Clergy, and are not desired by the People, nor Consecrated by the Bishops of the Province, &c. are Pseudo-episcopi, false Bishops in Leo's Opinion, which is agreeable to the old Canons, as we observed before. Our English Bishops want the Election of the Clergy and People, and therefore their Ordinations have a Canonical nullity in them. They would have been reckon'd but Pseudoepiscopi in Leo's time.

2. The Consent ex post facto of the true Bishops, made the Ordinations of meer Presbyters lawful, which could not be unless they had an intrinsick power of Ordination, which was only restrained by the Laws of the Church; for if they have no power of Ordination, it is impossible they should confer any by their Ordination. The bare consent of the true Bishops could not have made them Ministers, if they had not been such before.

[Page]IV. The power of Ordination and Government was in the Hands of the Captive Presbyters under the Seythians beyond 1ster for about Seventy years, from the Year 260 to the Year 327;Philostorg. lib 2 cap. 5 in B [...]and. Apol. the former being the Year of their Captivity under Galienus, the latter of the Change of the Government under Constantine, when Vrphilas was created Bishop by Eusebius, and others.

V. The Presbyters of Bavaria Ordained Ministers time out of mind, until at last Pope Zachary sent one Vivilo to them for their Bishop. It is certain that when Bonifacius Mogunt ▪ aliàs Winifrid, visited them, he found no Bishops in the whole Province but this Vivilo of the Pope's sending not long before; though the Province be so large that one third part of it now, viz. the district of Saltsburg, H [...]yl. Cos [...]n. l. [...]. p. 368. hath an Arch [...]bishop, who is the most powerful Prelate for Revenue and Iurisdiction of any in Germany. The Boiarians, who were the ancient Inhabitants of this Province, were govern'd by their Presbyters without Bishops, and in all probability had [Page] been so from their first Conversion, which was about 200 years before. For they were converted to the Christian Faith about the Year 540, and Vivilo was imposed upon them about the Year 740 by Pope Zachary, who thus writes to Winifrid, or Wilfred (as some write his Name) Quia indicasti perrexisse te ad gentem Boiariorum, & invenisse eos extra Ordinem Ecclesiasticum viventes, dum Episcopos non habebant in Provincia nisi unum, nomine Vivilo, quem nos ante tempus Ordinavimus, Bonif. Mogunt. Ep. 120. Auct Bib. Patr. Tom. 2. p. 105. Presbyteros verò quos ibidem reperisti, si incogniti fuerint Viri illi à quibus sunt Ordinati, & dubium est eos Episcopos fuisse, an non, qui eos ordinaverunt — ab Episcopo suo benedictiones Presbyteratus suscipiant, & consecrentur, & sic Ministerio suo fungantur. It is no wonder that this Pope requires Re-ordination, for now Rome had usurped the Universal Headship, and assumed a power of Deposing and Setting up of Princes, as this Man did in the Case of Childerik and Pipin. They that brought Kings and Princes under them, would much more make Presbyters to depend upon them.

[Page]VI. The Council of Nice decreed thus concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius at Alexandria, &c.Socrat. in Mr. Baxt. of Episc. p. 226. Hi autem qui Dei gratiâ & nostris precibus adjuti, ad nullum Schisma deflexisse comperti sint, sed se intra Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae fines ab erroris labe vacuos continuerint, authoritatem habeant TVM MINISTROS ORDINANDI, tum eos qui Clero digni fuerint nominandi, tum denique omnia ex lege & instituto Ecclesiastico liberè exequendi. If any say, that the meaning is, that these Presbyters shall Ordain and Govern with the Bishops, but not without them, it is granted; for the Decree refers to instituta Ecclesiastica: But this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office, and consequently it is no nullity (though an irregularity as to the Canons) when it's done by them alone.

If it be said, this Condemns Schismatical Ordinations; I answer, Schism, as such, cannot make Ordination null, though it implies an irregularity, else the Ordinations of the Schismatical Church of Rome were null, which are counted valid in England.

[Page] Q. 101. VII. Hilary, or whoever was the Author in Q ex utroque Test. mixtim, affirms, That in Alexandriâ & per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter. It cannot be said that Consecrare here signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist, for this might be done by the Presbyter, proesente Episcopo. If it be taken for Confirmation, it doth not prejudice our Cause; for the Canon limits the power of Confirmation, as well as Ordination to the Bishop, as was also the power of Consecrating Churches, if any should take the word in that sense.

We may understand the meaning by a parallel place of Hilary in Ambrose, Comment. in Eph. 4. who thus speaks: ‘Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est, quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta; nam & Timotheum (1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Presbyterum à se creatum) Episcopum vocat, quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno, sequens ei succederet. Denique apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri [Page] ad primatus tenendos, immutata est ratio, prospiciente Concilio, ut non Ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum, multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, nè indignus temerè usurparet, & esset multis scandalum.’

The same Author saith also,Hilar. Diac. in Tim. 3. in Tim. 3. post Episcopum, Diaconi Ordinem subjicit. Quare, nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est? Vterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus est.

Here note,

1. That the Ordination in Hilary's time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apostle. That he speaks of the Ordination of Ministers is evident by the following words, Presbyterum à se creatum, &c.

2. At first Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and Office, and had but one Odination. Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est, which shews the meaning of Ordinatio in the former Paragraph. The Bishop in Hilary's time, which was about the Year 380, under Damasus Hilar. ib., was but primus Sacerdos, and not of a superiour Order: Peter is called [...], primus Apostolus, Matth. 10. 2. and yet Protestants [Page] hold all the Apostles to be equal.

