come to the Second Part of my Task which is to shew That Ordination by Presbyters is valid which I shall endeavour by these following Arguments 1. If Presbyters and Bishops be not different in Order then Ordination by Presbyters is valid But Presbyters and Bishops are not different in Order Ergo. The Consequence of the Major is founded on that Maxim so frequently used by the most Reverend Usher Ordinis est conferre Ordines Proposition so evident that it is acknowledged even by Dr. H. Ferne one of the greatest upholders of the lately declining Episcopacy in his Compendious Discourse Page 115 116 117 c. The Minor That Presbyters and Bishops are of the same and not a different Order shall be proved by as good Authority and Testimony as is produced or can be expected in a Controversie of this Nature viz. It shall be shewed that this was the general Sentiment 1. Of our Protestant Divines whether English or Transmarine 2. Of very Learned Famous Papists 3. Of Ancient Fathers living before some of the Controversies depending betwixt the Papal and Reformed Churches were in being In writing of the Judgment of such Divines as are commonly called Reformed and Protestant I might be large Indeed I scarce know one against me The Late Archbishop of Canterbury when he was to answer for his Degree did give this for one of his Questions An Episcopatus sit Ordo distinctus Affir But he was sufficiently checked for that Heterodoxy by Dr. Holland the Regius Professor as you may find in Mr. Prynnes History of him If you should be so curious as to ask whence Mr. Prynne had that Relation I can tell you he had it from Dr. Prideaux who was present at the Disputation I can further assure you that the Doctor of the Chair was so moved that he told his Wife when he came home that he had a Papist that day to answer under him in the Schooles Setting him aside and some violent Followers of his Protestants generally hold that a Presbyter and a Bishop do differ Gradu not Ordine I 'le not trouble you with Quotations from the Transmarine Divines lest you should say they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor yet will I transcribe any thing from Dr. Field or Dr. Whitaker or Dr. Rainolds because 't is yielded that these and several others held Episcopacy to be only some superiour Degree and Eminence Mr. Francis Mason renowned for his Defensio Ministerii Anglicani hath in a set Discourse maintained that Episcopacy and Presbytery are not distinct Orders and that therefore the Ordinations of the Churches beyond the Seas are good and valid Go we to the Times of King Edward the Sixth in which he Foundations of our Reformation were first laid You may gather from Mr. John Fox Vol. 2. Pag. 658. Edit London 1631. That that young Josiah by the Authority of his own Regal Lawes appointed certain of the most Grave and best Learned Bishops and other of his Realm to assemble together at his Castle of Windsor there to argue and entreat c. Much I have longed to meet with an Author from whom I might learn what was done at that Meeting but could not hear of any one hat had met with any thing that might give me or others satisfaction till of late casting mine eye cursorily upon a Piece Published by Mr. Edward Stilling fleet a very Judicious and Peaceable Divine I understood that by some singular Providence there came to his hands an Authentick M.S. of the Proceedings here From that we are assured that T. C. A. of C. afterwards Martyr gave it in as his Judgment That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion And from the same M.S. it further appears That the Bishop of Asaph Therleby Redman Cox all employed in that Convention were of the same Opinion that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same Redman and Cox expressely citing with approbation the Judgment of Jerome Of the same Judgment undoubtedly were the Composers of that Tract called the Institution of a Christian man as may be seen in what they delivered about the then so called Sacrament of Orders In a word our Martyrs did so generally opine that Episcopacy was no superiour Order to Presbytery that Dr. Heylin in his Historia quinquarticular is Part 2. p. 17. doth on purpose caution us that we should not attribute too much to them or measure the Doctrine of our Church by them lest we should be forced to allow the parity or Identity rather of Bishops and Priests because John Lambert he might have named many others did so conceive In the Primitive Church saith he there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth beside Scripture St. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul Whereas those whom we now call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops no other but Priests men ancient both in age and Learning so near as could be chosen nor were they instituted and chosen as they be now a dayes the Bishop and his Officer only opposing them whether they can construe a Collect But they were chosen also with the consent of the people amongst whom they were to have their Living as sheweth St. Cyprian But alack for pity such Elections are banished and new Fashions brought in By which saith the Doctor Truly if it may serve for a Rule our Bishops must be reduced to the Rank of Priests But falsely doth he add that then the right of Presentation must be put into the hands of the people to the destruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom If I would produce all the Testimonies of the Learned among the Papists my Papers would swell to too great a Bulk D. Forbes the Scotchman who hath deserved well of the Hierarchy doth amply prove that it was the general Opinion of the Schoolmen that Episcopacy and Presbytery are the same Order See his Irenicum Lib. 2. Cap. 11. P. 154 155 156 157 158. You may also have recourse to Mr. Mason in the before commended Treatise concerning Ordination beyond the Seas by Presbyters This also did so much stick with Bishop Hall that he would not maintain Episcopacy to be a superiour Order though he were by Archbishop Laud much pressed so to do See the Letters that passed betwixt these two Prelates recorded by Mr. Prynne in Canterburies Doom Would you have me go higher yet to the Fathers that deserve more reverence then these Popish Schoolmen I might bring you Michael Medina a Pontifician Writer acknowledging that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose were of the same mind with Aerius See him Lib. 1. De Sacrorum Hominum Origine Continentia Cap. 5. But because he is so severely chastised by Bellarmine for this concession c. 15. De Clericis I desire you to consider seriously and impartially to ponder what is
him no further for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople is a huge Impertinence Let it be Schisme and Heresie which with the Fathers assembled in that Synod seem to be all one to divide from Canonical Bishops such are not they who are neither chosen by the Clergy nor by the People and to set up Conventicles contrary to theirs How will it hence follow that it is Heresie to hold that Presbytery and Episcopacy are the same Order To as little purpose or lesse is what follows out of the Council of Paris And concerning the Acephali p. 332 333. The Acephali were so called saith Isidore because the Head Chief and First of them could not be found That seems to be a mistake for Severus was the Head of them Let us therefore betake our selves to Nisephorus an Author certainly not very Reverend to see whether he can give us any better Information about them He tells lib. 18. c. 45. That these Acephali were a madder sort of Eutychians who maintained there was but one nature in Christ Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind but it may be ther 's somthing in the Name that will touch them and all that follow Hierom. Acephali saith Nicephorus dicti sunt quod sub Episcopis non fuerint Proinde Episcopis Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis neque Baptismus juxta solennem receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratus neque oblatio aut res aliqua divinafacta Ministeriumve ecclesiasticum sicuti mos est celebratum est