non sint qui minus quam atribus Ordinati sunt ordinati Episcopis omnibus patet quoniam ut bene nostis prohibitum a sacris est partribus ut qui ab uâ—o vel a duobus sunt ordinati Episcopis nominentur Episcopi Si nomen non habent qualiter Officium habebunt And in the 16 Canon of the African Council at which were present no fewer then 217 Bishops it was decreed in haec verba forma antiqua servabitur ut non minus quam tres sufficiant qui fuerint a Metropolitano directi ad Episcopum Ordinandum And this usage they seem to have borrowed from the Synagogue for it was a fundamental Constitution among the Jews that Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be by three at least as may be seen Misna Gem. tit Sanhe cap. 1. By the way I desire you to take notice how our Episcopal Brethren deal with us in this controversie they call upon us to shew them an example of a Presbyter laying hands on a Bishop this case could not happen but in the defect and absence of Bishops for modesty will not permit a Presbyter to lay on hands Bishops sufficient to do the work being present and such defects of Bishops could be but very rare but once we find there chanced to be such a defect and then a Church of no mean denomination thought a Presbyter sufficient to do what a Bishop was to do Now when we bring this example they rail against it and say that it was done only in the want of a Bishop and it had better have been left undone My second argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters I 'le put into this form Either Ordination by Presbyters is valid or else something essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters But nothing essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters ergo c. The major is evident grounded on this plain Proposition that it is only some essential defect that can make a thing invalid or null he that wants either body or soul is no true man he that hath them is truly a man though he want many of the integral parts which concur to the integrity and perfection of a man The minor I thus prove if any thing essential to Ordination be wanting in Ordination by Presbyters it is either material formal final or efficient cause but neither of these is wanting ergo nothing essential is wanting Let the material formal final causes be what they will doubtless they may be found in Ordinations by Presbyters as well as in Ordinations by a Bishop only we are told there is not a due efficient cause for God hath appropriated Ordination to a Bishop and it cannot have its effect if performed by any other then him that hath attained Episcopal Dignity This being that foundation upon which the confidence of those who nullifie all Ordinations by Presbyters whether at home or abroad is built I shall take liberty to enquire 1. Whether if there were a Law of God appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would follow that all Ordinations without a Bishop are null 2. Whether there be any such Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop As to the first I humbly conceive that if a Law could be produced appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would not follow that Ordination without a Bishop were alway invalid and null my reasons are 1. Because 't is generally agreed that Jus Divinum rituale cedit morali necessitas quod cogit defendit 2. I find that whereas by the Law the Priests were to kill the sacrifices yet at such a time when the Priests were too few the Levites did help them 2 Chron. 29.34 and neither God nor the King nor the people offended at their so doing 3. Baptisme is appropriated to the Ministers of the Gospel yet if at any time it were administred by a Midwife who neither was a Minister nor was capable of being made such such baptisme was not by us here in England judged a nullity yea 't is affirmed by sundry Schoolmen that if baptisme were administred by one Excommunicate it were valid and not to be repeated and either my notes do fail me or else this was the judgement of St. Augustine for Melancthon out of Austin ad Fortunatum tells us this story That two men were in a ship which was like to perish in a storm at Sea the one very godly but yet not baptized the other baptized but excommunicated there being no other Christian in the ship with them and they fearing they should be both cast away knew not what to do in that condition he that was not baptized desired baptisme by the hands of him that was excommunicate and he that was excommunicate desired absolution from the other whereupon the question was moved whether these acts were valid and good Austin answers they were and commends the actious I come now to enquire Whether there be any Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop I say there is not if any say there is illi incumbit probatio he must proferre tabulas produce the place where such a Law is recorded For my part having read the Scriptures with my best eyes I could never find any such place nor could I ever meet with that Episcopal Divine who could direct me to such a place some have sent me to Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of late one hath ventured to tell us in print Mr. Sandcrof Ordination Sermon that this Text is as it were a kind of Magical glass in which an eye not blind with ignorance nor bleered with passion may see distinctly the face of the Primitive Church in that golden Age of the Apostles the platform of her Government the beautiful order of her Hierarchy the original and derivation of her chief Officers and their subordination both to one another and to Christ the great Bishop of our Souls in the last resort together with the manage and direction of the most important acts of Government both in point of Ordination and Jurisdiction too This learned mans phrasifying thus concerning his Text puts me in mind of that Impostor mentioned by Scultetus in his Annals who perswaded certain Noble men that he had adorned their Temple with very exquisite pictures but such as could be seen only by those who were begotten in lawful wedlock the Noble men lest they should be thought not lawfully begotten said that they very well saw that painting So here we are told of great matters that may be seen in this Text but only by those whose eyes are not blinded with ignorance nor bleered with passion and so men will be ready to say that they see these things lest their eyes should be judged under these sad distempers but I who have my conscience to bear me witness that I have often prayed for the eye-salve and Grace of the Spirit that my understanding may
neither be darkned with ignorance nor bleered with passion do ingenuously profess that I am not able from this Scripture to collect that the sole power either of Jurisdiction or Ordination doth reside in either Bishop or Archbishop For 1. It 's not improbable that Titus was left in Creet and acted there not as a fixed Bishop but as an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist 2. 'T is here said that Titus was left to ordain Elders but how as Paul had appointed him So that the question still emains how Paul had appointed him to ordain whether alone or with his Sym-presbyters Paul himself ordained not alone for ought appears for though he once spake of the gift that Timothy had received by the laying on of his hands yet elsewhere 't is called the gift received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery If it should be said that this Presbytery was a company of Bishops who in that first age of the Church were called Presbyters there needs no other answer but that this is only said and not proved If it should be said that this Presbytery did only act associative and not authoritative which if I mistake not is the destinction and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the learned Bishop Prideaux in his Fasciculus I could easily reply that the terms are not opposite and that the gift and authority is plainly said to come by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery as well as by the laying on of the hands of the Apostle which answer will also serve to that evasion which is excogitated concerning the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiamomnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant brought by Presbyterians to prove that there is an intrinsecal power of Ordination in Presbyters and that in the judgement of those who made that Canon the Bishop alone should not ordain Doctor Downham and another learned Doctor but lately dead would bear us in hand that this was only done for greater solemnity not as if the Presbyters had any power to confer orders but only to testifie their consent But can any one who is inquisitive after truth be thus satisfied Let any one instance be produced of any ones laying on of hands in Ordination only to testifie their consent The people did in the first and purest Ages testifie their consent as might be proved by six hundred testimonies yet were they never allowed to lay on hands in any Ordination of Presbyters or Deacons 3. I do much question whether if this example did every way fit and suit our Episcopal Ordinations it were sufficient to argue a Divine Right I know no party no interest no perswasion of men that count themselves obliged to conform to all Apostolical examples Object But Episcopacy is of Divine Right and if so what should be proper and peculiar to it if Ordination be not Answ In this objection you put me upon a new task which yet I will not decline and shall shew you First that our Prelatical brethren have not been able to prove Episcopacy to be of Divine Right Secondly give you my reasons why I conceive it is not of Divine Right 1. I say the Prelatists have not been able to prove its Divine Right to