their courses in making such breaches in Christ's Vineyard and Sheepfold that lets in the Foxes and Wolves and to be disposing our own minds into such a gentle temper that notwithstanding all past provocations and all the advantages we have from the Laws and Law-givers yet we may be willing to yield even to the peevish weakness and unaccountable scruples of these that separate from us as far as can be without giving just occasions of scandal on the other hand But to give them such advantages as this Discourse does is that which I cannot reconcile to the common Rules of Prudence and Edification I wish this Writer had also considered how unjust a way of reasoning it was to argue from the indecencies and abuses any may be guilty of in the use of some of the Ceremonies that they ought to be taken away Alas at that rate the most sacred and solemn things shall not escape since all things when they fall into the hands of mortal men are subject to such abuses He did also very much forget himself when he reckoned the Bowing to the Altar one of the Ceremonies of the Church which has never enjoyned it neither by Canon nor Rubrick for in it all are left to their freedom So that this can furnish none with so much as a pretence to excuse their separation For his long Discourse about Church-men and their Qualifications and labours chiefly about Preaching iâ— certainly deserves great consideration and in it we cannot steer by a better Rule than those most excellent constitutions Antiquity has left us which are indeed so divine and pure that if this Age could bear such a Reformation I know no greater blessing could befal us But it is more to be wished than hoped for to see Plato's Commonwealth built upon the ruines and dregs of Romulus We ought to converse much with the writings the Ancients have left us concerning the Qualifications and Employments of the Clergy such as Nazianzen's Apollogetick Chrysostome's Books of the Priesthood and Gregory the Great 's Books of the Pastoral care But whatever defects we may charge our selves with this is so far from contributing to our Schism that it is rather the effect and consequence of it for where there is bitter zeal and strife there is confusion and every evil work and so it was not needful to put this in a Book concerning Union Nor have these that divide from us any reason of insulting over us whatever we may have to humble our selves for those things and least of all for Preaching which perhaps is at this day come to such perfection that if all our other defects were as much mended as these of Preaching are we might on all accounts be esteemed the best and most excellent Church that ever was since the Ages of Miracles In a word to end all that needs be said on these Heads the grounds of our communicating with any Church being chiefly the purity of their Doctrine and Worship and that their order and Rules are such that they hinder the exercise of no Christian virtue but very much advance it no personal failings or defects how publick and gross soever ought to make any to separate from such a Society For till I be involved in some guilt which no other Man's faults can do by joyning in Communion with a Church I ought still to abide in it This must either be laid down for a Principle otherwise Schisms and Rents shall be endless for as long as men are men personal failings and corruptions are unavoidable And now having thus far examined the most considerable parts of that discourse except what relates to Bishops and Priests about which you desire chiefly to be satisfied and upon which the Authour has laid out his utmost strength I come at last to consider that which I shall do with that candour and calmness I have carried along with me hitherto His opinion is That the Bishops Precedency over the rest of the Clergy with Authority to ordain to exhort to rebuke to judge and censure as he found cause is of Apostolical institution and hath been continued in the whole Church of God ever since so that nothing but necessity if that can excuse those that set up another Form of Government therefore this Government ought to be still kept in the Church But after all this he thinks the Bishops and Priests are one and the same order so that by their Ordination they have no more power conferred on them than Presbyters have This he studies to prove 1. From the silence of the Scriptures that do not mention two such orders 2. Because he finds but one Ordination which he thinks cannot confer two Characters 3. Because the Apostles call themselves Presbyters and no where Bishops 4. Because St. Clement in his Epistle speaks only of Bishops and Deacons 5. Justin Martyr calls the Bishop only President 6. St. Cyprian calls himself Praepositus 7. Because the Form of ordaining Elders is the same with which Christ ordained the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven them 8. The bad consequences of admitting this difference of Order are great for it will condemn all the other Reformed Churches Upon these reasons he rejects the Difference of Order and instead of that says the Apostles ordain'd all equally to be Bishops or Presbyters but some having more eminent gifts than others the Apostles did by Commission empower and constitute These to be Overseers and Bishops over the rest from which beginning this practice has been kept up in the Church ever since Therefore he thinks Priests ought not to ordain other Priests but yet having done it it is valid and may without a crime be done by a Priest that were by shipwrack or any such chance cast into a Countrey where no Person can be had that is thus commissionated to ordain This is a full and clear account of his opinion and of the reasons that led him to