Five disputations of church-government and worship by Richard Baxter.

CHAP. VII. The Ordination used now in England and in other Protestant Churches, is Valid, and agreeable to Scripture and the Practice of the Ancient Church.

Sect. 1. HAving already proved that the late English Bishops Ordination is not of necessity; it is satisfactory without any more ado, to them that would nullifie our Ministry and Churches that have not their Ordination. But because we may meet with other ad∣versaries, and because in a case of so much weight, we should walk in the clearest light that we can attain, for the satisfaction of our own Consciences, I shall further prove the Validity of our Ordination, and the truth of our Call, and Minstry, and Churches.

Sect. 2. Argument 1. The Ordination is Valid which is per∣formed by such Bishops as were instituted and existent in Scri∣ture times. But our Ordination (used in England and other refo••med Churches) is performed by such Bishops as were in∣stitut••d and existent in Sc••••pture times: the refore such Ordina∣tion is Valid.

Th•• Major will not be denyed (being ••••derstood with a sup∣position of other requisites that are not now in controversie:)

For those that we have to deal with do grant, that such Bishops as are mentioned, Acts 20. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Phil. 1.1. and in other passages of Scripture, had the power of Ordination, and that it belonged not only to the Apostles and Evangelists, and (such as they call) Archbishops; but that the fixed Bishops of particular Churches had it.

Sect. 3. The Minor I prove thus (that our Ordination is by Scripture Bishops.) The Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of Particular Churches, having no Presbyters subject to them. Most of our Ordainers are such Pastors: therefore most of our Ordainers are Scripture Bishops.

Sect 4. The Major is asserted at large by the foresaid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dr. H. H. Annot. in Art. 11. b. p. 407. Where he shews 〈◊〉〈◊〉 though this title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elders have been also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 second Order in the Church, & is now only in use for them, under 〈◊〉〈◊〉 name of Presbyters, yet in the Scripture times, it belonged princ••∣pally if not only to Bishops, there being no evidence that any of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 second order were then instituted —] So that the Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches having no Presby∣ters under them; for there were no inferiour Presbyters (that had not the Power of Ordination) instituted in those times. This therefore may be taken as a granted truth.

Sect. 5. And that our Ordainers are such, is commonly known: 1. They are Pastors: (it is but few of the Prelates that denyed this:) They are Rectors of the People, and have the Pasto∣ral charge of souls. 2. They are Pastors of Particular Churches. 3. They have (for the most part at least) no subject or inferi∣our Presbyters under them: therefore they are Scripture Bi∣shops.

Sect. 6. Object. The difference lyeth in another point: The Scripture Bishops had the Power of Ordination: Your Pastors have not the Power of Ordination: thereefore they are not the same. Answ. That is the thing in Question. I am proving that they have the power of Ordination, thus: In Scripture times all single Pastors of single Churches had the Power of Ordination, there being no other instituted: But our Ordainers are the sin∣gle Pastors of single Churches, (and of Christs institution:) therefore they have the Power of Ordination. If the Pastors now are denyed to be such as were instituted in Scripture times,

1. Let them shew who did institute them, and by what authori∣ty. 2. The sole Pastors of particular Churches were institu••ed in Scripture times: But such are ours in question, therefore, &c.

Sect. 7. There is no sort of Pastors lawfull in the Church but what were instituted in Scripture times: But the sort of Pastors now in question are lawfull in the Church: therefore they were instituted in Scripture times: The Minor will be granted us of all those that were Ordained by Prelates: They would not Ordain men to an office which they thought unlawful. The Major is pro∣ved thus: No sort of Pastors are lawful in the Church but such of whom we may have sufficient evidence that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles: But we can have sufficient evidence of none but such as were instituted in Scripture times, that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles: therefore no other sort is law∣full. The Major is proved in that none but Christ and such as he committed it to, have power to institute new Holy Offices for Worship in the Church; But Christ hath committed this to none but Apostles (if to them,) therefore, &c. Whether Apostles themselves did make any such new Office, I will not now dis∣pute; but if they did, 1. It was by that special Authority which no man since the planting of the Churches by them can lay claim to, or prove that they have. 2. And it was by that extraordi∣nary guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which none can manifest to have been since that time communicated.

Sect. 8. Moreover, if there were a Power of instituting new Offices in the Church since Scripture times, it was either in a Pope, in Councils, or in single Pastors. But it was in none of these: not in a Pope; for there was no such Creature of long time af∣ter, much less with this authority: Not in a Council: For 1. None such was used: 2. None such is proved. 3. Else they should have it still. Not in every Bishop, as will be easily granted.

Sect. 9. If such a Power of instituting New Church-Offices were after Scripture times in the Church, then it is ceased since, or continueth still; Not ceased since. For 1. The Powers or of∣ficers then l••••t continue still; therefore their authority continu∣eth still. 2. There is no proof that any such temporary power was given to any since Scripture times. Nor doth any such con∣tinue still; Otherwise men might still make us more New Of∣fices, and so we should not know when we have done, nor

should we need to look into Scripture for Christs will, but to the will of men.