3.De Repub. Eccl. l. 3. c. 3 Spalatensis infers from this quotation, That at the beginning when a Bishop died, there was not so much as an Election of him that was to succeed (much less any new Ordination) but the eldest Presbyter came into the room of the deceased Bishop. See the Preface to Blondel's Apology, p. 11. & 31.

4. There was a Change in the way of choosing their Bishop, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum; and this was prospiciente Concilio; whether that Council was the Council of Nice, Can. 4. as Blondel thinks; for it should seem that before that time neither the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, nor the Concurrence of three Bishops in Ordination, were accounted necessary for the making of a Bishop, though it might be the Custom (for the keeping up of Unity) in some places: Or whether it signifies no more then that which Ierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum, the Bench of Presbyters, who might make this Change by general Consent; Multorum Sacerdotum judicio, as Hilarius speaks: Or whether it were some Council, [Page] of which we have no further account in Antiquity, most of the Records of the three first Centuries being lostVid. Euseb. III. 4., is not very material. It might be some Provincial Synod, of which there were several before that of Nice Euseb. Eccl. Hist. V. 23.. It is presumption in us that live at this distance, to say there was no such Council, when an Ancient Writer so positively affirmeth it. Such a Change there was, and that by the advice of some Council; they that say there was no such Council, must disprove it by some positive Authentick Testimony.

5. After this Change the Presbyters chose, and made their Bishop: For so Hilarius affirms him to be, multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum.

6. He adds, that in Egypt Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. He speaks in the foregoing words of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and he brings this as a Confirmation of it, that in the absence of the Bishop they might do those things which Custom had appropriated to the Bishops. Consignare is some Act of Prerogative that the Bishops challenged to themselves, which yet in their absence the Presbyters [Page] might perform. Whether we understand it of Ordination, or Confirmation, in which they did Chrysmate consignare, it's not material, for both were reserved to the Bishop by the Canons: Though by comparing this with the scope of Hilary's Discoarse, and with the quotation out of the Questions under Austin's Name — Si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter, it should seem evidently meant of Ordination; especially when we find consignare to be taken for consecrare in several Authors, Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr. Ep. 2. Tu tantum quem jàm Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signavit.

VIII. Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Perusia, Anastas. de vit. Pontis. p. 53. Bonus Bishop of Florence, and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia, whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop: Either then Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop, and the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome, and consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession; or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power [Page] of Ordination with a Bishop, but it's only restrained by Ecclesiastical Laws. This Instance is quoted in Dr. Stillingfl. Iren.

IX. The Chorepiscopi, or Country-Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by a Canon in the Council of Antioch, A. D. 344.Antioch. Conc. Can. 10. Now these Chorepiscopi were either of the Order of Bishops, or not: If they were, then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities, but in Country Villages, which were but thinly peopled with Christians, when the Majority were Heathens, or at least were great numbers. By which we may guess at the bigness of primitive Diocesses, which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes. Such Bishops in the Exercise of that power which Christ gave them, without Canonical Restraints, we plead for, and earnestly desire. Nay the Chorepiscopi are an Instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters; they were but Parish-Bishops under the City-Bishop.Ancyr. Conc. Can. 13. Sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere. But if they were not [Page] Bishops, then it's undeniable that Presbyters did Ordain then, without Bishops, and their Ordination was valid, until they were limited by the Canons. The second Council of Hispalis makes the Chorepiscopi and Presbyters to be the sameCan. 7..

As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops, some meer Presbyters,Forb's Iren. cap. 11. others veri nominis Episcopi, he is answered at large by Forbes in his Irenic. c. 11.

X. The Histories of Scotland do tell us that their Churches were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for above two hundred years, and therefore had no Ordination but by Presbyters.

Hector Boetius saith, Ante Palladium populi Suffragiis ex Monachis & Culdaeis pontifices assumerentur. Hist. Scot. lib. 7. fol. 28.

De Gest. Scot. l. 2. c. 2 Iohn Major is more express, Prioribus illis temporibus, per Sacerdotes & Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in side eruditi sunt.

[Page] Iohn Fordon justifies this Custom as agreeable to the primitive Church.Scoti Chron. l. 3. c. 8. Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti sidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos, Ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitivae. Bishop Vsher cites this last with approbation. De primord. Eccl. Brit. p. 798, 799, 800.

These Authors call the ancient Inhabitants of Scotland by the name they were known by in their days.

Object. Some to elude these Testimonies, deny that there was any Conversion of the ancient Inhabitants of that part of Brittain, which we now call Scotland, before Palladius his time, or neer it. The South-Picts they would have converted not till A. D. 432. the North-Picts in the Year 560.

Answ. I deny not but there might be a more general Conversion of that Nation at those times; the Christian Religion,Bed. Hist. III 4. which was over-grown with Heathenism, and other Errors, might be revived, and recovered to its primitive Lustre by the preaching of Nennianus and Columba.

[Page]Indeed Bede saith,Bed. Hist. l. 5. c. 10. Erat autem Columba primus Doctor fidei Christianoe transmontanis Pictis ad Aquilonem. He was the first he knew of, who lived two hundred years after the said Conversion. For he ends his History with the year 766. It is acknowledged that they were mixed with Scots or Irish at this time, a barbarous People, and in all likelyhood Heathens, who having made themselves Masters of all, must needs bring Christianity to a low ebb in that Country. The converting of these to the Christian Faith was the first Conversion that Bede knew of. But that Christianity was much more early in that Kingdom, is proved by Dr. Cowper, Comp. 2d days Conference. a Scotch Bishop. He affirms the Conversion of the North Part of Brittany to be as early, if not earlier, then the Conversion of the South Part. He proves out of Dorotheus Synops. and Nicephor. II. 40. that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospel in Brittain, where he was Martyr'd and Interr'd. This was An. 44. Christi. He proves out of Baloeus, Fleming, &c. that Ioseph of Arimathea came into Brittain, about the Year 35. He proves out of Theodoret, that Paul [Page] after his Deliverance under Nero, came into Brittain. Cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. And then brings in the Papists objecting, What is this to Scotland? He answereth?

