should when the Churches necessity did require constitute Presbyters and have power over them This Intention must be manifested and declared from some passages in Scripture or else it will not by Protestants be looked on as a Law of Christ or as a thing of perpetual concernment to his Church For either the Scripture is a sufficient and full Record of Christs universal Laws or it hath not that Perfection which the Reformed in their Controversies with Catholicks do ascribe unto it But why do I stay so long about this The place produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus to prove that St. John in Asia instituted these secondary Presbyters proveth no such thing Read it and you will agree with me It is recorded in Eusebius l. 3. c. 23. after the Greek division In Mr. Hanmers English Translation 't is the 20 chap. As for the place in Epiphanius that so often occurs in Dr. Hammond of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. 'T is a place very obscure and so unfit to build an Opinion on 2. It may seem to savour of the opinion of those who say there is no particular Form of Church-Government by divine right 3. It hath nothing in it peculiar to St. John It no more proves that St. John instituted second Presbyters then that St. Peter instituted such 4. I might tell you that as Ancient and Reverend Ecclesiastical Writers as Epiphanius when they have been ingaged have boasted of a false matter and talked of Records and Traditions where there were no such things You will now expect before I take my leave of the Arguments brought for Episcopacy that I should answer that brought from Succession For it is said that in all places Bishops did succeed the Apostles But this Argument I have alway accounted but slight such as will not weigh much with you if you consider 1. That the Question is not whether Bishops did succeed but whether Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters 2. That the Catalogues that are brought of the Successors of the Apostles were made by conjecture and delivered down to us by men that lived at a great distance from the Apostolical times Read the ingenuous Confession of Eusebius l. 3. c. 4. If he so studious in searching into antiquity that he is by a Learned man of our own called the Father and Fountain of Ecclesiastical History was at such a loss in the matter of Succession at what a loss must they needs be that lived after him Lest this should seem a meer shift I will take notice of one Authority produced I think by almost every one who hath ingaged in the Episcopal Cause but most magnified by Dr. Jer. Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted These are his words p. 79 80. I shall transcribe no more testimomonies for this particular but that of the General Council of Calcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The splendid Name of the General Council of Calcedon made me curious to enquire into the very bottom of this Testimony I have so done and thus I find the matter to stand The Calcedonian Council was called by the Emperour Martian Anno 451. or 452. or 454. as some compute In it saith Dr. Prideaux Matters were mostly transacted by favouring Parties between Leo the first of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople Let that pass In the 11th Action of this Synod I find in Binius and Crabbe that Leontius did use the words that are quoted from him But what was this Leontius A man saith the L. Brooks in his Discourse of Episcopacy p. 66. whose Writings have not delivered him Famous to us for Learning nor his exemplary Holiness mentioned by others famous for Piety Surely not of Credit enough to sway our Faith in this Point because he is contradicted and convicted of falshood by Philip a Reverend Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople and by Aetius Archdeacon who instance in divers others besides Basilius that had been Ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople So that the General Council of Chalcedon proves to be the Testimony but of one man and of one who was either ignorant of the Truth or else did love Falshood In a word what is it in antiquity from whence out Episcopal Brethren will argue the Divine right of Episcopacy From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We will grant that all along from the Apostles times there have been those in the Church who were called and might not unfitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops But we deny that those whom the Ancients did call Episcopos were Bishops in our sense i.e. We deny that they were looked on as having the sole power of Jurisdiction and Order Let the Prelatists prove that for 1500 years or for 800 years Presbyters have been looked upon as poor inferiour Creatures having only power to preach the Word and not to administer Discipline I for my part promise faithfully to yield the Cause and my heart would even leap for joy that I were so conquered For I do assure you it goes more against the hair with me to put forth one act of Discipline then to study twenty Sermons Are our Brethren offended with us that we argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and will they argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers That is not fair play But I shall now give you my Arguments to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right and they shall be two The first I shall cast into the Form of a disjunctive Syllogisme thus If Episcopacy be of Divine Right then either the Romish or the English Episcopacy But neither the Romish nor the English Ergo none at all As for the Major it contains a sufficient enumeration For