Sect. 10. Argument 2. No men since Scripture times had power to change the Institutions of Christ and the Apostles, by taking down the sort of Pastors by them established; and set∣ting up another sort in their stead. But if there be lawful Pa∣stors of particular Churches that have not power of Ordination, then men had power to make such a change. For the sort of Pastors then instituted were such as had but one Church, and were themselves personally to guide that Church in actual Worship, and had the power of Ordination, and there was no subject Presbyters, nor no single Pastors that had not the Pow∣er of Ordination: All single Pastors of particular Churches had that Po••er then: But all, or almost all such single Pastors of particular Churches are by the Dissenters supposed to be with∣out that Power now: Therefore it is by them supposed that Christs form of Church Government and sort of Officers are changed, and consequently that men had power to change them, for they suppose it lawfully done.

Sect. 11. Argument 3. The Pastors of City Churches may ordain (especially the sole or chief Pastors:) Many of our present Ordainers are the Pastors of City Churches (and the sole or chief Pastors in some Places:) therefore they may Or∣dain. The Major is proved from the doctrine of the Dissenters, which is, that every City Church should have a B••shop, and that every Bishop is the chief (and sometimes only) Pastor of a City Church. If they say that yet every Pastor (though the sole Pastor) of a City Church is not a Bishop. I answer, that then they will infer the same power of changing Scripture Institutions, which I mentioned, and disproved before. Let them prove such a Power if they can.

Sect. 12. The Minor is undenyable, and seen de facto, that ma∣ny of our Ordainers are such Pastors of City Churches, and that of two sorts: some of such Cities as have both the Name and Nature of Cities: And some of such Cities as have truly the na∣ture, but in our English custom of speech have not the name: such as are all Corporations, in the several Market Towns of England.

Sect. 13. Argument 4. Those Pastors that have Presbyters

under them, have power of Ordination: But very many Eng∣lish Pastors at this day have Presbyters under them: therefore they have Power of O••dination: By Presbyters I mean not men of another office, but gradually inferiour in the sa••e office. The Major is proved ad hominem from the Concessions of the Dissen∣ters: For (though I rarely meet in their disputations for Bi∣shops, with any Definition of a Bishop, yet) This is it that they most commonly give us as the Essential difference of a Bishop, that he is one that is over Presbyters. Yea this ag••eeth with their higher sort of Bishops that they say were in the Church in Igna∣tius daies, when subject Presbyters were instituted: and there∣fore those Pastors may ordain that are of that higher sort of Bishops.

Sect. 14. The Minor is notorious: Many of our Pastors in Market Towns and other large Parishes have a curate with them, in the same Congregation, and one or two or more Curates at several Chappels of ease, that are in the Parish. And these are under them 1. De facto, being chosen and brought in by them, Ruled by them, and paid by them and removed by them. 2. De jure, the Bishops and Laws of the Land allowed this.

Sect. 15. Argument 5. The stated or fixed President of a Pres∣byterie may Ordain (with his fellow Presbyters) But many of our Parish Pastors are the fixed Presidents of Presbyteries: there∣fore they may ordain. The Major I take for granted by all that stand to the Ordinary descriptions of a Bishop: For the stated President of a Presbyterie, is not only a Bishop, in the judgement of Forbes, Bishop Hall, Bishop Vsher and such other, but is in∣deed the Primitive Bishop in their judgement, and such a Bi∣shop in whom they would rest satisfied, and do propose such for the Churches Peace▪

Sect. 16. And the Minor is notorious: For 1. In the most of our ordered Churches there is a Presbyterie of Ruling Ecclesi∣astick Elders. 2. In many there are divers preaching Presbyters (which may satisfie them that are against meer ruling Elders) as I shewed before. And if these be not inferiour to the chief Pastor in Ecclesiastical Degree, yet they are his Compresbyters, and he is (in all Parishes that I know where Curates or Assi∣stants are) their stated President or Moderator, so that we have in all such Congregations (according to the doctrine of the Bishops

themselves) not only such Bishops as were in the Apostles days when there was no subject Presbyters, but also such Bishops as were in Ignatius daies, when the fixed President or Bishop had many Presbyters, to whom he was the President or Mode∣rator.

Sect. 17. Yea if you will make his Negative voice Essential to a Bishop (which Moderate Episcopal men deny) yet com∣monly this agreeth to such Parish Bishops as have Curates un∣der them: For in the Presbyterie they have ordinarily a Nega∣tive Voice.

Sect. 18. Yea where there are no such Presbyteries with a President, it is yet enough to prove him a Bishop, that he hath Deacons under him, or but one Deacon: saith Dr. H H. An∣notat. in Act. 11. b. [When the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles, and but few converted, they ordained in every City and Region, no more but a Bishop, and one or more Deacons to attend him, there being at the present so small store out of which to take more, and so small need of Ordaining more —]

Sect. 19. Argument 6. The Moderator or President of ma∣ny Pastors of particular Churches assembled, may Ordain, and his Ordination is Valid. But such a Moderator or President is or∣dinarily or frequently One in our Ordinations: therefore they are Valid. The Major is granted by many of the Dissenters, and all their principles, I think, do infer it: For such a one is a Bi∣shop, not only of the Apostolical institution: Nor only such as was in Ignatius days, but such an Archbishop as next afterward sprung up. When it is not only one Church and its Presbyters that are under him, but the Presbyters (or Bishops) of many Churches that he is Moderator or President of, methinks those that are for the highest Prelacy, should not deny the Validity of his Ordination.