What Good or Evil especially in Religion hath come to the one, hath been found by manifold experience easily derived to the other. He saith further, out of their own Chronicles, That A.D. 124. when K. Lucius embraced the Christian Faith in the South part of the Isle, in that same year, Donald King of the North part of it became a Christian, and that when (A. 300.) under Dioclesian the Church of South Brittain was persecuted by his Deputies, many fled to Crachlint [or Cratilinth] King of Scots, who did lovingly receive them, and assigned to them the Isle of Man, and erected there a Temple dedicated to Christ, called otherwise Sodorensis Ecclesia. He quotes also that known place of Tertullian, adv. Iud. c. 7, 8. Britannorum loca Romanis inaccessa Christo subdita sunt. Now what part of Brittain he means (saith the Bishop) your own Cardinal Baronius will declare unto you—It's evident (saith Baronius) that Britannia was divided by a Wall built by Adrian, &c. that part within [Page]was possest by the Romans, the other without, Britanni liberè possederunt, qui saepe muros illos egressi Romanos praeliis provocarunt. For this cause, saith he, Petrus Cluniacensis vocat Scotos antiquiores Christianos. Cent. 3. c. 3. & 2. c. 2. Thus far the Bishop.

I would further be resolved in these Queries.

1. When the Fathers mention Ioseph of Arimathea, Simeon Zelotes, &c. to have preached the Gospel in Brittain, what reason have we to exclude North-Britain from partaking in the Blessing? The whole Island, Scotland and England, was then called Britain. It is most reasonable to think that those Apostles and Apostolical Men that came into this Land, did cause the joyful sound of the Gospel to be heard in every part of the Island, North as well as South. When we consider their Zeal, unwearied Endeavours, together with the wonderful Success attending their Ministry, it is not likely that Scotland remained long in Heathenism, after the Conversion of South-Brittain. And can it be imagined that the Christians of South-Brittain were so cruelly uncharitable as not to [Page] endeavour the propagation of the Gospel among their Country-men and Neighbours of North-Britain, especially under King Lucius, in whose time Christianity may be supposed to be the publick Profession of the Land. To this add, that a great part of that we call Scotland now, belonged then to the Dominions of the British Kings, who doubtless endeavoured the planting of Christianity among all their Subjects.

2. If the Inhabitants of North-Britain received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome, as Bede suggests,Bed. Hist. III. 4. how comes it to pass that for so long a time after, they kept their Easter after the Eastern manner, and not after the Roman? When the Saxon-Roman-Bishops imposed Conformity in this particular, they opposed them for a long time,Bed. ib.25 and Bishop Colman (who came from Scotland) left his Charge, rather then Conform, about the Year 664.

The Picts and Britains were as rigid Nonconformists as he in this Point, and are termed by Wilfride, at a publick Disputation, obstinationis eorum complices Bed. ib. c. 25.. Their Bishop Dagamus refused all Communion with the Roman [Page] Bishops,Bed. II. 4. and would not as much as eat with them in the same House.

As the Roman Bishops were growing in greatness, and arriving towards the Perfection of the Man of Sin, they sent their Bishops to most Nations, to bring them to a dependence upon them; so they did send Palladius to Ireland, Nynias to Scotland, Bed. Hist. I 27. Austin to England, Vivilo to the Boiarians, as we observed before.

Bede himself acknowledges that the first Bishop the Scots had was Palladius, though they were Christians before; Bed. I. 13. Palladius ad Scotos in Christum credentes à Pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae Celestino primus mittitur Episcopus. He did not make them Christians, but found them so.

It is objected further, out of Bede, That Britain in Palladius's time had such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire.

Eccl. Hist. III. 21. Answ. Bede acknowledges that the British and Scotch Bishops were many of them Ordained only by one Bishop. They were not then such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire; for in other parts of the Empire [Page] they were Ordained by three Bishops, according to the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice. It's an evidence that they thought themselves not obliged by General Councils.

But suppose there were such Bishops here, as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire, as it is not very unlikely but the Church-Government of Britain, being a Province of that Empire, might be in some degree modelled according to the Forms used in other parts of the Empire. The Hierarchy in the Churches of that Empire had its Pattern from the Heathen. The Heathen had their Sacerdotes, and over them their Pontifices maximos Ar [...]ob. cont. Gent. Lib. V..

In every Province, one chief Priest had the Supream Power, to whom all the other Priests were subject. And these were chosen ex hominibus qui in negotiis Civilibus, & rebus publicis erant illustrissimi Euseb. VIII 15. & IX. 4.. See the Epistle of Iulian to Arsacius, Chief-Priest of Galatia, in Sozom. V. 16. Here is a President for Bishops intermedling in State Affairs.

The Office of these Chief-Priests was to Ordain and Govern the inferiour Priests.Iul. Ep. ibid.

[Page]The Master of the Sentences ingenuously confesseth that the distinction of Bishops, Metropolitans, Arch-Bishops, was borrowed of the Gentiles. Thus he:

Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, Lib. 4. dist 25. m. scil. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis & Episcopis — horum autem discretio à Gentilibus introducta videtur, qui suos Flamines, alios simpliciter flamines, alios Archi-flamines, alios Protoflamines appellabant.

