A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

CHAP. X. (Book 10)

Instances of Ordination by Pres∣byters in the Primitive Church. 1. At Alexandria. 2. At Sce∣tis by Paphnutius. 3. By the Presbyters mentioned by Leo the Great. 4. By the Captive Presbyters beyond Isther. 5. By the Boiarii. 6. By the Pres∣byters Ordained by Meletius. 7. By the Presbyters mentioned by Hilary the Deacon. 8. By Andreas Presbyter de Hostia. 9. By the Chorepiscopi. 10. By the Presbyters at Hy. Obje∣ctions answered. 11. By the Ancient Waldenses. 12. By Wickliff's Followers in Eng∣land. 13. By the Presbyter of Taprobane.

* 1.1 THAT Ordination which was va∣lid in the Primitive Church is valid now: But Ordination by meer Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church; Therefore it is valid now.

The Major will be granted. The Minor I prove.

1. The Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops for almost two hun∣dred years together. Ierom* 1.2 having shewed at large from the Epistles of Pe∣ter, Paul, and Iohn, That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first; he adds, Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur, in Schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam, rumperet: Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evange∣listâ usque ad Heraclam & Dionysi∣um Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu colloca∣tum Episcopum nominabant: quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Dia∣coni eligunt ex se quem industrium no∣verint, & Archidiaconum vocant.

Note here, 1. That Ierom underta∣king to shew the Original way of ma∣king

Bishops of Alexandria, would leave nothing out that was material in the Constituting of them.

2. He mentions no other way of Constituting them but this by the Pres∣byters.

3. He brings this as an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, that Presbyters at first made Bishops: A Bishop in Ierom's Opinion is that to the Presbyters, that an Arch-deacon is to the Deacons. As an Arch-deacon chosen out of the Deacons is but a Deacon still, though the chief Deacon; so a Bishop set over Presbyters is but a Presbyter still, though the chief Pres∣byter. Is Episcopus qui inter Presbyte∣ros primus.* 1.3 The other Comparison of an Army making their General, is not between the power of a General and that of a Bishop, but it respects only the manner of their Creation. As a General is made by the consent and choice of an Army, so Bishops had their first being from the Presbyters consent.

4. He ascribeth to the Presbyters the election, the placing him in a higher degree, and the naming of him a Bishop.

Neither do we read of any other Con∣secration. Polydor Virgil confesseth that anciently in the making of a Bi∣shop,* 1.4 there were no Ceremonies used, but the People met together to give their Testimony and Suffrage in their Election, both Ministers and People did pray, and Presbyters gave Imposition of Hands.

5. He saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Diony∣sius. What Custom? not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People, for that continued long after: Therefore it must be the Constitution, which after∣wards was done by neighbouring Bishops in the way of Consecration.

This Testimony of Ierom is second∣ed by a more full one of Eutychius Pa∣triarch of Alexandria, who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church, in his Arabick Originals thereof, saith, (according to Selden's Translation in his Comment. p. 29, 30.) Constituit item Marcus Evangelista, duodecim Presby∣teros cum Hananiâ, qui semper manerent cum Patriarchâ, adeò ut cùm vacaret Pa∣triarchatus eligerent unum è duodecim Presbyteris, cujus capiti reliqui undecim

〈…〉〈…〉, eumque benedicerent, & Patriarcham eum crearent: & dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent, eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent, loco e∣jus qui sic factus est Patriarcha, ita ut semper extarent duodecim. Neque de∣siit Alexandriae ins••••••utum hoc de Pres∣byteris, ut scilicet Patriarchae crearen∣tur è Prsebyteris duodecim, usque ad tem∣pora Alexandri Patriarchae Alexandrini, qui fuit ex numero illo 318. Is autem vetuit, nè deinceps Patriarcham Presby∣teri crearent, & decrevit ut mortuo Pa∣triarchâ convenirent Episcopi qui Patri∣archam Ordinarent. Decrevit item ut vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex quacunque regione, sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis ut res ferebat, vi∣rum aliquem eximium, eumque Patriar∣cham vocarent; atque ita evanuit insti∣tutum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus à Presbyteris Patriarcha, & successit in locum ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab E∣piscopis creando.

Here is a full proof of Presbyters choosing and creating their Bishop, (whom Eutychius speaking in the lan∣guage of his Age, calls Patriarch) and that by Imposition of Hands and Bene∣diction,

or Prayer, without any other Consecration, which Custom continued several Ages, until at last the neighbour∣ing Bishops usurped the power of Con∣secration, and left the Presbyters nei∣ther the Choice nor the Creation of their Bishop.

Here we have also an Instance of Presbyters making Presbyters; for Eu∣tychius tells us, That the same Presby∣ters that made their Bishop, chose and ordained another person Presbyter in his room; and so constituted both Presbyters and Bishops for several Ages together.

