Proposition 1.

THat in the first and purest times, when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Pres∣byters, There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters. For these Bishops came in postea & pau∣latim, as Hierome saith. And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal. de consuetudine cap. quarto, saith, Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam, & ordinabant Sacerdotes, & pa•iter confe∣rebant omnia Sacramenta.

Proposition 2.

THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church, yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed.

Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge, certifies them, that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues,* who were present with him. By his Colleagues, he meanes his Presbyters, as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church, Quod baptizandi, manum im∣ponendi & ordinandi possident potestatem.* And who those be, he expresseth a little before, Seniores & Praepositi; by whom Page  130 the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood.

In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an ac∣cusation against Chrysostome,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy.

In the Councel of Carth•ge it was decreed, Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet. And Can. 2. Cum • dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput ejus tenente; etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant. When a Presbyter is ordained, The Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters that are present, shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, with the hands of the Bishop. By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters, is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth, but Ordo ipse confertur & gratia ordini necessa•ia impe•ratur, quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi; The Order it self is con∣ferred, and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop:* as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum. The Presbyters impose hands (saith the same Author) non tan∣quam duntaxat consentientes (ad consensum enim sufficiunt suf∣fragia, & plebs etiam consentit, nec tamen ejus est manus impo∣nere) sed tanquam Ordinantes, se• Ordinem conferentes, & ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ, gratiam Ordinato, hoc adhibito ritu, apprecantes; Not onely as Consenting (for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient, and the people also gave their consent, and yet they impose not their hands) but as Ordaining, and conferring Orders, and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God, praying for grace upon him that is Ordained, using the ceremony of laying on of hands.

The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome,* the first of that name, who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas. In the Councel of Nice it was decreed, That No Bishop Page  131 should be made but by Three Bishops at least. And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian, Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome, and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him, (he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself) he received Ordina∣tion from Two Bishops and one Presbyter. And this Or∣dination Canonica habita est in hunc us{que} diem, is accounted Canonical even to this day. By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power. And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordi∣nation, had they not believed, That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders. And this leads us to a Third Proposition.

Proposition 3.

THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity, Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers, and when this power was restrained, and inhibited, it was not propter legis necessitatem, but onely prop∣ter honorem Sacerdotii; It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it, but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy. It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures, but from some Canons of the Church.

Leo Primus ep. 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordina∣tions, writing to the Germane and French Bishops, reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops. Among which he sets down Presbyterorum & Diaconorum consecratio; and then adds, Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authori∣tate Canonum praecipitur. And Isidore Hispalensis, lib. 2. de Offi•iis Ecclesiasticis, cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith, His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est. Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi; & in confectione divina corporis & sanguinis consort•s cum Episcop• sunt; similiter & in doctrina populorum, & in Officio praedicandi. Sed sola propter authorita∣tem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio & consecratio reser∣vata Page  132 est; ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata, concordiam solveret, scandala generaret: and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts, that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same. So also Concilium Aquisgran. 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio & Cons•cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti. Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen (though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy,* yet, he saith, Ha∣bent Presbyteri de jure Divino, Ordinandi, sicut praedicandi, & baptizandi, potestatem: quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine & inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus. And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also,*

Proposition 4.

THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop. A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination, but in some cases he did actually Ordain. S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. Austine (or whoso∣ever was the author) in quaestionibus ex utro{que} Testamento mixtim quast. 101. In Alexandriâ & per totam Aegyptum, fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter. Which words cannot be understood (as a learned defender of Prelacy would have Page  134 them) of the consecration of the Eucharist. For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo; But it must be understood either of confirmation, or (which is more likely) of Ordination, because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination. But howsoever it is not much material. For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination; and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus, then he might also Ordain.

Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops, Presbyteri unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nomina∣bant, &c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops. And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops, much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presby∣ters.

Dr. Forbes saith, That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops, Valida & efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii. Quin & ubi est Episcopus, possunt Presbyteri Ordinare; consentiente, licet non simul manus impo∣nente, Episcopo.

Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us;

And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church, appears further by these ensuing Arguments.

1. Because the Chorepiscopi, who were but single Presbyters, had liberty by the Church to Ordain, if they had a licence, from the Bishop. That they had liberty appears from the Page  135 13. Canon of the Councel at A••yra.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros, vel Diaconos ordi∣nare, sed ne{que} urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo per∣missum fuerit, in alienâ parochiâ. This Councel was held be∣fore the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia, which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed, That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From these two Canons we may collect these two observations.