That the Ecclesiastical Government of Britain was built upon the Ruins of the Pagan Hierarchy is expresly affirmed by Ponticus Virunnius. He tells us, That there were in Britain before Christianity 28 Flamens, and three Arch-Flamens. In the room of the Flamens were set up Bishops, and in the room of the Arch-Flamens Arch-Bishops. The Seat of the Arch-Flamens were London, York, and Caerleon upon Vsk. To these three Metropolitans were subject 28 Bishops. Fuerunt in Britanniâ octo & viginti Flamines, nec non & tres Archi flamines, quorum potestati coeteri judices morum atque phanatici submittebantur .... ubi. erant Flamines, Eiscopos,[Page]ubi autem Archi-flamines, Archi-episcopos posuerunt, mirâ sanctitate, & incredibili devotione. Sedes autem Archi-flaminum (quae fuit antiquissima religio) in tribus nobilioribus Civitatibus fuerant P. Virunn. Hist. Brit. lib. 4 p. 32.; Lundoniis, viz. atque Eboraci, & in Vrbe Legionum super Oscam fluvium—His igitur tribus Metropolitanis, evacuata superstitione, 28. Episcopi subduntur.

The description that Caesar gives of the Government of the ancient Druids, something agrees with this of Ponticus Virunnius. C [...]r saith concerning the Druids of France, That they managed all the Pagan Devotions, under the Conduct of one Chief President, whose Authority was Supream: when he died, another was chosen to succeed him. Illi rebus divinis intersunt, Sacrificia publica ac privata procurant, religiones interpretantur —His autem omnibus Druidibus praeest unus,Caesar de B [...]ll. Gall. lib. 6.qui summam inter eos habet auctoritatem. Hoc mortuo, si quis ex reliquis excellit dignitate, succedit; at si sunt plures pares, suffragio Druidum adlegitur. He adds, That this Discipline was found in Britain; Disciplina in Britannia reperta, atque in [Page]Galliam translata esse existimatur; & nunc qui diligentiùs eam rem cognoscere volunt, plerumque illo, discendi causâ proficiscuntur.

Having prov'd that Christianity was in the North part of Britain before Palladius's time, and vindicated Boethius and Fordon, I proceed to give an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland.

Segenius a Presbyter and Abbot of Hy, together with the other Presbyters of the Monastery Ordained Bishop Aidan. The Presbyters of Hy also Ordain'd Finan as Successor to— Et ipsum esse dignum Episcopatu, ipsum ad erudiendos incredulos. & indoctos mitti debere decernunt,—sicque illum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserant—successit vero ei in Episcopatu Finan, & ipse illo ab Hy Scotorum insulâ, ac Monasterio destinatus. Bede Hist. III. 5. 15. Aidan.

To this Quotation 'tis said by some, that Aidan was ordain'd by Bishops, which they would' thus prove: There was always one Bishop in Hy Monastery, as Bishop Usher tells us out of the Ulster Annals; and another person Ordained perhaps only by the Bishop of Hy, who was returned back from Northumbria. Then at least there were present two Bishops for Aidan's Ordination.

[Page] Answ. 1. We have no Author near that time that saith there was a Bishop constantly resident at Hy, which our Adversaries think a good Argument against the Scottish Historians. As to the Annals of Vlster, we leave them for Apocryphal, as not being attested by any Author of that Age.

2. But suppose there were a Bishop resident at Hy, he was subject to the Abbot, who was the only Church-Governour of the Island, and the Provinces aboutHabere solet ipsa Insula rectorem semper Abbatem Preshyterum, Cujus Iuri & omnis Provincia, & ipsi etiam Episcopi, ordine inusitato debeant esse subjecti, juxta Exemplum Primi Doctoris illius, qui non Episcopus, sed Presbyter extitit, & Monachus. Bed. Hist. III. 4.. The Monastery was not only exempted from the Government of the Bishops, which is usual, but the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot, and therefore the parallel Instance of Oxford being under the Jurisdiction of the Chancellor, and not of the Bishop of the place (which is urged by some) is not to the point, for the Bishop is not subject to the Vice-Chancellor, as the Bishops were to the Abbot of Hy. The Bishop of Oxford hath a Jurisdiction over all that have a Parochial Cure in the University, [Page] versity, who swear Canonical Obedience to him, which cannot be said of the Bishops under the Jurisdiction at Hy?

3. The second Bishop said to be at Hy, when Aidan was Ordained, cannot be produced out of Bede. It doth not appear that he was Ordained Bishop. Hist. III. 5. Bede calls him only Sacerdotem, a Priest. Or if he was, how will it appear that he was Ordain'd by the Bishop of Hy?

Ordain'd perhaps only by the Bishop of Hy, saith the Learned Historian: Here is a plain begging of the Question; It is taken for granted that this Man was Ordained by the Bishop of Hy, which we deny, and which Bede no where affirms. Finan's Ordination was by the Seniores and their Abbot, Bed. Hist. III. 5. as Bede saith, and therefore his Predecessor had no other.

'Tis objected further, That Finan must needs be Ordain'd by Bishops, because there were three Bishops at the Ordination of Cedd. This deserves to be taken notice of by our Aversaries, and consider'd in other places, where Bede speaks of Scottish Ordinations.

[Page]I answer we have taken notice of it, and find it doth not at all concern the thing in question. For Cedd's Ordination was at Lindis-farn in England, out of the Liberties of the Abbots of Hy. Let one Example be produced of Ordination by Bishops, within the district of Hy, and 'twill be something to the purpose, which I have not yet met with.

Bede speaking of the British Bishops, calls them Presbyters or TeachersInterea Augustinus adjutorio tisus Edilberthi Regis Convocavit ad suum Colloquium Episcopos sive Doctores, maximae & proximae Britonum Provincia, &c.: so that 'tis uncertain what sort of Bishops the old Brittains had.