though there be Episcopacy of a different mode exercised in other places yet that Episcopacy which is established in the Roman Churches and the Reformed English Church doth most pretend to Divine Right You dodbtless will deny my Minor and say that our English Episcopacy is of Divine Right But I prove it is not thus If our English Episcopacy be of divine Right then either all the Circumstances and Appendages are of Divine Right or only the substance of it But neither Ergo. All the Circumstances or Appendages of it to be sure are not Jure Divine 1. their way of Election is not jure divino ther 's no Command of Christ for a Conge d'eslire I would not be thought to say that the Magistrates interposing in making of Church-Governours is against the Law of Christ I only say that ther 's no Law of Christ requiring that the Civil Magistrate should either make Bishops or require others to chuse I add that we have no Primitive Example of such a thing as a Conge d'eslire Rather we find that all Bishops were made and chosen not without the consent and suffrage of the Clergy
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
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
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
and when he had said this he breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted to them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained In these words Totius familiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut principatus in ipsa clavium promissione ante promissus singulis concredebatur saith the learned Doctor Hammond Disser 3. page 150. and presently after page 151. His duodecim in terris Christi vicariis ejus mandato aut diplomate munitis eademque ratione a Christo Missis qua ille a patre mittebatur adeo omnis in Ecclesia authorit as in solidum in integrum commissa est ut non ea cuivis mortalium demptis pauculis c. recte tribui possit nisi quem Apostolorum aliquis in profectionibus aut Provinciis ipsorum aut immediate aut mediate in potestatis authoritatis suae participationem aut successionem admiserit Let us therefore a little view that text in St. John 1. there are who say that in those words no Apostolical power is given but only promised As the Father hath sent me even so send I you i.e. saith Grotius Brevi mittam praesens pro futuro In this Exposition he is not singular some antienter then himself by many years went that way before him his and their ground so to do was the speech of our Saviour John 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you But I judge with Tolet that Christs very breathing on them makes it highly probable that he gave them present Commission and Authority to that place John 16.7 Cyril answers that Christ did anticipate his promise and that it was usual with him to give before hand some specimina of those things which he promised to do after his return into heaven Another observes that Christ doth not say if I depart I will give him unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you and that the spirit is not properly said to be sent but when he appears in some visible shape which he did not till Pentecost the Disciples did now receive the Holy Ghost yet they did not now receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To use Theophilacts phrase they received him not to all the intents and purposes unto which they were afterwards to receive him they were to wait at Jerusalem to receive the spirit in order to those extraordinary gifts of working Miracles speaking with Tongues c. But to whom is this Commission given surely to all the Apostles for though as we read in the following verses Thomas was absent at this apparition yet his absence notwithstanding the spirit might be Vid. Cyrillum and was given to him When the spirit of Moses was to be put on the seventy it came upon Eldad and Medad though they were in the Camp Num. 11. The greatest question to me is whether these words were spoken only to the eleven and not also to the seventy or at least some of the seventy because I find that the two Disciples that were going to Emaus told the joyful news of Christs Resurrection to the eleven and to them that were with them Luke 24.33 And as they thus spake Jesus stood in the midst of them and saith unto them Peace be unto you ver 35. Nor is there any thing in Saint John that can necessitate me to think otherwise yet nevertheless upon some other reasons I am content it should be supposed that this Commission was granted only to the eleven as also that Mat. 28.18 19. But what hence can be gained that will in the least prejudice Presbyterians I wot not the Apostles were all equal and for those forty daies that Christ continued with them it appears not that there were any Church-Officers besides them and therefore it cannot from any action of Christ be collected that there ought to be an inequality among the Ministers of the Gospel Doctor Hammond supposeth that Matthias was one of the seventy who was by the Apostles and Disciples or rather by God himself designed and chosen to come into the room of Judas and this he calls Exemplum Presbyterianorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pessiâ—â—â—â—â—â—inans page 153. But why he should so call it I know not for the Presbyterians do not say that there are not divers Orders in the Church but only that there are not divers orders of Ministers of the Gospel and that Matthias his being chosen from a private Disciple to be an Apostle should prove that there are divers orders of preaching Ministers would be strange Indeed should Presbyterians grant the Bishops do succeed Apostles and Presbyters do