1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Or∣dain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City. Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibi∣ted?

2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by ver∣tue of a licence, which sheweth evidently that in the judg∣ment of these Reverend Fathers, the Chorepiscopi had an in∣trinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not, but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath. And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels.

It cannot be denied, but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Cho∣repiscopi: But it seems this constitution was not put in exe∣cution in all Churches for above 200. years after. Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Eccle∣siasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church, and saith, Chorepiscopi, id est, Vicarii Episco∣porum, juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur, instituti sunt ad ex∣empla 70. Seniorum, tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum. Hi in vicis & vitis constituti, gubernant sibi com∣missas Page  136 Ecclesias, habentes licentiam constituere Lectores, Sub∣diaconos, exorcistas: Presbyteros autem & Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi, in cujus regione prae∣esse noscuntur. Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis, cui adjacent, ordinantur.

Observe here, That Isidore translates those words of the Canon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not as Gentianus Her∣vetus, Abs{que} urbis Episcopo, but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi. Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii, saith Forbesius, est{que} ipso rei usu & exequutione firmata, ut nimirum, possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros & Diaconos ordinare, permittente, licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci. But how will it be pro∣ved▪ may some say, That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops? For if this can be clearly made out, it will undeniably follow, That according to the judgment of Antiquity, Presbyters had not onely the inward power, but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space. Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presby∣ters, appeares;

1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop —à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent, saith the Councel of Antiochia. But by the Canons of the Church, A Bishop properly so called, was to be ordained by three Bi∣shops.

2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City. So saith the Canon, Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus. Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another▪ Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops, telling us, that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him, for which he is to give account to God.

3. Because they could not, nay, they must not dare to ex∣ercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop. Con•il. Ancyr. saith, Non licere, nisi cum literis ab Episcopo p•rmissum fuerit. Concil. Antio•h. saith, Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi. None of this would have been said, if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence.

Page  1374: Because they were Bishops in villis & regionibus; and therefore (as some think) called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But accord∣ing to the Canons of the Church, Bishops in • proper sence, were not to be made, unlesse in great Cities, n• vil•sca• no∣men Episcopi, as Damasus argues, when he pleads for the abo∣lition of the Chorepiscopi.

5. Because thi• power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions, by which it was first appropria∣ted to Bishops themselves, as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth; which to us is a firm argument to prove, not only that they once had it, but that they had it as Presbyters. For if they had it as Bishops, the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them.

6. We might bring an argument ad homin•m, because they are said Concil. N•ocaesar. Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner, or in imitation of the Seven∣ty▪ Now▪ according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men, Bishops succeed the Apostles, not the Seventy.

7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo, epist. 88. who saith, That the Chorepiscopi, juxta Canones Neocaesarienses, sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta, iid•m sunt qui Presbyteri; and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned, and of Damasus, epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil. Hispal. Can. 7. doth sub∣scribe; and also of Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith,

But we forbear multiplying of argument•, These are Page  138 sufficient to prove, That they were but single Presbyters: And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even du∣ring the prevalency of Episcopacy.

To avoid the strength of this argument, Bellarmine invents novum quoddam & antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus. He saith, That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters, and others that were veri nominis Episcopi. And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning, and of the first sort in the latter end. But certain it is, that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in gene∣rall, without any distinction throughout the whole. And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove, that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was, were nothing else but Presbyters. We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large, because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned, who though a lover of Episcopacy,* yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man, and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted. The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction.

There is another, whom we forbear to name, that saith,

We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a pass•ge out of Gabri•l Vasquez,*Postquam proposuisset istud B•llarmini somnium, •aec subjungit v•rba. Alii •amen non mino∣r•s authoritatis existimant Chor•piscopos fuisse tantùm Presbyte∣ros. Ita expresse sentit Ayala de traditionibus Ecclesiasticis 3. part. Consideratione 4. ubi ha•c r•m ex pr•f•ss• disputat; & noster Franciscus Turrianus in annotationibus ad Consilium Nicaenum Can. 54. •it Ordin•m Chorepiscoporum non fuisse nisi Presby∣terorum Page  139 tantùm: eandem sententiam sequuntur docti aliqui re∣c•ntiores, &c. Porro Damasum duo illa genera Chorepiscoporum minimè distinxisse, sed de omnibus etiam illis, quoru• m• minit, Concilium Antiochenum, pronunciasse, veros non esse Episcopos; ita ut si Presbyteri ess• nollent; nihil om•ino essent, probat ex in∣stituto Ayala loce citato; Potest{que} ex ipso Damaso s•aderi— Nunquam dicit Damasus hos Chorepiscopos diversos esse à prio∣ribus, aut verè Episcopos esse; imo verò ex professo probat, licet à pluribus consecrati, verè tamen Episcopos non esse. Haec Vas∣quez. So much of this argument.