They would it seems have no Black-Coats as the late Phrase was What is this to them who would have Bishops willingly enough only deny that they are of a distinct superiour Order to Presbyters Object 2 The Second Objection is made from our English Church which seems to make Episcopacy and Presbytery different in Order For in the Preface of the Book Entituled The Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons It is said expressely That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests Deacons It follows not long after And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no man not being at this present Bishop Priest or Deacon shall execute any of them except he be called tried examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following In the body of the Book it self we find a Prayer in these words following Almighty God Giver of all good things who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Answ This Objection seems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin so very strong that he hath urged it in two several Treatises the one called Respondet Petrus p. 98 99. The other called Certamen Epistolare the particular Page I do not now remember But 1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion it is so far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures that there were from the Apostles times these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove that from no Testimony of Scripture it can be proved that there were in the Apostles time any Priests or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken He thinks that in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth constantly signifie a Bishop and that all the Churches of which any mention is made in Scripture were gouerned only by Bishops and Deacons 2. The Doctor might have remembred what he pressed against Mr. Hickman That Apices Juris nihilponunt then would he not so confidently have urged passages in the Preface 3. At least he might have done well to consider that his so much magnified Objection is a stale one and hath received its Answer from Mr. Mason in the before-commended Treatise It most unhappily falls out that I have not the Book at hand but if my Memory fail me not more then ordinarily it doth the Author of the Necessity of Reformation gives you his full sense if not his very words That Book when it speaks of the making of Bishops calls that a Consecration not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons the other the Form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this word Ordering and calls it the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never means to make Bishops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ and his Apostles Institution superiour to a Presbyter Indeed the Preface doth not say these three Orders but only these Orders of Ministers and in the Prayer it is not said that the Bishop is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop I had thought here to have concluded my first Argument But there is one Medium seems to me so considerable to prove that a Presbyter is of the same Order with a Bishop that I cannot omit it You know that it was required that a Bishop should be Ordained by three Bishops at least Yet Anastasius in the Life of Pope Pelagius tells us that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Bishops and one Presbyter who is by him called Andreas Ostiensis Doth it not hence manifestly appear that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the same Order with a Bishop and impowered in case of necessity to confer the very degree of Episcopacy At this Example the Learned Author of Episcopacy asserted is very angry and tels us p. 166. That Pelagius his taking in the Priest was but to cheat the Canon cozen himself into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the Ordination if done by two But this is too slight a way of answering Antiquity We must not till we see better reason think that Pelagius and the two Bishops were so unworthy as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon or so wicked as to make use of an hand that being imposed signified no more then would the Imposition of a Lay hand Nor do I think that in those dayes it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Bishop or no For the Council of Nice requires three at least and the consent of those that are absent signified by their Letter And Pope Damasus in his fifth Epistle to the Bishop of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops hath these words quod Episcopi
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
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
shall be able to convert us by railing by bitter jeers or Sarcasmes the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God We shall think the cause is but weak which must be supported by opprobrious language This good Reader is all the trouble that is thought meet to be given thee by way of Preface O pray for the peace of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR A Letter to a Friend tending to prove 1. That Valid Ordination ought not to be repeated 2. That ordination by Presbyters is valid SIR THat when you were invited to the constant preaching of the Word I perswaded you to be ordained is no matter of my repentance nor need it be any matter of your repentance that things standing as they then did you made choice to be ordained by meer Presbyters without a Bishop I had in my eye that of the Apostle How shall they preach except they be sent Rom. 10.15 that of the Prophet Jer. 23.21 I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran I have not spoken to them yet they prophesied v. 32. I sent them not nor commanded them therefore they shall not profit this people saith the Lord. Nor could I forget what holy zealous Luther hath in his Commentary on the Galathians Non satis est habere verbum puram doctrinam aportet etiam ut vocatio certa sit sine qua qui ingreditur ad mactandum perdendum venit nunquam enim fortunat Deus laborem eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam quaedam salutaria afferunt tamen nihil aedificant You 't is like had in your thoughts the example of the Transmarine Reformed Churches and the judgement of our own Protestant Divines at home unanimously till of late determining Ordination by Presbyters to be valid But now it seems you begin to question whether you may not do that which will be a virtual and interpretative renouncing of your former Orders take a second Ordination from some Bishop and his Chaplains the grounds you go upon are 1. Because else it will not be possible to get any preferment in the Church 3. Because some that were voiced formerly to have more of the Presbyterian in them then you have already actually submitted to such a second Ordination To deal plainly with you either you are not the man that I have ever taken you to be or else you have alway had pectus praeparatum against all objections of this nature either you did not sit down and consider before hand what it would cost you to be a Minister of the Gospel or it is not possible that the two things you mention should weigh much with you Suppose the Anabaptistical Sectarian Phrensie should have so possessed the late Governours as that they would have collated no livings but on those who though baptized in infancy would afterwards take a second baptism at adult years Suppose also that some learned and seemingly godly men had yielded to Re-baptization would you forthwith have betaken your self to some pond or river and been dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost If so then your Religion is very much at the mercy of your Superiours and we may thank the Parliament for your Orthodoxy I presume you will reply the case is different that you may with better conscience take a second Ordination then a second Baptisme But I pray you where lies the difference Is Baptisme an Ordinance of God so is Ordination Is Baptisme a Sacrament so is not Ordination in the strict sense but quid hoc ad Iphicli boves It might be a Sacrament and yet be iterable for