evince this I must examine the arguments brought by them Lately one preaching at St. Maries Oxon took an occasion where his Text offered him none to assert the Divine Right of Episcopacy in his Sermon he quoted a place out of the Old Testament in which the 72 Interpreters have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now quoth he had there been but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And some say that Elijah was Bishop of Samaria and we know that our Saviour was a Bishop and he made his Apostles Bishops and they made Timothy and Titus Bishops and therefore Episcopacy being founded on Old and New Testament I cannot but think it is Jure Divino for I cannot imagine that it was a Ceremony to be abolished at the coming of John Calvin Are you able to stand before this mighty argument doth not the reading of it cause a greater trepidation in you then ever was in the eighth sphere Well to cure you of your palpitation I shall tell you that the same Gentleman made Hernia to be a Feaver and yet Physitians notwithstanding are resolved to think it is bursted belliness and that Hercules brought the River Eridanus through the Augaean Stable and yet the unhappy School-boyes will say it was not the River Eridanus but the River Alpheus and therefore it is not impossible that the Gentleman might be out in his Divinity also and that he was so you will easily discern so soon as your fear is a little over I might put you upon too merry a pin if I should play upon all the weaknesses of this Theologasters argumentations and therefore I shall let it pass Take notice of those arguments which are brought to prove the Divine Right of Episcopacy by men of better learning and judgement having only premised this that a thing can be of Divine Right but one of these two wayes either by the Law of Nature or by some positive Law of God they that would go about to prove that either Prelacy or Presbytery or any other particular form of Church Government is determined by the Law of Nature would quickly bewray their weakness all the divine right that Hierarchy can pretend to must be founded upon some positive Law of God and must be either some Law under the Old Testament still obliging because not repealed or else some new Law made under the Gospel Our Prelatists love to have both these strings to their bow 1. They insist much on the inequality that was in the Tribe of Levi under the Old Law to prove that there should be still an inequality among Church-Governours under the Gospel the strength of which will soon be tryed if we first enquire what inequality there was in the Tribe of Levi it must be acknowledged that there was no universal equality in that Tribe the Priests doubtless were above the Levites being imployed in a neerer attendance upon Gods service 'T is also obvious that among the Priests there was a superiority Eleazer is by God placed over the Priests but then I judge as do most skilled in Jewish Antiquity whom I have met with that much if not all of this inequality which is so largely described Numb 3.4 did not belong to the Tribe of Levi as it was a Tribe consisting of persons called out for the service of God but as it was a Tribe Every one of the Tribes of the children of Israel had its chief father as may be seen Numb 34. The several families of the Tribe of Levi had their several heads and Eleazar was appointed to be the head
advantage the pretensions of those who ascribe a Jus Divinum to Episcopacy it must be proved that the in toto orbe decretum est doth refer to some Decree made by the Apostles and that the time of the Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth I am of Paul c. Now that neither of these will ever be proved you will soon see if you read the Annotations of Blondel on the Text of Hierom. I pass now having only begged your pardon for my prolixity in this Second unto a Third Argument for proof of the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters it shall be drawn from the practice among the Jews and thus I form it If among the Jews any one that was ordained himself might ordain another then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters But among the Jews any one that was himself ordained might Ordain others Ergo. The Consequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledged by most Learned men that the Government of the Church-Christian was formed after the Jewish Pattern Christ all along accommodating and lightly changing the Jewish Customes into Christian Institutions The Minor I prove there was among Jews as Dr. Lightfoot hath observed Harm p. 97. an Ordination with laying on of hands and without laying on of hands Maym. in Sanhed 4. How is Ordination to be for perpetuity Not that they lay on their hands on the head of the Elder but call him Rabbi and say behold thou art Ordained c. But there was also Ordination by the laying on of hands Take Ordination which way you will 't will never be proved that he who was himself in Office might not ordain another to the same Office For though we are told of a Constitution that none should ordain but those to whom leave was granted by Rabbi Hillel yet a principio non fuit sic To which purpose I shall only need to transcribe the words of P. Cunaeus one as well skilled in the Hebrew Rites and Customs as any that ever did write concerning them l. 1. de Rep. Heb. c. 12. Senatoria Dignitas quoniam amplissima erat nemini data sine legitimo actu est manuum enim impositione opus fuit quam Judaei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant at Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixerunt Ita Moses Josuae 70 Senatoribus manum imposuit qua solennitate peracta statim delapsus aetheriis sedibus Spiritus pectora eorum implevit hi porro in hunc modum initiati cum essent alios eadem lege auctoraverunt non tamen potuit is ritus extraterraem sanctam peragi quia vis ejus omnis conclusa Palestinae finibus erat Perinsigne est quod R. Maimonides tradidit in Halacha Sanh c. 4. Cum enimosim solennem hunc actum pro arbitrio suo omnes celebrarent quibus imposita semel manus fuerat coarctatum esse id jus a sapientibus esse ait constitutumque uti deinceps nemo illud usurparet nisi cui id concessisset divinus Senex R. Hillel is autem magni concilii princeps erat alterum sub se Praesidem habuit Sameam hominem truculentum ambitiosumque c. Tandem haec manuum impositio quae usitata diu fuerat recessavit recitatum tantum enim carmen quoddam conceptis verbis est The Learned Selden in his first Book de Synedr c. 14. takes notice of this and saith that St. Pauls creating of Presbyters was according to the Jewish custom of creating Elders that Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel as his disciple This Gamaliel was the Nephew of Hillel and Prince of the Sanhedrim at that time and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul a Jewish Elder before he was a Christian and that afterwards when Paul became an Apostle knowing that the true Judaisme was by the appointment of God to be communicated to Gentiles as well as Jews and thinking that it was lawful to create Elders out of the Holy Land and that he and other Apostles were free from that new super-induced Law of not making Elders without the License of the Prince of the Sanhedrim and so the custom prevailed in creating Christian Elders that every one that was duly created himself might also duly create his own Disciples he did upon this account create or appoint Elders in every Church Acts 14.23 Dr. Hammond in his six Queries p. 344 345 346 347. mustereth up many Inconveniences which seemed to him necessarily to follow this Conjecture or Observation I cannot think my self obliged to defend Mr. Selden The Reverend Doctor granteth as much as I would wish viz. p. 349. That the Government of the Church was formed after the Jewish Pattern And p. 324. That Imposition of hands in Ordination so often mentioned in the New Testament is answerable to the laying on of hands used by the Jews when they did create Successors in any Power or communicate any part of their Power to others as assistants If all this be true why may not a Christian Presbyter ordain a Presbyter as well as a Jewish Elder ordain an Elder My Fourth Argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters shall be taken from the many Examples that do occurre in Antiquity of such Ordinations which were never reputed null and voyd I begin with that known place of Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius Alexandriae Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archi-Diaconum vocent To this Testimony it is wont to be answered that only the Election is ascribed to Presbyters the Ordination might notwithstanding be performed by Bishops But the Question is not what might be done but was done And Eutychius published by Mr. Selden most plainly and expressely affirms that from the time of Mark the Founder of the Church of Alexandria unto Demetrius Bish of the same Church the several Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria were chosen and ordained with Imposition of hands by the 12 Presbyters and that by special command from St. Mark himself To this the Learned Dissertator saith p. 177. Facilis est Responsio nullam hac in re Eutychio fidem deberi ut qui assertioni huic aperta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam muniverit This is indeed an easie answer but a little too easie to be received by one who is awake to which nothing need be confronted save only this that some Credit is due in this matter to Eutychius And from him we shall go to those who speak concerning the Church of Scotland in her first Conversion Jo. Major in the Second Book of his History c. 2. writes that the Scots were instructed in the Faith by Priests Monks without bishops until the year of our L. 429. So as that that Church must needs
