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
though not instituted and inducted according to the letter of Laws in force before these most unhappy unnatural divisions In this Act Ministers rejoyce and plead it against those who disturb them yet do not think that they have been all this while Intruders and Usurpers Semblably would our Prelates so far consult either their own credit or the peace of the Church as to emit a general confirmation of all Ordinations by Presbyters provided that the persons so ordained be upon examination found sufficient such a confirmation would not only be submitted to but also most thankfully received for in so doing we should stop the mouths of gain-sayers and yet give no occasion to our friends to call into question the validity of any Ministerial Acts done by us all this while Nor would I in the least dislike it if our Bishops such of them as are holy and may be supposed to have any interest and favour at the Throne of Grace would when any are removed to a new charge call their Presbyters and pray for a blessing upon the endeavours of persons so removed yea and lay hands on them I am much mistaken or else such a practise may be warranted from Acts 13.2 3. As they ministred and fasted the Holy Ghost said separate now unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them and when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them they sent them away You need not tell me that Chrysostome and some other Commentators of good esteem do understand this place of Ordination to an Ecclesiastical Office I know they do but yet seeing Paul was an Apostle before this time seeing he expresly affirmeth Gal. 1.1 that he was an Apostle not of men neither of man but by Jesus Christ seeing also 't is not said separate unto me for the office but for the work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereunto I have called I judge it most probable that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is there spoken of was not Ordinativa but Optativa Of this judgement is the learned Samuel Maresius in his Examen of some of the questions determined by our judicious Prideaux p. 32. So was Mr. Richard Vines in his excellent Sermon before the Parliament upon the day of humiliation for the growth of Errors Heresies c. p. 16. where you may find him also quoting Spalato lib. 2. de Rep. Eccl. cap. 2. parag 12. But this I say that he who hath once been ordained to the office and order of a Presbyter and knows himself so to be ought not by a second Ordination to be set apart to the same office This I prove to you 1. from the so called Canons of the Apostles Can. 67. Si quis Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo Ordinationem susceperit deponitor tam ipse quam qui ipsum ordinavit About the Authority and Antiquity of these Canons I will not contend with you Dr. H.H. in his Reply to Dr. Owen p. 10. acknowledgeth that they were not written by the Apostles nor by Clemens at the appointment of the Apostles p. 12. and that his meaning in calling the second Canon genuine was only to intimate that it was not one of those 35 later Canons that were esteemed by learned men Novitii and Adulterate The truth is the opinion and esteem of the Latin and Greek Church hath been very differing and contrary concerning these Canons 'T is certain that the Synod assembled in Trullo Can. 2. speaks honourably of all the eighty five Canons for these are the words they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John Damascen fears not to reckon them among and equal them with the divinely â—nspired books of the New Testament De fid Orth. lib. 4. c. 18. But a Synod at Rome about the year 494. decrees that these Canons as well the first fifty as the other thirty five are all spurious and to be reckoned among those writings quae ab Haereticis sive Schismaticis conscripta vel praedicata sunt quaeque nullatenus recipit Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia Nor doth it signifie much that Dionysius Exignus who lived not long after that Roman Synod owneth fifty of those Apostolical Canons for he was as Mr. D' ailee hath noted p. 439. Homo ortu ac natu cultuque ac eruditione exterus and therefore was willing to set off those Canons the best he could to the Romanists yet seeing all these Canons are of some considerable Antiquity I thought it not amiss to quote one of them and let the Argument drawn thence fare as it will I argue secondly from the practise of our English Church If any one had received Ordination from the Papists though such an Ordination be very corrupt very superstitious yet because it was judged valid the party who had received it was on his Conversion looked upon as a Minister and admitted to exercise all offices ministerial without any new Ordination In like manner if any one in the Marian Persecution was ordained beyond the Seas I find not that it was required of him that he should be again ordained according to the form and mode used in the English Churches I could name you hundreds that were acknowledged as Ministers and suffered quietly to enjoy Ecclesiastical Benefices and to perform all sacerdotal offices meerly on the score of their Ordination by Presbyters beyond the Seas or in Scotland But lest I should be tedious I shall only mind you of one example related in the History of Scotland penned by A. Bishop Spotswood When some were to be ordained Bishops for Scotland