it I shall now examine both and First let us see what all this will amount to This must signifie little or nothing to the composing differences among us but will rather inflame them For a Presbyterian may upon this supposition very reasonably plead that since by his order he has the same Authority that a Bishop hath he ought not to be obliged or limited in the exercise of it That any such Commission the Apostles gave some extraordinary men must have been but temporary for their lives for if they had judged this a thing needful to be kept up in the Church they had given such lasting directions about it constituting it a distinct order as might have preserved it still in the Church but since they did not that we have no reason to acknowledge any such Power now And therefore if Priests see their Bishop doing what they think amiss they may assume that Power their Order has given them and judge and depose him too if need be I am confident that
Bishops only Presidents This is of no force for that Father had no occasion given him to reckon up the several Functions in the Church when he was writing an Apology for the Christians to the Roman Senate in which he gives a plain and simple account of their Faith and Worship but it had been to very little purpose for him to have told the Roman Senate what were the several Orders of Church-Offices among them And it is not improbable that both he and Tertullian might have used the Term President the rather because it would be the more easily understood by the Romans than either Bishop or Priest The sixth objection is from St. Cyprian who calls himself Praepositus or President But neither does this signifie much for we are to consider the sence of Authours not so much by some terms or words they use as by the formal accounts they give us when they come to treat expresly on any subject Therefore when we would examine that Father's opinion in this matter we are neither to consider what in modesty he writes to his Flock or Clergy nor what terms he makes use of but the sure way is to see what his sense of the Episcopal Authority was when he formally treated of it upon it's being questioned and to this we have reason to appeal St. Cyprian's Counsel was asked by Rogatian another Bishop concerning the censure of a Deacon who had carried himself insolently toward him to whom St. Cyprian writes that by the vigor of his Episcopat and the Authority of his Chair he had just power to have avenged that insolence instantly And toward the end he says these are the beginnings of Hereticks and the rise and attempts of ill meaning Schismaticks that they may please themselves and despise their Bishop with a swelling pride So men separate from the Church so a prophane Altar is set up without and so men rebel against the Peace of Christ and the divine Ordinance and Unity These words St. Cyprian writes like one that prophesied of the age we are born in and if he does not assert the Power of Jurisdiction to the height I leave to every ones eyes And the same Saint in another Epistle challenging the insolent presumption of some Priests hath these words There is no danger which we ought not now to fear our Lord being thus offended when some of the Priests who neither are mindful of the Gospel of their place or of the judgement to come and consider not that there is a Bishop set over them do assume all to themselves to the reproach and contempt of him that is set over them which was never at all done by any that went before us And another of his Epistles which is about the same subject concerning the Lapsed that had fallen in the persecution begins with these words Our Lord whose commands we ought to fear and observe when he was settling the Bishop's honour or authority and the rule of his Church says to Peter I say thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. From thence through the Revolution of times and successions the Ordination of Bishops and the account of the Church hath run down that the Church should be constituted upon Bishops and every Act of the Church should be governed by these Presidents or Praepositi as that Authour would have them called though he seems not to have considered that by this Saint they were not bare Overseers but had the whole power lodged with them Since then this is founded by the Divine Law I wonder at the bold rashness of some that wrote to me as they did since the Church is made up of the Bishops the Clergy and all that stand i. e. in the Faith or stand in the Worship And if in all these places St. Cyprian that lived within 140. years of the Apostles does not very formally assure us that both the full Authority was in the Bishop and that this was settled by Christ so that there remains no room for any shift or answer I appeal to you and every unprejudiced Reader But there is yet a clearer and less suspected testimony in St. Cyprian's works in an Epistle which the Clergy of Rome wrote to him when their See was vacant after Fabian's death from which we may judge what sense the Priests of that age had of the Episcopal Office These are their words after the death of Fabian of most noble memory There is no Bishop yet constituted among us by reason of the difficulty of affairs and the times who should regulate all these things and must consider the case of the Lapsed with authority and advice Can any thing be more evident than at that time which was but 150. years after the Apostles were dead it was acknowledged by the Priests that they had no full Authority to govern the Church when they wanted a Bishop Now if the difference between Bishop and Priest be only by Commission they being both the same Order then certainly in a vacancy the Priests have a full power But