the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said Do the work of a Bishop would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power Who could do the Work of a Bishop but a Bishop In like manner we say None can do the work of an Evangelist but an Evangelist Evangelists were extraordinary Officers above Pastors and Teachers The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Eusebius They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word of Faith they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures or dain'd Pastors committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church and they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass over unto other Countries and Nations With whom agrees Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Learned Prelate of the Church of England conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists and if so the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it whose Successors they are If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him Lâ—y hands on no man suddenly Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him It may as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word If it be said Preaching is common to Presbyters but so is not Ordination it 's gratis dictum and a begging of the Question Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands but takes the Presbytery with him He joyned Barnabas with him if not others in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there but besought him to abide there till he came which he intended shortly to do The Apostle sent him to Corinth Philippi Thessalonica furnished without doubt with the same powers which he had at Ephesus otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches and was he Bishop of these places also Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation c. which Dr. Whittaker Divinity Professor in Cambridge undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters his words are these Ex Apostoli mente According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Which not only Superiors but Equals yea and Inferiors also may do The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop are they therefore Superior to him Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the People of Assura not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols III. When Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus where we find several Presbyter-Bishops before what became of them were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters that they must no more Ordain or Govern but be subject to Timothy 'T was thought no small punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form and 't was for some notorious Crime What Crime were these guilty of IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor and so not subject to him any more how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself What had Paul to do in Ephesus now if he had settled a Successor there and had no power over him or his Church He forbids others to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 busie bodies in other mens matters and would he himself be such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are condemned and shall we make Paul of this number It 's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians long after the first Epistle to Timothy and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches except that to the Galatians It 's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there nor Resident there We find him long after this at Rome and invited by the Apostle thither that he might be helpful to him in the Ministry from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also The truth is he was no fixed Officer in any one place but went up and down sometimes as Paul's Companion sometimes as his Messenger to settle the Churches as other Evangelists did If Non-residency hath such a Patron and Timothy hath taught Men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him he was none at all for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there He commits to them the oversight of the Church as the proper Bishops of it without the least mention of Timothy though he was then present The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters befor their supposed Bishop's face or if he had not been there at that time how comes Paul to be so regardless when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more as not to name his Successor was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy If he had not been qualified for this Office now he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus How then comes the Apostle to over-look him and to fix the Government in the Presbyters of that Church He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus that he had not spar'd to declare unto them
a Bishop and the other a meer Usurper and all his Administrations must be null and void for want of this Ceremony Let the Spirit of God indue a Man with never such excellent Gifts for the Ministry it shall be in the power of a Prelate to exclude him that he shall be no Minister of Christ though he devote himself to the Work and be solemnly set apart for it nay more it will be in his power to make a Minister of another Person whom the Holy Ghost never designed for that Office by any real work of Sanctification upon his heart or conferring upon him any tolerable degree of Ministâ—rial Abilities They that can believe such Fancies may please themselves therewith Christ gave us another Rule to discern between false and true Pastors Matth. 7. 15 16 20. Ye shall know them by their fruits that is by their Doctrine and Conversation The Reformers vindicate their Ministry against the Papists by this Argument Christus hanc nobis regulam praefâ—â—verit quâ possimus falsos à veris Doctoribus discernere nempe eos à suis fructibus esse dignoscendos cur eq non contenti alias praeterea temerè pro arbitrio confingamus Itaque judicetur tum de pontificiis tum etiam de nostris Pastoribus ex Doctrinâ quae verus est fructus atque etiam si placet utrorumque vita in disquisitionem vocetur Quod si fiat certò speramus Deo favente nos facilè in hâc causâ fore superiores We are very willing to put our Case to the same Issue to be judged according to this Rule of Christ by our Doctrine and Conversation CHAP. VI. Presbyters Power of Ordination prov'd from their Imposition of Hands in Ordination not as bare Approvers Turrianus Heylin J. Taylor c. confuted Two other Objections answered THose that have power to impose Hands in Ordination have power to Ordain but Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination therefore to Ordain The Minor viz. that Presbyters may impose Hands will not be denied 'T is required by the Old Canons Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant Chrysostom was charged in a Libel put in by Isaacius how justly is not certain that he Ordained Ministers without the Concurrence of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Biblioth v 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 27. Edit Aug. Vindelic 1601. However the Presbyters continued to lay Hands with the Bishops even in the darkest Ages of the Church as might be proved by several Instances if necessity required But this is so undeniable that to this day the Presbyters are admitted to joyn with the Bishop in imposition of Hands in the Church of England And in the present Church of Rome also all the Presbyters that are present are required to lay Hands with the Bishop The Major will be deny'd that though they impose Hands they have not the Ordaining Power I thus prove it That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power but imposition of Hands in Ordination is an Ordaining Act therefore \h The Major is evident for Actus praesupponit potentiam As to the Minor If imposing of Hands in Ordination be not Actus ordinans what is it I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles times of Persons laying on Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If imposition of Hands in Ordination be no evidence of an Ordaining Power how come the Bishops to urge that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer he was Bishop of Ephesus Timothy might lay Hands for Ordination and yet have no Ordaining Power and so be no Bishop of Ephesus Thus they unwarily undermine their own Foundations It 's a meer Subterfuge and indeed such as betrays the Cause to acknowledge that Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination but not as Ordainers 'T is as if one should say a Presbyter hath Power to apply Water to a Child in Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost but he hath no power to Baptize He may set apart Bread and Wine and distribute it to the People according to Christ's Institution but he hath no power to Administer the Lord's Supper If Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie no Ordaining Power what doth it signifie Turrianus the Jesuit saith it signifies their Approbation of the Bishops act non Excludantur Presbyteri ab impositione manûs approbante sed ab ordinante He is followed herein by many of our own Dr. Heylin saith The Presbyters Hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the Party ordained but only testifie their consent unto the business and approbation of the man To the same purpose speaks Dr. I. Taylor But that cannot be the meaning of it for they could signifie their approbation some other way without imposition of Hands their saying Amen to the Ordination