him no further for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople is a huge Impertinence Let it be Schisme and Heresie which with the Fathers assembled in that Synod seem to be all one to divide from Canonical Bishops such are not they who are neither chosen by the Clergy nor by the People and to set up Conventicles contrary to theirs How will it hence follow that it is Heresie to hold that Presbytery and Episcopacy are the same Order To as little purpose or lesse is what follows out of the Council of Paris And concerning the Acephali p. 332 333. The Acephali were so called saith Isidore because the Head Chief and First of them could not be found That seems to be a mistake for Severus was the Head of them Let us therefore betake our selves to Nisephorus an Author certainly not very Reverend to see whether he can give us any better Information about them He tells lib. 18. c. 45. That these Acephali were a madder sort of Eutychians who maintained there was but one nature in Christ Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind but it may be ther 's somthing in the Name that will touch them and all that follow Hierom. Acephali saith Nicephorus dicti sunt quod sub Episcopis non fuerint Proinde Episcopis Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis neque Baptismus juxta solennem receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratus neque oblatio aut res aliqua divinafacta Ministeriumve ecclesiasticum sicuti mos est celebratum est They would it seems have no Black-Coats as the late Phrase was What is this to them who would have Bishops willingly enough only deny that they are of a distinct superiour Order to Presbyters Object 2 The Second Objection is made from our English Church which seems to make Episcopacy and Presbytery different in Order For in the Preface of the Book Entituled The Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons It is said expressely That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests Deacons It follows not long after And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no man not being at this present Bishop Priest or Deacon shall execute any of them except he be called tried examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following In the body of the Book it self we find a Prayer in these words following Almighty God Giver of all good things who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Answ This Objection seems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin so very strong that he hath urged it in two several Treatises the one called Respondet Petrus p. 98 99. The other called Certamen Epistolare the particular Page I do not now remember But 1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion it is so far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures that there were from the Apostles times these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove that from no Testimony of Scripture it can be proved that there were in the Apostles time any Priests or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken He thinks that in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth constantly signifie a Bishop and that all the Churches of which any mention is made in Scripture were gouerned only by Bishops and Deacons 2. The Doctor might have remembred what he pressed against Mr. Hickman That Apices Juris nihilponunt then would he not so confidently have urged passages in the Preface 3. At least he might have done well to consider that his so much magnified Objection is a stale one and hath received its Answer from Mr. Mason in the before-commended Treatise It most unhappily falls out that I have not the Book at hand but if my Memory fail me not more then ordinarily it doth the Author of the Necessity of Reformation gives you his full sense if not his very words That Book when it speaks of the making of Bishops calls that a Consecration not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons the other the Form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this word Ordering and calls it the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never means to make Bishops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ and his Apostles Institution superiour to a Presbyter Indeed the Preface doth not say these three Orders but only these Orders of Ministers and in the Prayer it is not said that the Bishop is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop I had thought here to have concluded my first Argument But there is one Medium seems to me so considerable to prove that a Presbyter is of the same Order with a Bishop that I cannot omit it You know that it was required that a Bishop should be Ordained by three Bishops at least Yet Anastasius in the Life of Pope Pelagius tells us that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Bishops and one Presbyter who is by him called Andreas Ostiensis Doth it not hence manifestly appear that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the same Order with a Bishop and impowered in case of necessity to confer the very degree of Episcopacy At this Example the Learned Author of Episcopacy asserted is very angry and tels us p. 166. That Pelagius his taking in the Priest was but to cheat the Canon cozen himself into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the Ordination if done by two But this is too slight a way of answering Antiquity We must not till we see better reason think that Pelagius and the two Bishops were so unworthy as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon or so wicked as to make use of an hand that being imposed signified no more then would the Imposition of a Lay hand Nor do I think that in those dayes it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Bishop or no For the Council of Nice requires three at least and the consent of those that are absent signified by their Letter And Pope Damasus in his fifth Epistle to the Bishop of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops hath these words quod Episcopi
nothing remaines but that we commit our cause to God and till he see meet to plead it possesse our souls in Patience There are some Objections against the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination to be removed and then I shall exercise your Patience no longer 1. The first is grounded upon the Authority of two Fathers Hierom and Chrysostom Hieroms words are in his Epistle to Evagrius Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter To answer this Testimony I might observe that they who produce it will not stick to it but are verily perswaded that there are many things besides Ordination which a Bishop may do that yet a Presbyter cannot do But I need not flee to so indirect an Answer For 1. Marsilius Patavinus in his Book which he cals Defensor Pacis takes the word Ordinatio to signifie quite another thing then the conferring of Holy Orders His words are these Ordinatio ibi non significat potestatem conferendi seu collationem sacrorum Ordinum sed Oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in Templo unde ab antiquis Legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi 2. 'T is certain that somtimes the word Ordinatio doth signifie the external Rite or Ceremony used in Ordination viz. Imposition of hands if so it be taken here as why may it not I can grant that Ordination in many places was so managed it is freely confessed by Calvin Unum puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vices sustinentem ut plurimum omnium nomine manus imposuisse 3. Grotius saith nothing hinders but that we may so interpret the place as that it shall mean no more then that Presbyters can ordain none in contempt of the Bishops 4. I finally answer that Hierom speaks not here of any Divine Law appropriating Ordination to Bishops but only of the Ecclesiastical custom that obtained in his age 't is as if he had said what is there now adaies done by a Bishop that a Presbyter may not do without Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons except only the business of Ordination He had before said that a principio non fuit sic originally the Presbyters might and did make the very Bishop himself The place of Chrys is in his 11 Hom. on 1 Tim. the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again I might tell you that if this Saying of Chrysostomes must determine the Controversie our Prelatists must throw open that which they account the best part of their Enclosure they must acknowledge that the Presbyters have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they exceed the Presbyter in the Power of Order only not in the power of Jurisdiction 2. I could much weaken the Authority of Chrysostome as to the point of Ordination by acquainting you that it was one of the accusations made against that Father that he did engrosse Ordination to himself not taking in the assistance of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words of his Charge in the Synod ad Quercum An. 403. But if these two Answers seem to you but shifts though why they should seem no more then shifts I wot not I reply thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by Chrysostom is ambiguous used by good authors in very different if not quite contrary significations as is noted among others by Suidas his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case signifies to exceed or excell but with an Accusative to injure or do wrong Now if we should so render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seeing it hath an Accusative case after it Bishops must from hence be concluded