here we see the greatest company of Priests then in the Christian world did not think they were of the same Order or had the Authority of a Bishop even in a sede vacante The seventh objection is That Presbyters are ordained in the same form in which Christ ordained his Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins yo forgive they are forgiven them This must either prove nothing to the purpose or too much for if there be any strength in this consequence it must amount to this That all â—â—esbyters are of the same order the Apostles were of which certainly that Authour will think is too much The answer to it is given by St. Paul that there are diversities of operations administrations and gifts but it is the same God the same Lord and the same Spirit for all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit And since it is both by the authority and assistance of the Holy Ghost that all these offices are derived and discharged it is no argument to prove the Offices are the same because we pray that all may receive the Holy Ghost it being necessarily to be understood that every one receives it in his own order Nor do the following words of forgiving of sins prove any more but that both these offices are empowered to that equally For it is acknowledged that a Priest gives absolution as well as a Bishop but from their being both authorized equally in one thing it is somewhat a strange kind of inference to conclude there is nothing else which a Bishop has authority to do that is not competent to a Priest The last objection is from the inconvenience that must needs follow on our asserting Bishops and Priests to be of different orders since this must condemn and un-church all the foreign Churches which were indeed a very severe and uncharitable censure I know this is very popular
subject to them This did very much compense the defects of other Church-men who though not so well qualified to govern yet being willing to obey and able to follow Directions they might by that means become very useful in the Gospel Now there are two things that must be annexed to that superiour inspection without which we cannot imagine that it could be managed or have force the one is that all to be ordained should receive their orders from such Bishops Otherwise obedience could not be expected from them nor could the superiour be any way accountable for them if he did not convey their Authority to them It was also necessary that in all matters of indifference the superiour Governour or Bishop must be looked on as having Authority to rule and command and so the inferiour judge himself bound to obey And indeed if in those days of persecution when the Church had no assistance but all possible opposition from the civil powers there had not been very positive rules of obedience and order left by the Apostles it had not been possible for them to have been kept in any order or under any Government But the rules of superiority and subjection were without doubt formally left by the Apostles Thence it was that the whole Precinct of a Bishop's charge was called his Parish in which he had the care of Souls and for his assistance did chuse out and ordain some of the more eminent and ancient Christians to assist him in teaching the flock and administring Sacraments who were in all things directed by him and upon his death one of these was presented by the Election of the Clergy and people to the superiour Bishop of the Province who did ordain him Now though the writings of the first Ages are for the greater part lost yet there are abundant evidences to shew this Authority was set up by the Apostles I need not take pains to prove it against this Authour for he acknowledges it But because some may perhaps read this Letter that have not studied this point in the larger and more learned works of the Asserters of this order I shall say as much on this subject as I think may very justly and reasonably satisfie any Man and shall wave St. Ignatius his Epistles though the Authority of those is made good with the astonishing labours of the Incomparably Learned Bishop of Chester But being to give a short hint of the uncontested authorities that may be brought to prove this I shall begin with Ireneus to whom we may very well give credit in a matter of Fact he knew St. Polycarp and was instructed by him and he tells us that He was constituted by the Apostles Bishop in the Church of Smyrna So that we find from him that St. Polycarp was ordained by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna Now that great Saint and Martyr must have taken his Notion of a Bishop from no other original but that which he saw in his first Instructor and yet we clearly see he judged the Bishop was more than the President for he reckoning the Tradition of the Faith counts it by the Bishops that had been in Rome from the Apostles days from whence it appears he considered them as the chief depositaries of the Faith And in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he condemned his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for observing Easter on the 14. day of the Moon he lays the whole blame of it upon Victor though Damasus tells us it was done upon a Consultation Victor held about it with his Presbyters and Deacons Now the blame was not to be laid on Victor if it had not been the received practice of the Church at that time for the Bishops to have the jurisdiction chiefly in their hands So that we clearly see what Ireneus understood a Bishop to be and if that had not been consonant to what he knew in St. Polycarp who had instructed him we cannot in reason imagine he would have consented to such a tyrannical excess of power Tertullian reckons the