II. The Bishop of Worcester tells us out of Iohannes Cassianus, that about the Year 390. one Abbot Daniel, infe∣riour to none in the Desert of Scetis,* 1.5 was made a Deacon, à B. Paphnutio so∣litudinis ejusdem Presbytero, in tantum enim virtutibus ejus adgaudebat, ut quem vitae merits sibi & gr••tiâ parem nove∣rat, coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii ho∣nore festinaret; Siquidem nequaquam fe∣rens in inferiore eum Ministerio diutiùs immorari, optánsque sibimet successionem dignissimam providere, superstes eum Pres∣byterij honore provexit.

Here is a Presbyter Ordained by a Presbyter, which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus, then Bishop of Alexandria, or any o∣ther of that time. Had it been either irregular or unusual, doubtless it had been censured.

Possibly the Concession in the Canon Law is grounded upon this Example, Abbas si est Presbyter conferre potest or∣dinem Clericalem. Decret. Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 14. c. 11. Innocent. 3.

III. Leo Mag. being consulted by Ru∣sticus Narbonensis, about some Presby∣ters that took upon them to Ordain as Bishops, resolves the Case thus; Nulla ratio sinit, nt inter Episcopos habeantur qui nec in Clericis sunt electi, nec à ple∣bibus expetiti, nec à provincialibus Epis∣copis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati. Vnde cùm saepe quaestio de malè accepto ho∣nore nascatur, quis ambigat, NEQUAQUAM ISTIS TRIBVENDVM quod non doce∣tur fuisse collatum?* 1.6 si qui autem Clerici ab istis Pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quae ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant, & Ordinatio ecrum cum con∣sensu & judicio praesidentium facta est,

potest rata haberi, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent.

Two things are remarkable in this Decision of Leo the Great.

1. They that want the Election of the Clergy, and are not desired by the People, nor Consecrated by the Bishops of the Province, &c. are Pseudo-episcopi, false Bishops in Leo's Opinion, which is agreeable to the old Canons, as we ob∣served before. Our English Bishops want the Election of the Clergy and People, and therefore their Ordinations have a Canonical nullity in them. They would have been reckon'd but Pseudo∣episcopi in Leo's time.

2. The Consent ex post facto of the true Bishops, made the Ordinations of meer Presbyters lawful, which could not be unless they had an intrinsick power of Ordination, which was only restrain∣ed by the Laws of the Church; for if they have no power of Ordination, it is impossible they should confer any by their Ordination. The bare consent of the true Bishops could not have made them Ministers, if they had not been such before.

IV. The power of Ordination and Government was in the Hands of the Captive Presbyters under the Seythians beyond 1ster for about Seventy years, from the Year 260 to the Year 327;* 1.7 the former being the Year of their Captivity under Galienus, the latter of the Change of the Government under Constantine, when Vrphilas was crea∣ted Bishop by Eusebius, and others.

V. The Presbyters of Bavaria Or∣dained Ministers time out of mind, until at last Pope Zachary sent one Vivilo to them for their Bishop. It is certain that when Bonifacius Mogunt▪ aliàs Winifrid, visited them, he found no Bishops in the whole Province but this Vivilo of the Pope's sending not long before; though the Province be so large that one third part of it now, viz. the di∣strict of Saltsburg,* 1.8 hath an Arch••bishop, who is the most powerful Prelate for Re∣venue and Iurisdiction of any in Ger∣many. The Boiarians, who were the ancient Inhabitants of this Province, were govern'd by their Presbyters with∣out Bishops, and in all probability had

been so from their first Conversion, which was about 200 years before. For they were converted to the Christian Faith about the Year 540, and Vivilo was imposed upon them about the Year 740 by Pope Zachary, who thus writes to Winifrid, or Wilfred (as some write his Name) Quia indicasti perrexisse te ad gentem Boiariorum, & invenisse eos extra Ordinem Ecclesiasticum viventes, dum Episcopos non habebant in Provin∣cia nisi unum, nomine Vivilo, quem nos ante tempus Ordinavimus,* 1.9 Presbyteros verò quos ibidem reperisti, si incogniti fuerint Viri illi à quibus sunt Ordinati, & dubium est eos Episcopos fuisse, an non, qui eos ordinaverunt — ab Episcopo suo benedictiones Presbyteratus suscipiant, & consecrentur, & sic Ministerio suo fungan∣tur. It is no wonder that this Pope re∣quires Re-ordination, for now Rome had usurped the Universal Headship, and as∣sumed a power of Deposing and Setting up of Princes, as this Man did in the Case of Childerik and Pipin. They that brought Kings and Princes under them, would much more make Pres∣byters to depend upon them.