Prayer would be a sufficient expression of their Consent The Peoples approbation was required in primitive Ordinations who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of Deacons yet did they not lay Hands on them If no more be intended by it then a bare approbation how come the Bishops alone to lay Hands upon Deacons without their Presbyters Hi cum ordinantur solus Episcopus eis manum imponit But this signification is deserted by a Learned Bishop who saith I think rather they dedicate him to God for the Ministry which is conferred on him by the Bishop This specious Evasion is equally disserviceable to the present Point with the former Where in all the New Testament have we any ground for this distinction How can it be said that the Ministry is conferred by the Bishop first and afterwards the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God when both Bishops and Presbyters do lay Hands together Can he be ordained and dedicated to God as two distinct Acts the one inferiour to the other and that in the same moment of time by the same Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and by the same words How comes the Bishops Hand to confer the Ministry more then the Presbyters not by any inherent virtue in the one more then in the other not from any Institution of Christ or his Apostles appropriating an Ordaining or Minisher making Power to the Bishops Hand and a bare dedication to the Ministry actually conferred to the Presbyters Hands The Scriptures of the New Testament make no mention of such distinct significations of that Ceremony and therefore they cannot be ex instituto and it 's plain they are not ex naturâ rei Might not the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God without the laying on of Hands Can there be no dedication to God without laying Hands on the Persons so
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
doth not prejudice our Cause for the Canon limits the power of Confirmation as well as Ordination to the Bishop as was also the power of Consecrating Churches if any should take the word in that sense We may understand the meaning by a parallel place of Hilary in Ambrose who thus speaks Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta nam Timotheum 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet Denique apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum nè indignus temerè usurparet esset multis scandalum The same Author saith also in Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi Ordinem subjicit Quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est Here note 1. That the Ordination in Hilary's time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apostle That he speaks of the Ordination of Ministers is evident by the following words Presbyterum à se creatum c. 2. At first Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and Office and had but one Odination Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est which shews the meaning of Ordinatio in the former Paragraph The Bishop in Hilary's time which was about the Year 380 under Damasus was but primus Sacerdos and not of a superiour Order Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Apostolus Matth. 10. 2. and yet Protestants hold all the Apostles to be equal 3. Spalatensis infers from this quotation That at the beginning when a Bishop died there was not so much as an Election of him that was to succeed much less any new Ordination but the eldest Presbyter came into the room of the deceased Bishop See the Preface to Blondel's Apology p. 11. 31. 4. There was a Change in the way of choosing their Bishop ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum and this was prospiciente Concilio whether that Council was the Council of Nice Can. 4. as Blondel thinks for it should seem that before that time neither the Consent of the Bishops of the Province nor the Concurrence of three Bishops in Ordination were accounted necessary for the making of a Bishop though it might be the Custom for the keeping up of Unity in some places Or whether it signifies no more then that which Ierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum the Bench of Presbyters who might make this Change by general Consent Multorum Sacerdotum judicio as Hilarius speaks Or whether it were some Council of which we have no further account in Antiquity most of the Records of the three first Centuries being lost is not very material It might be some Provincial Synod of which there were several before that of Nice It is presumption in us that live at this distance to say there was no such Council when an Ancient Writer so positively affirmeth it Such a Change there was and that by the advice of some Council they that say there was no such Council must disprove it by some positive Authentick Testimony 5. After this Change the Presbyters chose and made their Bishop For so Hilarius affirms him to be multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum 6. He adds that in Egypt Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus He speaks in the foregoing words of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and he brings this as a Confirmation of it that in the absence of the Bishop they might do those things which Custom had appropriated to the Bishops Consignare is some Act of Prerogative that the Bishops challenged to themselves which yet in their absence the Presbyters might perform Whether we understand it of Ordination or Confirmation in which they did Chrysmate consignare it 's not material for both were reserved to the Bishop by the Canons Though by comparing this with the scope of Hilary's Discoarse and with the quotation out of the Questions under Austin's Name Si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter it should seem evidently meant of Ordination especially when we find consignare to be taken for consecrare in several Authors Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr. Ep. 2. Tu tantum quem jà m Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signavit VIII Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Either then Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination with a Bishop but it 's only restrained by Ecclesiastical Laws This Instance is quoted in Dr. Stillingfl Iren. IX The Chorepiscopi or Country-Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by a Canon in the Council of Antioch A. D. 344. Now these Chorepiscopi were either of the Order of Bishops or not If they were then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country Villages which were but thinly peopled with Christians when the Majority were Heathens or at least were great numbers By which we may guess at the bigness of primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Such Bishops in the Exercise of that power which Christ gave them without Canonical Restraints we plead for and earnestly desire Nay the Chorepiscopi are an Instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters they were but Parish-Bishops under the City-Bishop Sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere But if they were not Bishops then it 's undeniable that Presbyters did Ordain then without Bishops and their Ordination was valid until they were limited by the Canons The second Council of Hispalis makes the Chorepiscopi and Presbyters to be the same As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops some meer Presbyters others veri nominis Episcopi he is answered at large by Forbes in his Irenic c. 11. X. The Histories of Scotland do tell us that their Churches were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for above two hundred years and therefore had no Ordination but by Presbyters Hector Boetius saith Ante Palladium populi Suffragiis ex Monachis Culdaeis pontifices assumerentur Hist. Scot. lib. 7. fol. 28. Iohn Major is more express Prioribus illis temporibus per Sacerdotes
Tyconius in Austin Contents of our authoriz'd Bibles and acceptation of Angel in the Jewish Church THAT Ordination which hath all the Scripture requisits is valid but Ordination by Presbyters hath all the Scripture requisits Therefore The Major is undeniable to Persons that own the inspired Writings to be a perfect Rule The Minor I thus prove The Scripture requisits of Ordination are some in the Ordainers some in the Ordained some in the Circumstances of Ordination As to the Ordained they must have such Qualifications as the Scripture requires 1 Tim. 3 .... These we are willing to be tried by As to the Circumstances there must be Examination Approbation publick and solemn setting apart by imposition of Hands with Fasting and Prayer As to the Ordainers 't is enough that they were Presbyters and as such had an inherent Power to Ordain for according to Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same not only in Name but in Office The Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus are call'd Bishops of Ephesus to whom the sole over-sight of that Church did belong Acts 20. 17 28. The Presbyters of the Jewish Diaspora to whom St. Peter wrote are requir'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or rule the Flock and to perform the office and work of Bishops among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule They are called Rulers and Governours ... Iustin Martyr calls the chief Minister of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul's ruling Presbyter is Iustin's ruling Bishop Bishops and Presbyters have one and the same Qualifications Tit. 1. 