the Lords Supper is in the most proper and strict notion a Sacrament and yet by the appointment of God it is to be received more then once by all that have opportunity That Ordination is not a Sacrament makes it not iterable because the end unto which it is by God appointed is sufficiently attained by one administration of it and the end of Ordination being once attained to receive it a second time would be to take an Ordinance of God in vain as I shall by and by have occasion to prove more largely For this is the method I intend to use with you 1. To shew that you ought not to take Ordination from the Bishop except your Ordination by Presbyters was a meer nullity and in natura rei invalid 2. To shew that your Ordination by Presbyters was not cannot be rationally accounted a meer nullity These two things done 't will not be difficult for you to gather my sense about the case of conscience by you propounded As to the first I must premise two or three postulata and they shall be such things as to save my self a labour I shall desire may be granted but if they should not be granted I should be able easily to prove them 1. I suppose that you are certain you were ordained by Presbyters for if there could be an invincible doubt whether you were de facto ordained or no I should then grant you might for sureness sake be ordained in an Hypothetical form si non ordinatus sis c. 2. I suppose that when you were ordained by Presbyters such a form of words was used as made you a Minister not of any particular but of the Catholick Church for had you been made Minister only of that particular Church unto which you were first called then your relation to that Church ceasing you ceased to be a Minister and so are returned to the condition of a private Christian and therefore you know that the rigid sort of Independents do judge that when their Pastor preacheth out of his own Congregation he preacheth only as a gifted Brother and charitativè not as a Church-Officer or authoritativè 3. I suppose that if you be ordained by a Bishop you are to be ordained in such a form of words as is used when men are made ex non Ministris Ministri ex non Clericis Clerici This I suppose because I have all along heard that as many as have been re-ordained by the Bishops have been by them looked upon and considered as Laicks being first made Deacons then Priests in the very self-same form and order that they are ordained who never had any Consecration to the Ministerial Office Were your former Ordination only to be compleated and confirmed I would not inject the least scruple into your mind because I know that though your Ordination by Presbyters was lawful and sufficient to make you a Minister yet it was perhaps not exactly legal and Canonical at least if there be any Law extant in England declaring those and those only that are ordained by Bishops to be lawfully ordained 't is but prudential to procure some instrument to ratifie that which pievish people will be apt to take exception against You know the late Parliament hath made an Act in and by which all whether ordained by Bishops or Presbyters are confirmed in their livings
by Presbyterians produced out of these Authors themselves Ambrose his words are these Post Episcopum Diaconatus Ordinationem subjicit Quare Nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est Uterque enim Sacerdos est Sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est But these Commentaries 't will be said though bearing the name of Amb. are not his To avoyd trouble and Dispute about a Controversie which is not much ad rei summam I grant the Commentaries are not the Commentaries of Ambrose but then they are the Commentaries of one Hilary as ancient as Ambrose a Deacon of the Church of Rome For it is observed by D. Blondel that under that name Aug. quotes some words still extant in those Commentaries and Augustine had a very reverend esteem of this Author Though if I mistake not B. Hall in one of his replies to Smectymnuus speaks of him very slightly and contemptâ—bly Chrysostome in a Piece of his never that I find excepted against as spurious his Homilies on 1 Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ther 's not saith this Holy Father much difference betwixt Presbyters and Bishops What think you Did he mean they were of different Orders He would then have said they differ as much as may be as much as Presbyters and Deacons do The Collection of Questions on the Old and New Testament was very anciently ascribed to St. Augustine 't is not now by Learned men thought to be his but the Author whoever he was had Antiquity and Learning enough to set him above Contempt These are some of his words Quid est Episcopus nisiprimus Presbyter hoc est summus Sacerdos Now I pray you do not these words plainly imply that a Bishop is but of the same Order with a Presbyter Suppose you should meet with these words in any ancient Author Quid est Praesidens nisi primus Socius Would you not quickly thence infer that that Author judged the President to be of no higher an Order then that of a Fellow If this make you not of Michael Medina's Opinion I then turn you over to Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanctae Lib. 6. Annot. 324. Only you must give me leave to reply before I leave this Argument to two Objections which would not be so great had they not been used by so great Schollars Obj. 1 'T is said that Aerius is by Epiphanius reckoned among Hereticks for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters Answ It must be acknowledged that Aerius is by Epipha on that account among others branded for an Heretick Heresie 75. with whom also jumps St. August de Haeres c 53. But 1. Ther 's no mention of any Aerian Heresie either in Theodoret or Socrates or Sozomen no not yet in the History of Eustathius Bishop where Aerius was Presbyter 2. 'T is acknowledged by most Protestants that some things charged upon Aerius as Heretical are not truly such And if Epiphanius miscalled some of his other Opinions so might he this also about Church-Governours 3. This Opinion of Aerius about Bishops and Presbyters was not condemned nor so much as heard in any Council and therefore some have judged that Epiphanius though otherwise a good man yet being hot and cholerick and incensed against Aerius might condemn him out of private hatred 4. If Aerius was as he is represented turbulent and factious and causelessely separated from those Churches in which there was a Bishop I will easily grant that he might justly be reputed an Hereâ—ick in that large sense in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by Epiphanius and some other ancient Writers for it is evident enough that with them somtimes it denotes only a schismatick I must not conceal it from you that Dr. Jer. Taylor hath made some reply to all or most of these Ans in his Episcopacy Asserted Which Reply I am obliged to take notice of lest I should seem to wave any thing that is brought against us Thus therefore he pag. 330. A Dissent from a publick or a received Opinion was never called Heresie unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine For the Fathers many of them did so as St. Austin from the Millenary Opinion yet none did ever reckon them in the Catalogues of Hereticks but such things did only set them down there which were either directly opposite to Catholick Faith though in minoribus articulis or to a holy Life This is rather peremptory than satisfactory If the Reverend Doctor had said that nothing ought to be called Heresie unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine I might have let his Affirmation pass without a censure But to say that never any thing set a man in the Catalogues of Hereticks made by Epiphanius August Philastrius but what was either directly opposite to Catholick Belief or to a holy life is such a as hath scarce dropped from the Pen of a Learned man What thinks he of the Quartodecimani Was their Opinion contrary to a holy Life or to the Catholick Belief I trow not Yet are they listed among Hereticks Philastrius also reckoneth those in the number of Hereticks who thought