not lawfull possessors but usurpers of the power of sole Ordination If yet you are not satisfied I turn you over fourthly to Gersom Bucer who page 357 358. takes notice of this authority as placed by Bishop Downham in the margin of that Sermon which he took upon him to confute one of his answers is that Bishops are here made Superiour to Presbyters only by the voluntary election of their Sym-Presbyters or Colleagues not by any Divine Right he renders the words thus Sola-enim horum subaudi Presbyterorum electione ascenderunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri videntur habere then the plain meaning is that the Presbyters for order sake do chuse some one to be their President and this is all that the Bishop hath above the Presbyters The second objection against the validity of Ordinations by Presbyters is taken also from Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we do find Ordinations by Presbyters pronounced null and void Of this nature there are three principally insisted upon the which before we particularly examine I shall crave leave to premise this one thing viz. that it is very manifest that Councels have pronounced some Ordinations null and void which yet could not be null in natura rei I instance only in the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch pronouncing Ordinations though made by a Bishop to be void if the person ordained were ordained either without a title or in another Bishops Diocess yet such Ordinations are not nullities many examples of this nature are brought by the learned Blondell page 168 169. Now so it might be in the case of Ordinations by Presbyters and so it is by many averred that it was but let us hear the examples One Colythus a Presbyter took upon him being but a Presbyter to ordain Ischiras this Ischiras notwithstanding this Ordination was looked upon but as a Laick I answer there are so many dissimilitudes betwixt the Ordinations of Colythus and those Ordinations made by Presbyters which we contend for that from the condemning of his Ordinations no argument can be drawn to prove that ours ought to be condemned 1. Colythus acted not as a Presbyter but pretended himself to be a Bishop so do not our Presbyters 2. He acted alone whereas our Ordinations are not by one single person 3. He was an open declared Heretick 4. He that was ordained had no title he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was not chosen by any Church but our Ordinations are not of sine-titular persons A second example is the case of Maximus who being no Bishop yet ordained Presbyters but all his Ordinations were by the Fathers assembled in Councel at Constantinople pronounced null Answ The story of Maximus is too large to be here recited see it in Blondell I say briefly that what was by the Synod determined against his Ordinations is not prejudicial to Ordinations made by Presbyters for as Blondell well if Presbyters had never so full power of Ordination yet had the Synod good reason to depose those who were ordained by Maximus because he was a Presbyter as well as a Bishop in the ayr never had he been ordained Presbyter either by Gregory or any other A third example is that of the blind Bishop who
did lay hands on one Presbyter and two Deacons but his Ordinations were pronounced invalid because not he but his Presbyters read the words of Ordination This was decreed saith Dr. J. Tay. Episcopacy asserted 182. by the first Councel of Sevill too hastily for it was done not by the first but second Councel of Sevill about the year 619. He that reads the Decree of those Fathers would think they were blinder then the deceased Bishop whom they condemned for what if the Presbyter did at the command of his Bishop read the words which the Bishop could not read doth this make the Ordination void by what Law either of God or man shall we say that the Judge with us doth not condemn the malefactor because he appoints the Clerk to read the sentence Be it as it will the Decree it self saith that the Presbyter in reading the words did only sin contra ecclesiasticum ordinem and we cannot think that an Ordination is presently void because all Ecclesiastical Rites are not observed in it Against these examples I might if it were needful bring the judgement of Leo Anno 452. in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis but in this Master Stilling fleet hath prevented me page 380. The third objection against the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters is taken from the words of the Apostle Heb. 7.7 without contradiction the less is blessed of the better Answ This is so poor and pitiful an objection that I should never have named it had I not found it in the writings of some famous for learning When it is said that the less is blessed of the greater would they inferre that he who ordains must be greater then he who is ordained is before or after Ordination if he must be greater then he is after Ordination then a Bishop may not ordain a Bishop if they say he must be greater then the party is before his Ordination why so I hope a Presbyter ordaining a Presbyter is greater then the Presbyter ordained by him till he be actually ordained and so brought into the same order with him But I must come to that argument in which Dr. H. Ham. doth so triumph that he confesseth he was not acute enough to see what could be replied to it you will find it in his praemonition to the Reader before his Latin Dissertations he frames it into a Dilemna either Hierome had power to Ordain or he had not if he had why then doth he say Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter if he had not how come our Presbyters to have that power which he the Hyperaspistes of Presbyters had not I answer Hierome had power to Ordain taking in other Presbyters to his assistance what he meant by his Quid facit excepta Ordinatione I told you before But the same learned Doctor proceeds It shall suffice us to remember thee of one thing viz. that no Presbyter Ordained by Bishops here in the English Church had any power of Ordaining others bestowed on him and therefore can no more take any such power to himself then can a Deacon or a meer Laick Answ This profound Objection was as you know brought at a publick Act in Oxon. some years since and urged by a learned Doctor against one who maintained the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination it was then in the judgement of the hearers satisfactorily answered and so I doubt not but it will be now in your judgement I say those Bishops who Ordained Presbyters here in England did give them a power of Ordaining others whether they had any intention so to do I know not but this I say that he who maketh any one a Priest giveth him a Power of Ordaining and if when he is made a Priest he should through fear or ignorance promise not to Ordain if he should afterwards be convinced that as Priest he hath a power of Ordaining he ought to repent of his promise and it notwithstanding to joyn with his brethren in laying on of hands if either there be no Bishops or none that will ordain without imposing such subscriptions as contain in them matters very doubtful if not unlawful 2. The form of words used in ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of England is this Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest c. did these words when used by our Lord Christ to his Disciples confer a power of Ordaining If they did not I then demand when and by what form of words was that power conferred on the Apostles If they did how come they not to convey a power of ordaining others unto the Presbyter in whose Ordination they are used If a man when he is made a Priest in the Church of England receive not a power of Ordaining others nor doth he receive it when he is consecrated Bishop for having read over the Form appointed for the consecrating of a Bishop I cannot find any words that give the Bishop a power of Ordaining except any one be so hypercritical as to imagine that Take the Holy Ghost impowers a person to Ordain and Receive the Holy Ghost doth not But why then do Presbyterians complain that the Bishops reserve the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves indulging to Presbyters only some inferiour Acts ab omni excusatione eos procul esse concludimus qui quas sibi neutiquam concessas conquerantur potestates sibi sic sacrilege arripiunt A. Presbyterians do not complain that they had such an Ordination as did not confer on them a power of Ordaining but they complain that they are not permitted the exercise of that power nor do they say that they have no power to suspend and excommunicate but that they are not suffered to put forth that power but only which the simplest Church-Warden may do to present scandalous offenders But it is further objected That when one is by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop advanced to the degree of a Presbyter an indeterminate and indefinite power is not by the Fathers of the Church committed to him but a power suis finibus fiquido dispuncta suis cancellis limitibus distincta dilucida actuum specialium ad quos admittitur enumeratione definita conclusa there is a particular enumeration of all the Acts unto which the power of a Presbyter doth extend among which there is no mention of creating of Presbyters and Deacons D. H.H. in his preface to his Dissertations Answ I answer that when one is made Presbyter an indefinite and indeterminate power is not given to him and that there is an enumeration of the particular acts about which a Presbyter is most conversant but deny that that enumeration was ever by the Church intended for a perfect enumeration 't is not said this thou hast power to do but nothing else if it were how comes a Presbyter to have power of voting in an Assembly or Convocation when he is called to it There is an enumeration of the