'Twas many years after Cedd's time, before the British Churches would submit to the Roman Yoke of Discipline; when they had throughly imbib'd the Romish Modes and Customs, then at a Synod held at Celichyth, A. D. 816. 'twas decreed, That none of the Scottish Nation should be permitted to use the sacred Ministry among us.

It's argued further against the Scotch Ordinations, that they must needs be Episcopal, because the Romans did not [Page]dislike the Orders, that they found in the British Church.

Answ. If by the British Church be meant the Church of South Britain, 'tis not to the purpose, as we observed before, but if the Orders conferred in the Monastery of Hy be intended, the Romans were not so ignorant of the Priviledges of Abbots, as to dislike their Ordinations, which to this day are allow'd by the Canons of that ChurchAbbas si est Presbyter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem. Decr. Greg..

XI. The ancient Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops. They maintain all Ministers to be in a state of parity, and their Presbyters imposed Hands for OrdinationPerr. Hist. of Waldens. lib. 1. C. 13. p. 62. ibid. cap. 10. p. 53. vid. part. 3. l. 2. c. 2. p. 57.... These were the Fathers and famous Predecessors of the Protestants, who bore the heat of the day. They had the honour to be first Witnesses against Antichrist, and are to this day, as the Bishop of Salisbury calls them, The purest Remains of primitive Christianity.

From them the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers, for they [Page] sent Michael Zambergius, and two more, for Ordination to the poor Waldenses (who never had a Bishop among them, but in Title only) In compliance with their desires, two of their Titular Bishops, with some Presbyters that had not so much as the Titles of Bishops, made Zambergius, and his two Collegues, Bishops, giving them power of OrdinationVid. Hist. of Bohem.. We dislike not, that for Orders sake, the Exercise of this Power should be ordinarily restrained to the graver Ministers, provided they assume it not as proper to themselves by a Divine Right, nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions.

XII. Wickliffs followers here in England held and practised Ordination by meer Presbyters, and least any should think they did so of necessity, for want of Bishops, it's to be noted, that they did it upon this Principle, that all Ministers of Christ have equal powerLolardi sequaces. Johannis Wickliff, pir idem tempus in errorem suum plurimos seduxerunt, & tantam praesumpserunt audaciam, ut eorum Presbyteri more Pontificum, novos crearent Pontificos, asserentes (ut frequenter supra retulimus) quemlibet Sacerdotem tantam consecutum potestatem ligandi atque solvendi & caetera Ecclesiastica Ministrandi, quantam ipse Papa dat vel dare polest. Exercuerunt autem istam persidiam in Diaecesi Sarum, Walf. Hist. Ang. ad A. D. 1389. p. 339., [Page] as the Popish Historian saith, who complains how all parts of England were full of those People, and that the Prelates knew of these things, but none were forward to prosecute the Guilty, except the Bishop of Norwich Audiverunt, viderunt, atque seiverunt haec universa pontifices, sed abierunt alius, in villans suam, &c. This was in King Richard the Second's time.

XIII. In the Island of Taprobane, or Zeilan, as 'tis now call'd, there was a Church of Christians govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon, without any Superiour Bishop, to which he or his Flock was subject. This Island is above two thousand Miles in compassN. Lloyd Georg. Dict., a Province big enough for a Bishop, yet had none in Iustin the Emperour's time, which was about the Year 520, but was under theLegi insignem relationem Cosmae Monachi Indicopleustae de Taprobanâ Insulâ, quae nunc Zeilan, olim Seiladiva dicebatur, ubi Iustini Imperatoris aetate Ecclesiam Christianorum, Presbyter in Perside Ordinatus unà cum suo Diacono regebat, saith L. Holsten. de Minist. Confirm. p. 39. Jurisdiction of a Presbyter, Ordain'd in Persia, who in all likelyhood Ordain'd his Successor, and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries.

[Page]By this Passage it appears that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches, no not in the sixth Age, and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction, and consequently of Ordination.

The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage, A. D. 428. did observe, that until that time, some Dioceses never had any Bishops at all, and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the futurePlacet uc Dioceses quae nunquam Episcopos acceperunt, non habeant. Con.Carth. 2. c. 5.. They would never have made such a Canon, had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Iure Divino.

CHAP. XI.

[Page]

Objections against Ordinations by Presbyters answered. 1. That it is against the Canons. So is Episcopal Ordination. 2. It destroys the Line of Succession, answered in Seven Particulars. 3. The Case of Ischyras consider'd. A Passage in Jerom explained.

I Will briefly reflect upon the most material Objections that are made against the Ordination I plead for.

Object. 1. Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is condemned by the Old Canons.

Answ. 1. Many things are reserv'd to the Bishops by the Old Canons meerly to support their Grandeur.Rom. Conc. Can. 5. Carth. 2. Can. 2. For this reason the Consecration of Churches, the Erecting of Altars, the making of Chrysm, the Reconciling of Penitents, [Page] the Vailing of Nuns, &c. were appropriated to the Bishops. All this is ingeniously acknowledged by the Council of Hispalis — Let the Presbyters know that the power of Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See, by virtue of novel Ecclesiastical Constitutions Novellis & Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverine—Presbyterorum Consecratio, &c.. They add, that this was done to bear up the dignity of the BishopsVt per hoc & discretio graduum, & dignigatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur. Conc. Hisp. 2. Can. 7..

For the same reason the Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops, were restrained from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch Quamvis ut Episcopi consecrati sunt, &c.—nec Presbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum. Concil. Antioch. Can. 10. A.D. 3 [...]4..

For the same reason 'twas decreed in the Council of Sardis, A. D. 347. That no Village or lesser Town must have a Bishop, nè vilescat nomen Episcopi.

2. Episcopal Ordinations also, as they are now managed, will prove Nullities by the Old Canons.

[Page]The Ancient Canons, call'd the Apostles, which are confirmed by the sixth General Council atCan. 2. Constantinople, do depose all Bishops that are chosen by the Civil Magistrate.