Origine of the Bishop's power from the Apostles from whom they derived their succession The same Writer also tells us that neither Priests nor Deacons had right to baptize but upon a power from the Bishop He also says they received the Sacrament from no hands but their Presidents or Bishops Firmilian that was St. Cyprian's contemporary tells us the Bishops whom he there calls Majores natu and from the other parts of that Epistle it is plain he means Bishops did preside in the Church and had the power of Baptizing Confirming and ordaining and even Ierome himself tells us that neither Priest nor Deacon had a right to Baptize without the Bishop's command And St. Denis of Alexandria who was undisputed one of the greatest Persons in his Age in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome tells him that upon the difficulty was raised how to deal with those that died before they had compleated their penitence He had given a command that the peace of the Church should be given them Where it is clear the Authority of commanding and not only presiding rested with the Bishop And in fine when the Christian Church came out of the fire of persecution she decreed in the Council of Nice that the ancient Customes should be in force concerning the power of Metropolitans and Patriarchs we must acknowledge there were many very ancient men in that Council so that they who were within 200. years of the Apostolick time and among whom we may reckon many that were 80. years of Age or near it could not esteem any thing Ancient that had not been derived from the Apostolical institution I shall not insist on any thing that was decreed afterwards where we may suspect power and cunning might have gone a great way to have east the Church into such a mould as might best agree with the constitutions of the Empire There might be also other Political reasons to have made the Bishops after that time aspire to Power and Precedence But I have only vouched the Writers of the former Ages witnesses in a matter of Fact wherein we have no just cause to suspect them to depose to us what was the successive Government of the Church from the Apostles days Upon all which I desire that you and every honest man will in your Consciences consider a few particulars 1. Whatever we find generally received in those Ages about a thing that was visible and in which none could mistake we may safely think it came from the Apostles days We may indeed imagine that when some of the Apostles to gain upon the Jews did observe the Christian Easter on the 14. day of the Moon others might have mistaken this compliance as if the Apostles had judged that the 14. was the right day We may also reasonably enough think that when they heard St. Iohn mention the
A Modest Survey Of the most considerable things IN A DISCOURSE Lately Published Entitled NAKED TRUTH Written in a Letter to a Friend Imprimatur G. Iane. May 26. 1676. LONDON Printed for Moses Pitt at the Sign of the Angel in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. SIR YOu have made use of your Authority over me in a particular that nothing under that absolute power you have with me could have prevailed To give you an account of my sence of that Discourse that has of late made so much noise Entitled Naked Truth chiefly in what he says concerning Bishops and Priests If I were only to discharge my thoughts into the Bosom of so Generous and Worthy a Friend I could easily have resolved on it But you insinuated a Design of making a more publick use of what I might write about it And this raised a mutiny in my thoughts which could not be soon subdued into a compliance with so uneasie a task Others have already animadverted upon that Discourse with great advantages of Wit and Learning But I not being born under such happy Stars do expose my self much in hazarding to write both after such Pens and about a Book that has had the luck to be much read and by some no less commended It may therefore seem great presumption in me to interpose in such a matter I know what I say will be received with all possible disadvantages that may arise either from the great Partiality many have for that Discourse or from the just disdain others may conceive that a person unknown and undesired should engage in it Yet after all this I am so entirely at your Disposal that I shall resist no longer but deliver my sence very plainly in that blunt freedom that must be allowed my breeding and way of converse upon some of the most material things in that Paper I cannot but acknowledge the Writer seems a Person that is in good earnest and does sincerely desire the peace of our Church that so we being at one among our selves may both carry on the common designs of true Piety and resist the In-roads Popery is making on us He writes gravely and like a man that has deep impressions of Religion upon him and so I am heartily sorry so good a Man as I verily believe he is should have been prevailed on to have done so unadvised a thing as was first the writing and then the publishing such a Discourse We do already groan under too many divisions and we need no new attempts to encrease them or make parties among our selves And therefore the Rule of our Saviour ought to have been followed if he had thought his Fathers and Brethren had trespassed against the Laws of Charity Order or Edification He should first have proposed it to his Ordinary and the Right Reverend Bishops and have hoped that either they should have satisfied him or he them But to begin at publishing such Papers cannot be reconciled with the Rule of the Gospel for if he owed that precaution in dealing with his Brother it was much more due to his Mother the Church and the Spiritual Fathers of