VI. The Council of Nice decreed thus concerning the Presbyters Ordain∣ed by Meletius at Alexandria, &c.* 1.10 Hi autem qui Dei gratiâ & nostris precibus adjuti, ad nullum Schisma deflexisse com∣perti sint, sed se intra Catholicae & A∣postolicae Ecclesiae fines ab erroris labe va∣cuos continuerint, authoritatem habeant TVM MINISTROS ORDINANDI, tum eos qui Clero digni fuerint nominan∣di, tum denique omnia ex lege & insti∣tuto Ecclesiastico liberè exequendi. If any say, that the meaning is, that these Presbyters shall Ordain and Govern with the Bishops, but not without them, it is granted; for the Decree refers to instituta Ecclesiastica: But this shew∣eth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office, and consequently it is no nullity (though an irregularity as to the Canons) when it's done by them alone.

If it be said, this Condemns Schis∣matical Ordinations; I answer, Schism, as such, cannot make Ordination null, though it implies an irregularity, else the Ordinations of the Schismatical Church of Rome were null, which are counted valid in England.

* 1.11 VII. Hilary, or whoever was the Author in Q ex utroque Test. mixtim, affirms, That in Alexandriâ & per to∣tum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus, conse∣crat Presbyter. It cannot be said that Consecrare here signifies the Consecrati∣on of the Eucharist, for this might be done by the Presbyter, proesente Epis∣copo. If it be taken for Confirmation, it doth not prejudice our Cause; for the Canon limits the power of Confirmati∣on, as well as Ordination to the Bishop, as was also the power of Consecrating Churches, if any should take the word in that sense.

We may understand the meaning by a parallel place of Hilary in Ambrose,* 1.12 who thus speaks:

Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est, quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta; nam & Timotheum (1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Presbyterum à se crea∣tum) Episcopum vocat, quia primum Pres∣byteri Episcopi appellabantur, ut rece∣dente uno, sequens ei succederet. Deni∣que apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni in∣veniri

ad primatus tenendos, immutata est ratio, prospiciente Concilio, ut non Or∣do, sed meritum crearet Episcopum, mul∣torum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, nè indignus temerè usurparet, & esset mul∣tis scandalum.

The same Author saith also,* 1.13 in Tim. 3. post Episcopum, Diaconi Ordinem subjicit. Quare, nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est? Vterque enim Sacer∣dos est, sed Episcopus primus est.

Here note,

1. That the Ordination in Hilary's time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apostle. That he speaks of the Ordination of Ministers is evident by the following words, Pres∣byterum à se creatum, &c.

2. At first Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and Office, and had but one Odination. Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est, which shews the meaning of Ordinatio in the former Paragraph. The Bishop in Hi∣lary's time, which was about the Year 380, under Damasus* 1.14, was but primus Sacerdos, and not of a superiour Order: Peter is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, primus Apostolus, Matth. 10. 2. and yet Pro∣testants

hold all the Apostles to be e∣qual.

3.* 1.15 Spalatensis infers from this quota∣tion, That at the beginning when a Bishop died, there was not so much as an Election of him that was to succeed (much less any new Ordination) but the eldest Presbyter came into the room of the deceased Bishop. See the Preface to Blondel's Apology, p. 11. & 31.

4. There was a Change in the way of choosing their Bishop, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum; and this was prospiciente Concilio; whether that Council was the Council of Nice, Can. 4. as Blondel thinks; for it should seem that before that time neither the Con∣sent of the Bishops of the Province, nor the Concurrence of three Bishops in Ordination, were accounted necessary for the making of a Bishop, though it might be the Custom (for the keeping up of Unity) in some places: Or whe∣ther it signifies no more then that which Ierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum, the Bench of Presbyters, who might make this Change by general Consent; Mul∣torum Sacerdotum judicio, as Hilarius speaks: Or whether it were some Coun∣cil,

of which we have no further ac∣count in Antiquity, most of the Re∣cords of the three first Centuries being lost* 1.16, is not very material. It might be some Provincial Synod, of which there were several before that of Nice‖ 1.17. It is presumption in us that live at this distance, to say there was no such Coun∣cil, when an Ancient Writer so positive∣ly affirmeth it. Such a Change there was, and that by the advice of some Council; they that say there was no such Council, must disprove it by some positive Authentick Testimony.

5. After this Change the Presbyters chose, and made their Bishop: For so Hilarius affirms him to be, multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum.