that the breath of life was the rational Soul and not the Grace of the holy Spirit but I do not imagine that the Doctor can think that this Opinion was either contrary to the publick Faith of the Church or to holy Life Let him proceed p. 331. It is true that Epiphanius and St. Austin reckon his denying Prayer for the dead to be one of his own Opinions and heretical but I cannot help it if they did let him and they agree it they are able to answer for themselves but yet they accused him also of Arianism and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no Heresie because the Fathers called him Heretick in one particular upon a wrong Principle We may as well say this as deny the other Why then may not we also say if Epiphan and Austin condemned his asserting the parity of Ministers for heresie we cannot help it let Aerius and they agree it c. This is our Argument they miscall one of his Opinions therefore it may be they did miscall the other If they justly accused him of Arianism which whether they did or no I find Learned men to doubt then indeed he was an Heretick but it will not thence follow that whatever else he held was Heresie He hath not yet done for ibid. He was not condemned by any Council No. For his Heresie was ridiculous and a scorn to all wise men as Epiphanius observes and it made no long continuance neither had it any considerable party This is but just affirmed and therefore it will be sufficient Confutation to deny it He that reads Hierom and Ambrose will not think the Opinion ridiculous or a scorn to all sober men I shall follow
authoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio Consecratio reservata est And the Councel of Sevill saith that the Consecration of Presbyters Deacons c. is forbidden Novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis To answer that the Councel follows Isidore and Isidore follows Hierome and so all three make but one single testimony is too easie a way of answering not worth taking notice of therefore we are further told 1. That Ignatius is a more considerable Author then Hierome and that Ignatius all along his Epistles bears witness to Episcopacy I acknowledge more reverence is due to Ignatius then to Hierome because he lived neerer the age of the Apostles But then 1. We are not so sure that Ignatius his writings are incorrupt as we are that Hieromes are 2. Ignatius doth no where that I can find assert the Divine Right of Episcopacy and yet I have read over all Ignatius his Epistles and read them over with an impartial desire to find out any thing from which I might collect what was the ancient form of Discipline I am confirmed that I was not mistaken by reading the dissertations of the very learned Dr. H. Hammond The second of those four dissertations is concerning Ignatius and his testimonies the whole 25th Chap. of that dissertation is taken up in producing testimonies out of that holy Martyr and blessed Father in favour of Hierarchy In the 26 Chap. he gives us the opinion of Ignatius in six conclusions The second is Episcopos singulares per omnes mundi plagas ubicunque Christiana fides viguit Christo si non praecipiente saltem approbante institutos fuisse But wot you how he proves this conclusion why he proves it but by one testimony out of Ignatius his Epistle to the Ephesians the words as by him quoted are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 1. These words are not to be found in the old Greek Editions of Ignatius Now seeing this Doctor doth himself in some particulars prefer other Editions to the Edition of Isaac Vossius what if I should so do in this matter what would become of the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy 2. The Laurentian Copy doth not exhibit the words as they are by the Doctor represented to us for in it I find not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old Latin Version reads thus Etenim Jesus Christus incomparabile nostrum vivere patris sententia ut ipsi secundum terrae fines determinati Jesu Christi sententia sunt not mentioning the word Episcopi 3. I can give the Doctor his own reading and yet the place will not make for him for a sense different from that which he affixeth to them may be given of them and is given by Master Stilling fleet page 309. And all this you know by a friend of ours was asserted in a Latin supposition at a publick act in Oxford four or five years ago Indeed there is in the Epistle to the Magnesians a place which might with good colour and probability be urged for the Divine Right of Presbytery But if this first answer succeed not we are further told that Hierome is not against the Divine Right of Episcopacy but rather for it or else if one while he be against it at another time he is for it We have proved plainly enough that he was against it let 's therefore hear whether any thing can be produced out of him that makes for it two places are most insisted on the one in the Epistle to Evagrius Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas 01 sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vindicent in Ecclesia Here the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is placed among Apostolical Traditions that the learned Dissertator page 123. Disser 2. breaks out into these words Quid ad hoc responderi possit aut quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio fateor ego me divinando assequi non posse sed e contra ex iis quae D. Blondellus quae Walo quae Ludovicus Capellus hac in re praestiterunt mihi persuasissimum esse nihil uspiam contratam apertam lucem obtendi posse But this Reverend Doctor need not make use of or puzzle his divining faculty to find out how this place may be answered it was answered and satisfactorily answered by Gersom Bucer De gubernatione Ecclesiastica almost forty years before the coming out of these Anti-Blondellian Dissertations the sum of the answer is 1. That traditio Apostolica need not signifie that which was instituted by the Apostles it may denote no more then an Ecclesiastical custom But can there be any reason to imagine that Hierom or any man should set down that for an Instance of Apostolical Tradition which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles but to be of a later Date Answ to Lond. Minist 176. Why sure a reason may well be imagined as well as there may be a reason imagined why Dr. Hammond cals those ancient Constitutions and Canons Canons and Constitutions Apostolical though he do not think that they were either of them made by the Apostles but by persons far inferiour to them for Authority and born long after they were fallen asleep It was not unusual to call that an Apostolical Tradition which had been long practised To this end let Dr. Jer. Taylor be read in his Liberty of Prophesying sec 5. p. 88 89.2 He answers that Hier. intended not here a particular and disjoyned Comparison first of Bishops with the High Priest Aaron then of Presbyters with the Sons of Aaron and Lastly of Deacons with Levites but his meaning is that as Aaron and his sons the Priests were above the Levites So under the New Testament the Bishop and Presbyter are above Deacons And therefore it was intolerable Pride in the Deacon of his age to set himself above the Presbyters Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris i. e. Episcopis anteferret So he begins his Epistle and in the Process of it he doth magno conatu labour to prove that Presbyters are the same with Bishops and at last concludes with these words ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas c. The second place urged out of Hierom to prove the Divine Right of Episcopacy is in his Comment on Titus Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tolerentur Before this can any way
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
