Meletiâ—ns were Schismaticks and 〈◊〉 thâ—se 〈◊〉 by Meletius were receiv'd into places where othâ—â—… 〈…〉 though the Paulianists and 〈◊〉 were to be re-baptiz'd 〈◊〉 ordain'd by the 19th Canon of the Council of Nice 〈…〉 those ordain'd by the Novaâ—â—â—…ns * 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid c. 8. when reconcil'd to the Church were to continue in the same Station which they enjoy'd before except Catholick were in pâ—ssession by the 8th Caâ—â—… of the very same Council From which Instances it is plain Tâ—â—â—… according 〈◊〉 the Sence of those Fathers though Schismatical 〈…〉 â—â—â—…ieties were out of the Church yet it did not whâ—â—…Y dâ—vâ—st 'em 〈◊〉 their Character so as to make 'em no longer the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cal Power as this Vindicator would insinuate Nay the severest Enemies to Heretical Ordinationâ— never went so far as our Aâ—â—â—or as appears from what they declare in a â—â—â—â—â—…lel Case viz. that of Baptism St. Cyprian himself owns the practice in his days to admit reconciled Hereticks Vid. Cypr. ad Quinteâ—… Steph. ap Cyp. ad Pomp. cp 74. Crescent ap Conc. Carthag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Eus H. E. l. 7. c. 7. Ec. His l. 1. c. 9. Apos c. 67. Con. Nic. Can. 19. c. Ap. Cypr. Ed. Ox. Ep. LXXV Novatus à Thâ—…umagade ap Con. Carth. as Penitents only with Imposition of Hands if at first they were Baptiz'd by the Orthodox Clergy And so Heraclas of Alexandria took care that such persons should renounce their Heresies not at all requiring 'em to be Rebaptiz'd And in like manner Miletius retain'd his Character tho debarr'd the exercise of his Function by the Decree of the Nicene Council as appears by their Synodical Epistle in Socrates So that here the case of Baptism and Ordination run parallel neither being made void by meer Heresie or Schism and accordingly we find them put together in several Ancient Canons and in Firmilianus's Epistle to St. Cyprian c. 'T is true the case was otherwise with those Baptized or Ordained by Hereticks or Schismaticks they were to be Reordain'd and Rebaptiz'd according to the Sentiments of those African Fathers How consistently with their own practice let others judge for if Hereticks or Schismaticks did retain their Character while they were out of the Church as those Fathers seem to allow I can see no reason why it should be totally out of their Power to confer the like upon other Persons for if it be said that they lost their Character by departing from the Church how they could obtain it again without a new Ordination is past my understanding And therefore why Miletius himself should retain his Character Socr. ubi sup and yet those Ordain'd by him be confirmed or setled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if by those words is really meant a Second Ordination I must learn from others Vid. Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 18. As for the grosser Hereticks that lived before the time of St. Cyprian and whose several manners of Baptizing were so Monstrous and Wicked I cannot wonder if the Ancients thought fit to Baptize them over again Their former Baptism wanting the necessary words and being Consequently void in the very performance and therefore when Tertullian and other Fathers reject their Baptism I am of opinion it makes little for St. Cyprians Cause So that notwithstanding the Testimonies produced by a Learned Author â—…aun Ep. 15. Agrippinus might be the first introducer of that Practice as Vincentius Lirinensis testifies Vincen. Lirin Com. c. 9. p. 21. Edit Cantab. 1687. Ap. Cyp. ut Supra Vid. Cyp. ipsum in Ep. ad Juâ—…aian And this I am the rather induc'd to believe be cause Pope Stephen then condemn'd it as a Novel Custom and Firmilianus and other Africans seem to own at least could not deny that it was so as appears by the Answer they made to that Objection So that by the most constant usage of the Church in those first Ages the Baptism of Hereticks was not to be admitted in gross neither was it Universally to be rejected upon St. Cyprians Principles there being a difference to be made betwixt those Hereticks who did not really Baptize at all and those that did And so you find both the first and second Councils of Arles admit such as were Baptiz'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 1. Con. Arcl. c. 8. 2. Con. Arcl. c. 16. 17. Optat. 1. 