it and he should not have attempted as Cham did to expose any supposed nakedness of his Ghostly Parents There was another thing he ought to have considered that Christ has said Wo unto him by whom offences come By offences or scandals are meant such stumbling blocks snares and gall-traps as may occasion our Brother's fall I wish he had considered this well and then I suppose he would have seen that his labours in that Discourse were like both to encourage those that do unreasonably separate from us and make some of these who adhere to our Communion stumble and shake when they see such things said by one who seems to be of our Church and yet studies very industriously to blame us in every thing If he had minded these things more and the heats of his Breast and Head less he had not gone so far nor trusted himself so much in a matter of such high concern For I am confident had he shewed his Papers during all that time they lay by him to any Man of Learning or Judgement they had so clearly convinced him of a great many mistakes that this Issue had turned Abortive and died before the Birth After all the horrid abuse has been made of the supposed returns of Prayer which has turned away the minds of many from those sacred exercises either in private or publick looking on all secret wrestling with God as the heat of fancy and all publick worship as the compliance with that form or party we cleave to it appeared strange to me to find a Man that seems inflamed with a zeal for devotion own his publishing this upon returns of Prayer which to some will be thought to patronize Enthusiasm and by others will be made a scoff to jear at all Piety and Devotion God answers our Prayers when he bestows on us those Graces and Blessings we ask of him but if any body that is fond of some composure of his which he has a great mind to publish prays for direction what to do and if he take measures from the temper or heats he feels after such Prayers he exposeth himself to the greatest dangers imaginable For he ought to examine what he is about not by his own liking or disliking it but by the Rules of the Gospel of doing all things to Peace Edification and Order by the rules of Humility and Modesty not over-valuing himself nor putting himself forth but as he is called and directed by a good warrant and authority and by the Rules of the Church and State where he lives And if any man on a pretence of following the answers of Prayer will supersede any of these Rules he sets up one of the worst principles that can be imagined which must needs subvert all Religion and Government I do not deny but in matters purely indifferent and that relate only to my self when I cannot see wherein God has bounded my liberty many directors of Consciences think it is a safe rule to pray to God for direction and after that to follow what makes the strongest impression upon my mind but this must only take place where the thing in all it's circumstances is absolutely indifferent and in my choice for if I carry it farther I cannot stop till I have run into all the precipices of the worst kind of Enthusiasm Now sure the Authour of that Discourse could not be such an ill Discerner as not to see that he was not left to his free choice in this matter and therefore there is too much ground to suspect that he made his Prayers having this Idol of his beloved Book in his heart and praying in such a manner if God left him to his Idols to be deceived and misled by them it is nothing but what the Prophet threatned to all that should so pray to God From which I hope I may safely conclude
Authour will not allow of this and yet it is visible that it arises naturally out of what he has set down But suppose he could avoid that what does all he has said contribute to the re-uniting our Dissenters and us again somewhat he may say as to the foreign Churches and yet I hope to shew that may be done another way A little may be also said to such as were ordained before by Priests in the time of the late Usurpation who are now but a small number and yet even these by his Principles did a very ill thing who out of no necessity but in a wanton sedition against their Bishops threw them off by the strength and force of a prevailing Army And if such Persons ought not to be marked by some censure or at least not admitted to any sacred Employments till they have been sensible of their fault and repent of it I leave it to every body to consider But for the rest of our Dividers as long as the Bishops have such an Authority over their Priests by what Title or conveyance soever they possess it it is all one to them And indeed the weaker their Title is they will think they have the stronger Plea So that this Notion were it ever so true cannot go a great way towards the settling matters among us but on the contrary will rather widen the breach I go next to examine his opinion in it self that there are many contradictions in his Discourse is apparent For if Bishops have Authority to ordain to exhort to rebuke to judge and censure as they find cause and if this Authority was given by the Apostles Is not here a distinct Order all Ecclesiastical Functions are but so many Commissions from God of which the conveyers were the Apostles for what is the order of Priesthood but a Commission from God which was first issued out by the Apostles giving such Persons authority to Preach and to administer Sacraments and can any think that the Apostles could have given any such Commissions but 1. They must have had the direction of the Holy Ghost that assisted them in all they went about 2. They must have conferred such a measure of the Holy Ghost as was necessary for the discharge of such a Commission for they that