6. He adds, that in Egypt Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. He speaks in the foregoing words of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and he brings this as a Confirmation of it, that in the absence of the Bishop they might do those things which Custom had appropriated to the Bishops. Con∣signare is some Act of Prerogative that the Bishops challenged to themselves, which yet in their absence the Presby∣ters

might perform. Whether we un∣derstand it of Ordination, or Confirma∣tion, in which they did Chrysmate con∣signare, it's not material, for both were reserved to the Bishop by the Canons: Though by comparing this with the scope of Hilary's Discoarse, and with the quotation out of the Questions un∣der Austin's Name — Si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter, it should seem evi∣dently meant of Ordination; especial∣ly when we find consignare to be taken for consecrare in several Authors, Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr. Ep. 2. Tu tantum quem jàm Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signa∣vit.

VIII. Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Peru∣sia,* 1.18 Bonus Bishop of Florence, and An∣dreas Presbyter de Hostia, whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bi∣shop: Either then Pelagius was no Ca∣nonical Bishop, and the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome, and consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession; or else a Pres∣byter hath the same intrinsecal power

of Ordination with a Bishop, but it's only restrained by Ecclesiastical Laws. This Instance is quoted in Dr. Stillingfl. Iren.

IX. The Chorepiscopi, or Country-Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by a Canon in the Coun∣cil of Antioch, A. D. 344.* 1.19 Now these Chorepiscopi were either of the Order of Bishops, or not: If they were, then it appears that Bishops were made not on∣ly in Cities, but in Country Villages, which were but thinly peopled with Christians, when the Majority were Heathens, or at least were great num∣bers. By which we may guess at the bigness of primitive Diocesses, which were scarce as large as our lesser Pa∣rishes. Such Bishops in the Exercise of that power which Christ gave them, without Canonical Restraints, we plead for, and earnestly desire. Nay the Chor∣episcopi are an Instance of Bishops with∣out subject Presbyters; they were but Parish-Bishops under the City-Bishop.* 1.20 Sine authoritate literarum ejus in una∣quaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere. But if they were not

Bishops, then it's undeniable that Pres∣byters did Ordain then, without Bishops, and their Ordination was valid, until they were limited by the Canons. The second Council of Hispalis makes the Chorepiscopi and Presbyters to be the same* 1.21.

As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops, some meer Presbyters,* 1.22 others veri nominis Episcopi, he is answered at large by Forbes in his Irenic. c. 11.

X. The Histories of Scotland do tell us that their Churches were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for a∣bove two hundred years, and therefore had no Ordination but by Presby∣ters.

Hector Boetius saith, Ante Palladium populi Suffragiis ex Monachis & Culdaeis pontifices assumerentur. Hist. Scot. lib. 7. fol. 28.

* 1.23 Iohn Major is more express, Priori∣bus illis temporibus, per Sacerdotes & Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in side eru∣diti sunt.

Iohn Fordon justifies this Custom as agreeable to the primitive Church.* 1.24 An∣te Palladii adventum habebant Scoti sidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministrato∣res Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos, Ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitivae. Bi∣shop Vsher cites this last with appro∣bation. De primord. Eccl. Brit. p. 798, 799, 800.

These Authors call the ancient In∣habitants of Scotland by the name they were known by in their days.

Object. Some to elude these Testimo∣nies, deny that there was any Conver∣sion of the ancient Inhabitants of that part of Brittain, which we now call Scotland, before Palladius his time, or neer it. The South-Picts they would have converted not till A. D. 432. the North-Picts in the Year 560.

Answ. I deny not but there might be a more general Conversion of that Na∣tion at those times; the Christian Re∣ligion,* 1.25 which was over-grown with Heathenism, and other Errors, might be revived, and recovered to its primi∣tive Lustre by the preaching of Nennia∣nus and Columba.

Indeed Bede saith,* 1.26 Erat autem Co∣lumba primus Doctor fidei Christianoe transmontanis Pictis ad Aquilonem. He was the first he knew of, who lived two hundred years after the said Con∣version. For he ends his History with the year 766. It is acknowledged that they were mixed with Scots or Irish at this time, a barbarous People, and in all likelyhood Heathens, who having made themselves Masters of all, must needs bring Christianity to a low ebb in that Country. The converting of these to the Christian Faith was the first Con∣version that Bede knew of. But that Christianity was much more early in that Kingdom, is proved by Dr. Cow∣per,* 1.27 a Scotch Bishop. He affirms the Conversion of the North Part of Brit∣tany to be as early, if not earlier, then the Conversion of the South Part. He proves out of Dorotheus Synops. and Ni∣cephor. II. 40. that Simon Zelotes preach∣ed the Gospel in Brittain, where he was Martyr'd and Interr'd. This was An. 44. Christi. He proves out of Baloeus, Fleming, &c. that Ioseph of Arimathea came into Brittain, about the Year 35. He proves out of Theodoret, that Paul

after his Deliverance under Nero, came into Brittain. Cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. And then brings in the Papists objecting, What is this to Scotland? He answereth?