administer Christs Baptisme after Johns as there was to administer Johns baptisme after Circumcision a Sacrament not specifically different from baptisme Of this the learned Vossius speaks succinctly and clearly Pro diversa fidelium aetate potuit sacramentum initiationis variare fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Christum venturum alii in eum qui veniret quasi in via esset alii in eum qui jam venisset Primis instituta fuit circumcisio alteris baptisma Johannis tertiis baptismus Christi I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe and must now consider of two or three stragling arguments which may seem to some not altogether to want weight Page 56 57. He propounds a query Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any after the Resurrection of Christ to prove that an Ordinance of God may be used without breach of the third Commandment or other sin even then when it cannot be directed to its principal no not its proper end so long as it will but attain one higher then all viz. the promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Answ Certainly no for Circumcision after the Resurrection was no Ordinance being blotted out by the death of Christ and nailed to his Cross 't was become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had Timothy been circumcised in such a way as were the Jews before the passion of the Messiah Christ had profited him nothing Mr. Humf. should have thus propounded his question Whether from Pauls circumcising of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn to prove that in order to the propagation of the Gospel it is lawful to use the outward rite or ceremony of an abolished Jewish Ordinance had he so proposed it I should not have counted my self obliged to return any other answer but this that the question is no way pertinent to the matter in hand For 1. Ordination is not an abolished Ordinance 2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance the question is not whether it be lawful to let the Bishop lay his hand on my head but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head with this form of words Receive thou the Holy Ghost or with any other form of words the purport whereof is to confer the Ministerial power which I already have 2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin the Professor of Witten who putting the case whether one ordained by the Papists may be again ordained by us though he maintains there 's no necessity why he should so be re-ordained yet thus determines Quod si quis existimat se tranquillius suo in nostris Ecclesiis officio perfungi posse si etiam nostris ritibus ad sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur nihil obstat quin ordinationem a nostris accipere possit non enim eadem est ratio Ordinationis quae baptismi qui iterari non potest Hoc enim Sacramentum est Ecclesiae illa autem externus tantum ritus Lib. 4. c. 6. cas 6. 1. Supposing but not granting that Baldwin is fully for him yet Gregory a more Venerable Author is against him Sicut Baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari Epist lib. 2. Epist 32. There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian entituled De operibus Cardinalibus Christi Pamelius saith it is his or some others as ancient as he Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacensis who lived almost twelve hundred years after Christ if so however his authority and testimony is to be preferred before Baldwins these are his words De ablutione pedum Baptismum repeti Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat nemo sacro oleo lita iterum linit aut consecrat nemo impositioni manuum vel Ministerio derogat sacerdotum quia contumelia esset spiritus sancti fi evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat vel aliena sanctificatio emendaret quod ille semel statuit confirmat Edit Goular p. 513. The Councel also of Capua is against him as I find in Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius ad annum 389. If Mr. Humfrey have a man for him he hath an Army against him But 2. I do not see that Baldwin is for him for he determines not that a man who is ordained and judgeth himself to be so may take a second Ordination but only that he who is ordained and is not satisfied in his own mind and conscience about the validity of his ordination may be re-ordained which case is heavenly wide from the case of Mr. Humfrey for he thinks that he is ordained and saith he will tell the Bishop so yea and dreadeth not to affirm that his Diocesan doth amiss in calling him to these second orders Now truly though I would not altogether baulk a way because no man did ever walk in it before me yet I must take leave to suspect such a way and consider well before I venture into it The Poet saith Illi robur aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem c. He was a bold man that did first expose himself to the Sea in a ship and King James would say that he had a good stomack who first eat an oyster May not we also think that they who ever they are were too hardy who were the first that submitted to re-ordination which if it be no more is Ordination redundant a mishape in our apprehension page 4. Page 94. He suggests That if he should not be re-ordained many of his people will not own him but clamour they will not receive the Sacraments from him and perhaps they will make him Constable or Church-Warden Constable or Church-Warden that were pity indeed but yet better be either one or the other then do that which is so destructive to communion of Churches as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be 'T is not unlike some peevish people before this turn might say that Mr. Humf. was no Minister because not ordained by a Bishop but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be re-ordained that he might stop their mouths how comes he now to be so tender of them And I doubt some of the better sort of our hearers should they understand that we are so light as to take a non-significant ordination in so solemn a way as we must do if we come under the Bishops hands would be so scandalized as scarce to account our Ministry worth attending on Upon the whole I see not but that they who refuse Re-ordination may be reckoned among men of a tender frame and serious spirit and not among such as are of a scanty soul and too scrupulously superstitious conscience The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth and after you have suffered for a while make you perfect FINIS
though not instituted and inducted according to the letter of Laws in force before these most unhappy unnatural divisions In this Act Ministers rejoyce and plead it against those who disturb them yet do not think that they have been all this while Intruders and Usurpers Semblably would our Prelates so far consult either their own credit or the peace of the Church as to emit a general confirmation of all Ordinations by Presbyters provided that the persons so ordained be upon examination found sufficient such a confirmation would not only be submitted to but also most thankfully received for in so doing we should stop the mouths of gain-sayers and yet give no occasion to our friends to call into question the validity of any Ministerial Acts done by us all this while Nor would I in the least dislike it if our Bishops such of them as are holy and may be supposed to have any interest and favour at the Throne of Grace would when any are removed to a new charge call their Presbyters and pray for a blessing upon the endeavours of persons so removed yea and lay hands on them I am much mistaken or else such a practise may be warranted from Acts 13.2 3. As they ministred and fasted the Holy Ghost said separate now unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them and when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them they sent them away You need not tell me that Chrysostome and some other Commentators of good esteem do understand this place of Ordination to an Ecclesiastical Office I know they do but yet seeing Paul was an Apostle before this time seeing he expresly affirmeth Gal. 1.1 that he was an Apostle not of men neither of man but by Jesus Christ seeing also 't is not said separate unto me for the office but for the work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereunto I have called I judge it most probable that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is there spoken of was not Ordinativa but Optativa Of this judgement is the learned Samuel Maresius in his Examen of some of the questions determined by our judicious Prideaux p. 32. So was Mr. Richard Vines in his excellent Sermon before the Parliament upon the day of humiliation for the growth of Errors Heresies c. p. 16. where you may find him also quoting Spalato lib. 2. de Rep. Eccl. cap. 2. parag 12. But this I say that he who hath once been ordained to the office and order of a Presbyter and knows himself so to be ought not by a second Ordination to be set apart to the same office This I prove to you 1. from the so called Canons of the Apostles Can. 67. Si quis Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo Ordinationem susceperit deponitor tam ipse quam qui ipsum ordinavit About the Authority and Antiquity of these Canons I will not contend with you Dr. H.H. in his Reply to Dr. Owen p. 10. acknowledgeth that they were not written by the Apostles nor by Clemens at the appointment of the Apostles p. 12. and that his meaning in calling the second Canon genuine was only to intimate that it was not one of those 35 later Canons that were esteemed by learned