5 7. After he had given the Character of Persons to be Ordain'd Presbyters v. 5 6. he adds a reason v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There would be no force in the Apostles reasoning if Bishops were of a superior Order to Presbyters The Scriptures own but two Orders of ordinary Church Officers Bishops and Deacons and of these Bishops there were more then one in every Church So there was at Philippi and at Ephesus To be sure then they were not Bishops of the English Species i. e. sole Governors of many Churches but Presbyters in a proper sence many of which were Ordain'd in every Church Antioch it self not excepted The Apostles gave that Church no Primacy above Lystra and Iconium but settled the same sort of Officers in all Though afterward it overtopt it's Neighbours and became a Metropolitical Church But from the beginning 't was not so The Syriac Translation which is so very ancient that it comes nearest in time to the Original useth not two words one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters Tit. 1. 5. Constitueres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seniores in qualibet Civitate v. 7 debet enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior esse irreprehensibilis I have left thee in Creet to ordain Elders in every City for an Elder we say Bishop must be blameless So in 1 Tim. 3. 1. The Office of a Bishop as we render it out of the Greek The Syriac reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Office of a Presbyter Instead of Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1. 1. the Syriac reads it Presbyters and Deacons This is a strong proof that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for it useth not so much as different Names Of the Antiquity of the Syriac Version vide Walt. If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter the preheminence must be given by the Scripture to the Presbyters for as our Bishops say their Office distinct from Presbyters is to Rule and Govern and the Office of a Presbyter is to Preach and Administer the Sacraments Now the Administration of the Sacraments and Preaching are more excellent Works then Ruling and Governing The Apostle saith expresly that they that labour in the Word and Doctrine deserve more honour then they that rule well Moreover the Apostles stile themselves Presbyters but never Bishops St. Peter calls himself Presbyter but never calls himself a Bishop And therefore it 's a wonder the Pope his pretended Successor and those that derive their Canonical Succession from his Holiness should call themselves Bishops unless it be by the Divine Disposal to shew the fallibility of their Foundations The Papists who therein are imitated by some of our Adversaries do say That the Names are common but the Offices are distinct Thus Spensoeus a Sorbonist objects Nominum quidem esse sed non munerum confusionem The Instances mentioned above do clearly Evince an Indentity of Offices When the Apostle bids the Presbyters of Ephesus take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops he doth not speak of the Name but the Office And 't is evident that St. Peter speaks of the Office when he Exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock and to perform the Office of Bishops among them so that there were as many Bishops as there were Presbyters in Churches of the Apostles planting How comes it to pass when the Apostle reckons up the several sorts of Ministers which Christ had appointed in his Church that he makes no mention of Superior Bishops if they be so necessary as some would have us believe He mentions Pastors and Teachers The Patrons of Episcopacy will not say Bishops are meant by Teachers their proper work being Ruling nor can they be meant by Pastors for Presbyters are Pastors and exhorted to feed the Flock Our Learned Writers against Popery think it a good Argument to disprove the Pope's Headship that he is not mention'd in the List of Church Officers reckoned up in the New Testament no more is a Bishop superior to Presbyters so much as nam'd in those places If any say 't is omitted because he was to succeed the Apostles he hath the Pope ready to joyn with him in the same Plea for his Office Object Timothy and Titus were Scripture Bishops superior to Presbyters Answ. 1. The Papists urge this Objection against the Protestants So doth Turrianus the Jesuit so doth Bellarmine Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one Argument for it's Defence but what will indifferently serve the Popish Prelacy The Bishops best Weapons have been Consecrated in the Jesuits School and have been dext'rously manag'd against the whole Reformation II. But I pray where doth the Scripture give Timothy and Titus the Title of Bishops The Postscripts to the Epistles directed to them are confessedly no part of Scripture nor are they very ancient The Postscripts to the Syriac makes no mention of their being Bishops nor can it be gathered from the Body of the Epistles that they were Bishops When the second Epistle to Timothy was written he was an Evangelist and therefore no Bishop He is exhorted to do
Notion of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy as a superiour Order was first promoted in the Church of England by Arch-Bishop Laud. Dr. Holland the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxon was much offended with Dr. Laud for asserting it in a Disputation for his Degrees he checked him publickly and told him He was a Schismatick and went about to make a division between the English and other Reformed Churches This Prelate had inured his Tongue to say Ecclesia Romana and Turba Genevensis Cressy who apostatized to the Romish Church conceives that the reason why Episcopacy took no firm rooting in the Consciences of English Subjects before Archbishop Lauds time was because the Succession and Authority of Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Orders received from the Roman Church was never confidently and generally taught in England to be of Divine Right His Disciples since have rectified that Errour by obliging all the Conforming Ministers to subscribe That Episcopacy is a distinct Order and that it is manifest in God's Word that it is so This goes beyond the determination of the Council of Trent And to make the Fabrick lasting which was built upon this new Foundation all Ministers must be sworn to support it and that they will not remove one Stone out of the Building by any endeavours to alter the Government as established in Church and State The Substance of this Oath as it relates to Ecclesiastical Government is the same with the c. Oath which was imposed in the year 1640. only it includes also the Civil Government and requires Passive Obedience and Non-resistance in all Cases whatever which rendred it acceptable to the Powers then in being and gave them incouragement to trample upon Fundamental Laws and Constitutions as presuming upon the security of an Oath that neither they nor any commissioned by them must be resisted upon any pretence whatsoever The Proofs brought for this distinction and superiority of Order are so very weak that scarce two of the Asserters of Episcopacy agree in any one of them No Scripture no primitive General Council no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers no not one Father of note in the first Ages speak particularly and home to this purpose The Point of Re-ordination began to be urged here in Arch-Bishop Laud's time his Influence was such and the Cause then in hand did work so powerfully upon good Bishop Hall himself that he adventured as Mr. Prin tells us to Re-ordain Mr. Iohn Dury though he had been before Ordained in some Reformed Church But from the beginning it was not so The old Church of England did not require Re-ordination as is now done In King Edward the Sixth his time Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and P. Fagius had Ecclesiastical Preferments in the Church of England but Cranmer whose Judgment of Episcopacy we have seen before never required Re-ordination of them He was most familiar with Martyr nether did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might Ordain Iohn à Lasco with his Congregation of Germans was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's Patent he to be Super-intendent and four other Ministers with him and though he wrote against some Orders of our Church was with others called to Reform our Ecclesiastical Laws In Queen Elizabeth's time Ordination by Presbyters was allowed as appears by the Statute of Reformation c. 13 Eliz. cap. 12. It cannot refer to Popish Ordinations only if at all For 1. the words are general Be it enacted that every person which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy Word The Title of Minister of God's holy Word is rarely used among the Papists and in common use among the Reformed Churches The Ministry with the Papists is a real Priesthood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests And it 's an old Maxim Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit 2. The Subscription seems to intend those that scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies which the Papists do not For the assent and subscription required is to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments By this they gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to Subscribe all the Articles absolutely because the Approbation of the Homilies and Book of Consecration were included in them which are no Articles of the Catholick Church but private Articles of the Church of England as Mr. T. Rogers observes Therefore the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments By the way I cannot but take