What Good or Evil especially in Reli∣gion hath come to the one, hath been found by manifold experience easily derived to the other. He saith further, out of their own Chronicles, That A.D. 124. when K. Lucius embraced the Christian Faith in the South part of the Isle, in that same year, Do∣nald King of the North part of it became a Christian, and that when (A. 300.) under Dioclesian the Church of South Brittain was persecuted by his Deputies, many fled to Crachlint [or Cratilinth] King of Scots, who did lovingly receive them, and assigned to them the Isle of Man, and erected there a Temple dedi∣cated to Christ, called otherwise Sodo∣rensis Ecclesia. He quotes also that known place of Tertullian, adv. Iud. c. 7, 8. Bri∣tannorum loca Romanis inaccessa Chri∣sto subdita sunt. Now what part of Brittain he means (saith the Bishop) your own Cardinal Baronius will declare unto you—It's evident (saith Baronius) that Britannia was divided by a Wall built by Adrian, &c. that part within

was possest by the Romans, the other without, Britanni liberè possederunt, qui saepe muros illos egressi Romanos prae∣liis provocarunt. For this cause, saith he, Petrus Cluniacensis vocat Scotos anti∣quiores Christianos. Cent. 3. c. 3. & 2. c. 2. Thus far the Bishop.

I would further be resolved in these Queries.

1. When the Fathers mention Ioseph of Arimathea, Simeon Zelotes, &c. to have preached the Gospel in Brittain, what reason have we to exclude North-Britain from partaking in the Blessing? The whole Island, Scotland and England, was then called Britain. It is most reasonable to think that those Apostles and Apostolical Men that came into this Land, did cause the joyful sound of the Gospel to be heard in every part of the Island, North as well as South. When we consider their Zeal, unwearied En∣deavours, together with the wonderful Success attending their Ministry, it is not likely that Scotland remained long in Heathenism, after the Conversion of South-Brittain. And can it be imagi∣ned that the Christians of South-Brittain were so cruelly uncharitable as not to

endeavour the propagation of the Go∣spel among their Country-men and Neighbours of North-Britain, especi∣ally under King Lucius, in whose time Christianity may be supposed to be the publick Profession of the Land. To this add, that a great part of that we call Scotland now, belonged then to the Dominions of the British Kings, who doubtless endeavoured the planting of Christianity among all their Subjects.

2. If the Inhabitants of North-Bri∣tain received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome, as Bede suggests,* 1.28 how comes it to pass that for so long a time after, they kept their Easter after the Eastern manner, and not after the Roman? When the Saxon-Roman-Bi∣shops imposed Conformity in this par∣ticular, they opposed them for a long time,* 1.29 and Bishop Colman (who came from Scotland) left his Charge, rather then Conform, about the Year 664.

The Picts and Britains were as ri∣gid Nonconformists as he in this Point, and are termed by Wilfride, at a pub∣lick Disputation, obstinationis eorum com∣plices* 1.30. Their Bishop Dagamus refu∣sed all Communion with the Roman

Bishops,* 1.31 and would not as much as eat with them in the same House.

As the Roman Bishops were growing in greatness, and arriving towards the Perfection of the Man of Sin, they sent their Bishops to most Nations, to bring them to a dependence upon them; so they did send Palladius to Ireland, Ny∣nias to Scotland,* 1.32 Austin to England, Vivilo to the Boiarians, as we observed before.

Bede himself acknowledges that the first Bishop the Scots had was Palladius, though they were Christians before; * 1.33 Palladius ad Scotos in Christum creden∣tes à Pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae Celestino primus mittitur Episcopus. He did not make them Christians, but found them so.

It is objected further, out of Bede, That Britain in Palladius's time had such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire.

* 1.34 Answ. Bede acknowledges that the British and Scotch Bishops were many of them Ordained only by one Bishop. They were not then such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Em∣pire; for in other parts of the Empire

they were Ordained by three Bishops, according to the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice. It's an evidence that they thought themselves not obliged by General Councils.

But suppose there were such Bishops here, as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire, as it is not very unlike∣ly but the Church-Government of Bri∣tain, being a Province of that Empire, might be in some degree modelled ac∣cording to the Forms used in other parts of the Empire. The Hierarchy in the Churches of that Empire had its Pat∣tern from the Heathen. The Heathen had their Sacerdotes, and over them their Pontifices maximos* 1.35.

In every Province, one chief Priest had the Supream Power, to whom all the other Priests were subject. And these were chosen ex hominibus qui in negotiis Civilibus, & rebus publicis erant illustrissimi‖ 1.36. See the Epistle of Iulian to Arsacius, Chief-Priest of Galatia, in Sozom. V. 16. Here is a President for Bishops intermedling in State Affairs.

