THE Ministry of Reconciliation is that powerful Engine by which the strong Holds of Sa­tan are demolished, the Gates of Hell [Page 2] 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 3] 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 4]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 5] 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 6] 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.

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 13] 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 them 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2.: [...] signifies to rule Rev. 2. 27. They are called Rulers and Governours 1 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 14]The Scriptures own but two Orders of ordinary Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons 1 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 excepted Acts 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 15] 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 16] 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 several Eph. 4. 11. sorts of Mi­nisters, which Christ had appointed in [Page 17] 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 Offi­cers 1 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 Jesuit Vid. 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 18] 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 Teachers Eph. 4. 11. The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Euseb. Hist. 111. 34. Eusebius: They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word [Page 19] 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 agrees In 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 20] 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 him 1 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 came 1 Tim. 1. 3. & 4. 13, 14., which he intended shortly to do 1 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 21] 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 before Acts 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 22] 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 him­self 1 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 mat­ters 1 Tim. 5. 13.; and would he himself be such a one? [...] are condem­ned 1 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 23] helpful to him in the Ministry 2 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 there Acts 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 present Acts 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 24] 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 more Ib. 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 Churches 1 Cor. 4. 17. Act. 17. 14. & 18. 5., whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow Rom. 16. 21., and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches 2 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 Church Act. 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 25] 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 departure Acts 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 26] 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 27] 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 doth Reynolds against Hart, p. 110, 111—118. Reynolds against Hart, and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy. The Fa­thers and Councils speak of the Officers [Page 28] 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 29] 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 time Ignat. 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 mean­ing Ignat. ad Mag. p 34.: [...]. Let all of you come together, as into the Temple of God, as unto one Altar. The meaning [Page 30] 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 these Burn. 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 31] 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 32] 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 33] 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 34] 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 35] 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 36] 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 37] 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 38] 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.

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 40] 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 41] 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 42] 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 43] 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 44] 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 45] 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 46] 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 47] 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 48] 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 49] 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 50] 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.

THey who have power to Preach the Gospel, Arg. III. to Baptize, and Ad­minister the Lord's Supper, have pow­er [Page 52] 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 53] 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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] 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 58] 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 59] [...]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.

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 61] 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 62] 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 63]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 64] 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 65] 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 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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.

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 70] 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 Writers Rhem. 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 Fornication Vid. 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 71] 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 Flock Matth. 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 72] 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 Superstitious Pontifi­cal. 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 73]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 74]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 75] 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 Bi­shops Espen. 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 Deacons Pontif. de Ord. Presb. they ascend to the Order of Priesthood. The Form of making them is very ridiculous: [Page 76] 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 77] 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 Dignity Mag. 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 78] 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 fopperies Sess. 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 79]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 80] 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 81] 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 82]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 83] 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 84]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 85] 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 86] 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 87] 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.

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 Canons Conc. 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 89] [...]. 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 Bishop Pont [...]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 90]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 91] 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 Ordinations Cypr. Ep. 68.; who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop. The Consent of the Peo­ple was required in the Ordination of Deacons Act. 6.3., yet did they not lay Hands on them v. 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 92] 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 93]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 94] 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 Or­dainers So 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 95]The old Canons restrain the Bishop, that he must not Ordain without his Presbyters Conc. 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 hands Dr. 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.

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 97] 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 98] 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, as Vol. 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 99]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. and Decr. I. 24. Panormitan after him.

[Page 100]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.

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 102] 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 103] 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.

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 106]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 107] 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 108] 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 109] 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 110] 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 111] 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 112](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 113] 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 114]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 115]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 116] 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 117] 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 118] 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 119] 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 120]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 121] 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 122]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 123]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 124] 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.

[Page 126] 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 127] 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 128] 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 129] [...], 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 130] 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 131]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 132] 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 133]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 134] 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 135]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 136] 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 137] 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 138] 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 139] of which we have no further ac­count in Antiquity, most of the Re­cords of the three first Centuries being lost Vid. 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 140] 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 141] 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 142] 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 same Can. 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 143] 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 144]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 145] 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 146] 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 147] 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 148] 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 149] 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 150]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 151] 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 152] 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 153] 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 about Habere 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 154] 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 155]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 Teachers Interea 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 156] 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 Church Abbas 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 Ordinati­on Perr. 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 157] 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 Ordi­nation Vid. 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 power Lolardi 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 158] 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 compass N. 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 the Legi 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 159]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 future Placet 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.

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 161] 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 Bishops Vt 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 162]The Ancient Canons, call'd the A­postles, which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at Can. 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 Bi­shop Cypr. Ep. 68..

[Page 163]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 some Laud 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 164] 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 by Eccl. 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 165] the nineteenth and Can. 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 them Alia 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 166] Dominion would be with that humble Mortification, and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires. He that had been a Nazian. 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 167] 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 168] 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 169]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 170]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 Church Cap. 59. p. 554, 557.. So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Orthod. Faith, p. 120-155..

[Page 171]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 172] 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 173] 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 174]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 Advocate De 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 175] 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, saith Praef. 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 done Func. 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 176] 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 Admini­strations Can. Ap. 80., or by neglecting to instruct their Flocks Can. 57., or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction Can. 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 177] 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 178] 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 Conjecture Euseb. 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 179] 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 180] 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 181] 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 182] 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 183] 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.