at London-house Anno Dom. 1609. a question was moved by Lancelot Andrews Bishop of Ely touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops who as he said must first be ordained Presbyters as having received no Ordination from a Bishop the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by maintained that thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were Consecrated In which story I desire you to take notice that the ground of Bishop Andrews question whether they were not to be made Priests before they were consecrated Bishops was his supposition that having been ordained by meer Priests they were not Priests When it was once carried against him that the Ordination by Priests was valid and lawful he without scruple proceeded to the Consecration of them though never made Priests in the way that Priests are made in England I was also told that in the late conference before his Majesty when it was moved that they who had been ordained by Presbyters during the late distraction might not be compelled to take any other Ordination The Episcopal Divines refused to yield to that motion and being pressed with the judgement of Antiquity against Reordination they answered that
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
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
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
and when he had said this he breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted to them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained In these words Totius familiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut principatus in ipsa clavium promissione ante promissus singulis concredebatur saith the learned Doctor Hammond Disser 3. page 150. and presently after page 151. His duodecim in terris Christi vicariis ejus mandato aut diplomate munitis eademque ratione a Christo Missis qua ille a patre mittebatur adeo omnis in Ecclesia authorit as in solidum in integrum commissa est ut non ea cuivis mortalium demptis pauculis c. recte tribui possit nisi quem Apostolorum aliquis in profectionibus aut Provinciis ipsorum aut immediate aut mediate in potestatis authoritatis suae participationem aut successionem admiserit Let us therefore a little view that text in St. John 1. there are who say that in those words no Apostolical power is given but only promised As the Father hath sent me even so send I you i.e. saith Grotius Brevi mittam praesens pro futuro In this Exposition he is not singular some antienter then himself by many years went that way before him his and their ground so to do was the speech of our Saviour John 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you But I judge with Tolet that Christs very breathing on them makes it highly probable that he gave them present Commission and Authority to that place John 16.7 Cyril answers that Christ did anticipate his promise and that it was usual with him to give before hand some specimina of those things which he promised to do after his return into heaven Another observes that Christ doth not say if I depart I will give him unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you and that the spirit is not properly said to be sent but when he appears in some visible shape which he did not till Pentecost the Disciples did now receive the Holy Ghost yet they did not now receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To use Theophilacts phrase they received him not to all the intents and purposes unto which they were afterwards to receive him they were to wait at Jerusalem to receive the spirit in order to those extraordinary gifts of working Miracles speaking with Tongues c. But to whom is this Commission given surely to all the Apostles for though as we read in the following verses Thomas was absent at this apparition yet his absence notwithstanding the spirit might be Vid. Cyrillum and was given to him When the spirit of Moses was to be put on the seventy it came upon Eldad and Medad though they were in the Camp Num. 11. The greatest question to me is whether these words were spoken only to the eleven and not also to the seventy or at least some of the seventy because I find that the two Disciples that were going to Emaus told the joyful news of Christs Resurrection to the eleven and to them that were with them Luke 24.33 And as they thus spake Jesus stood in the midst of them and saith unto them Peace be unto you ver 35. Nor is there any thing in Saint John that can necessitate me to think otherwise yet nevertheless upon some other reasons I am content it should be supposed that this Commission was granted only to the eleven as also that Mat. 28.18 19. But what hence can be gained that will in the least prejudice Presbyterians I wot not the Apostles were all equal and for those forty daies that Christ continued with them it appears not that there were any Church-Officers besides them and therefore it cannot from any action of Christ be collected that there ought to be an inequality among the Ministers of the Gospel Doctor Hammond supposeth that Matthias was one of the seventy who was by the Apostles and Disciples or rather by God himself designed and chosen to come into the room of Judas and this he calls Exemplum Presbyterianorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pessiâ—â—â—â—â—â—inans page 153. But why he should so call it I know not for the Presbyterians do not say that