succeed the Seventy then Matthias his being chosen to be an Apostle supposing him to have been one of the Seventy might with some colour be urged but many Presbyterians there be who grant no such thing nor doth Dr. Hammond think that the Seventy were Presbyters by virtue of their Mission For he contends for the opinion of Epiphanius who makes seven of the seventy to be the men that were chosen Deacons and further adds that the rest were made Evangelists but that Evangelists and Deacons were much the same In idem plane recidit quantum ad 70 Discipulos attinet sive ad Evangelistarum sive ad Diaconatus gradum ascendisse eos dicamus page 159. Yet he thinks not meet to quit Christs making and Commissionating of the eleven Apostles till it have afforded him an argument for his Episcopacy which is briefly propounded in his answer to the London Ministers page 4. The power derived as from God the Father to Christ so from Christ to the Apostles was derived to them not as to a Common Councell of social Rulers but as so many several Planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it This is more largely deduced in his Latine book against Blondell Diss 3. c. 1 2 3 4. The Reverend Doctor hath no where put this argument into a syllogistical form nor will I venture to do it because I am not able to frame out of it any conclusion that will any way incommodate the Presbyterian plat-form of Government Be it so that a single Apostle had power over the Churches planted by him what is that to a single Bishops having power sole power of jurisdiction not only over the Churches in his Diocess but also over the Presbyters and Rectors of those Churches 2. How doth it appear that it was the mind of Christ that any single Apostle should put forth his power of Ordination without the conjunction of some other or others either Apostles or Apostolical persons or Presbyters in all the New Testament I cannot find they did so but I find many Instances and examples by which it appears that
either they might not do so or at least did not think meet so to do When Paul was Ordained if Ordained was it not by three When Timothy was it not by a Presbytery But I will not go about further to fit a shooe to a foot I know not only give me leave to tell you that there is one Hypothesis which I perceive the Doctor laies much stresse upon in that and other Discourses the which unless it be granted to him and Adversaries are not now adayes so kind as to grant much he can never be able to prove I 'le give you it in his own words Disser p. 147 148. speaking of the words of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 He thus expresseth himself Illud sine dubio non universorum ad omnes sed singulorum ad singulas mundi plagas ut ad totidem Provincias aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas profectione praestandum erat c. Quod factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Matthias in traditoris Judae locum surrogandus eligendus proponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. Sic ut verba ista non ad Judam defunctum sed ad Successorem ejus superstitem pertineant adeoque in praecedente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conjungantur ut ad locum i. e. Provinciam propriam aut peculiarem aut singularem proficiscatur You see to gain some countenance to his Opinion from Scripture he is fain to make those words from which Judas fell to come in by way of Parenthesis and to refer the last words that he might go to his own place not to Judas the Son of Perdition but to Matthias or Barsabas one of which was now to be by the Lot falling on him chosen to make up the number But whom doth the Doctor follow in so doing Our English Translation No. His Friend Grotius Neither His words are significatur eventus scelera ipsius justo Dei judicio consecutus Proprium i.e. qui ipsi melius conveniebat quam Apostolica Functio And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuscript a very ancient one in which in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place which he deserved that is the Gallows or Hell it self I would fain know whether Provinces were divided to several Apostles by Christ or by agreement among the Apostles themselves If Christ designed each Apostle his distinct Province let it be shewn where and when If it be said that such Division was agreed upon among themselves I ask when Before their Masters Ascension or after 'T is not like 't was made before the Disciples then not being out of their Golden Dream of a temporal Kingdom as appears Acts 1.6 After the Ascention we find them all waiting at Jerusalem for the Promise of the Father and when they had received it Vâ—de hanc hypothesin solide proliae refutatam a doctissimo Stilling-fleet Irenici p. 233 234 235 236. they still at least for some time continued at Jerusalem Acts 8.1 When they removed common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way nor do I think they did but they disposed of themselves as God in his Providence directed and offered opportunity But so far were they from parcelling out of the world among themselves that sometime passed ere they were convinced that it was their duty or so much as lawful to preach unto the Gentiles By this time I hope you see that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it must be Apostolical practise and I shall easily grant that the Apostles being by their Commission intrusted with the Government of the Church of God whatever they did with an intent to oblige succeeding ages may well be accounted to be established Jure Divino But then I do with some confidence challenge all the Prelatists to shew