did lay hands on one Presbyter and two Deacons but his Ordinations were pronounced invalid because not he but his Presbyters read the words of Ordination This was decreed saith Dr. J. Tay. Episcopacy asserted 182. by the first Councel of Sevill too hastily for it was done not by the first but second Councel of Sevill about the year 619. He that reads the Decree of those Fathers would think they were blinder then the deceased Bishop whom they condemned for what if the Presbyter did at the command of his Bishop read the words which the Bishop could not read doth this make the Ordination void by what Law either of God or man shall we say that the Judge with us doth not condemn the malefactor because he appoints the Clerk to read the sentence Be it as it will the Decree it self saith that the Presbyter in reading the words did only sin contra ecclesiasticum ordinem and we cannot think that an Ordination is presently void because all Ecclesiastical Rites are not observed in it Against these examples I might if it were needful bring the judgement of Leo Anno 452. in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis but in this Master Stilling fleet hath prevented me page 380. The third objection against the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters is taken from the words of the Apostle Heb. 7.7 without contradiction the less is blessed of the better Answ This is so poor and pitiful an objection that I should never have named it had I not found it in the writings of some famous for learning When it is said that the less is blessed of the greater would they inferre that he who ordains must be greater then he who is ordained is before or after Ordination if he must be greater then he is after Ordination then a Bishop may not ordain a Bishop if they say he must be greater then the party is before his Ordination why so I hope a Presbyter ordaining a Presbyter is greater then the Presbyter ordained by him till he be actually ordained and so brought into the same order with him But I must come to that argument in which Dr. H. Ham. doth so triumph that he confesseth he was not acute enough to see what could be replied to it you will find it in his praemonition to the Reader before his Latin Dissertations he frames it into a Dilemna either Hierome had power to Ordain or he had not if he had why then doth he say Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter if he had not how come our Presbyters to have that power which he the Hyperaspistes of Presbyters had not I answer Hierome had power to Ordain taking in other Presbyters to his assistance what he meant by his Quid facit excepta Ordinatione I told you before But the same learned Doctor proceeds It shall suffice us to remember thee of one thing viz. that no Presbyter Ordained by Bishops here in the English Church had any power of Ordaining others bestowed on him and therefore can no more take any such power to himself then can a Deacon or a meer Laick Answ This profound Objection was as you know brought at a publick Act in Oxon. some years since and urged by a learned Doctor against one who maintained the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination it was then in the judgement of the hearers satisfactorily answered and so I doubt not but it will be now in your judgement I say those Bishops who Ordained Presbyters here in England did give them a power of Ordaining others whether they had any intention so to do I know not but this I say that he who maketh any one a Priest giveth him a Power of Ordaining and if when he is made a Priest he should through fear or ignorance promise not to Ordain if he should afterwards be convinced that as Priest he hath a power of Ordaining he ought to repent of his promise and it notwithstanding to joyn with his brethren in laying on of hands if either there be no Bishops or none that will ordain without imposing such subscriptions as contain in them matters very doubtful if not unlawful 2. The form of words used in ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of England is this Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest c. did these words when used by our Lord Christ to his Disciples confer a power of Ordaining If they did not I then demand when and by what form of words was that power conferred on the Apostles If they did how come they not to convey a power of ordaining others unto the Presbyter in whose Ordination they are used If a man when he is made a Priest in the Church of England receive not a power of Ordaining others nor doth he receive it when he is consecrated Bishop for having read over the Form appointed for the consecrating of a Bishop I cannot find any words that give the Bishop a power of Ordaining except any one be so hypercritical as to imagine that Take the Holy Ghost impowers a person to Ordain and Receive the Holy Ghost doth not But why then do Presbyterians complain that the Bishops reserve the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves indulging to Presbyters only some inferiour Acts ab omni excusatione eos procul esse concludimus qui quas sibi neutiquam concessas conquerantur potestates sibi sic sacrilege arripiunt A. Presbyterians do not complain that they had such an Ordination as did not confer on them a power of Ordaining but they complain that they are not permitted the exercise of that power nor do they say that they have no power to suspend and excommunicate but that they are not suffered to put forth that power but only which the simplest Church-Warden may do to present scandalous offenders But it is further objected That when one is by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop advanced to the degree of a Presbyter an indeterminate and indefinite power is not by the Fathers of the Church committed to him but a power suis finibus fiquido dispuncta suis cancellis limitibus distincta dilucida actuum specialium ad quos admittitur enumeratione definita conclusa there is a particular enumeration of all the Acts unto which the power of a Presbyter doth extend among which there is no mention of creating of Presbyters and Deacons D. H.H. in his preface to his Dissertations Answ I answer that when one is made Presbyter an indefinite and indeterminate power is not given to him and that there is an enumeration of the particular acts about which a Presbyter is most conversant but deny that that enumeration was ever by the Church intended for a perfect enumeration 't is not said this thou hast power to do but nothing else if it were how comes a Presbyter to have power of voting in an Assembly or Convocation when he is called to it There is an enumeration of the
administer Christs Baptisme after Johns as there was to administer Johns baptisme after Circumcision a Sacrament not specifically different from baptisme Of this the learned Vossius speaks succinctly and clearly Pro diversa fidelium aetate potuit sacramentum initiationis variare fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Christum venturum alii in eum qui veniret quasi in via esset alii in eum qui jam venisset Primis instituta fuit circumcisio alteris baptisma Johannis tertiis baptismus Christi I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe and must now consider of two or three stragling arguments which may seem to some not altogether to want weight Page 56 57. He propounds a query Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any after the Resurrection of Christ to prove that an Ordinance of God may be used without breach of the third Commandment or other sin even then when it cannot be directed to its principal no not its proper end so long as it will but attain one higher then all viz. the promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Answ Certainly no for Circumcision after the Resurrection was no Ordinance being blotted out by the death of Christ and nailed to his Cross 't was become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had Timothy been circumcised in such a way as were the Jews before the passion of the Messiah Christ had profited him nothing Mr. Humf. should have thus propounded his question Whether from Pauls circumcising of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn to prove that in order to the propagation of the Gospel it is lawful to use the outward rite or ceremony of an abolished Jewish Ordinance had he so proposed it I should not have counted my self obliged to return any other answer but this that the question is no way pertinent to the matter in hand For 1. Ordination is not an abolished Ordinance 2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance the question is not whether it be lawful to let the Bishop lay his hand on my head but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head with this form of words Receive thou the Holy Ghost or with any other form of words the purport whereof is to confer the Ministerial power which I already have 2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin the Professor of Witten who putting the case whether one ordained by the Papists may be again ordained by us though he maintains there 's no necessity why he should so be re-ordained yet thus determines Quod si quis existimat se tranquillius suo in nostris Ecclesiis officio perfungi posse si etiam nostris ritibus ad sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur nihil obstat quin ordinationem a nostris accipere possit non enim eadem est ratio Ordinationis quae baptismi qui iterari non potest Hoc enim Sacramentum est Ecclesiae illa autem externus tantum ritus Lib. 4. c. 6. cas 6. 