notice of the following Clause in that Statute If any Person Ecclesiastical shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented before the Bishop of the Diocess or the Ordinary or before the Queen's Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical shall persist therein and not revoke his Errour or after such Revocation eftsoons affirm such untrue Doctrine such maintaining or affirming or persisting shall be just cause to deprive such Person of his Ecclesiastical Promotions And it shall be lawful to the Bishop of the Diocess or the said Commissioners to deprive such a Person so persisting and upon such Sentence of Deprivation pronounced he shall be indeed deprived Quaere Whether the Profession of Arminianism be not directly contrary to the Seventeenth Article of Predestination and Election to the Tenth Article of Free-will and to the Thirteenth of Works preparatory to Grace and if so Whether the Guilty do not deserve Deprivation by this Statute The best of it is they are like to meet with favourable Judges who will not be over-strict to mark the Errours of those who do but write after the Copy they have set before them Surely the Case is altered from what it was formerly It was Baro's unhappiness that he lived in a peevish Age for when he delivered himself unwarily in favour of those Opinions the Heads of the University of Cambridge sent up Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Tindal to Arch-Bishop Whitguift that by the interposition of his Authority those Errours might be crushed in the Egg. Hereupon Baro being obnoxious to this Statute was expelled the University and the Lambeth-Articles were made which come nothing short of the Determinations of Dort But tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis But to return from this short digression some that were Ordained by Presbyters were admitted to the Publick Exercise of their Ministry and had Preferment in the Church of England without Re-ordination in Queen Elizabeth's time Mr. William Whittingham was made Dean of Durham about 1563. though Ordained by Presbyters only Mr. Travers Ordained by a Presbytery beyond Sea was Seven years Lecturer in the Temple and had the Bishop of London's Letter for it In his Supplication to the Council printed at the end of Mr. Hooker's Eccl. Polit. he saith One reason why he was Suspended by Arch-Bishop
all the Counsel of God How can this be when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Successor If Ministry and Churches depend upon this Succession 't was no small part of the Counsel of God to be declar'd unto them He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more Whether he did see them again or no is not material to the point 'T is certain he thought he should not how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd to defend them against those Wolves that should enter after his departure The reason is obvious he thought the Presbyters of Ephesus fit for this undertaking without a superior Bishop Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Successor but the first Epistle to Timothy upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built was written before this time therefore no power given him in that Epistle can prove him to be a Bishop That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome when he went to Macedonia is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall though he was a zealous Defender of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy Of this Opinion is Athanasius Theodoret Baronius Ludov. Capellus Grotius Hammond Lightfoot Cary c. VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him how comes he to be absent from Ephesus when Paul writ the second Epistle to him was Timothy a Non-resident Bishop Paul sends Tychicus to Ephesus with an Epistle to the Church there but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord Eph. 6. 21 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him when he is supposed to be Bishop there even when the second Epistle was written to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say it was to receive his dying words must prove it The Apostle gives another reason 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. that he had only Luke with him of all his Companions and therefore desires him to come to him and to bring Mark with him as being profitable to him for the Ministry He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. from his supposed Bishoprick of Creet and was he to receive his dying words there also about fourteen years before his death for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf harm Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay how comes the Apostle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also I question whether Non-residency was allowed of much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be It is true some of the Fathers say they were Bishops of those places But it 's considerable that Eusebius saith no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus He doth not affirm it Theodoret calls him ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet few will take them for real Apostles They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome yet many of our Protestant Writers deny it so doth Reynolds against Hart and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy The Fathers and Councils speak of the Officers of former times according to the style of their own To conclude If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species then there were no such in the Apostles times That Timothy was not such we have proved and if Timothy was not no more was Titus whose power and work was the same with Timothy's If the power of Ordination invested in Timothy at Ephesus doth not prove him Bishop there no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there VII But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet it will be no Argument for Diocesan Bishops except the Church of Ephesus and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches which can never be proved Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes or particular Congregations under the conduct of their proper Presbyters which were all subject to Timothy as their Bishop This must be proved or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be impertinent to the present Case Nay there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place That Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily received the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time which was many years after Timothy's death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God and for praise for when you often come into one place the powers of Satan are destroyed c. I render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place as our English Translators do Acts 2. 1. He saith also ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that cometh not to the same place is proud and condemneth himself In his Epistle to the Magnesians he mentions one Altar which further explains his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all of you come together as into the Temple of God as unto one Altar The meaning of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare To be intra Altare is to be in Church Communion to be extra Altare is to be without The Bishop of Salisbury doth acknowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church his words are these By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles especially that to Smyrna it would appear that there was but one Church at least but one place where there was but one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes which was the Bishops whole Charge And if so then the Church of Ephesus to whom he directed one of his Epistles was of no larger extent except we imagine it was decreased in Ignatius's time from what it was in Timothy's days which is absurd The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age then they were in the Apostles time And yet we find in the beginning of the fourth Century the Believers in greater Cities then Ephesus were no more then could meet in one place or in two at the most For Constantine the Great thought two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople the one he called the Temple of the Apostles Vt doceret Scripturas Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum in Templis praedicandas esse the other he called the Temple of Peace