me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Bishop having Presbyters under him and yet engrossing all power of Jurisdiction and Order to himself Yea I do challenge them to shew me any one Bishop that had under his Charge so many Souls as are in your Parishes of Stepney and Cripplegate I take the Apostles to be unfixed Officers and such were Timothy and Titus Dr. Hammond himself who hath deserved best of the Episcopal Cause Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath these words Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a 2d Order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius his Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Well then if there be no evidence that any such were instituted we shall think there were none such for de non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio And if there were no Presbyters then there were no Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters And 't is plain enough that every worshipping Congregation had its Bishop in the Apostles times But the Reverend Doctor in his Answer to the London Assemblers as he cals them p. 107. thus brings himself off John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical Institution i. e. in effect the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters I also know that St. John was an Apostle but what should induce me to believe that he instituted a second sort of Presbyters who were only to preach and administer Sacraments but had no power either of Order or Jurisdiction Must I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith If with a divine Faith shew me some infallible Testimony for it If an humane Faith be the greatest and highest Faith a man can attain unto what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in that can only have some probable perswasion that their Order is Jure Divino Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter that can have no greater assurance that it was the mind of Christ that there should be any such Office in the Church Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to institute this second Order of Presbyters as well as St. John in his If they had not how was their power equal If they had why did they not put it forth It will not I suppose be said they wanted care but only that the number of Believers was not so increased during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle as to require such kind of Presbyters Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted to be governed by a Bishop and Deacons how will it be clearly and evidently proved that it was those Apostles intention that the Bishop who when they left him had power over the Deacons and people only
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
Acts of a Bishop among which there is no mention of ordaining Priests and Deacons may we thence conclude that the Bishop hath no power of conferring orders Obj. In our English Church before and after the Reformation it was alway held as an undoubted truth that Presbyters neither single nor in conjunction had any power of ordaining Deacons and Priests Id. ibid. Answ Strange confidence Was this ever held as an undoubted truth and that both before and after our Reformation What Confession of the Church of England saith so What one man eminent in our Reformation or before our Reformation said so Do not Usher Davenant Mason Field c. say Ordination by Presbyters is valid which it could not be if they had no power of ordaining For my part I shall as soon be brought to think there were no such men as Cranâ—â—er Peter Martyr Martin Bucer Jewel as to think that they judged that Presbyters had not power to make either Deacons or Presbyters I may now at last I hope conclude with the learned and industrious Gerhard Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidem proferri potest quo demonstretur immutabili quadam necessitate ac ipsius Dei institutione potestatem ordinandi eo modo competere Episcopo ut si minister ab Episcopo ordinetur ejus vocatio ordinatio censeatur rata sin a Presbytero quod tunc irrita coranâ— Deo frustranea sit habenda Loc. Com. de Minis Eccles But methinks after all this I hear you say you are not satisfied because that when you talk with Episcopal men they constantly tell you that in receiving Ordination from Presbyters you go against the judgement of the Catholick Church for 1600 years and upward Let me ask you who are those Episcopal men that tell you so are they such as you can suppose to have read the most considerable books that were written in all ages of the Church For my part I have usually observed that those who thus boast of all Antiquity are very strangers to all Antiquity and never so much as saw the Fathers and Councels they so prate of If you are resolved to close with every one that saith he hath all the Fathers on his side you must presently turn Papist for who more pretends Antiquity for his opinions than doth the Papist But if you will not beleeve every one that pretends to have all Antiquity on his side then I hope you may think it reasonable to examine the Episcoparians pretences to Antiquity which if you will do you will find that prime Antiquity is no friend to such an Hierarchy as they now would obtrude upon us My advice to you is 1. That if it be possible and as much as in you lieth you would avoid all Disputations of this nature which I have but rarely observed to have any good success 2. If you cannot avoid Disputation then if it be possible confine your dispute to Scripture times Put him that contends for Episcopacy as earnestly as if the very being of the Church did depend upon it