4. and Rebaptising only those that did not believe in the Trinity nor Consequently use the Essential Form and so Optatus declares Quodcunque in Trinitate factum est bene factum est The like distinction I reckon is to be made concerning Ordinations viz. Those who derived their Orders only from Hereticks and Consequently never had any Succession from the Church were justly to be reputed as Unordain'd but those Ordain'd by Hereticks who had their Ordination originally from the Church and did not omit any thing necessary to the conferring of Orders had no occasion for Reordination And to let pass the distinction betwixt the Novatians and Cataphrygae made by the Nicene Fathers Optatus and St. Austin have both of 'em settled the point in their Controversy with the Donatists (a) Vinc. Lirin c. 11. p. 26. Ed. Cant. 1687 who pretended the Authority of the African Council for Rebaptizing the Catholicks Thus (b) In hoc Sacramento Baptismatis Celebrando tres esse Species Constat c. Optat. l. 5. p. 143. Edit Com. 1599. Optatus in Celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism there are three kinds of things which you can neither increase nor diminish nor pretermit The 1st is the Trinity The 2d in him that Believes The 3d. in him that does the Office but they are not all to be esteem'd of equal moment For I look upon two of 'em to be necessary and one as if it were necessary The Trinity obtains the principal place the Faith of him that Believes comes next after this and the Person of him that Ministers is nigh but cannot be of the same Authority The two former remain always unalterable and fixt for the Trinity is always the same and the Faith in several Persons is but one both always retain their proper Efficacy but the Person of him that Ministers is known that it cannot be equal to the two former sorts for this reason because it alone appears to be alterable c. And (c) Ibid. p. 141 142. a little before he acquaints us with the practice of the Church at that time As oft as any one Baptized by you i. e. the Donatists desires to come over to us we receive him according to the Example of our Master with all simplicity for far be it from us that we should call him back again to the Font who is already washed far be it from us that we should repeat that which is to be done but once or double that which is but one for so it is written by the
this Case the Line would be right enough and all that can be said is That there was One Vsurper in the Line of Jurisdiction who never was within the Line of Order and consequently could make no intercision in it And perhaps to prevent any Irregularity in the Succession of that Order the Apostles gave the Example and the Church enjoyn'd That a Bishop should be ordain'd by Three at least Apâ—…st c. 1. Con. Nican c. 4. Con. Areâ—… c. 21. Con. Laodic c. 12. Con. Paris 1. c. 6 c. and likewise that he should be Constituted with the Approbation of his Metropolitan and Com-Provincials which practices were certainly a very great security to the Right Succession it being not very likely That all the Bishops of a Province should be so extreamly careless to suffer an irregular Ordination and the Persons concern'd to Consecrate all void of that Character which they pretended to bestow After all That ever any Abbot that was no Bishop did ordain Bishops I do utterly deny Adamnanuâ—… in his Life of Columba Adamn Vit. Col. Vsh Primorâ—… makes mention of a Bishop in the Abby of Hy and that there was always one residing there is confirmed by Bishop Vsher out of the Vlsleâ—… Annals And perhaps the Bishop of Dâ—…nkeld as the Learned Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures joyn'd in the Consecration of Bishop Aldan Finan Bp. of St. Asaph of â—…h Gov. p. 102. and Colman had the like Ordination But Tuda the next in Succession was ordain'd a Bishop among the South Scots in Ireland So that should we allow his Instance true viz. That Aâ—…dan Finan and Colman were ordained by the Abbot yet that Succession at Lindisfarn in all likelihood fail'd in Colman and the Line of Order was right in Tuda and consequently his Marginal Instance is nothing to the purpose an Instance that has been frequently urg'd by the Nonconformists against Episcopacy and as often confuted from the most Authentick History of those Times by divers Learned Men Vind. C. E. cap. 9. Vind. Ignat. par 1. c. 10. Orig. Brit. Ch. Gov. c. 5. Barbos Past p. 2. All. 3. Num. 3.4 c. Maur. de Alz. de Prac. Episc Dig. p. 2. c. 5. Num. 6 7 8 9. Aquin. Sup. q. 38. ar 1. Res ad ter Vid. Victor in Sum. Num. 216. Sect. de Sac. Ord. Non facile credeâ—…em Victor in sum Num. 237. quem seq Vivald in Candel aureo p. 1. tit de Sacram. Ordin Num. 17. In fine asserenti se vidisse quandam Bullam Papae concedentem facultatem sacerdoti conferendi Diac. Sub. Diac. Barbos Past p. 2. Al. 3. N. 4. Ap. c. 67. Nicaen c. 19. Con. C. P. c. 4 Bishop Bramhâ—…ll Bishop Pearson the present Bishop of Worcester and St. Asaph and Mr. Dodwell have so fully Answer'd this business of Hy that a Man would wonder at the Confidence of this Gent. that he should still hope to impose the same Mistake upon the World Nor does the Church of Rome allow that an Abbot who is no Bishop should Consecrate a Bishop They are so far from allowing it that their Canonists generally declare that the Pope himself cannot impower any Presbyter to Ordain so much as a Deacon An Abbot who has Jus Mitrae Bacuâ—… a Cardinal or an Ordinary Presbyter by Commission from the Pope may confer the lesser Orders but not the greater or those which are called Sacred viz. those of Bishop Priest and Deacon nay even as to the lesser Thomas Aquinas Joh. Major and Paludanus Affirm