Can. 29.Can. 29. in Conc. Collect. Reg. Par. 1644. [...]. If any Bishop obtains a Church by means of the Secular Powers, let him be deposed, and separated from Communion with all his Adherents.

This Canon is revived by the second Council of Nice Can. 3., which the Greeks call the Seventh General Council.

All our English Bishops are chosen by the Magistrate, and not by other Bishops, or the Presbyters and People of their Diocess. The King's Writ of Conge d'Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to choose their Bishop, is only matter of form, for the King chooseth properly, and the Dean and Chapter cannot reject the Person whom he recommends: nor are they the just Representatives of the Clergy and People of the Diocess, whose Suffrages were required of old in the designation of a BishopCypr. Ep. 68..

[Page]Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermeddle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion.Can. 6. [...]. Let not a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, assume worldly Cares: and if he doth, let him be deposed. Bishops at this time were not Judges in Civil Matters, nor Ministers of State, as being a thing inconsistent with their Office, 2 Tim. 2.4.

Can. 80. adds,Can. 80 — [...] A Bishop must not engage in Publick Administrations, that he may give himself to the Work of the Ministry; Let him resolvedly decline these, or be Deposed; for no Man can serve two Masters.

The Church of England doth not observe the Canons of the first General Councils, which someLaud against Fisher, p. 360. would have us believe are the measures of her Reformation next the Scripture.

The fourth Canon of the Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Bishop to be,Nic Concil. Can. 4 — [...]. by all the Bishops of the Province, at least by three, with the Consent of the absent Bishops expressed in writing. I never knew the Consent of all the Bishops of the Province required, much less expressed in Writing, before [Page] the Consecration of English Bishops.

Can. 5. — [...] Can. 5. Requires Provincial Councils twice a year. This is not observed.

Can. 6. [...] Can. 6. and 7th, establish the Rights and Priviledges of Metropolitans.

Quaere, Whether Austin the Monk, whom the Pope made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, did not wrongfully invade the Rights of the Brittish Bishops (over whom Pope Gregory could give him no just Power, notwithstanding his pretended Grant, mentioned byEccl. Hist. I. 29. Bede) which are not restored to this day: and if so, whether this doth not make a Canonical Nullity in the whole Succession of English Bishops, who derive their Line from that usurping Prelate.

Can. 15 and 16th,Can. 16. [...] forbids Ministers to remove from the Church in which they were Ordained.

I might mention several other Canons in this Council, which are not observed, as the third, the eleventh, the fourteenth, (which in the Greek is the eighteenth) [Page] the nineteenth andCan. 20. [...] twentieth, which forbids kneeling upon the Lord's days.

No more are the Canons of the Great Council of Chalcedon observed.

Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships, and to intermeddle with Secular Affairs.

Can. 7.Can. 7. [...] is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs, or receiving Secular Honours, upon pain of Excommunication. Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age.

One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of themAlia insuper dolo malo induxit, nam & in Cleri Ordin [...]m cooptatos, Senatorum munere, & Ministerio perversè fungi jassit. Niceph Eccl. Hist. XIII.. That Politick Enemy of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and [Page] Dominion would be with that humble Mortification, and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires. He that had been aNazian. Orat. in Iul. Imp. READER in the Church before he came to the Empire, could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Saviour to his Apostles, Matth. 20. 25, 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, but it shall not be so among you.

Can. 10. Can. 10. — [...]Deposeth all obstinate Pluralists.

This Canon, if executed, would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists, that heap Pelion upon Ossa, Steeple upon Steeple, as if they would mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions.

I only produce these Canons ad hominem, to shew how unreasonable 'tis to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters, when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations.

We judge it more ingenuous to disown their Authority over us, as being made by such as had no power to give [Page] Universal Laws to the Church, then pretend Submission to them, as they do, who act in open Contradiction to them. If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons, let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone.

Object. 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles.

Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Argument of the Papists against the first Reformers. They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations, because they wanted this Succession. It is urged by Bellarmine, De Sacram. Ordinis. cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther, Ep. Dedic. praefix. Operibus ejus.

The same Argument is used by Parsons, the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England, part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton, Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art. 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler, p. 274, 275. Turrian the Jesuite writ a great Book de Ordinationibus Ministrorum Ecclesiae, against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches. The Sum of all his Arguments is this [Page] of the Succession, which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel, Sad. Oper. p. 594. All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordinary Succession of Bishops, under the Roman Pontiff, the visible Head of the whole Church: but no Protestant Ordinations are such; therefore no Protestant Ordinations are lawful, but they are void, null, and meerly Laic. This Argument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations; but with this Addition, That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession, which adds no great Reputation to it.

2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers.Sad. de legit. vocat. Ministr. p. 545— Sadeel calls it, praecipuum adversariorum Argumentum; he challenges them to produce some Scripture to confirm it by. Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him, that the Succession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine, and not of Persons; which Succession of Doctrine failing in the Romish Church, the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass. These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Generation of immortal Successors.

[Page]He further proves, that the Ordinary Succession of Ministers may be interrupted by Scripture-Examples;P. 551, 552 ‘as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely, to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made, 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel, God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them, though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine. Nay, Christ himself coming to reform his Church, chose unto himself Apostles, not from the Priests, but from other Families. He did not observe the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church.’

To which I may add, That the Roman Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church, without regard to Lineal Succession.Antiq. XV. 3, 6, 7, 8. Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind; Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church, it must be in the Jewish Priesthood, which was entailed upon one Family; but the Church remained a true Church, though the regular Succession was destroyed.

