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
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
shall be able to convert us by railing by bitter jeers or Sarcasmes the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God We shall think the cause is but weak which must be supported by opprobrious language This good Reader is all the trouble that is thought meet to be given thee by way of Preface O pray for the peace of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR A Letter to a Friend tending to prove 1. That Valid Ordination ought not to be repeated 2. That ordination by Presbyters is valid SIR THat when you were invited to the constant preaching of the Word I perswaded you to be ordained is no matter of my repentance nor need it be any matter of your repentance that things standing as they then did you made choice to be ordained by meer Presbyters without a Bishop I had in my eye that of the Apostle How shall they preach except they be sent Rom. 10.15 that of the Prophet Jer. 23.21 I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran I have not spoken to them yet they prophesied v. 32. I sent them not nor commanded them therefore they shall not profit this people saith the Lord. Nor could I forget what holy zealous Luther hath in his Commentary on the Galathians Non satis est habere verbum puram doctrinam aportet etiam ut vocatio certa sit sine qua qui ingreditur ad mactandum perdendum venit nunquam enim fortunat Deus laborem eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam quaedam salutaria afferunt tamen nihil aedificant You 't is like had in your thoughts the example of the Transmarine Reformed Churches and the judgement of our own Protestant Divines at home unanimously till of late determining Ordination by Presbyters to be valid But now it seems you begin to question whether you may not do that which will be a virtual and interpretative renouncing of your former Orders take a second Ordination from some Bishop and his Chaplains the grounds you go upon are 1. Because else it will not be possible to get any preferment in the Church 3. Because some that were voiced formerly to have more of the Presbyterian in them then you have already actually submitted to such a second Ordination To deal plainly with you either you are not the man that I have ever taken you to be or else you have alway had pectus praeparatum against all objections of this nature either you did not sit down and consider before hand what it would cost you to be a Minister of the Gospel or it is not possible that the two things you mention should weigh much with you Suppose the Anabaptistical Sectarian Phrensie should have so possessed the late Governours as that they would have collated no livings but on those who though baptized in infancy would afterwards take a second baptism at adult years Suppose also that some learned and seemingly godly men had yielded to Re-baptization would you forthwith have betaken your self to some pond or river and been dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost If so then your Religion is very much at the mercy of your Superiours and we may thank the Parliament for your Orthodoxy I presume you will reply the case is different that you may with better conscience take a second Ordination then a second Baptisme But I pray you where lies the difference Is Baptisme an Ordinance of God so is Ordination Is Baptisme a Sacrament so is not Ordination in the strict sense but quid hoc ad Iphicli boves It might be a Sacrament and yet be iterable for the Lords Supper is in the most proper and strict notion a Sacrament and yet by the appointment of God it is to be received more then once by all that have opportunity That Ordination is not a Sacrament makes it not iterable because the end unto which it is by God appointed is sufficiently attained by one administration of it and the end of Ordination being once attained to receive it a second time would be to take an Ordinance of God in vain as I shall by and by have occasion to prove more largely For this is the method I intend to use with you 1. To shew that you ought not to take Ordination from the Bishop except your Ordination by Presbyters was a meer nullity and in natura rei invalid 2. To shew that your Ordination by Presbyters was not cannot be rationally accounted a meer nullity These two things done 't will not be difficult for you to gather my sense about the case of conscience by you propounded As to the first I must premise two or three postulata and they shall be such things as to save my self a labour I shall desire may be granted but if they should not be granted I should be able easily to prove them 1. I suppose that you are certain you were ordained by Presbyters for if there could be an invincible doubt whether you were de facto ordained or no I should then grant you might for sureness sake be ordained in an Hypothetical form si non ordinatus sis c. 2. I suppose that when you were ordained by Presbyters such a form of words was used as made you a Minister not of any particular but of the Catholick Church for had you been made Minister only of that particular Church unto which you were first called then your relation to that Church ceasing you ceased to be a Minister and so are returned to the condition of a private Christian and therefore you know that the rigid sort of Independents do judge that when their Pastor preacheth out of his own Congregation he preacheth only as a gifted Brother and charitativè not as a Church-Officer or authoritativè 3. I suppose that if you be ordained by a Bishop you are to be ordained in such a form of words as is used when men are made ex non Ministris Ministri ex non