Sect. 20. But two things will be here objected: The one is, that he was not consecrated to this Presidency or▪ Moderatorship, by Bishops. To which I answer, 1. That Consecration is not of Necessity to such a Bishop according to the principles of Epis∣copal Divines; it being no new Office or Order that they are exalted to, but a new Degree; Ordination (which was recei∣ved when they were made Presbyters) may suffice, and is not to be iterated. 2. The Election of the Presbyters served (as Hi∣••rom testifyeth) in the Church of Alexandria: therefore it may

serve now: (of which more anon.) 3. He is chosen by true Bi∣shops, as is shewed.

Sect. 21. The other Objection is, that our Presidents are but pro tempore, and therefore are not Bishops. To which I answer, 1. That in some Places they are for a long time, and in some for an uncertain time. Dr. Twiss was Moderator of the Synod at Westminster, for many years together, even durante vita; and Mr. H••rle after him was long Moderator: The London Pro∣vince hath a President for many moneths; even from one Assem∣bly to another. 2. I never yet met with an Episcopal Divine that maintained that it was essential to a Bishop, to be such du••rante vita: I am sure it is not commonly asserted. If a man be made the Bishop of such or such a Diocess, for one and twenty years, or for seven years, it will be said to be irregular; but I know none of them that have averred it to be so great an Er∣ror as nullifieth his Power and administrations. And if it may stand with the Being of Episcopacy to be limited to seven years, then also to be limited to seven moneths, or seven weeks, or days: Especially when (as usually with us) they fix no time at the first Election, but leave it to the liberty of the next Assembly to continue or to end his power. Let them prove that affirm it, that duration for life is essentiall to a Bishop.

Sect. 22. Argument. 7. Where all these forementioned qua∣lifications of the Ordainer do concur, (viz. 1. That he be the Pastor of a particular Church, and the chief Pastor of it, and the Pastor of a City Church, and have Deacons and Presbyters under him, and be the fixed President of a Presbyterie, and the Mo∣derator or President of a larger Presbyterie of the Pastors of many Churches,) there (according to the principles, even of the r••gider sort of Dissenters) the Ordination is valid: But all these forementioned qualifications do frequently concur to some of our present Ordainers in England: therefore even accord∣ing to the more rigid Dissenters, their Ordination is Valid: The premises are so plain that they need no confirmation.

Sect. 23. Argument 8. Ordination by a Presbyterie is Valid. But in England and other Reformed Churches we have Ordination by a Presbyterie: therefore our Ordi∣nation is Valid. The Major is proved from 1. Tim. 4.14. [Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given the•• by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Pres-Presbyterie.

Also from Act. 13.1, 2, 3. They were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church of Antioch that imposed hands on Barnabas and Saul, (whether it were for their first Ordination to the Office, or only for a particular Mission, I now dispute not.) The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates, if any: but they had many Prophets and Teachers, and these and none but these are mentioned as the Ordainers. As for them that say these were the Bishops of many Churches of Syria, when the Text saith they all belonged to this Church of Antioch, they may by such presumptuous contradictions of Scripture say much, but prove little.

Sect. 24. As for them that grant us, that there were no subject Presbyters instituted in Scripture-times, and so expound the Presbyterie here to be only Apostles and Bishops of the higher order, I have shewed already, that they yield us the Cause: though I must add, that we can own no new sor•• of Presbyterie, not instituted by Christ or his Apostles. But for them that think that Prelates with subject Presbyters were ex∣istent in those times, they commonly expound this Text of Or∣dination by such subject Presbyters, with others of a Superior rank or degree, together▪ Now, as to our use, it is sufficient, that hence we prove that a Presbyterie may ordain: and that un∣deniably a Presbyterie consisted of Presbyters, and so that Pres∣byters may ordain. This is commonly granted us, from this Text. That which is said against us by them that grant it, is, that Presbyters did Ordain, but not alone, but with the Bishops.

Sect. 25. But, 1. if this were proved, its nothing against us: for if Presbyters with Bishops have power to O••dain, then it is not a work that is without the reach of their Office, but that which belongeth to them: and therefore if they could prove it irregular for them to Ordain without a Bishop, yet would they not prove it Null. Otherwise they might prove it Null, if a Bishop Ordain without a Presbyterie, because according to this Objection they must concur▪ 2. But indeed, they prove not that any above Presbyters did concur in Timothies Ordina∣tion, whatever probability they may shew for it. And till they prove it, we must hold so much as is proved and granted.