to prove the Divine Institution of it and assure your self that which cannot be proved out of the Scriptures is not necessary to the being of the Church 3. If you must needs enter into the lists about the Antiquity of your Opinion then my counsell is 1. Do not take every thing to be the saying of a Father which is quoted as such but forbear answering till you have time to examine whether that be indeed in the Fathers which is brought out of them For nothing is more common than for men in the heat of Disputation to lay the brats of their own brain at the Fathers doors 2. If you find that which is produced out of any Father to be indeed in him then enquire whether it were the intent of the Father to deliver his mind in that place concerning that matter for which his authority is urged For if we will gather the opinion of Fathers from passages let fall on the by we may easily make one Father contradict another yea every Father contradict himself 3. You must also enquire whether what a Father delivers be delivered by him as his own private opinion or as the opinion of the Church and if as the opinion of the Church whether only as the opinion of that part of the Church in which he lived or of the Universal Church If it be but his own private opinion and judgement you cannot think your self obliged to believe it except confirmed by strength of reason and evidence of Scripture If it be delivered as the opinion of the whole Church more reverence is to be given to it but then it is certain that the Fathers did humanum aliquid pati and sometimes affirm that to be Doctrine of the Church Universal which was far enough from being such These and many other directions are given to you by the Incomparable D'aillee in his learned Treatise of the Right use of the Fathers which Book is most heartily recommended to your reading as you are to the grace of God and guidance of his Spirit by Sir Your most affectionate friend and servant R. A. For his much respected Friend H. A. Minister as Postscript An Appendix VVHilst I was waiting for a fit Messenger to send you these Papers somthing fell out which is like to multiply your trouble viz. Mr. Humf. Book of Re-ordination came to my hands wherein he disputes Whether a Minister ordained by the Presbytery may take Ordination also by the Bishop and determines the question affir I was the more desirous to read over his Book because I find him in the very 2d Pag. intimating That since he had suffered himself to be re-ordained it hath pleased God to exercise his Spirit with many perplexities and that he doth not see what end the Lord had with him in his thoughts and workings of that nature unless it be that these throws as it were of his be for the delivery of somthing for one or other of his Brethrens satisfaction M. Humf. being a Scholar and having sought God often upon his knees for direction it would be somwhat unchristian to adhere to my former determination without so much as considering what he had written and printed against it And if I know any thing of my self I am able to say that I come to the examination of his Papers without the least prejudice against his Person or against his Tenent Nay I can safely say that I am hugely desirous to be his Proselyte But the eminent Mirandula hath taught me that which I also experimentally find nemo credit aliquid verum praecise quiavult credere illud esse verum non est enim in potentia hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando ipse voluerit Though I would fain think it lawful to be re-ordained yet unless my Arguments to prove it unlawful be answered I shall never be able to change my mind This Learned Presbyter p. 3.
out of him upon the 12 of Luke 14. These are his words Si quis expendat quantum sit negotii sermonem divinum recte dispensare quod ut facerent ipsi Apostoli tanto instructi spiritu curam Pauperum aliis delegavere facile intelliget quosvis alios potius adhibendos componendis privatorum controversiis quam eos quos docendi munus occupat Est quidem horum imo horum praecipue discordias praecidere sed si in brevi admonitione fieri possit quomodo Onesimum Philemoni reconciliat Paulus non si causae ambages discutiendae magno temporis dispendio constabit res paucorum 3. Nor can it be thought that it is of divine right that Bishops should delegate their power of Jurisdiction to Chancellors Commissaries and other Lay-Officers Rather again 't is questionable whether this be not flatly against the Law of Christ To be sure 't is contrary to the practise Primitive as is acknowledged even by B. Downam one of the greatest sticklers for Episcopacy See his Defence of his Sermon L. 1. I believe therefore it will be said that only the substance of our Episcopacy is of Divine Right Well what is that One W. C. at the end of that Discourse Printed at Oxom called Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines that Episco c. hath these words If we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals we shall find it no more but this an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess Then belike if one be not of eminent sanctity and sufficiency he is no Bishop cui non convenit definitio c. But to let this pass one man 't is said must have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess Well but how big must this Precinct or Diocess be Must it be the whole Christian world as the Pope saith or will it suffice that it consist of 2 or 3 Parish-Churches For this I am told by Mr. Sandcroft p. 21. That the Apostles preached the Gospel not only in Cities but in the Countries adjoyning yet planted Churches in Cities still and setled single persons their Successors there to govern both the cities Regions round about from whence a City a Church come to be equipollent terms even in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 14.23 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 And yet further that they left the Churches of inferiour Cities and their Bishops in dependance upon the Metropolis which were the cheife according to the civill division and that the only true ground of the Superiority of one Church above another hath been rendred as manifest as any thing almost in Ecclesiastical Antiquity against all Adversaries both those of the hils and those of the Lake too by the Learned and well placed Labours of those excellent persons in both pages of the Dipticks whom I shall not need to name since their own works praise them in the gate And p. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the standing Rule and failes nor a City and a Bishop generally adequate one to another For as on the one side an Universal Bishop with the whole world for his Jurisdiction is a proud pretence too vast for Humanity to grasp so on the other side Rural Bishops too is a poor and mean design and not only retrives the Italian Episcopelli so scorned at Trent but worse p. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non in vicis aut villis aut modica Civitate No Bishops there lest they grow contemptible so run the Canons of the Ancient Church both Greek and Latine and therefore the Twelfth Council of Toledo unmitred one Convildus formerly an Abbot in a little Village and dissolved the Bishoprick which Bamba the Gothick King had violently procured to be erected there and that by this Rule of the Church and the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my Text which they actually plead in the Front of their Decree to justifie their Proceedings But with reverence to so Learned a man be it spoken much of this seems to be delivered with more Confidence then Truth And indeed before we can gather the Divine Right of any particular Form of Government from Apostolical Practise we must first prove the Universality of that Practise We must evince that not some few but all the Apostles did so practise Now I think it huge difficult if not impossible from any credible Records to make out what Order and Method was observed by all the Apostles in their planting of Churches it being but very little if any thing that is said by Historians concerning some of them 2. If we could prove universality of Practise we must also prove that such universal practise was not upon some grounds proper and peculiar to those Times in which the Apostles lived Well I for my part will take no advantage from either of these two Considerations but yet will give you my Reasons why I cannot look upon the Platform by him laid down as Apostolical 1. It savours strongly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which were undoubtedly far from any one of Apostolical Spirit For seeing the Gospel was preached in Towns as well as Cities let us imagine that by preaching of the Gospel five hundred were converted in a Town but one hundred in a City would it not be a sinful accepting of persons to appoint the hundred Citizens a Bishop and to leave the five hundred without a Bishop It matters not whether this case did ever actually happen 't is plain it might have happened and we may argue a possibili And let any rational man say whether it be probable that this is an Apostolical Institution that Peterborough and Ely should have a Bishop resident in them Northampton Leicester Cambridge none 2. This model is destructive to Episcopacy it self for if this be an Apostolical Institution that there should be no Bishops but in Cities then if it should seem meet to any Christian Magistrate to have no Cities in all his Territories we must have no Bishops if he should see meet to make all Cities equal we must have no Archbishops or Metropolitanes We know that lately a certain thing that called it self the Supreme Authority of England did uncity Chester suppose this had been done by a lawful Authority so as that it could not have been recalled the Church of England would have been loath to have lost a Bishop yet she must if this be true that no City no Bishop Or what if our King by the advice of his Councel should make every market Town in England and Wales a City must our Bishops presently be multiplied according to that proportion 3. 'T is plain that in one City there was more Bishops then one plain from Scripture for S. Paul writes Phil. 1.1 To all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with
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
be without Bishops above two hundred years as is acknowledged by the Learned Forbes in his Irenicum p. 159. To this the Doctor answereth without book not having John Maior by him to consult he saith that John Maior's affirmation hath very little appearance oâ— ruth in it Answ to Lond. Minist p. 160 161. that neither Bede nor any other affirmeth that before the coming of Palladius they were ruled by a Presbytery or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them But this is too great confidence Blondel who he chose for his Antagonist had produced Johan Fordonus who in his Scotischron l. 3. c. 8. hath these words Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Primitivae Ecclesiae And if it should be said that these Presbyters and Monks were commissionated by some Bishop thus to preach and administer Sacraments the same Blondel Apol. Sec. 3. p. 315. quoteth Hector Boethius Scotor His l. 6. fol. 92. in these words Caepere nostri eo temporis â—â—circa annum 263. Christi