conferred the Holy Ghost on all they laid their hands on would have done it much more on those they did commissionate for so high a trust 3. This must have been done by imposition of hands so we find they laid hands on Paul and Barnabas when they were sent to the Gentiles though they were endued with extraordinary power before and were Apostles according to what St. Paul says of himself in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians God had also by name marked them out for that service yet hands were laid on them and so they were sent out by the Holy Ghost 4. If these Persons commissionated with such Authority were empowered by the Apostles then all the rest of the Priests were bound to submit to that Authority and whatever power they might have pretended before that then since latter deeds do vacate and invalidate former ones that power being conferred on another who is acknowledged vested with the Authority the former must be supposed divested of it and bound to subject themselves to it Nor could they except in cases of simple necessity re-assume it without rejecting the Authority of the Apostles themselves according to that maxime of our Saviour's He that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me 5. Either the Apostles did declare this was only temporary that for the present exigency such extraordinary persons were vested with such Authority or that this constitution should continue still in the Church He cannot chuse the former for then that order must have determined with these mens lives in whose hands it was entrusted which is against what that Authour pleads for So that he must say they declared that such Commissions must continue to the end of the World otherwise there were no obligation lying on the Church to continue them which yet he acknowledges 6. After the Apostles were dead either these Commissions were to be renewed on the account of what the Apostles had appointed or only by a voluntary delegation of the Priests and People if the former then our Bishops at this day act by vertue of a Commission from the Apostles If the latter be true then 1. This delegation may be given or not as they please and so the order may vanish 2. They may limit or enlarge it as they please and so may very much change it 3. Those who are ordained Bishops without such Commissions cannot be Bishops at all For if that Power be only a Commission then it cannot be seated in any person that has got no such Commission therefore there being no such thing asked as a delegation of such Authority from the Priests for the Election of the Dean and Chapter relates only to the Person but not to the Power and Office none are now truly Bishops since they have no such Commissions nor does the Metropolitan and the other consecrating Bishops give any such Commissions but only ordain a Bishop to the Work and Office so committed to him by the imposition of their hands in which it is clear as also from the whole Office of the Consecration of Bishops that they suppose there is a standing Power and Authority in the Office and therefore do believe it does not depend upon any Commission they can give all they do being to ordain him to the Office to which the Authority is necessarily annexed So that it is clear that either we have no Bishops at all or the Commission for this Authority is annexed to the Office and the Church does not constitute the Office but only admit or ordain a person duly elected and qualified unto an Office already constituted From all these particulars which necessarily follow upon that Authour's Hypothesis I may well assume that by his principles Bishops were empowered for ordination and jurisdiction by the Apostles they being directed in it by the Holy Ghost and laying their hands on them and conferring the Holy Ghost by such imposition of hands upon which all the rest both Clergy and Laity were bound to submit to them and that the Apostles intended this order should be still continued in the Church So that all succeeding Bishops act by that Power then conveyed by the Apostles to the first Bishops and continued with their successors to the end of the World And if this does not state the distinct Office of Bishops and Priests let every Reader judge There is a different power lodged with the Bishops another Commission ratified by an imposition of hands which is to continue in a succession for ever So that that Hypothesis destroys it self establishing so many different things that contradict one another But before I go to answer his arguments I shall premise somewhat of the Office of Bishop
because he finds the Apostles gave but one ordination which he cannot conceive how it could confer two distinct orders or Characters This is founded on a great mistake for pray cannot the same great Seal that affixed to one Writing does only confer the honour of Barronage when affixed to another Writing confer the dignities of Duke Marquess Earl Viscount and Baron So it is plain the Apostles when they were to send out any with a sacred commission by the same outward rite they might have conferred whatever authority they intended to confer For they declaring on what errant and with what power they sent out a person and imposing hands upon him that imposition confirmed the mission and authority committed to such persons So there was no need of their ordaining Church men through several degrees but as they saw men qualified they did ordain them and I do not question but with the â—ame imposition of hands and the same prayers and words they might have ordained two persons at once the one a Bishop the other a Priest For we are not to consider in an ordination the outward rite and prayers only but the preceding declaration