1. Supposing but not granting that Baldwin is fully for him yet Gregory a more Venerable Author is against him Sicut Baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari Epist lib. 2. Epist 32. There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian entituled De operibus Cardinalibus Christi Pamelius saith it is his or some others as ancient as he Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacensis who lived almost twelve hundred years after Christ if so however his authority and testimony is to be preferred before Baldwins these are his words De ablutione pedum Baptismum repeti Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat nemo sacro oleo lita iterum linit aut consecrat nemo impositioni manuum vel Ministerio derogat sacerdotum quia contumelia esset spiritus sancti fi evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat vel aliena sanctificatio emendaret quod ille semel statuit confirmat Edit Goular p. 513. The Councel also of Capua is against him as I find in Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius ad annum 389. If Mr. Humfrey have a man for him he hath an Army against him But 2. I do not see that Baldwin is for him for he determines not that a man who is ordained and judgeth himself to be so may take a second Ordination but only that he who is ordained and is not satisfied in his own mind and conscience about the validity of his ordination may be re-ordained which case is heavenly wide from the case of Mr. Humfrey for he thinks that he is ordained and saith he will tell the Bishop so yea and dreadeth not to affirm that his Diocesan doth amiss in calling him to these second orders Now truly though I would not altogether baulk a way because no man did ever walk in it before me yet I must take leave to suspect such a way and consider well before I venture into it The Poet saith Illi robur aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem c. He was a bold man that did first expose himself to the Sea in a ship and King James would say that he had a good stomack who first eat an oyster May not we also think that they who ever they are were too hardy who were the first that submitted to re-ordination which if it be no more is Ordination redundant a mishape in our apprehension page 4. Page 94. He suggests That if he should not be re-ordained many of his people will not own him but clamour they will not receive the Sacraments from him and perhaps they will make him Constable or Church-Warden Constable or Church-Warden that were pity indeed but yet better be either one or the other then do that which is so destructive to communion of Churches as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be 'T is not unlike some peevish people before this turn might say that Mr. Humf. was no Minister because not ordained by a Bishop but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be re-ordained that he might stop their mouths how comes he now to be so tender of them And I doubt some of the better sort of our hearers should they understand that we are so light as to take a non-significant ordination in so solemn a way as we must do if we come under the Bishops hands would be so scandalized as scarce to account our Ministry worth attending on Upon the whole I see not but that they who refuse Re-ordination may be reckoned among men of a tender frame and serious spirit and not among such as are of a scanty soul and too scrupulously superstitious conscience The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth and after you have suffered for a while make you perfect FINIS
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
the Bishops and Deacons To this I know it is replyed that Philippi was a Metropolis and so in writing to the Bishops in the plural he would be understood of all the Bishops in inferiour Cities subject to that Metropolis But I affirm there is no ground for such a reply Philippi was not a Metropolis but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we learn from Theophilact But it is said this description belonged to it as anciently it was not as it was when the Apostle did write to them If once it were no Metropolis how can it be proved that it was such at the writing of this Apostolical Epistle forsooth from Acts 16.12 the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is too obscure and ambiguous a place to build an opinion upon the best Criticks not agreeing concerning the Syntax here used If any thing can hence be gathered that may prove Philippi a Metropolis it will be either its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that will not prove any thing of that nature for there is no necessity of rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief City it may as well signifie the first for scituation this way very learned men go particularly Zanchius in his Commentaries on the Philip. Against this it may be objected that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first City of Macedomia but perhaps Neapolis was not urbs but pagus perhaps it belonged rather to Thracia then Macedonia These two answers are hinted by Causabon but a more satisfactory answer is suggested by Zanchius I 'le transcribe his words though somewhat large that the doubt may be wholly removed Neapolis civitas est ad mare ex adverso Thraciae Inde venitur ad flumen quod Strymon vocatur ultra quod flumen est urbs Philippi Fluvius autem Strymon ut ait Plinius terminus est Macedoniae hoc est ejus partis quae Thraciam versus spectat ex quo fit ut prima cis Strymonem fluvium in continenti urbs Macedoniae sit ipsa urbs Philippi atque huc spectavit Lucas in Actis consentanee cum Plinio aliis Prophanis Scriptoribus loquens Coeterum licet terminus dividens Macedoniam a Thracia esset sit ille flavius Strymon tamen Neapolis quoque quae erat ultra fluvium ad Mare pertinebat ad Macedoniam confinium quoddam erat Macedoniae Thraciae hoc sibi voluerunt Prolomaeus Plinius alii cum inter urbes Macedoniae primo loco posuerunt Neapolim Philippi prima urbs est Macedoniae si verum terminum spectes fluvium sc Strymonem dividentem Macedoniam a Thracia non fuit autem simpliciter prima sed ipsa Neapolis fuit prima si quae etimm ultra Strymonem ad Macedoniam pertinentia complectaris But seeing it is called a Colony it must needs be a Metropolis I answer if it had been the only Colony in Macedonia we might have thought it probable that it was a Metropolis in the civil sense but it was not the only Colony as is evident from History Further the officers before whom Paul was brought ver 19 20. of this Chap. make it somewhat more then probable that the Proconsul of Macedonia had not his residence at Philippi and 't is evident that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia in the civil sense Thessalonica Metropolis est utnorunt omnes Macedoniae so we find it was in the Ecclesiastical sense also some hundred of years passed ere Philippi had the honorary title of a Metropolitan Church Indeed I think I might have spared my self and