men Novitii and Adulterate The truth is the opinion and esteem of the Latin and Greek Church hath been very differing and contrary concerning these Canons 'T is certain that the Synod assembled in Trullo Can. 2. speaks honourably of all the eighty five Canons for these are the words they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John Damascen fears not to reckon them among and equal them with the divinely â—nspired books of the New Testament De fid Orth. lib. 4. c. 18. But a Synod at Rome about the year 494. decrees that these Canons as well the first fifty as the other thirty five are all spurious and to be reckoned among those writings quae ab Haereticis sive Schismaticis conscripta vel praedicata sunt quaeque nullatenus recipit Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia Nor doth it signifie much that Dionysius Exignus who lived not long after that Roman Synod owneth fifty of those Apostolical Canons for he was as Mr. D' ailee hath noted p. 439. Homo ortu ac natu cultuque ac eruditione exterus and therefore was willing to set off those Canons the best he could to the Romanists yet seeing all these Canons are of some considerable Antiquity I thought it not amiss to quote one of them and let the Argument drawn thence fare as it will I argue secondly from the practise of our English Church If any one had received Ordination from the Papists though such an Ordination be very corrupt very superstitious yet because it was judged valid the party who had received it was on his Conversion looked upon as a Minister and admitted to exercise all offices ministerial without any new Ordination In like manner if any one in the Marian Persecution was ordained beyond the Seas I find not that it was required of him that he should be again ordained according to the form and mode used in the English Churches I could name you hundreds that were acknowledged as Ministers and suffered quietly to enjoy Ecclesiastical Benefices and to perform all sacerdotal offices meerly on the score of their Ordination by Presbyters beyond the Seas or in Scotland But lest I should be tedious I shall only mind you of one example related in the History of Scotland penned by A. Bishop Spotswood When some were to be ordained Bishops for Scotland at London-house Anno Dom. 1609. a question was moved by Lancelot Andrews Bishop of Ely touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops who as he said must first be ordained Presbyters as having received no Ordination from a Bishop the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by maintained that thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were Consecrated In which story I desire you to take notice that the ground of Bishop Andrews question whether they were not to be made Priests before they were consecrated Bishops was his supposition that having been ordained by meer Priests they were not Priests When it was once carried against him that the Ordination by Priests was valid and lawful he without scruple proceeded to the Consecration of them though never made Priests in the way that Priests are made in England I was also told that in the late conference before his Majesty when it was moved that they who had been ordained by Presbyters during the late distraction might not be compelled to take any other Ordination The Episcopal Divines refused to yield to that motion and being pressed with the judgement of Antiquity against Reordination they answered that
in calling such persons to be ordained by a Bishop they did not call them to Reordination but to Ordination their former Ordination being not only irregular and non-Canonical but also null And had they not fled to this they must of necessity have been brought to repeat the Ordinations that during the distractions were made by Bishops they being not done without manifold irregularities as to time or place or some other such circumstances I prove thirdly that he who is ordained with a valid ordination ought not to be again reordained because by submitting to such reordination he doth take an Ordinance of God in vain You are not of the number of those who deny Ordination to be an Ordinance of God if you be I must turn you over to D. Seaman M. Lyford the London Ministers who have largely discussed that question and irrefragably proved that Ordination is so necessary that no man can ordinarily without breach of Gods Law enter the Ministry without it You will rather say that by being reordained a man doth not contract the guilt of taking an Ordinance of God in vain but if that be your answer I thus assault you To take an Ordinance of God either for no end or for no such end as God hath appointed it unto is to take an Ordinance of God in vain but to be reordained after preceding valid Ordination is to take an Ordinance of God either to no end or to no such end as he hath appointed it unto Ergo. If either Proposition need confirmation it is the minor but of the truth of that you will not long doubt if you will but a little consider what the end of Ordination is and that cannot better be gathered then from the definitions that are usually given of Ordination they are to this purpose Ordination is an act whereby in the Name of Christ meet persons are separate and set apart to the work and office of the Ministry Now I ask when you were ordained were you thus separate and set apart or not If you were not then you were not ordained if you were what use serves your reordination unto Perhaps you 'l say by that means you shall procure institution from the Bishops and be the more acceptable to the people But I pray you where do you find any I will not say precept but allowance of God to take Ordination to satisfie the humour of unreasonable men what example in Antiquity to incourage you to such a compliance Friend think on 't impartially was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of conveyed to you by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery if it was not you have much to answer for taking upon you to command the people to recieve you as one of Christs Embassadors they might have told you that they were as much Embassadors as your self if it was do you think it would be any thing less then ludere sacris to submit to another examination and to have the Bishop and his Chaplains pray that you may now receive that gift I will conclude this first head of my discourse when I have first minded you that it is not long since through the iniquity of the times some Episcopally ordained were constrained to have their residence either in the Gallican or Belgick Churches where there is no Ordination but by Presbyters would these Divines have been content to be reordained after the mode of those Churches before they had been permitted to receive the double honour due to them as Ministers if they would not as I presume they would not why do they require that from others which they would not have been content others should have required of them If you should plead on their behalf that their Ordination was valid so is not Ordination by Presbyters that I shall prove to be false and Popish by and by If secondly you should alledge that our Prelatists would not require reordination from Divines ordained beyond the Seas because they were not in a capacity to receive Ordination from a Bishop but so were we that lived in England and therefore deserve to be looked upon and dealt with as Laicks till we have repented of our Schisme and Heresie and that there 's no better way to manifest our repentance then by humbling our selves and receiving orders from them Unto this allegation I have two things to say 1. Supposing but not granting that it was Schisme for our young Divines to take Orders from Presbyters when as with some little cost and trouble they might have received them from some Bishop I say that mens being Schismaticks doth not invalidate or make null either the Orders which they give or receive nor hath the Church of God ever been wont to punish Schisme by compelling the Schismatick to receive new Orders For this you may please to read Gisber Voetius Desper causa Papat lib. 2. sec 2. cap. 13 14. Nay nor do our Episcoparians call such as were ordained by Episcopal hands to reordination though sundry of them have fallen off from their Government and joyned in with Presbyterians which yet they must have done if Schisme do evacuate and annihilate their Orders if by being ordained by Presbyters we fell into Schisme repentance and the bloud of Christ must take off the guilt of that sin not reordination and paying fees to the Bishop or his Officers But secondly I am still so blind as not to see that it was any Schisme to be ordained by Presbyters for all Schisme is sin and all sin is a transgression of some good and righteous Law but there was no transgression of any good righteous Law in receiving orders from Presbyters for if so then either of a divine or humane Law not of a divine for there is not a Law of God requiring us not to be ordained by any but a Bishop not of humane Law For 1. I cannot find any Law of the Nation enacting that all Ordinations shall be made by a Bishop and his Presbyters and no otherwayes 2. If there had been any such Law it might be questioned whether it could oblige the conscience in such times of confusion as we were fallen into 3. If a man had been ordained by a Bishop in those daies he could not have got any Ordination every way argeeable to the Laws of the Land Our Bishops tell us that the Canons of 1603. are Law if they be so they themselves during the late distractions did transgress them with a witness What if I should further add that seeing our Bishops had clogged Ordination with Subscription to things unnecessary disputable to our apprehension sinful they are the Schismaticks who enjoyn such Subscriptions not we who refuse them Several weighty Arguments to prove this might be transcribed out of Mr. Hales his Tract of Schisme a Discourse so solid and yet become so scarce that if in stead of being re-ordained your self you would get that reprinted it would much oblige me But it is time to