A second Argument to prove, That it was not held un∣lawful in Antiquity for Presbyters to Ordain, may be drawn from the opinion of the Schoolmen and Canonists during the prevalency not onely of Episcopacy, but even of Papal Tyranny. For it is a received opinion in the Church of Rome, That the Pope may by his Commission authorize a single Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters; he cannot, say they, commissionate a Lay-man, but he may a Presbyter. Mr. Francis Mason cite• many Authors to attest this.

The Author of the Glosse saith, Di•o quod Papa potest hoc delegare simpli•i Sacerdot•, & non Laico (sicut credo) & sic ex tali delegatione, & adminiculo habiti Sacramenti, potest conferre quicquid habet. Imo quilibet Cl•ricus hoc facere potest; qui ver• non habet, non potest conferre.

Ros•llus also saith, V•lunt Doctores,*quod Papa potest com∣mittere cuilibet Clerico, ut conferat quae babet ipse, ut si est Pres∣byter, possit Ordinare Presbyterum, & Diaconus Diaconum, ex man•ato Papae. And again, Ego teneo, quod Papa possit de∣mandare Presbyter•, quod conferat omn•s sacros Ordines, & in hoc 〈◊〉 cum senten•ia Canonistarum.

Dr. Forbes brings also many quotations to this purpose, some of which we shall recite as being very observable.

Panormita••• saith, —Ego potiu• p•tarem ut Sacerdoti hoc possit delegare indistinctè, quia 〈◊〉 de Sacr•••nto Eucharisti• sit disposit•m institutione Domi•ic•, qu• ha••ant illud admini∣strare: hoc tamen non est dispositum in collation• Ordinum. Nam olim Presbyteri in comm•ni r•geba• Ecclesiam, & ordinabant Page  140 Sacerdotes. Vnd• quemadmodum olim poterant, ita videtur quòd Papa possit hoc concedere Sacerdoti, maximè delegando, quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio.

In decretalibus Gregorii 9. de consuetudine cap. 4. &c. It is said, Dico quod Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti, et non Laico, sicut credo, et sic ex tali delegatione, et in admini∣culo habiti sacramenti, potest conferre quicquid habet.

Very remarkable is that passage in Petrus Aureolus, in quartum Sent. Distinct. 24. In habente animam rationalem quando{que} impeditur •ctus rationis, et postea removetur impedi∣mentum; non datur nova anima, vel forma, sed tantum re∣movetur illud quod impediebat prius animam, n• exiret in actum rationis. Sed Ordinare in Sacerdotem est actus conve∣niens Sacerdoti, in quantum Sacerdos est, & tantùm est actus impeditus in •o. Probo. Quia nemo dat quod non habet, sicut in naturalibus, ubi forma transfundit seipsam: Ergo non Sa∣cerdotis non est ordinare in Sacerdotem: sed hoc pertinet ad Sacer∣dotem, qui habet formam illam in actu potentem transfundere seipsam. Vnde Papa non posse• Ordines committere, nisi Sa∣cerdoti, ut Diacono, vel Laico; Potest autem committere cui∣cun{que} Sacerdoti: Ergo videtur, quod conferre Ordines sit per∣tinens ad Sacerdotem. Probo. Quia Pone, quod sit Sacerdos, omni alio circumscripto, potest Papa committere •i Ordines: Pone autem alia omnia & circumscribe Sacerdotium, non poterit Papa committere potestatem Ordinandi; Hoc videtur satis rationale, quia omnis forma, ex quo est in actu, videtur quod possit se com∣municare infra eandem speciem (apud Capreolum est, in eandem speciem) ergo Sacerdos hoc modo, quantum est ex potestate sibi conveniente absolutè, poterit Ordines celebrare: Ergo si potestas •lla modo sit impedita, sicut est de facto, & impedimentum remo∣veatur per hoc, quod fit Episcopus; Non datur •i Nova potestas, sed tantummodo pristina potestas prius impedita reducitur ad usum impedimento remoto, & haec reductio illius potestatis ad usum dicitur ampliatio potestatis. Hac Aureolus.