Sect. 26. As for 2 Tim. 1.6. it is no certain proof of it. It may be Imposition of hands in Confirmation, or for the first

giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism (ordinarily used by the Apostles) that is there spoken of: which also seemeth pro∣bable, by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies Faith, in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother; and to the fol∣lowing effects of [the Spirit of Power, and of Love, and of a sound mind,] which are the fruits of Confirming Grace: ad∣monishing h••m, that he be not ashamed of the Testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of Confirmation. However the p••ob••bility go, they can give us no certainty, that Paul or any Apostle had an hand in the Ordination here spoken of: when the Text saith that it was [with the laying on of the hands of the Presb••terie] we must judge of the office by the name: and therefore 1. we are sure that there were Presbyters. 2. And if there were also any of an higher rank, the Phrase encoura∣geth us to believe, that it was as Presbyters, that they imposed hands in Ordination.

Sect. 27. Argument 9. If Bishops and Presbyters (as commonly distinguished) do differ only Gradu, non Ordine, in Degree and not in Order, (that is, as being not of a distinct office, but of a more honourable Degree in the same office) then is the Ordination of Presbyters valid, though without a Bishop (of that higher Degree) But the Antecedent is true: there∣fore so is the Consequent. The Antecedent is maintained by abundance of the Papists themselves; much more by Protestants. The reason of the Consequence is, because ad ordinem pertinet ordinar••. Being of the same office, they may do the same work. This A••gument Bishop Vsher gave me to prove that the Ordi∣nation of meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid, when I askt him his Judgement of it.

Sect. 28. Argument 10. If the Prelates and the Laws they went by did allow and require meer Presbyters to Ordain, then must they grant us that they have the Power of Ordination: But the Antecedent is true, as is well known in the Laws, and common Practice of the Prelates in Ordaining: divers Presbyters laid on hands together with the Bishop: and it was not the Bi∣shop but his Chaplain commonly that examined and approved: usually the Bishop came forth, and laid his hands on men that he never saw before, or spoke to, but took them as he found them presented to him by his Chaplain: so that Presbyters Ordained

as well as he, and therefore had power to Ordain.

Sect. 29. If it be Objected that they had no power to Ordain without a Bishop: I answer, 1. Nor a Bishop quoad exercitium, without them, according to our Laws and Customs, at least ••••••ually. 2. Ordaining with a Bishop proveth them to be Or∣dainers; and that it is a work that belongeth to the order or office of a Presbyter: or else he might not do it at all, any more then Deacons, or Chancellors, &c. may. And if it be but the work of a Presbyters office, it is not a Nullity, if Presbyters do it without a Prelate, if you could prove it an irregularity.

Sect. 30. Argument 11. If the Ordination of the English ••relates be valid, then much more is the Ordination of Pres∣byters, (as in England and other Reformed Churches is in use.) But the Ordination of English Prelates is valid, (I am sure in the judgement of them that we dispute against:) therefore so is the Ordination of English Presbyters much more.

Sect. 31. The reason of the Consequence is, because the English Prelates are more unlike the Bishops that were fixed by Apostolical Institution or Ordination, then the English Presby∣ters are, as I have shewed at large in the former Disputation: the Scripture Bishops were the single Pastors of single Churches, personally guiding them in the worship of God, and governing them in presence, and teaching them by their own mouths, visi∣ting their sick, administring Sacraments, &c. And such are the English Presbyters: But such are not the late English Pre∣lates that were the Governors of an hundred Churches, and did not personally teach them, guide them in worship, govern them in presence, and deliver them the Sacraments, but were absent from them all save one Congregation. These were unliker to the Scripture fixed Bishops, described by Dr. H. H. then our Presbyters are: therefore if they may derive from them a Power of Ordination, or from the ••aw that instituted them; then Presbyters may do so much more.

Sect. 32. Argument 12. If the Ordination of Papist Bi∣shops be valid, much more is the Ordination of English Pre••by∣ters so: but the Antecedent is true, in the judgement of those against whom we dispute: therefore the Consequent must be granted by them on that supposition.

Sect. 33. The reason of the Consequence is, because the Popish

Bishops are more unlike to the Scripture Bishops, and more u••ca∣pable of ordaining, then the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches are. For 1. The Papist Prelates profess to receive their Power from a Vice-christ, at least quoad exercitium, & media conse∣rendi, which Protestant Presbyters do not. 2. The Papist Bi∣shops profess themselves Pastors of a new Catholick Church▪ which is headed by the Papacy as an essential part; and which Christ will not own (as such:) But so do not the Protestant Presbyters. 3. The Papist Prelates Ordain men to the false Of∣fice of turning Bread into the Body of Christ by the way of Transubstantiation, in their Consecration, and offering it as a Sacrifice for the quick and dead, and delivering this as the very Body of Christ, and not Bread to the Communicants, and per∣swading them that it is such, and holding and carrying it to be Worshipped by them with Divine Worship, and the like: But the Protestant Presbyters are Ordained, and do Ordain others, to that true Office of a Presbyter or Pastor, or Bishop which Christ hath instituted. 4. The Papist Prelates have abundance of false doctrines, and practices in Worship, which the Protestant Presbyters have not. 5. And they have no more to shew for a Power of Ordination, then our Presbyters have: so that these with many the like considerations, will prove, that if the Papists Ordination be Valid, that of the Protestant Churches by Pres∣byters is so much more. And doubtless, they that plead for a succession from the Papist Prelates, do hold their Ordination Valid.