Clericis Clerici This I suppose because I have all along heard that as many as have been re-ordained by the Bishops have been by them looked upon and considered as Laicks being first made Deacons then Priests in the very self-same form and order that they are ordained who never had any Consecration to the Ministerial Office Were your former Ordination only to be compleated and confirmed I would not inject the least scruple into your mind because I know that though your Ordination by Presbyters was lawful and sufficient to make you a Minister yet it was perhaps not exactly legal and Canonical at least if there be any Law extant in England declaring those and those only that are ordained by Bishops to be lawfully ordained 't is but prudential to procure some instrument to ratifie that which pievish people will be apt to take exception against You know the late Parliament hath made an Act in and by which all whether ordained by Bishops or Presbyters are confirmed in their livings
in calling such persons to be ordained by a Bishop they did not call them to Reordination but to Ordination their former Ordination being not only irregular and non-Canonical but also null And had they not fled to this they must of necessity have been brought to repeat the Ordinations that during the distractions were made by Bishops they being not done without manifold irregularities as to time or place or some other such circumstances I prove thirdly that he who is ordained with a valid ordination ought not to be again reordained because by submitting to such reordination he doth take an Ordinance of God in vain You are not of the number of those who deny Ordination to be an Ordinance of God if you be I must turn you over to D. Seaman M. Lyford the London Ministers who have largely discussed that question and irrefragably proved that Ordination is so necessary that no man can ordinarily without breach of Gods Law enter the Ministry without it You will rather say that by being reordained a man doth not contract the guilt of taking an Ordinance of God in vain but if that be your answer I thus assault you To take an Ordinance of God either for no end or for no such end as God hath appointed it unto is to take an Ordinance of God in vain but to be reordained after preceding valid Ordination is to take an Ordinance of God either to no end or to no such end as he hath appointed it unto Ergo. If either Proposition need confirmation it is the minor but of the truth of that you will not long doubt if you will but a little consider what the end of Ordination is and that cannot better be gathered then from the definitions that are usually given of Ordination they are to this purpose Ordination is an act whereby in the Name of Christ meet persons are separate and set apart to the work and office of the Ministry Now I ask when you were ordained were you thus separate and set apart or not If you were not then you were not ordained if you were what use serves your reordination unto Perhaps you 'l say by that means you shall procure institution from the Bishops and be the more acceptable to the people But I pray you where do you find any I will not say precept but allowance of God to take Ordination to satisfie the humour of unreasonable men what example in Antiquity to incourage you to such a compliance Friend think on 't impartially was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of conveyed to you by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery if it was not you have much to answer for taking upon you to command the people to recieve you as one of Christs Embassadors they might have told you that they were as much Embassadors as your self if it was do you think it would be any thing less then ludere sacris to submit to another examination and to have the Bishop and his Chaplains pray that you may now receive that gift I will conclude this first head of my discourse when I have first minded you that it is not long since through the iniquity of the times some Episcopally ordained were constrained to have their residence either in the Gallican or Belgick Churches where there is no Ordination but by Presbyters would these Divines have been content to be reordained after the mode of those Churches before they had been permitted to receive the double honour due to them as Ministers if they would not as I presume they would not why do they require that from others which they would not have been content others should have required of them If you should plead on their behalf that their Ordination was valid so is not Ordination by Presbyters that I shall prove to be false and Popish by and by If secondly you should alledge that our Prelatists would not require reordination from Divines ordained beyond the Seas because they were not in a capacity to receive Ordination from a Bishop but so were we that lived in England and therefore deserve to be looked upon and dealt with as Laicks till we have repented of our Schisme and Heresie and that there 's no better way to manifest our repentance then by humbling our selves and receiving orders from them Unto this allegation I have two things to say 1. Supposing but not granting that it was Schisme for our young Divines to take Orders from Presbyters when as with some little cost and trouble they might have received them from some Bishop I say that mens being Schismaticks doth not invalidate or make null either the Orders which they give or receive nor hath the Church of God ever been wont to punish Schisme by compelling the Schismatick to receive new Orders For this you may please to read Gisber Voetius Desper causa Papat lib. 2. sec 2. cap. 13 14. Nay nor do our Episcoparians call such as were