there are not divers Orders in the Church but only that there are not divers orders of Ministers of the Gospel and that Matthias his being chosen from a private Disciple to be an Apostle should prove that there are divers orders of preaching Ministers would be strange Indeed should Presbyterians grant the Bishops do succeed Apostles and Presbyters do succeed the Seventy then Matthias his being chosen to be an Apostle supposing him to have been one of the Seventy might with some colour be urged but many Presbyterians there be who grant no such thing nor doth Dr. Hammond think that the Seventy were Presbyters by virtue of their Mission For he contends for the opinion of Epiphanius who makes seven of the seventy to be the men that were chosen Deacons and further adds that the rest were made Evangelists but that Evangelists and Deacons were much the same In idem plane recidit quantum ad 70 Discipulos attinet sive ad Evangelistarum sive ad Diaconatus gradum ascendisse eos dicamus page 159. Yet he thinks not meet to quit Christs making and Commissionating of the eleven Apostles till it have afforded him an argument for his Episcopacy which is briefly propounded in his answer to the London Ministers page 4. The power derived as from God the Father to Christ so from Christ to the Apostles was derived to them not as to a Common Councell of social Rulers but as so many several Planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it This is more largely deduced in his Latine book against Blondell Diss 3. c. 1 2 3 4. The Reverend Doctor hath no where put this argument into a syllogistical form nor will I venture to do it because I am not able to frame out of it any conclusion that will any way incommodate the Presbyterian plat-form of Government Be it so that a single Apostle had power over the Churches planted by him what is that to a single Bishops having power sole power of jurisdiction not only over the Churches in his Diocess but also over the Presbyters and Rectors of those Churches 2. How doth it appear that it was the mind of Christ that any single Apostle should put forth his power of Ordination without the conjunction of some other or others either Apostles or Apostolical persons or Presbyters in all the New Testament I cannot find they did so but I find many Instances and examples by which it appears that
either they might not do so or at least did not think meet so to do When Paul was Ordained if Ordained was it not by three When Timothy was it not by a Presbytery But I will not go about further to fit a shooe to a foot I know not only give me leave to tell you that there is one Hypothesis which I perceive the Doctor laies much stresse upon in that and other Discourses the which unless it be granted to him and Adversaries are not now adayes so kind as to grant much he can never be able to prove I 'le give you it in his own words Disser p. 147 148. speaking of the words of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 He thus expresseth himself Illud sine dubio non universorum ad omnes sed singulorum ad singulas mundi plagas ut ad totidem Provincias aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas profectione praestandum erat c. Quod factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Matthias in traditoris Judae locum surrogandus eligendus proponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. Sic ut verba ista non ad Judam defunctum sed ad Successorem ejus superstitem pertineant adeoque in praecedente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conjungantur ut ad locum i. e. Provinciam propriam aut peculiarem aut singularem proficiscatur You see to gain some countenance to his Opinion from Scripture he is fain to make those words from which Judas fell to come in by way of Parenthesis and to refer the last words that he might go to his own place not to Judas the Son of Perdition but to Matthias or Barsabas one of which was now to be by the Lot falling on him chosen to make up the number But whom doth the Doctor follow in so doing Our English Translation No. His Friend Grotius Neither His words are significatur eventus scelera ipsius justo Dei judicio consecutus Proprium i.e. qui ipsi melius conveniebat quam Apostolica Functio And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuscript a very ancient one in which in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place which he deserved that is the Gallows or Hell it self I would fain know whether Provinces were divided to several Apostles by Christ or by agreement among the Apostles themselves If Christ designed each Apostle his distinct Province let it be shewn where and when If it be said that such Division was agreed upon among themselves I ask when Before their Masters Ascension or after 'T is not like 't was made before the Disciples then not being out of their Golden Dream of a temporal Kingdom as appears Acts 1.6 After the Ascention we find them all waiting at Jerusalem for the Promise of the Father and when they had received it Vâ—de hanc hypothesin solide proliae refutatam a doctissimo Stilling-fleet Irenici p. 233 234 235 236. they still at least for some time continued at Jerusalem Acts 8.1 When they removed common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way nor do I think they did but they disposed of themselves as God in his Providence directed and offered opportunity But so far were they from parcelling