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford, the Martyr, to Dr. Harpsfield; You shall not find, Fox's Acts and Mon. A.D. 1555. saith he, in all the Scripture, this your essential part of Succession of Bishops. In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit.

Dr. Fulk saith,Fulk on Eph. Sect. 4. If the Truth of Doctrine be necessary to prove a true Church, the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also.

Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point. Field of the Church, II. 6. & III. 39.

Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a threefold Succession. The first of Persons and Doctrines, in the primitive Church. The second of Persons alone, among Infidels and Hereticks. The third of Doctrine alone. And thus our Ministers, saith he, succeed the Apostles; and this is sufficient. For this Rule must be remembred, Perk. Vol. 2 p. 171— that the power of the Keys, that of Order and Iurisdiction, is tied by God, and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine.

Dr. White largely confutes this pretended Succession in his defence of the way to the true ChurchCap. 59. p. 554, 557.. So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Orthod. Faith, p. 120-155..

[Page]Thus we see the vanity of this pretended Succession, who they be that maintain it, and who are the Opposers of it. It's one of the Pillars of the Popish Church, which supports that tottering Fabrick.

The Arguments against our Ordination must needs be very defective, when no other can be found, but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations. It's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents. Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads?

3. The violent Assertors and Defendants of this Opinion, little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England; for it's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for, hath been broken again and again. One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain. All our Bishops, as such, derive their Succession from Rome. Now if we can find any Interruption in the Succession of Bishops there, it Nullifies all the Administrations of those that depend upon them. If the Pope succeeds Peter, as Darkness [Page] doth Light; if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar, proves to be the Antichrist; if many Popes were Hereticks, Sodomites, Idolaters, Conjurers, Whoremongers, Murderers, &c. as some of their own Authors affirm; if there were two or three Popes at a time, and if they were rather Apostatical then Apostolical for fifty years together, as their own Baronius confesseth, what becomes of the pretended Line of Succession? If none of these things can infringe it, what can? We may as rationally affirm that a Dog may generate a Man, as that the Man of God may be the Off-spring of the Man of Sin. I doubt not but Christ had his Ministers in the darkest Ages of the Church, but not by virtue of this Succession in debate.

4. Nay, this Principle destroys all Churches in the World. For there's no Church this day can produce such a Testimonial of Succession, as hath met with no Canonical Interruption. They that bid fairest for it, are the Greek Churches,Vide Cathol. Trad. Q 4. the Latine, and the African Churches; and all of them derive the Succession from the same Source, making Peter the Head of it. The Greeks [Page] produce a large Catalogue of Patriarchs proceeding from Peter, until the time of Neophytus, who not many years ago held the See at Constantinople. The Christians of Affrica, especially the Habassines, who are the most considerable among them, derive their Succession from the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he from Mark and Peter. The Western Churches also derive the Succession from the same Spring. Thus we have the most considerable Sects of Christians in the World, deriving their Claim from one and the same Apostle. All would be reputed the Off-spring of the Chief Apostle, and glory in their Relation to him. It seems Paul, the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, who laboured more abundantly then all the rest, either left no Successour behind him, or no Body knows what is become of him? Sic vos non vobis, &c.

Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision, must be the Universal Head of all the Gentile-Churches; and Paul, with the rest of the Apostles, must be written Childless, or be the Progenitors of such an Off-spring that is long ago extinct, or so very obscure, that their Names are written in the Dust.

[Page]But how comes Peter to Canton his Bishoprick into three Parts, and to leave three Successors behind him? By the same Rule, every Bishop must have more Successors then one, three at least, and each of them as many, and so forward until Bishopricks be crumbled into Parochial Churches; and the Patrimony of Peter, by an Apostolical Gavel kind, be equally divided between his Parochial Successors.

But the unhappiness of it is, the three Patriarchal Successors cannot agree about the divided Inheritance. The eldest Brother (for so the Pope of Rome reckons himself) Condemns the two others as spurious, and Claims to himself the Universal Inheritance. His AdvocateDe Not. Eccl. cap. 8. Bellarmine expresly affirms, Non posse ostendi in Ecclesiâ Graecâ Successionem. He adds, We see that the other Apostolick Sees are decay'd and fail'd; viz. those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, wherein after that those places were taken away from the Romans by the Persians and Saracens (since which time there are nine hundred years past) there hath been no Succession,[Page]and if there were any, the same was very obscure. Stapl. Doctr. Princip. l.13 c.6. Stapleton also saith of the Greek Church. That she hath no Legitimate Succession.

The Greek Churches on the other hand condemn the Roman Succession. Primi qui seriò primatum Romanum Pontificis oppugnarunt videntur fuisse Graeci, saithPraef. ad Lib. de Pontifice. Bellarmine.

Barlaam, the Monk, thus attacks the Roman Succession: What Law, Quaenam Lex solum jubet inter caeteros Romanum Episcopum hujus Successorem appellari..: De Princip. Cap. 3. in Bibl. Patr. saith he, obligeth us to reckon the Bishop of Rome Peter's only Successor, that must rule all the rest? and why may not the Bishop of Alexandria be accouted Peter's Successor, and so challenge the Supremacy; for as Clemens was made Bishop of Rome, so was Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria.

He strikes at the Head of the Succession, and denies Peter to have been Bishop of Rome Barl. ib., as many of our Protestant Writers have doneFunc. Com. in Chron. ad An. 44.. If therefore a Man would know the true Church by Personal Succession, 'tis difficult to know what part to take, especially considering that of all the pretended Successions, the Roman (from which the English Prelacy derives it [Page] self) is most suspicious, as being often interrupted by Simony, Heresie, and Schism. Pope Eugenius the Fourth was deposed by the General Council of Basil, and pronounced Heretick and Schismatick, with all his Adherents; yet he retains the Papal Authority against the Judgment of that Council; Cardinals and Bishops were Instituted by him.