Sect. 34. Argument 13. If the Protestant Churches that have no Prelates be true Churches (in a Political sense,) and the Ordinances among them valid, and to be owned and received, then are the Pastors of those Churches true Pastors, though they have no Ordination but by Presbyters. But the Antece∣dent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. The reason of the Consequence is clear, and granted by them that we have now to do with: Because the Pastors are essential to the Church as Political, and the said Ordinances of Publike worship, (as the Lords Supper,) and Government, cannot be allowable without them, nor such as the people should submit to or receive. This therefore we may take as granted.

Sect. 35. And for the Minor, that the Protestant Churches

are true Churches that have no Prelates. 1. There are so few of them that have Prelates, that he that will unchurch all the rest, I suppose (when he playes his game above board) would take it for an injury, to be accounted a Protestant himself. 2. If the Churches of the West called Papists, and the Churches of Africa, Asia, and America, be true Churches of Christ, and have true administrations, then (much more confidently may we affirm that) the Protestants are so too. But the Antecedent is maintained by those that we now dispute against, (except∣ing the Papists, who yet maintain it as of their own Church) therefore, &c.

Sect. 36. The reason of the Consequence is, because the Pa∣pists, Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, Aegyptians, Aba∣sines, &c. have much more to be said against them then we have: And if the lesser (or supposed) imperfection of the Protestant Churches do unchurch them, (for wanting Prelates,) then the many great, and real defects of the other Churches will unchurch them much more. Especially this holds as to the Church of Rome, which yet is taken by the Dissenters to be a true Church, and by some of them, at least, denyed to be the seat of Anti∣christ. Their Vicechrist and usurping head, and all the Mini∣stry that hold by him, afford us other kind of Arguments against their Church, then want of Prelates can afford them or others against our Churches.

Sect 37. And if any will deny the Antecedent so far as to unchurch all the Churches in the world, that are more defective then the Protestants, he will blot out of his Creed the Article of the Catholick Church, and being a Seeker or next one to day, is like to be an Infidel ere long, as I shall further shew, when I speak of the sinfulness of such.

Sect. 38. Argument 14. If the Administrations of a Usur∣ping Presbyter to an innocent people are Valid (and not Nul∣lities,) then the Ordination of an Usurping Ordainer to an In∣nocent expectant, is Valid: (and consequently the Ordination of Presbyters is Valid, if they were Usurpers, as they are un∣justly said to be.) But the administrations of usurping Pres∣byters to an Innocent people are Valid: therefore, &c.

Sect. 39. The Antecedent is granted by Bellarmine himself (in the place before cited) who saith that no more is required to oblige the people to obey him, and submit, then that he be re∣puted

a Pastor: And all must say so, 1. That will not rob the Innocent of the Benefit of Gods Ordinances, because of an usur∣pers fault. 2. And that will not leave the people, almost com∣monly, in an utter uncertainty, whom they should take for a Pa∣stor and obey; and when the Ordinances are Valid for their good.

Sect. 40. The Consequence is made good by the Parity of Reason that is in the two cases. If usurpation cause not a Nul∣lity, invalidity or unprofitableness in one case, to the innocent receiver, no nor make it his sin to receive, no more will it in the other: For there is no Reason for any such difference. Nay i•• it be a duty to submit to an unknown usurper, in several cases, in receiving the Sacraments, hearing, praying, &c. so is it a duty in such cases to receive Ordination.

Sect. 41. Object. But the usurping Presbyter doth nothing but what belongeth to the office of a Presbyter: but the usurping Ordainer doth that which belongs not to the office of a Presbyter: and therefore his action is a Nullity, as being extra proprium forum.

Sect. 42. Answ. 1. It is proved before to belong to the of∣fice of a Presbyter to Ordain: 2. But suppose it were not; yet the objection is vain: because it is the office of a Bishop that the Ordaining Presbyter doth pretend to, and which you imagine that he doth usurp. They say that subject Presbyters (quoad ordi∣nem vel Officium) are no creatures of Gods appointment; and therefore they renounce that Office; and claim that office which you call Episcopacy, and hath the Power of Ordination. The quarrel between us is not about meer Bishops (such as Dr. H. H. describeth as aforesaid) These are not denyed: but the Parish Mi∣nisters profess themselves such Bishops: But it is about the other sort of Presbyters, subject to Bishops, that the quarrel is: For they say, that the Church should have none such, and Dr. H. H. saith there is no Evidence that any such were instituted in Scri∣pture times. Now as a pretended Presbyters administrations are Valid to the innocent receiver of the Sacrament, so a pre∣tended Bishops administration in Ordination is as Valid to the innocent, caeteris paribus.

Sect. 43. Argument 15. They that have the Keyes of the King∣dom of Heaven, have the power of Ordination: But Parochi∣all Pastors called Presbyters have the Keyes of the Kingdom of

Heaven: therefore they have the power of Ordination.