ordained by Episcopal hands to reordination though sundry of them have fallen off from their Government and joyned in with Presbyterians which yet they must have done if Schisme do evacuate and annihilate their Orders if by being ordained by Presbyters we fell into Schisme repentance and the bloud of Christ must take off the guilt of that sin not reordination and paying fees to the Bishop or his Officers But secondly I am still so blind as not to see that it was any Schisme to be ordained by Presbyters for all Schisme is sin and all sin is a transgression of some good and righteous Law but there was no transgression of any good righteous Law in receiving orders from Presbyters for if so then either of a divine or humane Law not of a divine for there is not a Law of God requiring us not to be ordained by any but a Bishop not of humane Law For 1. I cannot find any Law of the Nation enacting that all Ordinations shall be made by a Bishop and his Presbyters and no otherwayes 2. If there had been any such Law it might be questioned whether it could oblige the conscience in such times of confusion as we were fallen into 3. If a man had been ordained by a Bishop in those daies he could not have got any Ordination every way argeeable to the Laws of the Land Our Bishops tell us that the Canons of 1603. are Law if they be so they themselves during the late distractions did transgress them with a witness What if I should further add that seeing our Bishops had clogged Ordination with Subscription to things unnecessary disputable to our apprehension sinful they are the Schismaticks who enjoyn such Subscriptions not we who refuse them Several weighty Arguments to prove this might be transcribed out of Mr. Hales his Tract of Schisme a Discourse so solid and yet become so scarce that if in stead of being re-ordained your self you would get that reprinted it would much oblige me But it is time to
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
non sint qui minus quam atribus Ordinati sunt ordinati Episcopis omnibus patet quoniam ut bene nostis prohibitum a sacris est partribus ut qui ab uâ—o vel a duobus sunt ordinati Episcopis nominentur Episcopi Si nomen non habent qualiter Officium habebunt And in the 16 Canon of the African Council at which were present no fewer then 217 Bishops it was decreed in haec verba forma antiqua servabitur ut non minus quam tres sufficiant qui fuerint a Metropolitano directi ad Episcopum Ordinandum And this usage they seem to have borrowed from the Synagogue for it was a fundamental Constitution among the Jews that Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be by three at least as may be seen Misna Gem. tit Sanhe cap. 1. By the way I desire you to take notice how our Episcopal Brethren deal with us in this controversie they call upon us to shew them an example of a Presbyter laying hands on a Bishop this case could not happen but in the defect and absence of Bishops for modesty will not permit a Presbyter to lay on hands Bishops sufficient to do the work being present and such defects of Bishops could be but very rare but once we find there chanced to be such a defect and then a Church of no mean denomination thought a Presbyter sufficient to do what a Bishop was to do Now when we bring this example they rail against it and say that it was done only in the want of a Bishop and it had better have been left undone My second argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters I 'le put into this form Either Ordination by Presbyters is valid or else something essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters But nothing essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters ergo c. The major is evident grounded on this plain Proposition that it is only some essential defect that can make a thing invalid or null he that wants either body or soul is no true man he that hath them is truly a man though he want many of the integral parts which concur to the integrity and perfection of a man The minor I thus prove if any thing essential to Ordination be wanting in Ordination by Presbyters it is either material formal final or efficient cause but neither of these is wanting ergo nothing essential is wanting Let the material formal final causes be what they will doubtless they may be found in Ordinations by Presbyters as well as in Ordinations by a Bishop only we are told there is not a due efficient cause for God hath appropriated Ordination to a Bishop and it cannot have its effect if performed by any other then him that hath attained Episcopal Dignity This being that foundation upon which the confidence of those who nullifie all Ordinations by Presbyters whether at home or abroad is built I shall take liberty to enquire 1. Whether if there were a Law of God appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would follow that all Ordinations without a Bishop are null 2. Whether there be any such Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop As to the first I humbly conceive that if a Law could be produced appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would not follow that Ordination without a Bishop were alway invalid and null my reasons are 1. Because 't is generally agreed that Jus Divinum rituale cedit morali necessitas quod cogit defendit 2. I find that whereas by the Law the Priests were to kill the sacrifices yet at such a time when the Priests were too few the Levites did help them 2 Chron. 