you all this trouble for I believe it never came into your head to think that when the Apostle writes to the Church of Philippi he intended to write to a-any more then the Christians and Officers of that City of Philippi for had he intended it to all the other Churches that were in Macedonia then must the Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians be intended to all the Churches of Macedonia and so the learned Annotator fears not to assert that he may make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 1 Thes 5.12 be Bishops and yet not grant a plurality of Bishops in one City But do you try to carry on this notion throughout the whole Epistle and you will make strange work The Apostle 1 Chap. 1. salutes the Church of the Thessalonians commends their faith and charity and receiving the Word in much affliction so as that they were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia ver 7. and he meant in ver 1. by the Church of Thess all the Churches of Macedonia then he must in ver 7. say that the Christians of Macedonia were ensamples to the Christians of Macedonia If I would descend to Ecclesiastical History I would not thank any man to grant me 1. That there have been Bishops in Villages and Towns or at least in Cities not so populous not so wealthy as many Market Towns among us are Basilius Caesareae Cappadociae fuit Episcopus Gregorius autem Nazianzenae civitatis omnino vilissimae quae est posita vicina Caesareae Histo Tripar lib. 7. cap. 22. libro 9. cap. 3. we find one Maris made Bishop of Dolicha which was but a little City Of what a poor place Spiridion was Bishop may be seen lib. 1. cap. 10. and lib. 6. cap. 4. there 's a most famous history of Maioma continuing to have a Bishop even when it ceased to have any longer the priviledges of a City In Ireland S. Patrick is said to have setled 365 Bishopricks at the first plantation I scarce think there were then so many Cities 2. That there have been two Bishops in one City Vid. Possid in vita Aug. 3. That sometime there was but one Bishop to many Cities examples are too obvious and common to be produced We in England are not without some Presidents of this nature If Councels be produced against this you will remember that Councels mostly consisting of Bishops they may be looked on as parties forward enough to establish any thing that might make for their own pomp and grandure Lastly whereas it is so confidently affirmed that the Apostles did leave the Churches of inferiour Cities and their Bishops in dependance upon the Metropolis I do with some confidence reply that there is no sufficient proof for such an assertion I do not in my poor reading find that the proof of it from Scripture hath been much attempted only he whose diligence nothing is wont to escape argues by comparing Acts 16.1.4 with Acts 15.2 I shall give you his words as he himself hath Englished them to us Ans to D. Owen p. 195. According to the Image of the Civil Government among the Jews and the like again in their Temple the Apostles appear to have disposed of Churches every where and in all their plantations to have constituted a subordination and dependance of the
plainly tels us that repeating or doubling of Ordination is odd and uncouth in its first and naked consideration And p. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirms that he dare not justifie our Church-Rulers in the imposing of it by the way he may do well to consider whether his over-hasty submitting to re-ordination be not a virtual at least interpretative justification of those that require it But he faith also that he puts it in the number of such things as the necessity of convenience renders tolerable for the time p. 5. Notionally he suspects it is not good but morally he judgeth it an indifferent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good or bad though unequally as it is used I will not now enter into the dispute about things indifferent but will rather then quarrel grant this reverent Author and Dr. Sanderson that as there are indifferentia ad utrumlibet so there are indifferentia ad unum too that is things which though they be neither universally good nor absolutely evil yet being barely considered sway more or less rather the one way then the other There are some things which of themselves do notably and eminently incline unto evil rather then unto good so that if the Question were barely propounded to me whether they be evil I could not be blamed if I did indefinitely answer they are evil which things yet in some cases and circumstances may be lawful But for the present I must deny to this judicious Brother that the Re-ordination he perswades us to is such a thing as yet I think there is a moral evil in it and not only a notional phantastical or imaginary evil Here we might close and joyn issue but because he tells us that in his first Paper he only made scattered efferts and that he would more roundly and freely lay down his Opinion with a larger compass in the whole matter sect 2. we will attend his motion thither His four first Propositions I assent unto In his fifth p. 18. he distinguisheth between what Ordination is required to the setting apart a man to the Office of a Minister in the sight of God and what is requisite to the making him received as a Minister among men and give him Authority or full repute to exercise that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called He believes that Ordination by Presbyters sufficing but a little while ago to both sufficeth still to the former but seeing Ordination by a Bishop is necessary to the latter he thinks his being ordained by the Presbytery hinders not but he may be again ordained by the Bishop because he seeks not to be ordained by him to make him a Minister again but to have authority to use his Ministry and be received as such in Foro Ecclesiae Anglicanae For my part I readily acknowledge that he who is already a Minister may betake himself to a Bishop or to any one else whom the Magistrate shall appoint to procure a License to exercise his Ministry quietly but the question is Whether when I am made a Minister I may go and take another Ordination and that the very Ordination which the Church useth when those who before were no Ministers are made Ministers I encline to the Negative this Learned Casuist to the Affirmative In which Opinion he saith p. 19. he is a little justified because when he was ordained by the Presbytery the very words used at the point were Whom by the laying on of hands we set apart to the Office of the Ministry and in the Ordination by the Bishop they are Take Authority to preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed that is in thy place Sure this can but a little justifie him in his Opinion for the words by him mentioned are not all the words that were used in his Ordination by the Bishop 'T was then also said Receive thou the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they shall be remitted and whose thou retainest they shall be retained and several Prayers were used that did evidently imply him to be no Minister before He saith in the same place that the words used in Episcopal Ordination do confer the Ministerial power to the un-ordained but that hinders not but rather argues if they confer that the other too they may doubtless and actually do conferre one and can but the one only to such as are in his case All this sure makes much against him for if the Presbyterial Ordination leave him not capable of having any thing conferred upon him but only the free use of his Ministry in the English Church why will he submit to such a Form of Ordination as was purposely instituted to confer the very Ministry it self Why is the Right Reverend troubled to do that which is already done Why are such Prayers put up to God as manifestly suppose me to be no Minister when as I all the while suppose my self to be a Minister Let Mr. Humfrey but procure us to be ordained in such away as shall only license us to exercise that Ministerial Authority we already have and to be prayed for with such a Form of Prayer whose tendency shall only be to