Sect. 44. The Minor is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants, as to some of the Keyes, but it is by many denyed as to other. They say that every Pastor hath the Key of doctrine and of Order, but not the Key of Jurisdiction. But 1. Christ gave the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven together and never divided them. Therefore they are not to be divided. He did not give one Key to one, and another to another, but all to the same men: And what God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder. 2. The Apostles in delivering these Keyes to others, are never found to have separated them. For Subject Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times: Therefore all that were then Ordained Presbyters had all the Keyes together, and so that of Iurisdiction (as it is called) with the rest. 3. That Presbyters had the Key of Order, will prove that they may Ordain, as is aforesaid. 4. But that English Presbyters had the Key of Iurisdiction is proved, 1. In that they were with the Bi¦shops to Ordain by Imposition of hands. 2. In that they were by the Book of Ordination charged to administer Discipline: though this was disused, and the Prelates frustrated their power.

Sect. 45. I shall recite the words of Reverend Vsher for the proof of this, Reduction of Episcopacy, &c.

[By Or∣der of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged (in the Book of Ordination) to administer the Doctrine of Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same; and that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein, the exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination, Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers. to Rule the Congre∣gation of God which he hath purchased with his blood. Of the many Elders who thus in common ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was one President, whom our Saviour in his

Epistle unto this Church in a peculiar manner stileth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus. And Ignatius in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, calleth the Bishop thereof. Betwixt the Bishop and the Pres∣byterie of that Church, what an harmonious consent there was in th•• ordering of the Church Government, the same Igna••i•••• doth fully there declare, by the Presbyterie with St Paul, understanding the Community of the rest of the Presby∣ters or Elders who then had a hand not only in the delivery of the D••ctrine and Sacraments, but also in the Administration of the Discipline of Christ: For further proof of which we have that known Testimony of Tertullian in his General Apology for Christians: ••n the Church are used exhortations, chastise∣ments and divine censure, for judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God; and it is the chiefest foreshewing of the Iudgement which is to come, if any man have so offended that he be ba∣nished from the Community of Prayer, and of the Assem∣bly, and of all holy fellowship. The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this honour not by Reward, but by good report, who were no other (as he himself intimates) elsewhere, but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist.

For with the Bishop who was the chief President, (and therefore stiled by the same Tertullian in another place, sum∣mus Sacerdos for distinction sake) the rest of the dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joyned in the common Govern∣ment of the Church; and therefore where in matters of Ec∣clesiastical judicature, Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the recieved form of gathering together the Presbyterie, of what persons that did consist, Cyprian sufficiently declareth, when he wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him. The presence of the Clergy being thought so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience, that in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded, That the Bishop might hear no mans cause without the presence of the Clergy; and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy:

which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times, and afterwards into the body of the Canon-Law it self.

True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Go∣vernment hath been long disused, yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church (from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispence the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the restraint of the exer∣cise of that right proceedeth only from the custom now re∣ceived in this Realm; no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land, this hinderance may be well removed]

Sect. 46. And indeed the stream of Antiquity, and the Authors that are principally rested on for Episcopacy, are full against them that deny the Government of the people to the Presbyters; And it is the principal mischief of the English Prelacy, thus to degrade (or quoad exercitium to suspend at least) all the Pres∣byters from their office: Not as it is a denying them any part of their honour (thats not to be much regarded;) but as it is a discharging them of their work and burden, and consequently leaving the Churches ungoverned. And for the Government of Presbyters themselves, in Cyprians dayes the Bishop did not, could not, Ordain, or censure any Presbyter without his Cler∣gy, and Councils have decreed that so it should be. Yea and the plebs universa also was consulted with by Cyprian.

Sect. 47. And now I come to the Major of my Arrgument, which I prove thus. Either Ordination is an act of the exercise of the power of the Keyes, or of some other power: But of no other power: therefore of the Keyes. If it be the exercise of any other power, it is either of a secular power, or an Eccle∣siastick: but neither of these, therefore of no other. Not of another Ecclesiastick power: for there is no Ecclesiastical pow∣er, (at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to) but the power of the Keyes; not of a secular power; for that be∣longeth not to Ministers, nor is it here pretended.

Sect. 48. And I think it will appear that the power of Bap∣tizing, and judging who shall be taken for Christians, and who not, and the power of administring the Eucharist and Eucha∣ristical actions in the Church, is as great as this of Ordination,

especially supposing that a Presbyterie must concur in this, and a single Pesbyter may do the other. And therefore the one being granted them, the other cannot be denyed.

Sect. 49. Argument 16. If the administrations of the Priests and Teachers in Christs dayes among the Jews was Valid to the people, then the Ordination of our Presbyteries, and the ad∣ministrations of our Presbyters so ordained are Valid to the peo∣ple and receivers now: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. This Argument is managed so frequently and copiously by our Ministers heretofore against the Separatists, that I shall need to say but little of it.

Sect. 50. The Antecedent is proved easily from Scripture. Acts 13.27. & 15.21. shew that Moses and the Prophets were read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, and Luke 16.29. shews that it was the peoples duty to hear them, Mat. 23.1, 2, 3. Then spake Iesus to the Multitude and to his Disciples, saying, The Scribes and the Pharises sit in Moses seat: all therefore what∣soever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.] Mat. 8.4. Mark 1.44. Luke 16.29. But go thy way, shew thy self to the Priest, and of∣fer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, &c. So that it was the peoples duty to hear, and submit to the Teach∣ers and the Priests.