come to the Second Part of my Task which is to shew That Ordination by Presbyters is valid which I shall endeavour by these following Arguments 1. If Presbyters and Bishops be not different in Order then Ordination by Presbyters is valid But Presbyters and Bishops are not different in Order Ergo. The Consequence of the Major is founded on that Maxim so frequently used by the most Reverend Usher Ordinis est conferre Ordines Proposition so evident that it is acknowledged even by Dr. H. Ferne one of the greatest upholders of the lately declining Episcopacy in his Compendious Discourse Page 115 116 117 c. The Minor That Presbyters and Bishops are of the same and not a different Order shall be proved by as good Authority and Testimony as is produced or can be expected in a Controversie of this Nature viz. It shall be shewed that this was the general Sentiment 1. Of our Protestant Divines whether English or Transmarine 2. Of very Learned Famous Papists 3. Of Ancient Fathers living before some of the Controversies depending betwixt the Papal and Reformed Churches were in being In writing of the Judgment of such Divines as are commonly called Reformed and Protestant I might be large Indeed I scarce know one against me The Late Archbishop of Canterbury when he was to answer for his Degree did give this for one of his Questions An Episcopatus sit Ordo distinctus Affir But he was sufficiently checked for that Heterodoxy by Dr. Holland the Regius Professor as you may find in Mr. Prynnes History of him If you should be so curious as to ask whence Mr. Prynne had that Relation I can tell you he had it from Dr. Prideaux who was present at the Disputation I can further assure you that the Doctor of the Chair was so moved that he told his Wife when he came home that he had a Papist that day to answer under him in the Schooles Setting him aside and some violent Followers of his Protestants generally hold that a Presbyter and a Bishop do differ Gradu not Ordine I 'le not trouble you with Quotations from the Transmarine Divines lest you should say they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor yet will I transcribe any thing from Dr. Field or Dr. Whitaker or Dr. Rainolds because 't is yielded that these and several others held Episcopacy to be only some superiour Degree and Eminence Mr. Francis Mason renowned for his Defensio Ministerii Anglicani hath in a set Discourse maintained that Episcopacy and Presbytery are not distinct Orders and that therefore the Ordinations of the Churches beyond the Seas are good and valid Go we to the Times of King Edward the Sixth in which he Foundations of our Reformation were first laid You may gather from Mr. John Fox Vol. 2. Pag. 658. Edit London 1631. That that young Josiah by the Authority of his own Regal Lawes appointed certain of the most Grave and best Learned Bishops and other of his Realm to assemble together at his Castle of Windsor there to argue and entreat c. Much I have longed to meet with an Author from whom I might learn what was done at that Meeting but could not hear of any one hat had met with any thing that might give me or others satisfaction till of late casting mine eye cursorily upon a Piece Published by Mr. Edward Stilling fleet a very Judicious and Peaceable Divine I understood that by some singular Providence there came to his hands an Authentick M.S. of the Proceedings here From that we are assured that T. C. A. of C. afterwards Martyr gave it in as his Judgment That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion And from the same M.S. it further appears That the Bishop of Asaph Therleby Redman Cox all employed in that Convention were of the same Opinion that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same Redman and Cox expressely citing with approbation the Judgment of Jerome Of the same Judgment undoubtedly were the Composers of that Tract called the Institution of a Christian man as may be seen in what they delivered about the then so called Sacrament of Orders In a word our Martyrs did so generally opine that Episcopacy was no superiour Order to Presbytery that Dr. Heylin in his Historia quinquarticular is Part 2. p. 17. doth on purpose caution us that we should not attribute too much to them or measure the Doctrine of our Church by them lest we should be forced to allow the parity or Identity rather of Bishops and Priests because John Lambert he might have named many others did so conceive In the Primitive Church saith he there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth beside Scripture St. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul Whereas those whom we now call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops no other but Priests men ancient both in age and Learning so near as could be chosen nor were they instituted and chosen as they be now a dayes the Bishop and his Officer only opposing them whether they can construe a Collect But they were chosen also with the consent of the people amongst whom they were to have their Living as sheweth St. Cyprian But alack for pity such Elections are banished and new Fashions brought in By which saith the Doctor Truly if it may serve for a Rule our Bishops must be reduced to the Rank of Priests But falsely doth he add that then the right of Presentation must be put into the hands of the people to the destruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom If I would produce all the Testimonies of the Learned among the Papists my Papers would swell to too great a Bulk D. Forbes the Scotchman who hath deserved well of the Hierarchy doth amply prove that it was the general Opinion of the Schoolmen that Episcopacy and Presbytery are the same Order See his Irenicum Lib. 2. Cap. 11. P. 154 155 156 157 158. You may also have recourse to Mr. Mason in the before commended Treatise concerning Ordination beyond the Seas by Presbyters This also did so much stick with Bishop Hall that he would not maintain Episcopacy to be a superiour Order though he were by Archbishop Laud much pressed so to do See the Letters that passed betwixt these two Prelates recorded by Mr. Prynne in Canterburies Doom Would you have me go higher yet to the Fathers that deserve more reverence then these Popish Schoolmen I might bring you Michael Medina a Pontifician Writer acknowledging that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose were of the same mind with Aerius See him Lib. 1. De Sacrorum Hominum Origine Continentia Cap. 5. But because he is so severely chastised by Bellarmine for this concession c. 15. De Clericis I desire you to consider seriously and impartially to ponder what is
of these heads so that to prove any thing hence we must first suppose the Judicial Law to be in force which would gratifie the Anabaptists and some other Fanaticks more then we are aware of I demand would our brethren prove hence that as there was superiority and inferiority of offices under the Law so there may be or must be under the Gospel we 'll not contend for we can yield it to them without any detriment to the cause of the Presbyterians they have Presbyters and Deacons and the office of a Presbyter is by all thought to be above the office of a Deacon but I had thought they would from the Jewish pattern have endeavoured to prove the Bishops power of Jurisdiction and Ordination whence they will fetch that I wot not not I hope from the supereminent power of the High-Priest the type of Christ for then we shall bring in a Pope not from the superiority of the Priests over the Levites for the Priests had no Jurisdiction over the Levites they had the several heads of their families under whose jurisdiction they were as for any power of Ordination it could have no place the Levites coming to their honour without Ordination by succession besides in a case of necessity I proved before that a Levite might do the work of a Priest If our brethren will grant that a Presbyter may in such a case do the work of a Bishop we shall be neerer an agreement then as yet we are Thus have we without any great difficulty rid our hands of the argument drawn from the Old Testament Come we to enquire whether J. Ch. by any action of his did institute any such Hierarchy as is contended for that he did is thus argued by a learned Doctor Episco Asser p. 22 23. This office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its fountain from a rock Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters for when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke he called his Disciples Luke 10. and out of them he chose twelve and called them Apostles that was the first Election Posthaec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos that was his second Election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them two by two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their names were written in heaven we are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own and so we do for after the passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyned them in Clerical Commission by virtue of Christs first Ordination of them for a new Ordination we find none before we find them doing Clerical Offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Council for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and S. Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem These and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministers Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them these were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Answ This is a marvellous discourse the tendency whereof I understand not I think that Christ did neither institute Bishops nor Presbyters in this first or second Mission Both these Missions seem only temporary and the 70 after their return remained in the nature of private Disciples till after the Resurrection they received a new Commission to preach and plant Churches and the twelve after this Mission must needs be but a kind of Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them and gave them that plenitude of power which we find him not to do till after his Resurrection from the dead Mat. 28.18 Joh. 20.21 Of any power of jurisdiction or order that the twelve had over the seventy by virtue of their Mission there is not the least vola or vestigium in Scripture the seventy had their power immediately from Christ as had the twelve and their Commission was as full and large as was the Commission granted to the twelve as will soon appear by comparing Mat. 10. with Luke 10. I observe indeed from John 4.2 that Christs Disciples did baptize but see no necessity of restraining that phrase to the twelve who were called his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the Writers of the harmony of the Gospel do agree that this baptizing was before any Gospel Ministry was instituted yea before that Peter and Andrew James and John were called to be fishers of men that baptisme therefore might be administred by any of these that did usually accompany the Messias he appointing them so to do and so being chief in the action the learned Isaac Causabons words are considerable Etsi non Christus ipse sedejus Discipuli baptizabant Christi tamen non Discipulorum baptismus creditus est vocatus qua de re placet perelegantem Tertulliani locum proferre sic ille in libro de baptismo Sed ecce inquiunt venit Dominus non tinxit Legimus enim tamen is non tingebat sed Discipuli ejus quasi revera ipsum suis manibus tincturum Johannes praedicasset non utique sic intelligendum est sed simpliciter dictum more communi sicut est verbi gratia imperator proposuit edictum aut praefectus fustibus caecidit nunquid ipse proponit aut nunquid ipse caedit semper is dicitur facere cui praeministratur simile est quod Jurisconsulti tradunt videri eum facere qui per alium facit Besides Christ in his administrations did though in some things forsake yet in many if not in most things follow the Jewish mode and Mr. Lightfoot in his harmony of the New Testament page 18. tells us out of Maimony in Issure that to the Jewish baptisme it did suffice if there were but three though private persons present In a word we do not find that Christ before his Resurrection gave any order for the gathering of Gospel Churches and therefore gave not any power to his Apostles over them or any Officers belonging to them consider we therefore what he did when he was risen from the dead we find him appearing betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension seven times at the third time of his appearance he said to the Disciples John 20.21 As the Father sent me so send I you
had no right to his wife 'T is one thing to go to a Justice or to a Bishop and to get an Instrument under his hand to secure a mans self Wife and Children from molestation another thing to go to the Congregation and be married with all the Prayers and religious solemnities appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book I do not think that Mr. Humfrey can produce any one instance of a person forced to a second Marriage that had been before validly married though not according to the Canons in force I desire Mr. H. whom I look upon as a serious person that he would one time in his Study read over the Form of Marriage and try whether it would not go much against the hair to use it to two persons who for many years had lived in Matrimony and begotten Children He proceeds in his Queries May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated and yet Gods Name not taken in vain Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful because we have in one Service the Lords Prayer twice over Answ Some would say that the English Liturgy is never a whit the better for appointing the Lords Prayer to be twice used in one Service they think it looks somwhat too like that vain Battology condemned by our Saviour But I for my part think not that it is simply unlawful to use the Lords Prayers twice in one Service but how it will be hence inferred that therefore it is not unlawful to repeat Ordination I am not so quick-sighted as to perceive The things we pray for in the Lords Prayer are things which some of the congregation have not at all which every one had need to have renewed hence it is we use it often and if wee use it with faith and affection we have hope our using of it will not be in vaine but as he that is in the state of Justification is perswaded that he is in it should sin if he should pray to be put into it so I think that he who is already by ordination made a Minister should sin if he should again pray to be made a Minister or submit to any other Divine Ordinance the end whereof is to make a man a Minister I read of one Baptism in Scripture and a stress is laid upon it but I read not so of one Ordination where there is no Law to the contrary where I pray lies the Transgression Just thus I have heard that one who is lately sent into another world argued in the Pulpit that he read of Unity but never of Uniformity Ergo c. But doth it indeed follow that Ordination may be repeated because we do not find those words one Ordination in Scripture Why if we had read of one Ordination Ordination might have been repeated notwithstanding For it is not therefore unlawful To repeat Baptism though upon other accounts the repetition of it be sinful because it is said one Baptism for the unity there spoken of is not numerical but specifical One is as much as common to all non respicitur saith Vossius in his Thesis de Anabaptis unitas usurpationis sed unitas partium substantialium aquaeâ—sc verbi But as I say that Ordination might have been iterable though we had read of one Ordination so I say that though we read no such words as one Ordination it may be uniterable and that it is so will appear by the Arguments used in the Letter and others suggested to Mr. H. if his Answers to them or to any one of them prove unsatisfactory The first Argument he brings against himself is that of scandal which he thus propounds p. 24 25. Many Brethren do think it unlawful to be ordained again and by seeing such an one as Mr. H. re-ordained will be imboldned to do so likewise which if they do whilst they believe or doubt it to be unlawful they perish and when we sin against the Brethren and wound their weak Conscience we sin against Christ To this he answereth That if a man who is satisfied of a thing as indifferent and lawful must yet forbear upon the account that by his example others may be emboldened to the same who having not that knowledge do judge it unlawful and so sin if they do it then is the way of poor Christians the Lord knows very straight and that he is through Grace somthing enlightned to judge that a man may somtimes do much good in leading an example to the doubtful when a thing is becoming necessary p. 26. This Argument is none of mine therefore it need not much trouble me what becomes of it nevertheless I think not meet to pass it over without acquainting you a little with my thoughts concerning it 1. Methinks that of Mr. Rutherford in his Treatise of Scandal p. 53 54. hath a great deal in it viz. We read not of scandals culpable in Gods Word but there be some moral Reasons in them If there were no probable reason to imagine there were sin in re-ordination I could not be under obligation to abstain from it for fear of offending my Brother therefore do I not forbear to turn up the hour-glass or to wear a Gown when I preach because there is not any apparent moral reason why either the one or the other should scandalize both the Glass and the Gown being of meer civil use and having no moral influence in my preaching For I use and may use my Glass and my Gown in reading an humanity or Philosophy-Lecture to Fresh men 2. I do also judge that of Gregory de Valentia to have truth and favour in it that the Law for the avoyding of the scandal of a weak brother doth not oblige us to forbear any thing which cannot be forborn sine maxima aliqua pene intolerabili difficultate wherefore if it should come to pass that I can neither preach nor have a livelihood unless I be re-ordained I should not stick to say that I were to submit to re-ordination supposing it be lawful though thereby some through their ignorance or weakness should be scandalized I would become any thing to any one rather then lose the opportunity of gaining souls But then first Mr. Humf. might do well to consider whether this necessity be not a necessity which he hath brought on himself and others Possibly an humble and peaceable but yet earnest Perition to the Kings most Excellent Majesty might have prevented all this necessity of re-ordination 2. He may do well to weigh this whether he did before he took Orders a second time endeavour to satisfie those Brethren about him that were like to be scandalized by that his practise For many things may be lawfulâ—y done after we have given a reason and laboured to prevent stumbling which could not else be done without sin He proceeds p. 28. to that which is indeed the main Argument against re-ordination which he thus propounds Ordination is that which according to Divines does give a man