made and the publick intention of those that ordain It is true we find by the ancientest Ordinals we have that there were some differences used in the consecration of Bishops that were not used when a Priest was ordained which may be reasonably judged were very ancient they held the Book of the Gospels over his head and shoulders and all the Bishops laid their hands on him one pouring out the blessing And Denis the Areopagite tells us that besides the imposition of hands and laying the Book of the Gospels on his head and the prayer He was marked by the Sign of the Cross and faluted by the Bishop and all the holy order And in the ordination of a Priest the Bishop and the Priests with him only laid their hands on his head and blessed him By which simplicity of their forms we may on the way observe how unlike the Primitive Church was to the Roman Church that abounds in so many superstitious fopperies with which their Pontificall is full There was also provision made that none should be made a Bishop till he had passed thorough inferiour degrees not from any such subtleties as School-men have since devised but that none might arrive at the highest order of the Church till he gave a sufficient trial of his faith and manners by his deportment in all the inferiour steps in which they intended he should stay so long that all might be well satisfied about him And in or a little before St. Cyprian's time they appointed some inferiour steps which were not sacred orders nor pretended to be Apostolical but degrees of probation through which those who intended to serve the Church should pass before they were made Deacons And this furnishes me with a very considerable remark to shew the fidelity of those Ages in the accounts they give us of Apostolical institutions for they do every where tell us there were but three sacred orders Deacon Priest and Bishop and no where study to make us believe these other degrees of Porters Readers Acolyths Exoreists and Sub-Deacons were Apostolical Now if the Episcopal superiority and power was a device of that Age or of the former why should they not have called all Apostolical as well as some parts of it But it is plain they were careful and conscientious in delivering punctually to us what was Apostolical and what only Ecclesiastical His third objection is because the Apostles call themselves sometimes Presbyters and no where Bishops this sure if it prove any thing must prove more than that Writer intends even that Presbyters are above Bishops He should also have considered that the Apostles do call themselves much oftner Deacons than Presbyters So if this argument be of force then the Deacons must be likewise of the same order with the Bishops But the true account of this is that the name Presbyter was used for any ancient person of Authority and among the Christians it signified a Christian of a long standing So upon both these accounts the Apostles being then both ancient men and of great authority and those that were the first fruits of the World unto Christ might well be called Presbyters though not in that sence by which the following ages understood that term For I do not question but the names of Bishops and Priests were at first promiscuously used and continued so even to Ireneus his time who in his Letter to Victor calls the Bishops of Rome that were before him Presbyters but afterwards those two terms were appropriated to that sence we now understand them in Or if you will stand upon the Apostles being called Presbyters to prove an equality or superiority of Presbyter over the Bishop Let me desire you to observe that St. Peter who calls himself an Elder yet puts us in mind that Bishops are above Presbyters for he tells us in that same Epistle that Christ was the Bishop of our Souls and in that subordination I acknowledge the Apostles were but Priests which perhaps gave occasion to Ignatius to resemble the Bishop and Presbyters to Christ and his Apostles Besides it is as unreasonable to build any opinion concerning these orders upon such humble expressions of the Apostles as if because a Prince or a General will ordinarily call his Souldiers fellow Souldiers that therefore they and he are of the same order The fourth objection is because St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks only of Bishops and Deacons It is true in one place he does say that the Apostles did ordain the first fruits of their labours having first tryed them in the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons But if what was before observed about the use of the Term Deacon be well grounded then St. Clement's words may be also very justly understood of Bishops and Priests but because this has the prejudice of novelty against it let us look further into that Epistle and we shall find it no less clear by other expressions that there were different orders in the Church though in that place he comprehends them under that common name for he commends them because they were subject to their Governours and gave all decent honour to their Presbyters and again says Let us reverence our Governours and honour our Presbyters and clearly applies the subordination that was in the Temple of Ierusalem of High-Priest Priest Levite and Lay-man to the Ecclesiastical constitution as will appear to any that will consider that Epistle From which I conclude that though St. Clement did comprehend Bishops and Priests under the common name of Bishop yet he shews us evidently there were Governours in the Church that were superiour to the Presbyters and to whom there were higher degrees of honour due and particular Ministrations proper as were to the High-Priest The fifth objection is that Iustin Martyr calls the