Quia Concilii Nicaeni Operâ quod celebrandum curaverat Ecclesiae pacem restituerat Arrianorum impias controversias compescuerat Constantius added one more and there were but five Temples in that great City that was little inferior to Rome in the days of Iustinian See Gentiletus his Exam. Concil Trid. lib. 5. sect 48. Some of our greater Parishes have as many Chappels or Places of Publick Worship as there were Temples in Constantinople which are but a small part of an English Diocess But the Learned Mr. Baxter and Mr. Clarkson have so fully proved the English Species of Episcopacy to be destructive of the Scripture and Primitive Form that until they be solidly answered we will take it for granted that it is a Humane Creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did and owes it's being to the meer favour of Secular Powers who can as easily reduce it to it 's primitive Nothing Some have pretended to make Bishops of the seven Asian Angels when they have proved their power of Jurisdiction and the extent of their Diocesses to be the same with ours they shall be heard The state of Ephesus one of the seven Asian Churches we have seen already by which we may guess at the rest The Church of Smyrna another of the seven Churches of Asia consisted of a single Congregation that ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all follow the Bishop as Iesus Christ doth the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as God's Commandment Let none mannage any Church matters without the Bishop And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Bishop is there let the Multitude be even as where Christ is there the Catholick Church is it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize or to make Love-feasts Here it is evident 1. That the Multitude which were the Bishops Flock ordinarily worshipped God together 2. That they did this under the conduct of their respective Bishop who was ordinarily present with every Church Assembly 3. That he was the ordinary Administrator of Baptism to his Flock which he could not do had it been as large as our present Dioceses 4. That the same Assemblies had a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons For the same Multitude is to follow the same Bishop Presbyters and Deacons and how could one Parish follow all the Presbyters of all other Parish Churches of a Diocess whom they never knew Ignatius's Epistle to Polycarp who was then Bishop of Smyrna makes it more evident that he was Bishop of a single Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keep frequent Congregations inquire after all by name despise not Men-servants and Maid servants I leave it to such as are willing to understand the Truth to consider how great Polycarp's Church then was when the Bishop himself was to look after every one by name even the Men-servants and the Maids We find by Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelphians another of these Churches that the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia had no larger a Diocess then those of Ephesus and Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Study therefore to use one Eucharist or Eucharistical Communion for there is one Flesh or Body of our Lord Iesus Christ which is represented in the Sacramental Bread and one Cup which is Sacramentally given into the union of his Blood one Altar one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants Nothing can be more full than this Testimony They are all to joyn in one Assembly for the Eucharist and there must be but one Altar for this Communion and one Bishop and one Presbytery with the Deacons with him and such a Bishop is a Parish Minister or Rector assisted by his Curates and Deacons the latter of which were originally instituted to serve Tables Acts 6. II. Tyconius's old Exposition mentioned by Austin hath not been yet disproved which is this That by the Angels are meant the whole Churches and not any single Persons Aug. lib. 3. 30. de Doctr. Christian. The whole style of the Text countenances this Exposition for as every Message begins with To the Angel so it endeth with To the Churches III. In the Contents of our authorized Bibles they are expounded Ministers By which we may understand the sense of the Old Church of England agreeable to many of the Ancients such as Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Bede Haymo and many more Scripture is it 's own best Interpreter we find there that the Church of Ephesus over which one of these Angels presided had several Bishops in it and all the other Churches had several Ministers in them as will be acknowledg'd by our Antagonists Now these other Ministers are included either under the name of Candlesticks and so reckoned among the People which is absurd or under the name of Stars and Angels Many may be intended by one Angel as afterward by one Beast cap. 13. and one Head cap. 17. It 's remarkable that it is spoken of the Candlesticks the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches but of the Stars it 's said indefinitely the seven Stars are the Angels not seven Angels of the seven Churches IV. Angel is a name of Office and not of Order as is agreed by the Learned it is a strange Consequence To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus therefore the Angel was a Bishop and had Authority over other Ministers St. Iohn placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ himself and the Angels further off at a greater distance shall we therefore say that the Presbyters are more honourable then the Bishops the Inference is much more natural then the other if Angels be Bishops as our Adversaries affirm St. Paul prefers the preaching before the ruling Presbyter V. It 's observed by many Chronologers that Timothy was alive when the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was written and shall we think that he had left his first love whom Paul so often commends for his Zeal and Diligence in the Work of God VI. To put this matter out of doubt St. Iohn a Jew calls the Ministers of Particular or Parochial Churches the Angels of the Churches in the style of the Jewish Church who call'd the Publick Minister of every Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church They call'd him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop of the Congregation Every Synagogue or Congregation had its Bishop or Angel of the Church Now the Service and Worship of the Temple being abolished as being Ceremonial God transplanted the Worship and Publick Adoration used in the Synagogues which was Moral into the Christian Church to wit the Publick Ministry Publick Prayers reading God's Word and Preaching c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same the Angel of the Church and the Bishop which belong'd to the Ministers in the Synagogues We love
Bishops so well that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are Parishes in England as the Jewish Synagogues had to which St. Iohn alludes when he calls them Angels of the Churches In sum If Presbyters be Scripture Bishops as we have proved and Diocesan Bishops have no footing there as hath been evinced then our Ordinations are Iure Divino and therefore valid CHAP. III. Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in Scripture St. Paul and Barnabas Ordain'd by Presbyters Their Ordination a Pattern to the Gentile Churches Acts 13.1 2 3. vindicated Turrianus's Evasion confuted Timothy Ordained by Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 explained The Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously THAT Ordination of which we have Scripture Examples is valid but of Ordination by Presbyters we have Scripture Examples therefore Ordination by Presbyters is valid The Major I hope will not be denied it carries its own Evidence with it to such as are willing to be guided by the practise of Apostolical Churches which is the first and best Antiquity The Minor I thus prove St. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained by Presbyters Acts 13.1 2 3. so was Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 These two Instances deserve a more particular consideration Concerning the first in Acts 13. these two things are evident 1. That Luke speaks of Ordination he mentions the separating of Paul and Barnabas to a Ministerial Work by Fasting and Prayer with the Laying on of Hands and what more can be done in Ordination It 's true they had an extraordinary Call before Gal. 1.1 yet being now to plant the Gospel among the Gentiles they enter upon their Work at the ordinary Door of Ordination Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was for this reason That the Lord hereby might set down a Plat-form of Ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles to future times 2. The Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2. Now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers both in 1 Cor. 12.28 and in Eph. 4.12 Every Presbyter is a Teacher by Office Turrianus the Jesuit thinks to avoid the force of this quotation by affirming the Prophets mentioned in this Ordination to have been Bishops and the Teachers to have been meer Presbyters and that these Presbyters were Paul and Barnabas who were now created Bishops But this is a most ridiculous evasion Was St. Paul the chief of Apostles but a meer Presbyter was he inferior to Lucius Niger and Manaen Apostles were superior to Prophets much more to Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. The Prophets here could not be Bishops because they were extraordinary Officers and there were more then one in this Church and in the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 14.29 Neither is there any ground in the Text of this distribution that Teachers should refer to the Ordained and Prophets to the Ordainers This is a meer fiction of the Jesuit to support the Cause of Prelacy If any say This separation of Paul and Barnabas was not to the Office of the Ministry but to a special Exercise of it I answer it doth not alter the Case For here are all the outward Actions of an Ordination properly so called Fasting Prayer with Imposition of Hands to a Ministerial Work Now the Question is Who have power to perform these Actions here the Presbyters do it They to whom all the outward Actions of Ordination belong to them the Ordaining Power belongs as he that hath power to wash a Child with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost hath power to Baptize for what else is baptizing but washing with Water in the Name of the Sacred Trinity for special Dedication to God He that hath power to set apart Bread and Wine for Sacramental use hath power to Administer the Lord's Supper So here they