29.34 and neither God nor the King nor the people offended at their so doing 3. Baptisme is appropriated to the Ministers of the Gospel yet if at any time it were administred by a Midwife who neither was a Minister nor was capable of being made such such baptisme was not by us here in England judged a nullity yea 't is affirmed by sundry Schoolmen that if baptisme were administred by one Excommunicate it were valid and not to be repeated and either my notes do fail me or else this was the judgement of St. Augustine for Melancthon out of Austin ad Fortunatum tells us this story That two men were in a ship which was like to perish in a storm at Sea the one very godly but yet not baptized the other baptized but excommunicated there being no other Christian in the ship with them and they fearing they should be both cast away knew not what to do in that condition he that was not baptized desired baptisme by the hands of him that was excommunicate and he that was excommunicate desired absolution from the other whereupon the question was moved whether these acts were valid and good Austin answers they were and commends the actious I come now to enquire Whether there be any Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop I say there is not if any say there is illi incumbit probatio he must proferre tabulas produce the place where such a Law is recorded For my part having read the Scriptures with my best eyes I could never find any such place nor could I ever meet with that Episcopal Divine who could direct me to such a place some have sent me to Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of late one hath ventured to tell us in print Mr. Sandcrof Ordination Sermon that this Text is as it were a kind of Magical glass in which an eye not blind with ignorance nor bleered with passion may see distinctly the face of the Primitive Church in that golden Age of the Apostles the platform of her Government the beautiful order of her Hierarchy the original and derivation of her chief Officers and their subordination both to one another and to Christ the great Bishop of our Souls in the last resort together with the manage and direction of the most important acts of Government both in point of Ordination and Jurisdiction too This learned mans phrasifying thus concerning his Text puts me in mind of that Impostor mentioned by Scultetus in his Annals who perswaded certain Noble men that he had adorned their Temple with very exquisite pictures but such as could be seen only by those who were begotten in lawful wedlock the Noble men lest they should be thought not lawfully begotten said that they very well saw that painting So here we are told of great matters that may be seen in this Text but only by those whose eyes are not blinded with ignorance nor bleered with passion and so men will be ready to say that they see these things lest their eyes should be judged under these sad distempers but I who have my conscience to bear me witness that I have often prayed for the eye-salve and Grace of the Spirit that my understanding may
of these heads so that to prove any thing hence we must first suppose the Judicial Law to be in force which would gratifie the Anabaptists and some other Fanaticks more then we are aware of I demand would our brethren prove hence that as there was superiority and inferiority of offices under the Law so there may be or must be under the Gospel we 'll not contend for we can yield it to them without any detriment to the cause of the Presbyterians they have Presbyters and Deacons and the office of a Presbyter is by all thought to be above the office of a Deacon but I had thought they would from the Jewish pattern have endeavoured to prove the Bishops power of Jurisdiction and Ordination whence they will fetch that I wot not not I hope from the supereminent power of the High-Priest the type of Christ for then we shall bring in a Pope not from the superiority of the Priests over the Levites for the Priests had no Jurisdiction over the Levites they had the several heads of their families under whose jurisdiction they were as for any power of Ordination it could have no place the Levites coming to their honour without Ordination by succession besides in a case of necessity I proved before that a Levite might do the work of a Priest If our brethren will grant that a Presbyter may in such a case do the work of a Bishop we shall be neerer an agreement then as yet we are Thus have we without any great difficulty rid our hands of the argument drawn from the Old Testament Come we to enquire whether J. Ch. by any action of his did institute any such Hierarchy as is contended for that he did is thus argued by a learned Doctor Episco Asser p. 22 23. This office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its fountain from a rock Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters for when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke he called his Disciples Luke 10. and out of them he chose twelve and called them Apostles that was the first Election Posthaec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos that was his second Election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them two by two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their names were written in heaven we are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own and so we do for after the passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyned them in Clerical Commission by virtue of Christs first Ordination of them for a new Ordination we find none before we find them doing Clerical Offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Council for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and S. Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem These and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministers Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them these were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Answ This is a marvellous discourse the tendency whereof I understand not I think that Christ did neither institute Bishops nor Presbyters in this first or second Mission Both these Missions seem only temporary and the 70 after their return remained in the nature of private Disciples till after the Resurrection they received a new Commission to preach and plant Churches and the twelve after this Mission must needs be but a kind of Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them and gave them that plenitude of power which we find him not to do till after his Resurrection from the dead Mat. 28.18 Joh. 20.21 Of any power of jurisdiction or order that the twelve had over the seventy by virtue of their Mission there is not the least vola or vestigium in Scripture the seventy had their power immediately from Christ as had the twelve and their Commission was as full and large as was the Commission granted to the twelve as will soon appear by comparing Mat. 10. with Luke 10. I observe indeed from John 4.2 that Christs Disciples did baptize but see no necessity of restraining that phrase to the twelve who were called his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the Writers of the harmony of the Gospel do agree that this baptizing was before any Gospel Ministry was instituted yea before that Peter and Andrew James and John were called to be fishers of men that baptisme therefore might be administred by any of these that did usually accompany the Messias he appointing them so to do and so being chief in the action the learned Isaac Causabons words are considerable Etsi non Christus ipse sedejus Discipuli baptizabant Christi tamen non Discipulorum baptismus creditus est vocatus qua de re placet perelegantem Tertulliani locum proferre sic ille in libro de baptismo Sed ecce inquiunt venit Dominus non tinxit Legimus enim tamen is non tingebat sed Discipuli ejus quasi revera ipsum suis manibus tincturum Johannes praedicasset non utique sic intelligendum est sed simpliciter dictum more communi sicut est verbi gratia imperator proposuit edictum aut praefectus fustibus caecidit nunquid ipse proponit aut nunquid ipse caedit semper is dicitur facere cui praeministratur simile est quod Jurisconsulti tradunt videri eum facere qui per alium facit Besides Christ in his administrations did though in some things forsake yet in many if not in most things follow the Jewish mode and Mr. Lightfoot in his harmony of the New Testament page 18. tells us out of Maimony in Issure that to the Jewish baptisme it did suffice if there were but three though private persons present In a word we do not find that Christ before his Resurrection gave any order for the gathering of Gospel Churches and therefore gave not any power to his Apostles over them or any Officers belonging to them consider we therefore what he did when he was risen from the dead we find him appearing betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension seven times at the third time of his appearance he said to the Disciples John 20.21 As the Father sent me so send I you
and when he had said this he breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted to them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained In these words Totius familiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut principatus in ipsa clavium promissione ante promissus singulis concredebatur saith the learned Doctor Hammond Disser 3. page 150. and presently after page 151. His duodecim in terris Christi vicariis ejus mandato aut diplomate munitis eademque ratione a Christo Missis qua ille a patre mittebatur adeo omnis in Ecclesia authorit as in solidum in integrum commissa est ut non ea cuivis mortalium demptis pauculis c. recte tribui possit nisi quem Apostolorum aliquis in profectionibus aut Provinciis ipsorum aut immediate aut mediate in potestatis authoritatis suae participationem aut successionem admiserit Let us therefore a little view that text in St. John 1. there are who say that in those words no Apostolical power is given but only promised As the Father hath sent me even so send I you i.e. saith Grotius Brevi mittam praesens pro futuro In this Exposition he is not singular some antienter then himself by many years went that way before him his and their ground so to do was the speech of our Saviour John 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you But I judge with Tolet that Christs very breathing on them makes it highly probable that he gave them present Commission and Authority to that place John 16.7 Cyril answers that Christ did anticipate his promise and that it was usual with him to give before hand some specimina of those things which he promised to do after his return into heaven Another observes that Christ doth not say if I depart I will give him unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you and that the spirit is not properly said to be sent but when he appears in some visible shape which he did not till Pentecost the Disciples did now receive the Holy Ghost yet they did not now receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To use Theophilacts phrase they received him not to all the intents and purposes unto which they were afterwards to receive him they were to wait at Jerusalem to receive the spirit in order to those extraordinary gifts of working Miracles speaking with Tongues c. But to whom is this Commission given surely to all the Apostles for though as we read in the following verses Thomas was absent at this apparition yet his absence notwithstanding the spirit might be Vid. Cyrillum and was given to him When the spirit of Moses was to be put on the seventy it came