dogma accuratissime amplexari Monachorum quorundam ductu adhortatione qui quod sedulo praedicationi vacarent essentque frequentes in oratione ab incolis cultores dei sunt appellati Invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum ut sacerdotes omnes ad nostra pene tempora vulgo Culdaei i. e. cultores Dei sine discrimine vocitarentur Pontificem inter se communi suffragio deligebant penes quem divinarum rerum esset potestas is multos deinceps annos Scotorum Episcopus ut nostris traditur Annalibus est appellatus lib. 7. f. 128. Palladius primus omnium qui sacrum inter Scotos egere Magistratum a summo Pontifice A. D. 430. Pontifex creatus cum antea populi suffragiis ex Monachis Culdaeis Pontifices assumerentur Now that I am upon the Isle of Great Britain it will not be amisse to take notice what Walsingham the Monk relates concerning the Lollards A. D. 1389. Winning very many to their Sect they grew so audacious that their Presbyters like Bishops created ordained new Presbyters affirming that every Priest had received as much power to bind loose to minister other Ecclesiastical things as the Pope himself giveth or could give This Power of Ordination they exercised in the Diocess of Salisbury and those who were ordained by them thinking all things to be lawful to them presumed to celebrate Masses and feared not to handle divine things and administer the Sacraments I might also reckon up the Ordinations made by the Chorepiscopi among Ordinations by Presbyters For I am not yet convinced by all that is written that they were Bishops See what is said in this matter by Forbes Irenicum lib. 2. c. 11. Nor do I yet believe that the Sayings of those two Ancient Authors Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Alexandria per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter are impertinently alledged to prove Ordination by Presbyters For I judge it more probable that consignare and consecrare do signifie ordinare then that they should signifie only conficere Sacramentum Eucharistiae But let these passe Cassianus as you may find in Blondel p. 357. reports that Paphanutius a Presbyter did make Daniel his Disciple first Deacon then Presbyter the Bishops that at that time governed the Châ—â—ch not censuring him for it More Examples you may find in Blondel If you have him not by you you may find some of them transcribed out of him as I suppose by Mr. Stillingfl towards the latter end of the second Book of his Irenicum And for Examples of latter times Mr. Prynne will furnish you in his Unbishopping of Timothy and Titus Lastly I thus prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters If the Ministry of those who have been Ordained by Presbyters hath been ordinarily blessed to the Confirmation and Conversion of souls then is Ordination by Presbyters valid But the Ministry of those c. Ergo. The Consequence of the Major is proved because God cannot any way more eminently attest and own the Ministry of any person then by making him instrumental to the Conversion and Confirmation of the soules of his Hearers and Followers When the Apostleship of Paul was called in question how did he prove it 1 Cor. 9.1 2. Am I not an Apostle Am I not free Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord Are not ye my work in the Lord You see he doth not lay more stresse upon his having seen Jesus Christ the Lord then he doth upon their being his Workmanship in the Lord. More plainly in the second verse If I be not an Apostle unto others yet doubtlesse I am to you for the Seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. The Learned Grotius would have us after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are the Seal of my Apostleship eo ipso quod estis in Christo quod estis Christiani Because this Author is so much admired by those against whose oppositions I am now fortifying you I shall transcribe his whole Annotation on this second Verse Si Alii dubitarent an Apostolus essem vos certe dubitare non deberetis propter ingentia signa apostolatus quae apud vos edidi Sicut per signa apposita constat instrumentum aliquod esse sincerum ita per vestram conversionem constat me esse Apostolum As for the Minor if any one should be so monstrously uncharitable and impudent as to deny it he need only enquire in Germany Holland France Scotland and he will hear of hundreds of Thousands of Examples to convince him As for England it hath been the sad complaint of many that God hath of late much withdrawn his converting presence from his Ordinances But hath he more withdrawn it from his Ordinances administred by those that were Presbyterianly ordained then from the same Ordinances administred by such as were Episcopally Ordained Nay hath not the success of Presbyterians been greater if their Adversaries should be Judges Were it convenient to boast many of us could say invenimus Ecclesiam Christi lateritiam reliquimus marmoream We had prophane rude ignorant people left us by our Episcopal Predecessors but our Successors will find them civil knowing praying Christians Might we but find so much Favour in the eyes of our Soveraign as to be permitted to exercise our Ministry if at the years end it did not appear that we and our People were as good Subjects to God and his Vice-gerent as any that favour the Hierarchy we would not then refuse to suffer the punishments due to men really as bad as we are falsely reported to be But if we must because we cannot embrace an opinion which was never till of late maintained by any that called himself a Protestant be accountted Hereticks and Schismaticks
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