Sect. 51. The reason of the Consequence is, because these Priests and Teachers had not so good a Call as our Presbyters, to their Office, but were lyable to far more exceptions. The Priests were not of the line that God had by his Law appointed to succeed in the Priesthood: the succession had long failed, as to the just title of the Successors. The Priesthood was bought for money of the Civil Powers: and instead of being the Priest for life, he was oft changed every year: chosen by a Pagan Prince, and by him displaced: and most think there were two at once. The Scribes and Pharises had abominably corrupted the Law by their traditions and false expositions; and their Calling was much more defective then ours: so that if they must pass yet for Ministers of God, and their administrations be valid, then so must Presbyters and their administrations be esteemed much more. I know we need not this odious comparison of our Ministry with the Priests or Pharises, but to shew the adver∣••••ries

the odiousness of their accusations, and grossness of their 〈…〉〈…〉

〈…〉〈…〉 Presbyters may make a Bishop▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they may make a 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But they may make a Bishop: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they may make (〈◊〉〈◊〉 ordain) a Presbyter. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Major is proved thus. 1. They that may ••onfer 〈…〉〈…〉 D••gree▪ may confer the lower: the place of a Bishop is supposed the higher Degree, and the place of a Presbyter the lower. 2. ••he Bishops themselves require more power in or to the Consecration of a Bishop, then to the Ordination of a Minister, called a Presbyter. The later may be done, according to their Canons, by one Bishop (with assisting Presbyters,) but the former must have three Bishops at the least.

Sect. 53. To this it is commonly answered, that Praecise the Ordination of a Presbyter, is a greater work then the making of a Bishop▪ and therefore the Major is denyed. To which I re∣ply. 1. I speak not of a Greater work, because the word greater is ambiguous, and may signifie the greater change in regard of the Terminus a quo, which is not it that I intend. But the addi∣tion of an higher degree of power, may require more power to the effecting it, then the giving of the Lower degree, though the lower be praecise the greater change: for the higher is the greater change as to the terminus ad quem; and as Episcopacy comprehendeth or supposeth Presbyterie, so the power of making a Bishop comprehendeth or supposeth the power of Ordaining Presbyters. It may be praecise, (or cum praecisione, as the School∣men speak) it may be a greater work to make a beggar to be the chief Prince next to the King in a Kingdom: and yet sin•• praecisione and in regard of the terminus ad quem it is a greater work to make him afterward a King; and doubtless the additi∣on of this Power requireth the Greater power to effect it.

Sect. 54. Otherwise, if the Dissenters will stand to their answer, we shall from their own grounds infallibly overthrow their cause thus. It is a greater work to Baptize then to Ordain or Confirm: therefore he that may Baptize, may Ordain and Confirm. Just as making a Presbyter is cum praecisione, and in respect to the terminus a quo, a greater work then Consecrating or making a Bishop; so Baptizing is cum praecisione and in re∣spect to the terminus a quo, a far greater work then Ordination;

the one making a Christian, and the other a Minister of a Chri∣stian. See Aquil. in Scotel. in 4. sent. d. 7. q. 2. pag. 816. of Con∣firmation.

Sect. 55. It is only the Minor therefore that will hold dispute, which I prove from the well known words of Hierom to Eva∣grius (which Bishop Vsher told me he alleadged to King Charls at the Isle of Wight to this end, when he was asked by him for an instance of Presbyters Ordaining) [Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praepone••etur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rum∣peret. Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Hera∣clam & Dionysium, Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant: quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat: aut Diaconi eligant de se, quem industrium noverint, & Archidiaconum vocent.] Presbyters then made the first Bishops at Alexandria.

Sect. 56. To this it is answered, that it was only Election of Bishops that Hierom ascribeth to the Alexandrian Presbyters, and not Ordination of them; for that was done by some other Bishops: and that it is Ordination that makes a man a Bishop.

Sect. 57. To this I reply: 1. Hierom here undertakes to tell us, how Bishops were made at Alexandria; but maketh not the least mention of other Ordination or Consecration, then these words express as done by the Presbyters: And therefore till they prove it, we must take the affirmation of another Ordination to be but the groundless presumption of the Assertors. 2. Hierom doth purposely bring this as an argument, to prove the identity first, and the neerness afterward, of Bishops and Presbyters, that [Presbyters made Bishops:] which would have been no argument, if it was not Presbyters but Prelates that made them, and if the Presbyters only chose them; for, 3. The people may choose a Bishop, as well as the Presbyters, and ordinarily did it: and yet this proveth not that the people were neer the Bishop in degree; that which the people themselves may do, and frequently did, is not the only thing that Hierom here a∣scribeth to the Presbyters: but such is the Election of a Bishop: therefore, &c. 4. It is the Original or first making of Pre∣lates at Alexandria that Hierom here speaks of▪ which he shews was from the Presbyters consent. This appeareth plainly in his