upon Eldad and Medad though they were in the Camp Num. 11. The greatest question to me is whether these words were spoken only to the eleven and not also to the seventy or at least some of the seventy because I find that the two Disciples that were going to Emaus told the joyful news of Christs Resurrection to the eleven and to them that were with them Luke 24.33 And as they thus spake Jesus stood in the midst of them and saith unto them Peace be unto you ver 35. Nor is there any thing in Saint John that can necessitate me to think otherwise yet nevertheless upon some other reasons I am content it should be supposed that this Commission was granted only to the eleven as also that Mat. 28.18 19. But what hence can be gained that will in the least prejudice Presbyterians I wot not the Apostles were all equal and for those forty daies that Christ continued with them it appears not that there were any Church-Officers besides them and therefore it cannot from any action of Christ be collected that there ought to be an inequality among the Ministers of the Gospel Doctor Hammond supposeth that Matthias was one of the seventy who was by the Apostles and Disciples or rather by God himself designed and chosen to come into the room of Judas and this he calls Exemplum Presbyterianorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pessiâ—â—â—â—â—â—inans page 153. But why he should so call it I know not for the Presbyterians do not say that there are not divers Orders in the Church but only that there are not divers orders of Ministers of the Gospel and that Matthias his being chosen from a private Disciple to be an Apostle should prove that there are divers orders of preaching Ministers would be strange Indeed should Presbyterians grant the Bishops do succeed Apostles and Presbyters do succeed the Seventy then Matthias his being chosen to be an Apostle supposing him to have been one of the Seventy might with some colour be urged but many Presbyterians there be who grant no such thing nor doth Dr. Hammond think that the Seventy were Presbyters by virtue of their Mission For he contends for the opinion of Epiphanius who makes seven of the seventy to be the men that were chosen Deacons and further adds that the rest were made Evangelists but that Evangelists and Deacons were much the same In idem plane recidit quantum ad 70 Discipulos attinet sive ad Evangelistarum sive ad Diaconatus gradum ascendisse eos dicamus page 159. Yet he thinks not meet to quit Christs making and Commissionating of the eleven Apostles till it have afforded him an argument for his Episcopacy which is briefly propounded in his answer to the London Ministers page 4. The power derived as from God the Father to Christ so from Christ to the Apostles was derived to them not as to a Common Councell of social Rulers but as so many several Planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it This is more largely deduced in his Latine book against Blondell Diss 3. c. 1 2 3 4. The Reverend Doctor hath no where put this argument into a syllogistical form nor will I venture to do it because I am not able to frame out of it any conclusion that will any way incommodate the Presbyterian plat-form of Government Be it so that a single Apostle had power over the Churches planted by him what is that to a single Bishops having power sole power of jurisdiction not only over the Churches in his Diocess but also over the Presbyters and Rectors of those Churches 2. How doth it appear that it was the mind of Christ that any single Apostle should put forth his power of Ordination without the conjunction of some other or others either Apostles or Apostolical persons or Presbyters in all the New Testament I cannot find they did so but I find many Instances and examples by which it appears that
nothing remaines but that we commit our cause to God and till he see meet to plead it possesse our souls in Patience There are some Objections against the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination to be removed and then I shall exercise your Patience no longer 1. The first is grounded upon the Authority of two Fathers Hierom and Chrysostom Hieroms words are in his Epistle to Evagrius Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter To answer this Testimony I might observe that they who produce it will not stick to it but are verily perswaded that there are many things besides Ordination which a Bishop may do that yet a Presbyter cannot do But I need not flee to so indirect an Answer For 1. Marsilius Patavinus in his Book which he cals Defensor Pacis takes the word Ordinatio to signifie quite another thing then the conferring of Holy Orders His words are these Ordinatio ibi non significat potestatem conferendi seu collationem sacrorum Ordinum sed Oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in Templo unde ab antiquis Legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi 2. 