that it is safer to receive the Order of Sub-Deacon from another than from such a priviledged Presbyter And altho Anguianus and some few more are of opinion that the Pope might Impower a Presbyter to confer the Higer Orders yet it never was the allowed practice of that Church And I challenge him to produce so much as one instance of any Abb t that was no Bishop who ever Consecrated a Bishop As for Sub-Deacons and such people who are sometimes Ordainâ—…d by Abbots the Gentileman knows well enough we have no occasion for 'em in England and therefore the Succession of our Bishops may be just and regular notwithstanding this first Case As to the Second viz. Whether this line of Ordina ion may be continued in a Schismatical Church We Answer 1st That such was the care of the Primitive Church so great a regard they had to a right Succâ—…ssion that they who thought the Ordination of certain Hereticks void such as the Paâ—…lianists and Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. decreed 'em to be Ordained by a Catholick Bishop And it is likewise determin'd by the first Council of Constantinople concerning the Ordinations made by Maximus Cymicus that they are all null they neither allowing him to be a Bishop not those Ordained by him to enjoy any Function among the Clergy And in the Roman Church Bâ—â—n Tâ—m 9. p. 2â—4 Pâ—â—tin dâ— Vâ— Pont. p. 22.4 Contra â—â—ephanum III. alâ—s IV. Mabill in Ordiâ— Rom. Com. p. cxix particularly those ordain'd by Constantine the Lay-Invader of the Papal Chair were by a Council under Stephen the Third or Fourth to return to their former Orders unless they were in great Esteem with the People and in that Case they were to be re-ordain'd by the Church and for fear of laying the Foundations of a future Schism it was further decreed That none of 'em should be promoted to any higher degrees By these and many other Instances it is plain what Care the Church has taken to re-ordain or utterly silence those whose Orders they thought void And lest any such persons should creep into strange places and there invade that Office to which they had no Right No Man either of the Clergy or Laity Ap. 〈◊〉 12. con 〈◊〉 30 con 〈◊〉 c. 33. 〈…〉 C. 〈◊〉 c. 7. con 〈◊〉 c. 12. con Elizbeâ—â— c. 51. was to hold Communion with 'em under pain of incurring the Ecclesiastical Censures No Clergy Man was to go abroad without Commendatory Letters no bishop to be ordain'd without the Knowledge and Consent of his Metropolitan and the Neighbouring Bishops No Heretick to be admitted into Orders and if ordain'd to be depos'd No Man to ordain in another's Province By which and seveâ—â—l other Canons it became extreamly difficult for any such Hereticks or Schismaticks whose Orders they thought void to make any considerable intercision in the Line of Succession But I can see no Reason why the Line of Ordination may not pass through a Schismatical Church For although by Schism People are out of the Church and while they continue so cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments yet to say That â—â—â—h are absolutely destroy'd and nullify'd so that a â—â—â—â—…matick lâ—â—â— the Characters and can neither be a Christian 〈…〉 i. e. not the Subject of Apostolical Power 'till he be 〈◊〉 â—â—â— baptiz'd and ordain'd is an Assertion beyond all that I câ—â—â—…d ever yet meet with The
the Instances of Popular Elections that can be found in Scripture but from none of 'em is it evident that the Election of the People did contribute any thing that was Essential to Holy Orders The Reason why it was admitted was that they might confer the Power and Character upon the Best and most Unexceptionable Persons such as were of Honest Report which could not so easily be known without consulting the Multitude Cyp. Ep. LXVIII Ed. Oxon. And this is all the Use that St Cyprian makes of the aforementioned Instances who tells us That it was so order'd in the Case of Eleazar the Son of Aaron and ought to be so that the Crimes of ill Men may be Detected and the Deserts of Good Men Extoll'd And that the Apostles proceeded so diligently and warily in the Choice of Matthias and the Seven Deacons lest any Unworthy Person should creep into the Service of the Altar or obtain the Degree of Priesthood And he adds further That in his Time it was the Custom for the Neighbouring Bishops of the same Province to Meet and Chuse a Bishop in the presence of the People who fully understood each Man's Life And after this manner they advanced Sabinus into the Place of Basilide All this seems to be plainly allow'd by the Council of Laodicea which will have none to be made Bishops but such as are of Known and Approved Conversation Con. Laod. Can. 12. and provides that they should be constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Discretion of the Metropolitans and Neighbouring Bishops In which Poâ—…nts it agrees exactly with St. Cyprian s Model Can. 13. anâ—… yet the Canon immediat ly following will not allow the People to chuse those that are to be advanced to the Priesthood and therefore