From these two arguments, and the quotations alledged, we may safely gather these conclusions:

1. That there was a time when Presbyters did govern by Page  141 Common Councel, and did Ordain without Bishops. So saith Panormitan, Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ec∣clesiam, & Ordinabant Sacerdotes.

2. That whole Nations have been converted to the faith and governed for hundreds of years without Bishops. This Conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel, Sect. 3. de Ordinationibus, where he tells us, That Ioannes Major de ge∣stis Scotorum lib. 2. cap. 2. saith, Per Sacerdotes & Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi, That Ioannes Fordonius saith, Ante Palladi• adventum, hab•bant Scoti fidei Doctoros, ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodò vel Monachos, ritum sequentes Ecclesia Primitivae. The Scots were Christians 220. years and more without Episcopal Government. The like he proves of the Gothes and French. For brevity sake we refer the Reader to the Author him∣self.

3. That in Aegypt, when the Bishop was absent, Presby∣ters did consecrate.

4. That in Alexandria for almost 200. years the Presby∣ters constituted and Ordained their Bishop.

5. That though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in Ordaining was restrained, yet it was the judgment of Antiquity, That every Presbyter hath actum primum, and an inward power to Ordain, and that though his power was impedited by the Canons, yet it was not utterly extinguished.

6. That when a Presbyter is made a Bishop, he hath no new power conferred upon him, but onely his former re∣straints and impediments are removed, as saith Aureolus.

7. That the Chor•piscopi for a certain space did Ordain of their own authority, without receiving authority from the Bishop. Afterwards (though they were meer Presbyters) yet notwithstanding by the leave of Councels had liberty, with the Bishops licence, to Ordain.

8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists, that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to Ordain. From whence, saith Dr. Forbes, it evidently fol∣loweth, Page  142Ordinationem quae per solos Presbytero• peragitur non esse de jur• divino invalidam, ne{que} Ordination•m esse de jure Di∣vino ita propriam Episcoporum, ut non possit validè peragi per so∣los Presbyteros: That is, That Ordination which is by Pres∣byters alone, is not by Divine right invalid, neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop, that it may not be done (even in the opinion of Papists themselves) by Presbyters alone. For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters. For Bell•rmine saith expresly, In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare,*The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right. And Aureolus saith, Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo, ita quod in potest•te nullius imò nec Papae est ill• auferre: qua sunt autem jurisdictionis, potest ea P•pa suspendere. Now then from hence we may argue.

That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops, that neither Bishops nor Councels, nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops. Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare.

But (according to the Judgment and practise of Anti∣quity) The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordain∣ing to Presb•ters that are not Bishops. And Bishops also may do the like. Therefore the liberty and power of Or∣daining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely, but may be lawfully done by others, the Papists themselves being Judges. And so much for our fourth Proposition.

Proposition 5.

THat when Hierome saith, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter except• Ordinatione? This passage can∣not be understood as if Hierome had thought, That Ordi∣nation was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops, and not to Presbyters (as Bishop Bilson saith). For in the very same Epistle he tells us, That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one. And that in Alexandria, for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop. But he Page  143 must b• understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes; and his meaning i•, Quid facit Episcopus secundum Cano••s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyte• excepta Ordinatione?

Proposition 6.

THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter, because mad• by Collu•hus, that was but a Presbyter himself, and not a Bishop; This was done, not because the act of Collu••us was against the Canon of th• Scriptures, but onely because it was against the Canons of some Coun∣cel•. Thu• Dr. Fi•ld answereth,

But now whether the Church in th•se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons, which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free, we leave it to all sober Chri∣stians to judge and determine.

Proposition 7.

THat A•rius was never condemned, by any Councel, o• heresie, for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter. But on the contrary, Concil. Aquisgranens▪ sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1•. an. 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture, that Bishops and Presbyters are equal, bringing the same texts that Aerius doth, and Page  144 which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer; but how slightly, let any indifferent Reader judge. We confesse, That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austin•; but this was especially, if not onely, because he was an Arrian, Epiphanius, saith he, did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate su∣perare. Austine saith, That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi. But as for his opinion, That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, Austine indeed calls it, proprium dogma. And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum & stolidum. But neither of them both call it an Heresie.