'T is certain that somtimes the word Ordinatio doth signifie the external Rite or Ceremony used in Ordination viz. Imposition of hands if so it be taken here as why may it not I can grant that Ordination in many places was so managed it is freely confessed by Calvin Unum puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vices sustinentem ut plurimum omnium nomine manus imposuisse 3. Grotius saith nothing hinders but that we may so interpret the place as that it shall mean no more then that Presbyters can ordain none in contempt of the Bishops 4. I finally answer that Hierom speaks not here of any Divine Law appropriating Ordination to Bishops but only of the Ecclesiastical custom that obtained in his age 't is as if he had said what is there now adaies done by a Bishop that a Presbyter may not do without Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons except only the business of Ordination He had before said that a principio non fuit sic originally the Presbyters might and did make the very Bishop himself The place of Chrys is in his 11 Hom. on 1 Tim. the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again I might tell you that if this Saying of Chrysostomes must determine the Controversie our Prelatists must throw open that which they account the best part of their Enclosure they must acknowledge that the Presbyters have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they exceed the Presbyter in the Power of Order only not in the power of Jurisdiction 2. I could much weaken the Authority of Chrysostome as to the point of Ordination by acquainting you that it was one of the accusations made against that Father that he did engrosse Ordination to himself not taking in the assistance of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words of his Charge in the Synod ad Quercum An. 403. But if these two Answers seem to you but shifts though why they should seem no more then shifts I wot not I reply thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by Chrysostom is ambiguous used by good authors in very different if not quite contrary significations as is noted among others by Suidas his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case signifies to exceed or excell but with an Accusative to injure or do wrong Now if we should so render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seeing it hath an Accusative case after it Bishops must from hence be concluded not lawfull possessors but usurpers of the power of sole Ordination If yet you are not satisfied I turn you over fourthly to Gersom Bucer who page 357 358. takes notice of this authority as placed by Bishop Downham in the margin of that Sermon which he took upon him to confute one of his answers is that Bishops are here made Superiour to Presbyters only by the voluntary election of their Sym-Presbyters or Colleagues not by any Divine Right he renders the words thus Sola-enim horum subaudi Presbyterorum electione ascenderunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri videntur habere then the plain meaning is that the Presbyters for order sake do chuse some one to be their President and this is all that the Bishop hath above the Presbyters The second objection against the validity of Ordinations by Presbyters is taken also from Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we do find Ordinations by Presbyters pronounced null and void Of this nature there are three principally insisted upon the which before we particularly examine I shall crave leave to premise this one thing viz. that it is very manifest that Councels have pronounced some Ordinations null and void which yet could not be null in natura rei I instance only in the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch pronouncing Ordinations though made by a Bishop to be void if the person ordained were ordained either without a title or in another Bishops Diocess yet such Ordinations are not nullities many examples of this nature are brought by the learned Blondell page 168 169. Now so it might be in the case of Ordinations by Presbyters and so it is by many averred that it was but let us hear the examples One Colythus a Presbyter took upon him being but a Presbyter to ordain Ischiras this Ischiras notwithstanding this Ordination was looked upon but as a Laick I answer there are so many dissimilitudes betwixt the Ordinations of Colythus and those Ordinations made by Presbyters which we contend for that from the condemning of his Ordinations no argument can be drawn to prove that ours ought to be condemned 1. Colythus acted not as a Presbyter but pretended himself to be a Bishop so do not our Presbyters 2. He acted alone whereas our Ordinations are not by one single person 3. He was an open declared Heretick 4. He that was ordained had no title he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was not chosen by any Church but our Ordinations are not of sine-titular persons A second example is the case of Maximus who being no Bishop yet ordained Presbyters but all his Ordinations were by the Fathers assembled in Councel at Constantinople pronounced null Answ The story of Maximus is too large to be here recited see it in Blondell I say briefly that what was by the Synod determined against his Ordinations is not prejudicial to Ordinations made by Presbyters for as Blondell well if Presbyters had never so full power of Ordination yet had the Synod good reason to depose those who were ordained by Maximus because he was a Presbyter as well as a Bishop in the ayr never had he been ordained Presbyter either by Gregory or any other A third example is that of the blind Bishop who