5. By this Principle no Man can know himself to be a Minister of Christ. Can any Man know that all the Predecessors of that Bishop that Ordained him were Canonical Bishops? that none of them came in by Simony, or err'd in the Fundamentals, so as to be guilty of Heresie? that none of them lost their Authority by involving themselves in Secular and Publick AdministrationsCan. Ap. 80., or by neglecting to instruct their FlocksCan. 57., or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own JurisdictionCan. 36. Const. 1. Can. 3.? These things make Canonical Nullities. Can any Man know, who was the Bishop that was the Root of his Succession? A great part of the Christian World is uncertain what Apostles did first Convert their particular Countries, which were it known, [Page] would not yet resolve the Point. Conscience will not be satisfied, with saying, Let others disprove my Succession. It must have positive Grounds of Satisfaction, that I am a true Minister of Christ. So that this Notion serves only to perplex Ministers and People, with insuperable difficulties about their acceptance with God, and to leave Christianity it self upon such precarious Foundations, as will be, in the power of every Critick in Church-History to shake, if not to overturn.

How is it possible, That plain illiterate People should know this Succession, which is learnt only by reading of the Greek and Latine Fathers, the length and obscurity of which wearieth the wisest Men, and which oftentimes contradict themselves. Ought not the Consciences of the meanest to be satisfied in the Call of their Ministers? Must they act in a Matter of so great importance by an Implicit Faith? What Rule shall they judge by? not by the Line of Succession; that will but lead them into an [Page] inextricable Labyrinth. Our Saviour hath left us a better Rule, By their Fruits ye shall know them.

6. Let it be further considered, That the Catalogues that are brought by some of the Ancients, of the Successors of the Apostles, were made by ConjectureEuseb. Ec. Hist. l.3.c.4. Nor is this Succession so evident and convincing in all places, as it ought to be, to demonstrate the thing intended. A List would be expected of Apostolical Successors, not only in the Great Patriarchal Churches, but in all others planted by the Apostles,Vide Dr. Still. Iren. as Philippi, Corinth, Caesarea, and in all the Seven Churches of Asia, (and not only at Ephesus) which has not been yet produced. Though in the Patriarchal Churches the beginning of the Line is as obscure as the Head of Nilus. At Rome, 'tis not certain whether Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, or Clemens are to be reckon'd first. And as for Antioch, 'tis far from being agreed, whether Peter, Euodius, or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul, or the one and the other [Page] Paul. At Alexandria, where the Succession seems to run clearest, the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters, and to no Divine Institution, as we observed already.

7. If there were any certainty in this Succession, the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters, as much as to Bishops.Ad Magn. p. 33. Voss. Edit. Ignatius saith concerning them, [...]—That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles.

Irenaeus affirms the same—Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni; dicent se non solum Presbyteris, Advers. haer.l.3.c.2 sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, &c. Though the truth is, when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters, they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons, but principally of the Succession of Doctrine, which the [Page] first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable, as received from the Apostles. Otherwise, the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine, is no note of a true Church, as among the Arians, where they had a Succession of Bishops, and yet no true Church.Nazianz. in laud. Athan. Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est, namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est; qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur, adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet: Atque haec quidem nomen, illa vero rem ipsam & veritatem habet successionis. Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church, the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple.

Object. 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria. Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy, p. 91, 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government, cap. 13.

[Page] Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop, constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais, Athanas. Apol. 2. and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter, as he had been formerly. Ischyras's Ordination was declared void, as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors; himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks, and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons; it was sine titulo, extra fines, and nulli vicinorum nota; all which Circumstances make it uncanonical.

Dr. Field saith, Dr. Field. de Eccles. III.39. ‘That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void, it's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age; which appears (saith he) by this, that Ordinations, sine Titulo, were null. Conc. Chalc. Can. 6.’

The Reverend Author of the Naked Naked Truth, p. 45 Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras.

I am sorry, saith he, so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose.[Page]It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Ni [...]e made a Canon, wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent, their Ordination should be null. You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop, is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter: therefore the irregular Bishop, and the irregular Presbyter, are of the same Order, of the same Authority, neither able to Ordain.

Object. 4. It is objected out of Ierom, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter, exceptâ Ordinatione?

Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints, and not of Scriptural: for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it, he confirms it, by asking this Question, What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter, except Ordination? plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour [Page] Order, the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same. As if he would say, The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion, they are Ambassadors for Christ, to preach the Gospel, they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and what doth a Bishop more then these, except Ordination▪ which being no Sacrament, is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts, and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree. A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power.

FINIS.

Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil.

[Page]

PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica, England, Sicily, Malta, Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those, and divers other Earthquakes, by Iohn Shower.

Earthquakes explained and Practically improved, occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London, and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea, by Tho. Doolittle M.A.

The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated, and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God, and the Prosperity of their Souls, by T. Cruso.

The Christian Laver; or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with, and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ, by T. Cruso.

Four Sermons on several Occasions, by T. Cruso.

Barbarian Cruelty; being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco, &c. by Francis Brooks.

The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, by Robert Flemming V. D. M.

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

Owen, James, 1654-1706.

Edition statement

1694

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A53660

ID [STC]

Wing O708

ID [STC]

ESTC R32194

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12354711

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12354711

ID [VID]

60104

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A53660)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 60104)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1024:2)

Source

— A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams., Owen, James, 1654-1706., Williams, Daniel, 1643?-1716..

Extent

[16], 183 p.

Printed for A. Salusbury ...,. London :: 1694.. (Errata: p. [15]) (Reproduction of original in the Cambridge University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.