that have power to dedicate Persons to God for the Work of the Ministry by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands have power of Ordination It 's true a Lay-Patron may give one power to exercise his Ministry that cannot give the Office but can he do this by repeating all the solemn Acts of Ordination Can he use the same form of Ordination with the Ordaining Bishop Can he lay hands upon the Person ordained and by Fasting and Prayer devote him to God in the Publick Congregation I think none will affirm it If he cannot invest a Person by repeating the whole form of Ordination because he is a Lay-man and hath not the Ordaining Power therefore they that can use the form of Ordination have power to Ordain The Bishops would not like it if all those that are Ordained by them in Scotland should be declared uncapable of Exercising their Office there until they were admitted by a Classis of Presbyters with solemn Imposition of Hands It would scarce satisfie them to say That the Presbyters imposed Hands only to impower the Person in the Exercise of his Office and not to give the Office it self when they performed all the outward Actions of Ordination which are the ordinary means of conveying the Office I proceed to the second Instance of Ordaining Presbyters mentioned in 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Here Timothy is Ordained by the Presbytery nothing can be more express then this Testimony Two things are usually objected to this Scripture Object 1. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the Office of Presbytery and not the Colledge of Presbyters saith Turrianus the Jesuit who is followed by some Protestants I answer The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in this sense in the New Testament it always signifies a Company of Presbyters see Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 Presbyterium is used by Cyprian for a Consistory of Elders Lib. 2. Ep. 8. 10. Cornelius Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Cyprian saith Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque c. The Office of Presbytery is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. What sence can be made of the Text according to this Interpretation Neglect not the gift given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the office of Presbytery Hands belong to the Persons and not to the Office Nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Genitive Case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neglect not the gift of the office of Presbytery for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come between Thus the Text M 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To refer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would invert the natural order of the words which is not to be done without evident necessity otherwise the Scriptures may be made a Nose of Wax and the clearest Expressions wrested to a contrary sense by such Transpositions and Dislocations 3. But suppose
the Church of England the Ceremonies iâ— seems being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity That Charity which â— King of the Roman Communion impower'd them to receive though of another Religion was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion â—â— they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them as being Natives of another Kingdom and no way subject to our Constitution See the first Brief for the French Protestants Besides that the French Ministers hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times â—â— there be occasion and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle 4. We may judge of the forreigâ— Churches by their Confessions which are the most Authentick Testimony oâ— their sense about Episcopacy The French Confession asserts an equality of Power â—n all Pastors Credimus omnes Pastores â—bicunque collocati sint eâdem aequali â—otestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno â—llo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable because no Man is â—o be Ordained a Minister or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches â—ut he must subscribe the Publick Conâ—ession of their Faith and also the Constitutions agreed on at Paris commonly known by the name of their Discipline See Durel p. 52. La Rocque's Conformity of the French Discipline cap. 1. art â— cap. 3. art 1. The Dutch Confession speaks the â—ame thing Caeterum ubicunque locoâ—um sint Verbi Dei Ministri eandem atâ—ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem â—um authoritatem qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri By readâ—ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort I â—nd that Session 144. notice was given â—hat it was the will of the States that â—he Belgick Confession of Faith should â—e read and examined by the Synod the Exteri being also present Upon the reading of this 31 Article that asserts the parity of Ministers the Bishop of Landaff in his Name and the Name of his Brethren made open Protestation That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point No dislike was shewn to this Article asserting the parity of Ministers by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops nor desire them for they make all Ministers equal CHAP. V. Our Ordination better then that of Rome which is accounted valid in the Church of England because in Roman Ordinations 1. Their Ordainers are incapable as wanting Scriptural and Canonical Qualifications 2. The manner of Ordaining grosly Superstitious and Vnscriptural 3. The Ordained not Elected by the People Sworn to the Pope 4. Their Office Idolatrous Their Ordinations are by Bishops ours without answered THAT Ordination which is better then that of the Church of Rome is valid but Ordination by meer Presbyters is much better then that of the Church of Rome Therefore 't is valid The Major will not be denied by the Church of England because she owns the Ordination of the Church of Rome and doth not re-ordain their Priests The Minor I prove Ordination by Presbyters is better then the Ordinations of Rome because in the Church of Rome I. The Ordainers are incapable and that upon these Accounts 1. They have not Scriptural Qualifications Paul's Bishop must be found in the Faith Popish ordaining Bishops are studious Maintainers of corrupt Doctrine and Enemies to the Faith as is acknowledg'd by all Orthodox Protestants Paul's Bishop must be apt to teach Popish Bishops are for the most part illiterate unpreaching Prelates and justified herein by their own Writers Paul's Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife Popish Bishops forbid to marry and yet allow Fornication Paul's Bishop must be a lover of good men Popish Prelates are not such for they mortally hate the sincere Professors of the Gospel and are all sworn to contribute their Endeavours for their Extirpation under the Notion of Hereticks The words of the Oath are these Haereticos Schismaticos Rebelles eidem Domino nostro Papae vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar impugnabo i.e. I A. B. do swear that I will to the utmost of my endeavour prosecute and destroy all Hereticks Schismaticks and all other Opposers of our Soveraign Lord the Pope and his Successors Shall the sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Ministers of Christ and the Ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no Ministers Tell it not in Gath publish it not in the streets of Askelon lest the uncircumcised triumph But I proceed A Bishop indeed must be a Pattern of Humility and Self-denial to the Flock Romish Bishops are Lords over God's Heritage have Dominion over their Faith and bind them to blind Obedience Now if the Ordinations of such usurping Monsters as these that have nothing but the empty name of Bishops be valid as the Church of England saith they are how much more are the Ordinations of Orthodox faithful Gospel Ministers or Bishops to be judg'd lawful Can any thing be more absurd then that the Ministers of Antichrist should make true Ministers and the Ministers of Christ make false Prophets by one and the same Ordaining Act. It 's the received Doctrine of the Church of England that the Pope is Antichrist See Homily against Idolatry part 3. p. 69. and the sixth part of the Sermon against Rebellion p. 316. 2. They derive their Power from the Pope who hath no right to the Universal Headship either from Scripture or true Antiquity The very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Christ and consequently is a most Treasonable Usurpation II. The manner of their Ordaining is Unscriptural and Superstitious They ascend to the Priesthood by several Steps or Degrees which have no footsteps in the Sacred Writings They make them 1. Ostiarij or Door-keepers whose Office is to ring the Bell to open the Church-Vestry and the Priest's Book Espencaeus a Popish Writer sheweth out of Chrysostom that it belong'd to the Office of a Deacon to admit into the Church and shut out Then 2. they make them Lectores Readers whose work is to read and sing the Lessons and to bless the Bread and all the first Fruits In the primitive Church this was not a distinct Office for in some places 't was the Office of a Deacon in some of the Minister and in some it belonged to the Bishops to read the Scriptures especially on Festivals 3. The next step is that of Exorcists whose pretended Office is to cast out Devils in a feigned imitation of the miraculous Operations