The Office of these Chief-Priests was to Ordain and Govern the inferiour Priests.* 1.37

The Master of the Sentences ingenu∣ously confesseth that the distinction of Bishops, Metropolitans, Arch-Bishops, was borrowed of the Gentiles. Thus he:

Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est,* 1.38scil. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Me∣tropolitanis & Episcopis — horum autem discretio à Gentilibus introducta videtur, qui suos Flamines, alios simpliciter fla∣mines, alios Archi-flamines, alios Proto∣flamines appellabant.

That the Ecclesiastical Government of Britain was built upon the Ruins of the Pagan Hierarchy is expresly af∣firmed by Ponticus Virunnius. He tells us, That there were in Britain before Christianity 28 Flamens, and three Arch-Flamens. In the room of the Fla∣mens were set up Bishops, and in the room of the Arch-Flamens Arch-Bishops. The Seat of the Arch-Flamens were London, York, and Caerleon upon Vsk. To these three Metropolitans were sub∣ject 28 Bishops. Fuerunt in Britanniâ octo & viginti Flamines, nec non & tres Archi flamines, quorum potestati coeteri judices morum atque phanatici submitte∣bantur .... ubi. erant Flamines, Eisco∣pos,

ubi autem Archi-flamines, Archi-episcopos posuerunt, mirâ sanctitate, & incredibili devotione. Sedes autem Ar∣chi-flaminum (quae fuit antiquissima reli∣gio) in tribus nobilioribus Civitatibus fuerant* 1.39; Lundoniis, viz. atque Eboraci, & in Vrbe Legionum super Oscam flu∣vium—His igitur tribus Metropoli∣tanis, evacuata superstitione, 28. Episcopi subduntur.

The description that Caesar gives of the Government of the ancient Druids, something agrees with this of Ponticus Virunnius. C••••••r saith concerning the Druids of France, That they managed all the Pagan Devotions, under the Con∣duct of one Chief President, whose Au∣thority was Supream: when he died, another was chosen to succeed him. Illi rebus divinis intersunt, Sacrificia publica ac privata procurant, religiones interpretantur —His autem omnibus Druidibus praeest unus,* 1.40 qui summam in∣ter eos habet auctoritatem. Hoc mor∣tuo, si quis ex reliquis excellit dignitate, succedit; at si sunt plures pares, suffra∣gio Druidum adlegitur. He adds, That this Discipline was found in Britain; Disciplina in Britannia reperta, atque in

Galliam translata esse existimatur; & nunc qui diligentiùs eam rem cognoscere volunt, plerumque illo, discendi causâ pro∣ficiscuntur.

Having prov'd that Christianity was in the North part of Britain before Palladius's time, and vindicated Boe∣thius and Fordon, I proceed to give an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland.

Segenius a Presbyter and Abbot of Hy, together with the other Presbyters of the Monastery Ordained Bishop Ai∣dan. The Presbyters of Hy also Or∣dain'd Finan as Successor to* 1.41 Aidan.

To this Quotation 'tis said by some, that Aidan was ordain'd by Bishops, which they would' thus prove: There was al∣ways one Bishop in Hy Monastery, as Bi∣shop Usher tells us out of the Ulster An∣nals; and another person Ordained per∣haps only by the Bishop of Hy, who was returned back from Northumbria. Then at least there were present two Bishops for Aidan's Ordination.

Answ. 1. We have no Author near that time that saith there was a Bishop constantly resident at Hy, which our Adversaries think a good Argument a∣gainst the Scottish Historians. As to the Annals of Vlster, we leave them for Apocryphal, as not being attested by any Author of that Age.

2. But suppose there were a Bishop resident at Hy, he was subject to the Abbot, who was the only Church-Governour of the Island, and the Provinces about‖ 1.42. The Monastery was not only exempted from the Government of the Bi∣shops, which is usual, but the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot, and therefore the parallel Instance of Oxford being under the Jurisdiction of the Chancel∣lor, and not of the Bishop of the place (which is urged by some) is not to the point, for the Bishop is not subject to the Vice-Chancellor, as the Bishops were to the Abbot of Hy. The Bishop of Oxford hath a Jurisdiction over all that have a Parochial Cure in the Uni∣versity,

versity, who swear Canonical Obedi∣ence to him, which cannot be said of the Bishops under the Jurisdiction at Hy?

3. The second Bishop said to be at Hy, when Aidan was Ordained, cannot be produced out of Bede. It doth not appear that he was Ordained Bishop. * 1.43 Bede calls him only Sacerdotem, a Priest. Or if he was, how will it appear that he was Ordain'd by the Bishop of Hy?