out of the world among themselves that sometime passed ere they were convinced that it was their duty or so much as lawful to preach unto the Gentiles By this time I hope you see that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it must be Apostolical practise and I shall easily grant that the Apostles being by their Commission intrusted with the Government of the Church of God whatever they did with an intent to oblige succeeding ages may well be accounted to be established Jure Divino But then I do with some confidence challenge all the Prelatists to shew me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Bishop having Presbyters under him and yet engrossing all power of Jurisdiction and Order to himself Yea I do challenge them to shew me any one Bishop that had under his Charge so many Souls as are in your Parishes of Stepney and Cripplegate I take the Apostles to be unfixed Officers and such were Timothy and Titus Dr. Hammond himself who hath deserved best of the Episcopal Cause Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath these words Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a 2d Order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius his Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Well then if there be no evidence that any such were instituted we shall think there were none such for de non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio And if there were no Presbyters then there were no Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters And 't is plain enough that every worshipping Congregation had its Bishop in the Apostles times But the Reverend Doctor in his Answer to the London Assemblers as he cals them p. 107. thus brings himself off John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical Institution i. e. in effect the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters I also know that St. John was an Apostle but what should induce me to believe that he instituted a second sort of Presbyters who were only to preach and administer Sacraments but had no power either of Order or Jurisdiction Must I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith If with a divine Faith shew me some infallible Testimony for it If an humane Faith be the greatest and highest Faith a man can attain unto what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in that can only have some probable perswasion that their Order is Jure Divino Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter that can have no greater assurance that it was the mind of Christ that there should be any such Office in the Church Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to institute this second Order of Presbyters as well as St. John in his If they had not how was their power equal If they had why did they not put it forth It will not I suppose be said they wanted care but only that the number of Believers was not so increased during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle as to require such kind of Presbyters Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted to be governed by a Bishop and Deacons how will it be clearly and evidently proved that it was those Apostles intention that the Bishop who when they left him had power over the Deacons and people only
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
out of him upon the 12 of Luke 14. These are his words Si quis expendat quantum sit negotii sermonem divinum recte dispensare quod ut facerent ipsi Apostoli tanto instructi spiritu curam Pauperum aliis delegavere facile intelliget quosvis alios potius adhibendos componendis privatorum controversiis quam eos quos docendi munus occupat Est quidem horum imo horum praecipue discordias praecidere sed si in brevi admonitione fieri possit quomodo Onesimum Philemoni reconciliat Paulus non si causae ambages discutiendae magno temporis dispendio constabit res paucorum 3. Nor can it be thought that it is of divine right that Bishops should delegate their power of Jurisdiction to Chancellors Commissaries and other Lay-Officers Rather again 't is questionable whether this be not flatly against the Law of Christ To be sure 't is contrary to the practise Primitive as is acknowledged even by B. Downam one of the greatest sticklers for Episcopacy See his Defence of his Sermon L. 1. I believe therefore it will be said that only the substance of our Episcopacy is of Divine Right Well what is that One W. C. at the end of that Discourse Printed at Oxom called Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines that Episco c. hath these words If we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals we shall find it no more but this an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess Then belike if one be not of eminent sanctity and sufficiency he is no Bishop cui non convenit definitio c. But to let this pass one man 't is said must have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess Well but how big must this Precinct or Diocess be Must it be the whole Christian world as the Pope saith or will it suffice that it consist of 2 or 3 Parish-Churches For this I am told by Mr. Sandcroft p. 21. That the Apostles preached the Gospel not only in Cities but in the Countries adjoyning yet planted Churches in Cities still and setled single persons their Successors there to govern both the cities Regions round about from whence a City a Church come to be equipollent terms even in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 14.23 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 And yet further that they left the Churches of inferiour Cities and their Bishops in dependance upon the Metropolis which were the cheife according to the civill division and that the only true ground of the Superiority of one Church above another hath been rendred as manifest as any thing almost in Ecclesiastical Antiquity against all Adversaries both those of the hils and those of the Lake too by the Learned and well placed Labours of those excellent persons in both pages of the Dipticks whom I shall not need to name since their own works praise them in the gate And p. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the standing Rule and failes nor a City and a Bishop generally adequate one to another For as on the one side an Universal Bishop with the whole world for his Jurisdiction is a proud pretence too vast for Humanity to grasp so on the other side Rural Bishops too is a poor and mean design and not only retrives the Italian Episcopelli so scorned at Trent but worse p. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non in vicis aut villis aut modica Civitate No Bishops there lest they grow contemptible so run the Canons of the Ancient Church both Greek and Latine and therefore the Twelfth Council of Toledo unmitred one Convildus formerly an Abbot in a little Village and dissolved the Bishoprick which Bamba the Gothick King had violently procured to be erected there and that by this Rule of the Church and the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my Text which they actually plead in the Front of their Decree to justifie their Proceedings But with reverence to so Learned a man be it spoken much of this seems to be delivered with more Confidence then Truth And indeed before we can gather the Divine Right of any particular Form of Government from Apostolical Practise we must first prove the Universality of that Practise We must evince that not some few but all the Apostles did so practise Now I think it huge difficult if not impossible from any credible Records to make out what Order and Method was observed by all the Apostles in their planting of Churches it being but very little if any thing that is said by Historians concerning some of them 2. If we could prove universality of Practise we must also prove that such universal practise was not upon some grounds proper and peculiar to those Times in which the Apostles lived Well I for my part will take no advantage from either of these two Considerations but yet will give you my Reasons why I cannot look upon the Platform by him laid down as Apostolical 1. It savours strongly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which were undoubtedly far from any one of Apostolical Spirit For seeing the Gospel was preached in Towns as well as Cities let us imagine that by preaching of the Gospel five hundred were converted in a Town but one hundred in a City would it not be a sinful accepting of persons to appoint the hundred Citizens a Bishop and to leave the five hundred without a Bishop It matters not whether this case did ever actually happen 't is plain it might have happened and we may argue a possibili And let any rational man say whether it be probable that this is an Apostolical Institution that Peterborough and Ely should have a Bishop resident in them Northampton Leicester Cambridge none 2. This model is destructive to Episcopacy it self for if this be an Apostolical Institution that there should be no Bishops but in Cities then if it should seem meet to any Christian Magistrate to have no Cities in all his Territories we must have no Bishops if he should see meet to make all Cities equal we must have no Archbishops or Metropolitanes We know that lately a certain thing that called it self the Supreme Authority of England did uncity Chester suppose this had been done by a lawful Authority so as that it could not have been recalled the Church of England would have been loath to have lost a Bishop yet she must if this be true that no City no Bishop Or what if our King by the advice of his Councel should make every market Town in England and Wales a City must our Bishops presently be multiplied according to that proportion 3. 'T is plain that in one City there was more Bishops then one plain from Scripture for S. Paul writes Phil. 1.1 To all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with
Churches in the inferiour Cities to those in the chief or Metropolis An example of this we have in the story of the Acts concerning Syria and Cilicia and the several Cities thereof in relation to Antioch the Metropolis for when the question Acts 15.2 was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch Chap. 14.26 and 15.3 and the Decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed i. e. to the Church of Antioch ver 22. yet in the Epistle in which that Decree was contained we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia i. e. all the Christians of that Province to be expressed and joyned with those of Antioch v. 23. and after when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia v. 41 42. and as they went they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel cap. 16.4 which is an evidence that the Churches of those Cities related either immediately to Antioch or