by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them is valid but Ordination by Presbyters is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them Therefore it is valid The Major I prove Either Ordination is an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys or of some other Power but of no other If any other it 's either of a Secular Power or of an Ecclesiastical but neither of these Not an Ecclesiastical for there is no Ecclesiastical Power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the Power of the Keys not of a Secular Power for that belongs not to Ministers That the Keys do contain in them the Power of Ordination is acknowledged by Papists and Protestants particularly by Cornelius à Lapide Chemnitius Bucer Chamier Nomine clavium significatur omnis potestas Ecclesiastica Suppl Cham. lib. 4. c. 4. Traditio Clavium saith Camero Symbolum est potestatis atque auctoritatis collatoe Isa. 22.22 Rev. 3.7 Clavium traditione Doctorum apud Iudoeos inauguratio veteri instituto peragebatur The Keys delivered to the Jewish Teachers included the power of Ordination for as we observed before Every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples Maimon The Minor is in part granted by all to wit That Presbyters have the Key of Doctrine that they have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order also as some distinguish them I thus prove They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order but Presbyters have the former therefore they have the latter The Major I thus prove Christ gave the Keys together and did not divide them therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order To thee I give the Keys saith our Lord Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23 He did not give one Key to one and both to another he gives no single Key to any Person but Keys and so whatever these Keys serve for We know no distribution of the Keys but what is grounded upon Scripture He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him hath power to admit or exclude Persons as he seeth cause Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission his power extends to all Persons without exception Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination CHAP. IX All that have the Power of Order may confer it acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally Proved 1. By the Ancient Fathers 2. By Schoolmen Lombard Bonaventure c. 3. By the Canonists Gratian Joh. Semeca c. 4. By Councils as that of Aquisgranum Hispalis Constance Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England in the Canons of Elfrick and by J. Wicklef Lambert the Martyr the Provincial Synod of 1537. Cranmer Juel Morton Bilson c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury and by the Bishop of Worcester Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England Instances of it ORders conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equal with the highest Bishop are valid but Orders conferred by Presbyters are conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equally with the highest Bishop Therefore Orders conferred by Presbyters are valid As to the Major it 's founded on that Maxim frequently used by Arch-Bishop Vsher Ordinis est conferre Ordines a Man that is in Orders quoad Presbyteratum may coeteris paribus confer Orders it being like Generation or Univocal Causation This Maxim is acknowledged by Dr. H. Fern in his Compendious Discourse p. 115 116 117. If among the Papists Men of an inferiour Order do make the Pope and among our selves Bishops do make Arch-Bishops how much more may Men of the same Order give what they have that is Ordinem Sacerdotii as the School-men call it Why may not Presbyters make Presbyters as Physicians make Physicians All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind but the impotent Order of Presbyters must prove extinct if the favourable Influences of a superiour Order do not propagate it by a sort of equivocal Generation Must Presbyters be reckoned amongst those Monsters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation The Minor That Bishops and Presbyters have the power of Order equally will be acknowledged by most Protestants and Papists The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Order among ordinary Ministers Neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination then certainly there can be but one Order of Presbyters or Gospel-Ministers properly so called for two distinct Orders cannot be conferred in the same Instant by the same words and by the same actions Let a Man shew me from Scripture that Timothy or Titus or any other were Ordained twice made first Presbyters then Bishops which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct Characters This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers School-men Canonists Councils and of the Old Church of England 1. As to the Fathers Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion quotes most that are considerable who unanimously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Polycarp Irenoeus Clemens Alexandrin Ierom Austin Hilarius Isidore c. may be seen at large in the said Learned Author To which I could add several more if it were needful 2. The Judgment of the Schoolmen is the same in this Point The Master of the Sentences saith Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt He adds Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sc. Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis proeceptum Apostoli habemus Bonaventure in 4 sent dist 24. q. 1. A. 1. Episcopatus deficit ab Ordine c. includit necessariò Ordinem perfectissimum sc. Sacerdotium With whom agree Durand Dominic Soto Aureolus c. who all Comment upon Lombard's Text. See Aquinas's Supplem quaest 37. Art 2. Mr. Fran. Mason in his Defence of the Ordinations of Ministers beyond the Seas hath more Quotations of Schoolmen 3. To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe Gratian Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatuâ— Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur Iohannes Seâ—eca in his Gloss on the Caâ—on Laâ— â—â—â—unt quidem quod in Ecclesia primâ primitivâ Commune erat Officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant Communia Dist. 95. c. olim Et Officium erat Commune sed in secunda primitivâ caeperunt distingui Nomina Officia c. Gloss. in Dist.
Whitgift was because not lawfully called in Whitgift's Opinion to the Ministry nor allowed to preach according to the Laws of this Church But Mr. Hooker in his Answer wholly waves that and Replies only to the Contests between them The French Church in Thred-needle-street was allowed by the Queen as also the Dutch Church In the Year 1684. a Quo Warranto was brought against them In King Iames the First his time the like allowance was made unto Ministers Ordained by Presbyters The famous Mr. Iohn Camero who was Ordained in France came hither in the Year 1621. and set up a Divinity-Lecture in a private House in London â—â— the Permission of King Iames the 〈◊〉 and a License from the then 〈◊〉 of London Before the Consecration of the three Scottish Bishops at London Andrews Bishop of Ely said They must be first Ordained as having received no Ordination by a Bishop Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury maintain'd That thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordinationâ— given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted if there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and the three Bishops were consecrated Thus we see the Judgment and Practise of the Old Church of England in King Edward the Sixth's time in Queen Elizabeth's and in King Iames the First his time they required not Re-ordination as the New Conformity doth since the Year 1660. They acted from Catholick Principles that comprehended the Forreign Ordinations asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Object Aerius is branded for an Heretick by Austin and Epiphanius for affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be the same So Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy Part I. pag. 64. Answ. The great mannagers of this Objection are the Papists as we observed before from whom some Defenders of Episcopacy have borrowed it That Aerius was a Heretick is past doubt but he is so called by the Fathers because he was an Arian Epiphanius saith he did Arium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austin saith in Arianorum haeresin lapsus which is more then a favouring of it as some interpret their words Several of our Learned Writers against Popery have justified him against the Charge of Heresie for holding the equality of Bishops and Presbyters Chemnit exam Conc. Trid. part 4. CHAP. X. Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in the Primitive Church 1. At Alexandria 2. At Scetis by Paphnutius 3. By the Presbyters mentioned by Leo the Great 4. By the Captive Presbyters beyond Isther 5. By the Boiarii 6. By the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius 7. By the Presbyters mentioned by Hilary the Deacon 8. By Andreas Presbyter de Hostia 9. By the Chorepiscopi 10. By the Presbyters at Hy. Objections answered 11. By the Ancient Waldenses 12. By Wickliff's Followers in England 13. By the Presbyter of Taprobane THAT Ordination which was valid in the Primitive Church is valid now But Ordination by meer Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Therefore it is valid now The Major will be granted The Minor I prove 1. The Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops for almost two hundred years together Ierom having shewed at large from the Epistles of Peter Paul and Iohn That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first he adds Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligunt ex se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocant Note here 1. That Ierom undertaking to shew the Original way of making Bishops of Alexandria would leave nothing out that was material in the Constituting of them 2. He mentions no other way of Constituting them but this by the Presbyters 3. He brings this as an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters that Presbyters at first made Bishops A Bishop in Ierom's Opinion is that to the Presbyters that an Arch-deacon is to the Deacons As an Arch-deacon chosen out of the Deacons is but a Deacon still though the chief Deacon so a Bishop set over Presbyters is but a Presbyter still though the chief Presbyter Is Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus The other Comparison of an Army making their General is not between the power of a General and that of a Bishop but it respects only the manner of their Creation As a General is made by the consent and choice of an Army so Bishops had their first being from the Presbyters consent 4. He ascribeth to the Presbyters the election the placing him in a higher degree and the naming of him a Bishop Neither do we read of any other Consecration Polydor Virgil confesseth that anciently in the making of a Bishop there were no Ceremonies used but the People met together to give their Testimony and Suffrage in their Election both Ministers and People did pray and Presbyters gave Imposition of Hands 5. He saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius What Custom not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People for that continued long after Therefore it must be the Constitution which afterwards was done by neighbouring Bishops in the way of Consecration This Testimony of Ierom is seconded by a more full one of Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals thereof saith according to Selden's Translation in his Comment p. 29 30. Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteros cum Hananiâ qui semper manerent cum Patriarchâ adeò ut cùm vacaret Patriarchatus eligerent unum è duodecim Presbyteris cujus capiti reliqui undecim 〈…〉 eumque benedicerent Patriarcham eum crearent dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est Patriarcha ita ut semper extarent duodecim Neque desiit Alexandriae insâ—â—â—utum hoc de Presbyteris ut scilicet Patriarchae crearentur è Prsebyteris duodecim usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alexandrini qui fuit ex numero illo 318. Is autem vetuit nè deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent decrevit ut mortuo Patriarchâ convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham Ordinarent Decrevit item ut vacante Patriarchatu eligerent sive ex quacunque regione sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris sive aliis ut res ferebat virum aliquem eximium eumque Patriarcham vocarent atque ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius quo creari solitus à Presbyteris Patriarcha successit in locum
ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando Here is a full proof of Presbyters choosing and creating their Bishop whom Eutychius speaking in the language of his Age calls Patriarch and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer without any other Consecration which Custom continued several Ages until at last the neighbouring Bishops usurped the power of Consecration and left the Presbyters neither the Choice nor the Creation of their Bishop Here we have also an Instance of Presbyters making Presbyters for Eutychius tells us That the same Presbyters that made their Bishop chose and ordained another person Presbyter in his room and so constituted both Presbyters and Bishops for several Ages together II. The Bishop of Worcester tells us out of Iohannes Cassianus that about the Year 390. one Abbot Daniel inferiour to none in the Desert of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paphnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero in tantum enim virtutibus ejus adgaudebat ut quem vitae merits sibi grâ—tiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum Ministerio diutiùs immorari optánsque sibimet successionem dignissimam providere superstes eum Presbyterij honore provexit Here is a Presbyter Ordained by a Presbyter which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any other of that time Had it been either irregular or unusual doubtless it had been censured Possibly the Concession in the Canon Law is grounded upon this Example Abbas si est Presbyter conferre potest ordinem Clericalem Decret Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 14. c. 11. Innocent 3. III. Leo Mag. being consulted by Rusticus Narbonensis about some Presbyters that took upon them to Ordain as Bishops resolves the Case thus Nulla ratio sinit nt inter Episcopos habeantur qui nec in Clericis sunt electi nec à plebibus expetiti nec à provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati Vnde cùm saepe quaestio de malè accepto honore nascatur quis ambigat NEQUAQUAM ISTIS TRIBVENDVM quod non docetur fuisse collatum si qui autem Clerici ab istis Pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant Ordinatio ecrum cum consensu judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Two things are remarkable in this Decision of Leo the Great 1. They that want the Election of the Clergy and are not desired by the People nor Consecrated by the Bishops of the Province c. are Pseudo-episcopi false Bishops in Leo's Opinion which is agreeable to the old Canons as we observed before Our English Bishops want the Election of the Clergy and People and therefore their Ordinations have a Canonical nullity in them They would have been reckon'd but Pseudoepiscopi in Leo's time 2. The Consent ex post facto of the true Bishops made the Ordinations of meer Presbyters lawful which could not be unless they had an intrinsick power of Ordination which was only restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any by their Ordination The bare consent of the true Bishops could not have made them Ministers if they had not been such before IV. The power of Ordination and Government was in the Hands of the Captive Presbyters under the Seythians beyond 1ster for about Seventy years from the Year 260 to the Year 327 the former being the Year of their Captivity under Galienus the latter of the Change of the Government under Constantine when Vrphilas was created Bishop by Eusebius and others V. The Presbyters of Bavaria Ordained Ministers time out of mind until at last Pope Zachary sent one Vivilo to them for their Bishop It is certain that when Bonifacius Mogunt alià s Winifrid visited them he found no Bishops in the whole Province but this Vivilo of the Pope's sending not long before though the Province be so large that one third part of it now viz. the district of Saltsburg hath an Archâ—bishop who is the most powerful Prelate for Revenue and Iurisdiction of any in Germany The Boiarians who were the ancient Inhabitants of this Province were govern'd by their Presbyters without Bishops and in all probability had been so from their first Conversion which was about 200 years before For they were converted to the Christian Faith about the Year 540 and Vivilo was imposed upon them about the Year 740 by Pope Zachary who thus writes to Winifrid or Wilfred as some write his Name Quia indicasti perrexisse te ad gentem Boiariorum invenisse eos extra Ordinem Ecclesiasticum viventes dum Episcopos non habebant in Provincia nisi unum nomine Vivilo quem nos ante tempus Ordinavimus Presbyteros verò quos ibidem reperisti si incogniti fuerint Viri illi à quibus sunt Ordinati dubium est eos Episcopos fuisse an non qui eos ordinaverunt ab Episcopo suo benedictiones Presbyteratus suscipiant consecrentur sic Ministerio suo fungantur It is no wonder that this Pope requires Re-ordination for now Rome had usurped the Universal Headship and assumed a power of Deposing and Setting up of Princes as this Man did in the Case of Childerik and Pipin They that brought Kings and Princes under them would much more make Presbyters to depend upon them VI. The Council of Nice decreed thus concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius at Alexandria c. Hi autem qui Dei gratiâ nostris precibus adjuti ad nullum Schisma deflexisse comperti sint sed se intra Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae fines ab erroris labe vacuos continuerint authoritatem habeant TVM MINISTROS ORDINANDI tum eos qui Clero digni fuerint nominandi tum denique omnia ex lege instituto Ecclesiastico liberè exequendi If any say that the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and Govern with the Bishops but not without them it is granted for the Decree refers to instituta Ecclesiastica But this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently it is no nullity though an irregularity as to the Canons when it 's done by them alone If it be said this Condemns Schismatical Ordinations I answer Schism as such cannot make Ordination null though it implies an irregularity else the Ordinations of the Schismatical Church of Rome were null which are counted valid in England VII Hilary or whoever was the Author in Q ex utroque Test. mixtim affirms That in Alexandriâ per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter It cannot be said that Consecrare here signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist for this might be done by the Presbyter proesente Episcopo If it be taken for Confirmation it