Ordain'd perhaps only by the Bishop of Hy, saith the Learned Historian: Here is a plain begging of the Question; It is taken for granted that this Man was Ordained by the Bishop of Hy, which we deny, and which Bede no where af∣firms. Finan's Ordination was by the Seniores and their Abbot,* 1.44 as Bede saith, and therefore his Predecessor had no o∣ther.

'Tis objected further, That Finan must needs be Ordain'd by Bishops, be∣cause there were three Bishops at the Or∣dination of Cedd. This deserves to be taken notice of by our Aversaries, and consider'd in other places, where Bede speaks of Scottish Ordinations.

I answer we have taken notice of it, and find it doth not at all concern the thing in question. For Cedd's Ordination was at Lindis-farn in England, out of the Li∣berties of the Abbots of Hy. Let one Example be produced of Ordination by Bishops, within the district of Hy, and 'twill be something to the purpose, which I have not yet met with.

Bede speaking of the British Bishops, calls them Presbyters or Teachers* 1.45: so that 'tis uncertain what sort of Bi∣shops the old Brittains had.

'Twas many years after Cedd's time, before the British Churches would sub∣mit to the Roman Yoke of Discipline; when they had throughly imbib'd the Romish Modes and Customs, then at a Synod held at Celichyth, A. D. 816. 'twas decreed, That none of the Scottish Nation should be permitted to use the sa∣cred Ministry among us.

It's argued further against the Scotch Ordinations, that they must needs be Episcopal, because the Romans did not

dislike the Orders, that they found in the British Church.

* 1.46 If by the British Church be meant the Church of South Britain, 'tis not to the purpose, as we observed before, but if the Orders conferred in the Mo∣nastery of Hy be intended, the Romans were not so ignorant of the Priviledges of Abbots, as to dislike their Ordinati∣ons, which to this day are allow'd by the Canons of that Church* 1.47.

XI. The ancient Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters with∣out Bishops. They maintain all Mini∣sters to be in a state of parity, and their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordinati∣on† 1.48. These were the Fathers and fa∣mous Predecessors of the Protestants, who bore the heat of the day. They had the honour to be first Witnesses a∣gainst Antichrist, and are to this day, as the Bishop of Salisbury calls them, The purest Remains of primitive Christia∣nity.

From them the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers, for they

sent Michael Zambergius, and two more, for Ordination to the poor Waldenses (who never had a Bishop among them, but in Title only) In compliance with their desires, two of their Titular Bishops, with some Presbyters that had not so much as the Titles of Bishops, made Zambergius, and his two Collegues, Bishops, giving them power of Ordi∣nation* 1.49. We dislike not, that for Or∣ders sake, the Exercise of this Power should be ordinarily restrained to the graver Ministers, provided they assume it not as proper to themselves by a Di∣vine Right, nor clog it with unscriptu∣ral Impositions.

XII. Wickliffs followers here in Eng∣land held and practised Ordination by meer Presbyters, and least any should think they did so of necessity, for want of Bishops, it's to be noted, that they did it upon this Principle, that all Mi∣nisters of Christ have equal power* 1.50,

as the Popish Historian saith, who com∣plains how all parts of England were full of those People, and that the Prelates knew of these things, but none were forward to prosecute the Guilty, except the Bi∣shop of Norwich* 1.51

XIII. In the Island of Taprobane, or Zeilan, as 'tis now call'd, there was a Church of Christians govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon, without a∣ny Superiour Bishop, to which he or his Flock was subject. This Island is a∣bove two thousand Miles in compass* 1.52, a Province big enough for a Bishop, yet had none in Iustin the Emperour's time, which was about the Year 520, but was under the† 1.53 Jurisdiction of a Presbyter, Ordain'd in Persia, who in all likelyhood Ordain'd his Successor, and would not be at the trouble of send∣ing for one to very remote Coun∣tries.

By this Passage it appears that Bi∣shops were not thought Essential to Churches, no not in the sixth Age, and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction, and consequently of Ordi∣nation.

The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage, A. D. 428. did observe, that until that time, some Dioceses never had any Bishops at all, and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future* 1.54. They would never have made such a Canon, had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Iure Di∣vino.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg. IX.
• * 1.2