as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem and were in subordination to it as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Province c. I heartily wish this argumentation had been put into a Syllogistical form then it would have been easie enough to find out a Proposition that might safely be denied But seeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his discourse into that dress I shall not do it for him lest I should be thought not to do it according to his mind Taking it as we find it I say 1. That which he supposeth may well admit some dispute viz. Whether the question referred to Jerusalem was referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria for if it can be proved that this reference was made only by the Church of Antioch and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria it will still be unproved that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church which are not done by it as such 2. There 's no evidence that the ground of the reference to Jerusalem was because that it was the principal Metropolis more probable it is that the reasons of referring this controversie to a determination at Jerusalem were because of the authority of those Apostles that were at Jerusalem in which it was supposed those who contended with Paul would acquiesce and because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commission of the Apostles for their doctrine Against these let us examine what is objected 't is said page 204 205. That the first taken alone could not be the reason because there being but two Apostles there at that time Peter and John 1. There might be so many in some other City 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by Gods Commands to the Apostolick Office were in this respect of equal authority with them and so in this sense the words of S. Paul have truth Gal. 2.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The reference is made not to the Apostles alone but to the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of Judea but the Antiochean Christians being taught i. e. being seduced by them Acts 15.1 and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly and so this first reason is of no force Answ 1. 'T is certain that the reference was made not only to the Apostles but also to the Elders from which perhaps something might be deduced no way advantagious to the cause of the Episcoparians 2. We 'll grant it probable that these Judaizers did not only teach but also had perswaded some of the Antiochean Christians to imbrace their errour But then 3. We deny that there were at Jerusalem but two Apostles viz. Peter and John James undoubtedly was there and it is by very learned men thought that when the other James had run his course he was taken into the Apostolical rank office and imployment Now it will never be proved either from Scripture or any other credible testimony that there were in any one City three persons so fit to be appealed to as these three As for Paul and Barnabas granting them to be separated by Gods command to the Apostolick Office and so of equal authority with Peter c. yet their Apostleship might be more questioned by these Judaizing Teachers to stop their mouths and let the Antiochean Christians know that they did not go about to abolish any thing which Peter James and John who did mostly converse with those of the Circumcision did reckon obligatory this reference is made this journey undertaken The learned Doctor seems not to deny but that those who came from Jerusalem might pretend Commission and Commandment from the Apostles to teach what they taught but thinks this is useful not disadvantagious to him For hence he thinks it follows That if these certain men had been truly sent and commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem then this would have been of some force at Antioch which it could not be if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jerusalem page 205. But who can swallow this what Christian doth not think that if these men had come at that time into England with a Commission to preach that except we be circumcised we cannot be saved it should be of no force because we are a Church independent on Jerusalem 3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia because Antioch or Jerusalem was their Metropolis but because the Decrees were made by Apostles men acted by an infallible spirit who could not but know the mind of Christ their Lord and Master Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Christians that had any certain knowledge of them whether they were under the Metropolis of Jerusalem or no. My second argument to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right shall be taken from the testimonies of those Authors who do clearly and plainly make it to be but of humane institution I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores In his Epistle to Evagrius Quod autem unus posteà electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet If you say that Hierom was a Presbyter and provoked and so may be thought to write all this in a fit of spleen and malice I shall without retorting the argument which you know is obvious refer you to Isidore who was a Bishop himself he saith in his second book De Divinis Officiis cap. 7. that Presbyters have most things in common with Bishops Sed sola propter
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