But suppose they did, (for so it is commonly thought) yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors, and not much to be regarded, appears;

1. Because (as Smectym•uus hath well observed) the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead, and the per∣forming of good works for the benefit of the dead. Epi∣phanius accused him, because he said, that superstitum preces did not opitulari •is qui ex h•c vita discesserunt. And Austine accused Aerius because he said, Non licet orare, vel offerr• pro mortuis oblationem. He is further condemned for repre∣hending stata jejunia, and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of con∣demnation, would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie, and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks.

2. Because not onely Saint Hierome, but Austine himself, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo∣phylact, were of the same opinion with Aërius (as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent, and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom. origin.) and yet none of these do de∣serve the name of fooles and mad men, much lesse to be branded for hereticks.

Adde to this, That Alphonsus de Castro advers. haeres▪ Titul. Episcopus, saith, That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius.

And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp. ad Cam∣pian. Page  145 rat. 10. hath these words, A•rium Epiphanius & Au∣gustinus in haereticis nume ant, & praeter eos antiqui pauci. Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum, nihil Catholicum esse potest. Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit. Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit. This is suf∣ficient to answer the objection about Aerius.

Proposition 8.

THat even many, if not most▪ of those that hold Episco∣pacy, and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris, yet (as we in charity believe) they do not hold it to be so of divine institution, as to be perpetually and immutably ne∣cessary •n the Church of Christ; But they say, That those Church•• are true Churches that want Bishops, and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops. Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr. Ser∣mon, professeth, pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris, as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof. And afterwards in his de∣fence,

Thus also Mr. Francis Mason,

Page  147We shall name but one Proposition more, and then we have done.

Proposition 9.

THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterian• in all their writing• for walk∣ing contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination, do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particu∣lars which we could easily name, if we did desire to recri∣minate. We will instance only in two.*

1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters. Cyprian professeth he would do nothing with∣out the Clergy; he could do nothing without them, nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all. The fourth Councel of Carthage condem•s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur: The Church had it•Seniores sine quorum cons•lio nihil ag•batur in Ecclesiâ. There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blond•• and Smectymnuus, but we forbear. Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise, i• suffi∣ciently manifest to all the Christian world.

2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out, That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops; he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries. And Cyprian tells us, That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate.* And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity, and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing. And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity, (when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures, and to the first and purest Antiquity) but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt.

Page  148ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the An∣cient Church in the point of Episcopacy. Not that we in∣tend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apo∣stolical Traditions unwritten, or by the Fathers, or Canons of the Church, in this great Controversie, For, though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity; yet we do not Idolize it. For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical, which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal. Irenaeus* tells us, that S. Iohn told those that told him, That Christ lived here upon earth, and preached ultra quadragesimum, aut etiam quinqua∣gesimum annum, beyond 40. or 50. years; which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed. The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time,* who was Bishop of Rome, celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter, upon the 14^th. day of the moneth, according •s the Jewes were com∣manded to eat their Passeover; This they did as a received Tradition, not onely from Polycarpe, but from S. Iohn him∣self: But now, on the contrary, the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection, which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter. Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true.

And as for the Ancient Fathers, though they were famou• Lights in the Church, yet they have their Naev•s, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius. A learned Gentleman * undertakes in a short Epistle to make out

• Their Contradictions one to another.
• Their variance from themselves.
• Their Repugnancies both to Protestants, and Papists.
• Their want of ability in many points of our Contro∣versies: in most, of will to decide them.

And therefore we appeal from men to God; from the Canons of the Father•, to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures, Page  149 as the onely infallible Judge of this, and all other Contro∣versies of Religion. We say with the Prophet, Ad Legem,*& Testimonium, To the Law, and to th• Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.

And yet we have spoken something in brief even to the matter of Antiquity, which we have done upon a double account:

• 1. For the Vindication of Presbytery from the prejudice of Novellisme.
• 2. For the Satisfaction of young Students, who scruple the Ordination by Presbyters for this reason onely, Because it is, as they think, a receding from the Judg∣ment and Practice of all Antiquity; The contrary to which we have clearly manifested.

And now we hope, at last, we may safely conclude from all the Premisses, That the Way of Ordination which is now, for the present, in use in England, by Scripture-Bishops, that is, Presbyters, is not onely lawful, but more desirable than the former way, because more agreeable to Scripture-patterne. And therefore they that are so Ordained, their Ordination is valid, and they need no Re-ordination.