  Ad E∣vagr.
• * 1.3

  Hilar. in Ambr. in Tit. 3.
• * 1.4

  De Invent. rer. l. 4. c 6.
• * 1.5

  Stilling. I∣ren. p. 380.
• * 1.6

  Leon: Epist. 92. ad Rust. Narbon. c. 1.
• * 1.7

  Philostorg. lib 2 cap. 5 in B••and. Apol.
• * 1.8

  H••yl. Cos••n. l. ••. p. 368.
• * 1.9

  Bonif. Mo∣gunt. Ep. 120. Auct Bib. Patr. Tom. 2. p. 105.
• * 1.10

  Socrat. in Mr. Baxt. of Episc. p. 226.
• * 1.11

  Q. 101.
• * 1.12

  Comment. in Eph. 4.
• * 1.13

  Hilar. Diac. in Tim. 3.
• * 1.14

  Hilar. ib.
• * 1.15

  De Repub. Eccl. l. 3. c. 3
• * 1.16

  Vid. Eu∣seb. III. 4.
• ‖ 1.17

  Euseb. Ec∣cl. Hist. V. 23.
• * 1.18

  Anastas. de vit. Pontis. p. 53.
• * 1.19

  Antioch. Conc. Can. 10.
• * 1.20

  Ancyr. Conc. Can. 13.
• * 1.21

  Can. 7.
• * 1.22

  Forb's Iren. cap. 11.
• * 1.23

  De Gest. Scot. l. 2. c. 2
• * 1.24

  Scoti Chron. l. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.25

  Bed. Hist. III 4.
• * 1.26

  Bed. Hist. l. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.27

  Comp. 2d days Con∣ference.
• * 1.28

  Bed. Hist. III. 4.
• * 1.29

  Bed. ib.25
• * 1.30

  Bed. ib. c. 25.
• * 1.31

  Bed. II. 4.
• * 1.32

  Bed. Hist. I 27.
• * 1.33

  Bed. I. 13.
• * 1.34

  Eccl. Hist. III. 21.
• * 1.35

  Ar••ob. cont. Gent. Lib. V.
• ‖ 1.36

  Euseb. VIII 15. & IX. 4.
• * 1.37

  Iul. Ep. ibid.
• * 1.38

  Lib. 4. dist 25. m.
• * 1.39

  P. Virunn. Hist. Brit. lib. 4 p. 32.
• * 1.40

  Caesar de B••ll. Gall. lib. 6.
• * 1.41

  — Et ip∣sum esse dignum E∣piscopatu, ipsum ad erudiendos incredulos. & indoctos mitti debere decernunt,—sicque illum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserant—successit vero ei in Episcopatu Finan, & ipse illo ab Hy Scotorum insulâ, ac Monasterio destinatus. Bede Hist. III. 5. 15.
• ‖ 1.42

  Habere solet ipsa Insula rectorem semper Abbatem Pres∣hyterum, Cujus Iuri & omnis Provincia, & ipsi etiam Epis∣copi, ordine inusitato debeant esse subjecti, juxta Exemplum Primi Doctoris illius, qui non Episcopus, sed Presbyter exti∣tit, & Monachus. Bed. Hist. III. 4.
• * 1.43

  Hist. III. 5.
• * 1.44

  Bed. Hist. III. 5.
• * 1.45

  Interea Augustinus adjutorio tisus Edil∣berthi Re∣gis Convo∣cavit ad suum Colloquium Episcopos sive Doctores, maximae & proximae Britonum Provincia, &c.
• * 1.46

  Answ.
• * 1.47

  Abbas si est Presby∣ter conferre potest Ordinem Clericalem. Decr. Greg.
• † 1.48

  Perr. Hist. of Waldens. lib. 1. C. 13. p. 62. ibid. cap. 10. p. 53. vid. part. 3. l. 2. c. 2. p. 57...
• * 1.49

  Vid. Hist. of Bohem.
• * 1.50

  Lolardi sequaces. Johannis Wickliff, pir idem tempus in errorem suum plurimos seduxerunt, & tantam praesumpserunt audaciam, ut eorum Presbyteri more Pontificum, novos crearent Pontificos, asserentes (ut frequenter supra retulimus) quemlibet Sacerdotem tantam consecutum potestatem ligandi atque solvendi & caetera Ecclesiastica Ministrandi, quantam ipse Papa dat vel dare polest. Exercuerunt autem istam persidiam in Diaecesi Sarum, Walf. Hist. Ang. ad A. D. 1389. p. 339.
• * 1.51

  Audiverunt, viderunt, atque seiverunt haec universa pontifices, sed abierunt alius, in villans suam, &c. This was in King Richard the Second's time.
• * 1.52

  N. Lloyd Georg. Dict.
• † 1.53

  Legi in∣signem re∣lationem Cosmae Mo∣nachi Indi∣copleustae de Taprobanâ Insulâ, quae nunc Zei∣lan, olim Seiladiva dicebatur, ubi Iustini Imperatoris aetate Ecclesiam Christi∣anorum, Presbyter in Perside Ordinatus unà cum suo Diacono regebat, saith L. Holsten. de Minist. Confirm. p. 39.
• * 1.54

  Placet uc Dioceses quae nun∣quam Epis∣copos acce∣perunt, non habeant. Con.Carth. 2. c. 5.