surely their Consent was not then thought Essentially Necessary to the making of a Bishop Nay so far was the Church from the Opin on of this Author that upon the Death of Auxentius Theod. H. E. l. 4 c. 7. the Arian Bish p of Milan the Synod petition'd the Emperour That he would chuse one to suc eed him in that See which certainly they would not have done if they had thought that his Nomination would have made him such a Monster as our Author speaks of viz. A Creature not to be found in Scripture or the Primitive Times I might add several other Instances of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs chosen to their respective Charges by the Discretion of the Emperour and other Princes but I suppose it is not necessary As to the Nomination of our English Prelacy suppose it had been of right Originally in the Clergy and People yet they by their Representatives in Parliament 25 H. 8. c. 20. have confirm'd it to the Prince So that it is his by Law And for my part I know no Reason why it should not so continue Episcopacy is the same chuse who Names it being not the Nomination but the Ordination that makes the Bishop And if that be the same now which it was in the Primitive Times our Episcopacy must needs be the same with theirs Page 33 and 34. The Gentleman is willing to be try'd by the Pattern of those Churches which are truly Primitive but I find he dares not venture far among 'em for fear of losing his Cause He complains That a Century or Two made a considerable Change in the Features of their Government and Worship but in which Century that Change was wrought he durst not inform us However if he pleases to venture his Cause upon it let him take any of the first Fifteen to prove Congregational Episcopacy and provided he will allow the Writers of that or the next Age to be credited before those that liv'd later I shall freely joyn issue with him We have a Specimen of his Abilities already page 34 and 35. where he tells us That Ignatius charges the Bishop to take a personal cognizance of every Member of his Church not excepting the very Servants And Secondly That it was the Custom then in every Congregation to receive the Sacrament every Lord's Day and that they never receiv'd it nisi ex antistitis manu but from the Hand of the Bishop What could such Bishops be more than Pastors of single Congregations To which I Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. First That Ignatius does indeed require of the Bishop to discourse people singly as God should enable him But how does this prove That he was to take a Personal Cognizance of every particular Member of his Church Had he no body to assist him in the Remoter parts of his Charge Why could no Man else acquaint him with the Frailties and Misdemeanors of particular persons but all must depend wholly upon his own Cognizance and Observation Or because he was not to content himself barely with Publick Preaching but was to discourse 'em particularly as he found occasion Does it therefore follow that he must needs be acquainted with every Member o his Church How if they were too numerous or liv d too remote to be all Personally discours'd with All that Ignatius requires is so far as God shall enable him Which kind of Expression methinks implies some difficulty Let Assemblies be held often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Enquire after all by their Names do not despise or behave thy self insolently towards the Men-Servants or Maid-Servants This I suppose is the Passage to which our Author principally refers Though if he had been able to have quoted it we might have been abundantly more certain However from this it is not to be concluded that he must take a personal Cognizance of every Member of his Church or that he was the Pastor only of One single Congregation For how does he prove That those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be only at One Place Why might not the several Assemblies in his Diocess be as well comprehended under that Title Again how does our Author prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more but the Ordinary Congregations Why not the more Extraordinary Assemblies when the Bishop Visited Perhaps the Bishop had a Scroll wherein the Names of Christians were enroll'd and in calling them over at his Visitations might enquire into the Faith and Manners of particular Persons and call for the Men themselves and as he found Occasion discourse 'em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Doct ine Admonition or Reproof Or peradventure he might call over the Nâ—…mes of the Congregation where he himself was present that he might hereby discover who were heretically inclin'd For even then such Persons began to withdraw from the Communion of the Church and to hold Conventicles though very privately And if we take it in the latter Sence it will contribute little to his Cause unless he could first prove That the Bishop's Congregation would not be a Pattern to the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Id. ad Smyr