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 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 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 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 was but primus Sacerdos and not of a superiour Order Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Apostolus Matth. 10. 2. and yet Protestants hold all the Apostles to be equal 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 of which we have no further account in Antiquity most of the Records of the three first Centuries being lost is not very material It might be some Provincial Synod of which there were several before that of Nice 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 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 jà m Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signavit VIII Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Perusia 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 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. 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 Sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere But if they were not 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 As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops some meer Presbyters 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. Iohn Major is more express Prioribus illis temporibus per Sacerdotes
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 Ministâ—rial Abilities They that can believe such Fancies may please themselves 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 praefâ—â—verit quâ possimus falsos à veris Doctoribus discernere nempe eos à suis fructibus esse dignoscendos cur eq non contenti alias praeterea temerè pro arbitrio confingamus Itaque judicetur tum de pontificiis tum etiam de nostris Pastoribus ex Doctrinâ quae verus est fructus atque etiam si placet utrorumque vita in disquisitionem vocetur Quod si fiat certò speramus Deo favente nos facilè in hâc causâ fore superiores We are very willing to put our Case to the same Issue to be judged according to this Rule of Christ by our Doctrine and Conversation CHAP. VI. Presbyters Power of Ordination prov'd from their Imposition of Hands in Ordination not as bare Approvers Turrianus Heylin J. Taylor c. confuted Two other Objections answered 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 'T is required by the Old Canons Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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 'T is 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 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 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 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 who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of Deacons yet did they not lay Hands on them 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 But this signification is deserted by a Learned Bishop who saith 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 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
by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them is valid 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 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 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 distinguish them I thus prove They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order but Presbyters have the former therefore they have the latter The Major I thus prove Christ gave the Keys together and did not divide them therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order To thee I give the Keys saith our Lord Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23 He did not give one Key to one and both to another he gives no single Key to any Person but Keys and so whatever these Keys serve for We know no distribution of the Keys but what is grounded upon Scripture He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him hath power to admit or exclude Persons as he seeth cause Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission his power extends to all Persons without exception Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination CHAP. IX All that have the Power of Order may confer it acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally Proved 1. By the Ancient Fathers 2. By Schoolmen Lombard Bonaventure c. 3. By the Canonists Gratian Joh. Semeca c. 4. By Councils as that of Aquisgranum Hispalis Constance Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England in the Canons of Elfrick and by J. Wicklef Lambert the Martyr the Provincial Synod of 1537. Cranmer Juel Morton Bilson c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury and by the Bishop of Worcester Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England Instances of it ORders conferred by such as are in Orders 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 in his Compendious Discourse p. 115 116 117. 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 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 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 Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt He adds Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari 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 Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatuâ— Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur Iohannes Seâ—eca in his Gloss on the Caâ—on Laâ— â—â—â—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.
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine 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 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 all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six arch-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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more 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. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation 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 proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— 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 The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. 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 Churches This Prelate had inured his Tongue to say Ecclesia Romana and Turba Genevensis Cressy who apostatized to the Romish Church 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Therefore the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments 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 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 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