Acts of a Bishop among which there is no mention of ordaining Priests and Deacons may we thence conclude that the Bishop hath no power of conferring orders Obj. In our English Church before and after the Reformation it was alway held as an undoubted truth that Presbyters neither single nor in conjunction had any power of ordaining Deacons and Priests Id. ibid. Answ Strange confidence Was this ever held as an undoubted truth and that both before and after our Reformation What Confession of the Church of England saith so What one man eminent in our Reformation or before our Reformation said so Do not Usher Davenant Mason Field c. say Ordination by Presbyters is valid which it could not be if they had no power of ordaining For my part I shall as soon be brought to think there were no such men as Cranâ—â—er Peter Martyr Martin Bucer Jewel as to think that they judged that Presbyters had not power to make either Deacons or Presbyters I may now at last I hope conclude with the learned and industrious Gerhard Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidem proferri potest quo demonstretur immutabili quadam necessitate ac ipsius Dei institutione potestatem ordinandi eo modo competere Episcopo ut si minister ab Episcopo ordinetur ejus vocatio ordinatio censeatur rata sin a Presbytero quod tunc irrita coranâ— Deo frustranea sit habenda Loc. Com. de Minis Eccles But methinks after all this I hear you say you are not satisfied because that when you talk with Episcopal men they constantly tell you that in receiving Ordination from Presbyters you go against the judgement of the Catholick Church for 1600 years and upward Let me ask you who are those Episcopal men that tell you so are they such as you can suppose to have read the most considerable books that were written in all ages of the Church For my part I have usually observed that those who thus boast of all Antiquity are very strangers to all Antiquity and never so much as saw the Fathers and Councels they so prate of If you are resolved to close with every one that saith he hath all the Fathers on his side you must presently turn Papist for who more pretends Antiquity for his opinions than doth the Papist But if you will not beleeve every one that pretends to have all Antiquity on his side then I hope you may think it reasonable to examine the Episcoparians pretences to Antiquity which if you will do you will find that prime Antiquity is no friend to such an Hierarchy as they now would obtrude upon us My advice to you is 1. That if it be possible and as much as in you lieth you would avoid all Disputations of this nature which I have but rarely observed to have any good success 2. If you cannot avoid Disputation then if it be possible confine your dispute to Scripture times Put him that contends for Episcopacy as earnestly as if the very being of the Church did depend upon it to prove the Divine Institution of it and assure your self that which cannot be proved out of the Scriptures is not necessary to the being of the Church 3. If you must needs enter into the lists about the Antiquity of your Opinion then my counsell is 1. Do not take every thing to be the saying of a Father which is quoted as such but forbear answering till you have time to examine whether that be indeed in the Fathers which is brought out of them For nothing is more common than for men in the heat of Disputation to lay the brats of their own brain at the Fathers doors 2. If you find that which is produced out of any Father to be indeed in him then enquire whether it were the intent of the Father to deliver his mind in that place concerning that matter for which his authority is urged For if we will gather the opinion of Fathers from passages let fall on the by we may easily make one Father contradict another yea every Father contradict himself 3. You must also enquire whether what a Father delivers be delivered by him as his own private opinion or as the opinion of the Church and if as the opinion of the Church whether only as the opinion of that part of the Church in which he lived or of the Universal Church If it be but his own private opinion and judgement you cannot think your self obliged to believe it except confirmed by strength of reason and evidence of Scripture If it be delivered as the opinion of the whole Church more reverence is to be given to it but then it is certain that the Fathers did humanum aliquid pati and sometimes affirm that to be Doctrine of the Church Universal which was far enough from being such These and many other directions are given to you by the Incomparable D'aillee in his learned Treatise of the Right use of the Fathers which Book is most heartily recommended to your reading as you are to the grace of God and guidance of his Spirit by Sir Your most affectionate friend and servant R. A. For his much respected Friend H. A. Minister as Postscript An Appendix VVHilst I was waiting for a fit Messenger to send you these Papers somthing fell out which is like to multiply your trouble viz. Mr. Humf. Book of Re-ordination came to my hands wherein he disputes Whether a Minister ordained by the Presbytery may take Ordination also by the Bishop and determines the question affir I was the more desirous to read over his Book because I find him in the very 2d Pag. intimating That since he had suffered himself to be re-ordained it hath pleased God to exercise his Spirit with many perplexities and that he doth not see what end the Lord had with him in his thoughts and workings of that nature unless it be that these throws as it were of his be for the delivery of somthing for one or other of his Brethrens satisfaction M. Humf. being a Scholar and having sought God often upon his knees for direction it would be somwhat unchristian to adhere to my former determination without so much as considering what he had written and printed against it And if I know any thing of my self I am able to say that I come to the examination of his Papers without the least prejudice against his Person or against his Tenent Nay I can safely say that I am hugely desirous to be his Proselyte But the eminent Mirandula hath taught me that which I also experimentally find nemo credit aliquid verum praecise quiavult credere illud esse verum non est enim in potentia hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando ipse voluerit Though I would fain think it lawful to be re-ordained yet unless my Arguments to prove it unlawful be answered I shall never be able to change my mind This Learned Presbyter p. 3.