implore a Blessing upon us in the use of that Sacerdotal Function we have already received and then he need not doubt but we shall most readily and thankfully accept of it But till this be done let him not blame us if we keep our ground and chuse rather to lose the exercise of our Ministry for a season which yet is an affliction heavier then the Sands of the Sea then to take gradum Simeonis that I may allude to the Form of the Oath by which we are sworn when we are made Masters of Arts in the University Either I am mistaken or I have already suggested that which will help you to solve all Mr. Humfreys Arguments by which he laboureth to justified his submission to a Second Ordination Let 's try p. 21. He querieth What evil is there more in re-ordination then in second Marrying If it be required of me why may I not be ordained twice as well as once and thrice as well as twice if there be still reason sufficient Answ No Question if there be reason sufficient a man may be ordained every hour of the day but there cannot be reason sufficient for ordaining either a third or a second time to the same Office because the end of Ordination is attained by one Administration of it and the Church of Christ may do nothing in vain As for the Instance of second marrying by it is either understood marrying of a second wife when the first is dead and if so 't is strangely impertinent Or else a second solemnization of the former Marriage and then I say that no wise man that hath already been married in a lawful way will or ought to submit to such a Form of Marriage as supposeth him all the time before to have
and all the people over whom he was to praeside and govern I confess I had thought as to the people this had been plain from the Epistle of Clemens ad Corinthios The words are these Pag. 57. Edit Junianae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But Dr. Hammond hath rendred the last words applaudante aut congratulante Ecclesiatota and saith upon the Phrase by way of Parenthesis Disser 5. p. 278. Nihil hic de acceptatione totius Ecclesiae sine qua Episcopos Diacones ab Apostolis Apostolicis viris constitutos non esse concludit D. Blondellus quasi qui ex Dei jussu approbatione constituebantur populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi essent The Grammatical sense and meaning of this Parenthesis I think I understand but the Purport and Drift of it I cannot guess at The blessed Clemens saith that Church-Officers were made the whole Church applauding or consenting Is there nothing in this Phrase from whence Blondel might conclude that Bishops and Deacons were not then made without the Acceptation of the whole Church It may be I shall be able to find out the meaning of the Learned Doctor by his Reply to Dr. Owen In that thus he expresseth himself p. 86. Blondel made the peoples acceptation a sine qua non a necessary condition affirming that Bishops c. were never constituted by the Apostles and Apostolical men nisi unless they had this which I suppose makes the peoples acceptation praevious to the Apostles Act For if it followed after it can be of no moment the Act of the Apostles was compleat without it and stood valid without it and though it was most happy when it followed yet still this as any other consequent must be accidental to the Constitution of Bishops as that which advenit enti in actu existenti comes to it when it is is no way required to or constitutive of its Being 'T was no doubt the Opinion of Blondel that the Peoples consent was praevions but I do much question whether any such thing can be inferred from the word nisi used by him p. 11. of his Apology and I see not but that so much may be fairly inferred from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not say the phrase doth necessarily import so much for I might properly say that the King was Crowned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Consent of the City be not Conditio sine qua non of his Coronation But if either Law or Custom did require that the King should not be Crowned except the City of London did consent then if I should say that he was Crowned consentiente amni Civitate all would say and think my Meaning was that the Consent of the City was first asked and obtained before he was Crowned Now this is our Case we are sure from the 6. of the Acts the Apostles would not ordain any to the Office of Deacons till the Disciples had chosen them nor do we find that ever they did otherwise except happily where God himself made the Choyce therefore Clemens his Genitive put absolutely may well be thought to imply so much But I need not much contend about Clemens his Meaning Cyprian a very ancient Father and pious Martyr is plainer then that he can be eluded I 'le not transcribe all that he hath said to this purpose but yet enough to prove the Point out of that 68 Epistle sent to the Clergy and people of Spain in answer to a Question propounded to the African Churches Plebs obsequens Praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separare se debet nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia miscere quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum de Divina auctoritate descendere videmus ut Sacerdos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio atque testimonio comprobetur sicut in Numeris Dominus Moisi praecipit dicens Apprehende Aaron fratrem tuum Eleazarum filium ejus impones eos in montem coram omni Synagoga exue Aaron stolam ejus indue Eleazarum filium ejus Aaron appositus moriatur illic And not long after Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina Apostolica observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per Provincias universas tenetur ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas ad eam Plebem cui praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus deligatur Plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit quod ut apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostri Ordinatione ut de universae fraternitatis suffragio de Episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant quiq de eo ad vos Literas fecerant judicio episcopatus ei deferretur manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur How horribly Pamelius is put to it to reconcile the Papal Ordinations to the several expressions of St. Cyprian in this Epistle you may see in his Annotations and in the Replies of Simon Golartius to them which also will sufficiently fortifie you against the in this case I hope I may say it without offence trifling and weak Objections of the Author of Episcopacy asserted p. 273 274. 2. I suppose it will not be said that there is any Divine Law requiring that our Bishops should be Lords have Votes in the Upper House of Parliament and exercise Temporal Dominion and Jurisdiction in their Diocesses Rather it may be questioned whether any of these be so much as lawfull The Work of an ordinary Presbyter much more of an English Bishop requires the whole man Who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2.16 The Apostles put off from themselves the very burden of distributing to the necessities of the poor Acts 6.4 And Paul laies it down as a general Rule 2 Tim. 2.4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this Life that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a Souldier Shall I plant two or three of the Canons called Apostolical against our Prelates medling with secular affairs Can. 6. vel 7. Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus nequaquam seculares cur as assumat sin aliter dejiciatur And the 82. vel 83. Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus qui militiae vacaverit simul utrumque retinere voluerit tam officium Romanum quam functionem sacerdotalem deponitor Quae enim Caesaris sunt Caesari quae Dei Deo Read also the 7th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon but especially the 66 Epistle of St. Cyprian in which you shall find the Holy Father puritanizing to purpose Hugo Grotius is but of yesterday yet because he is much magnified by our Prelatists I shall account it no lost labour to transcribe somthing