words (though some can make the plainest words to signifie what they would have them) For 1. He begins with a [Pres∣byteris, id est Episcop••s,] and 2. proceedeth from many scri∣pture passages, to prove them in scripture times the same: and that not only quoad nomen, but officium; for 3. When he had done with the Testimonies of Saint Iohn in his two Epistles, he immediately addeth [Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur &c.] where note, both that [unus qui caeteris praeponeretur] is more then the bare name: and also that [Postea] referreth to the date of Iohns Epistles, and therefore he plainly averreth, that it was after Iohns Epistles, that [one was chosen to be before the rest.] 5. And to the Answer I further reply, that here is all that was done, and all that was needfull to be done, ascribed to the Presbyters: For 1. They elected one. 2. They did in excelsiori gradu electum collocare, place him in an higher degree, and 3. Episcopum nominabant: they named him the Bishop (by way of excellency.) And if Electi∣on and placing him in the Degree, and giving him peculiarly the name, be not Ordination, then Ordination is but some Ceremo∣ny; for these contain the substance. 6. And Hierom expresly resembleth this action of the Presbyters to an Armies making an Emperour or General; as if he had said, As the Army makes an Emperour (Imperatorem faciat) so Presbyters made the Bishop: but the Army so made the Emperour, that they left it not to another power to make him (and to them only.) So that it is both [Making a B••shop] that is here ascribed to the Presbyters, and [such a making] as leaveth him not unmade, to the making of another. 7. And he resembleth it to the making of an Arch-deacon, supposing that the Deacons do 1. Elect. 2. Judge of the person (quem industrium noverint.) 3. And give him the name (& Archi-diaconum vocent.) 8. And he affirmeth this to be (semper) the constant custom of the Alex∣andrian Presbyters, till the dayes of Heraclas and Dionysius: intimating that then the custom changed: but what custom was then changed? Not the Election of a Bishop by the Presbyters, (with the people) for that continued long after: and therefore it must be the Constitution, which afterward was done by Neigh¦bour Bishops in Consecration, but till then by the Election, Col∣location, and nomination of the Presbyters of that City-Church.

9. Having shewed thus, that Bishops and Presbyters were the same, and in the beginning called them by the same name, he af∣firms that [Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt] that is, All these Bishops. 10. And he plainly affirms that the difference is made by Riches and Poverty: He is the greater that is the richer, and he is the inferiour that is the poorer. [Potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimior••m, vel inferiorem Episcopum facit.] Let any impartial Reader peruse the Epistle it self, and conside•• of these ten passages, and then believe if he can, either that Hierom did imply that other Bishops made these Alexandri∣an Bishops, and not the Presbyters, or that these Presbyters altered but the name, and gave not the Bishop his new degree, or that this was not a thing that was now de novo in remedium schismatis contrived or performed by them. There is evidence enough against these conceits.

Sect. 58. And further, for them that think it was but the name that was now changed, I would ask them these few Questi∣ons, (supposing them to be of their mind, that tell us that In∣feriour Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times, and that it was only Prelates that are called Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture.) 1. Is it not strange, that when after Scripture-times, a New Office was made, it should not have a new Name also; but should have the same name with the old superiour office? 2. And is it not strange that both names of the superior Office (Bishop and Presbyter) should be commonly given to the new inferior Office, at the first? 3. And strange that the Church must afterward be put to change the names, and retrench or recall the name of a Bishop from the new sort of Presbyters, and confine it to the old, leaving (as old) the name of a Presbyter to the new inferior Office. 4. And if in Scripture-times (in the dayes when Iohn wrote his Epistles and Revelation) the names of Bishop and Presbyter were both appropriated to Pre∣lates, there being no Inferiour Presbyters then instituted; and yet from Mark the Evangelist, the Alexandrian Presbyters brought back the name of a Bishop to the Prelates, retaining the name Presbyter themselves, Quaero How long time was there after the Institution of Inferiour Presbyters, till the regulating of their names, from the dayes of Mark? About thirty four years backward. Mark dyed in the eighth year of Nero, and the

Presbyters made Arianus Bishop after his death, who continu∣ed twenty two years, even from the eighth of Nero, to the fourth of Domitian, as Eusebius in Histor. Eccles. l. 2. cap▪ 23. & lib. 3. cap. 12. & in Chronic. & Hieronym. in Catalog. & ex illis Usher Annal. Vol. 2. ad an. Dom. 67. pag 677. And Helvicus and others are neer the same time. And saith Helvicus, Iohn wrote the Revelations about the fourteenth year of Domitian, and wrote his Gospel about the first year of his Successor Nerva. So that Mark dyed about thirty six years (or thir••y four at least) be∣fore Iohn wrote his Gospel; so that here you have your choice, whether you will believe, that subject Presbyters did regulate the names of themselves and Bishops, and did elect (or make, Bishops thirty six years before they were instituted themselves; or whether you will believe, that yet at the death of Mark there were no inferior Presbyters at Alexandria, and so no supe∣rior Bishops, for all this that Hierom doth report.

Sect. 59. As for the Episcopal Divines that dissent from the Principle of the forecited Learned Author (who saith that there is no evidence that any of the second sort of Presbyters were instituted in Scripture times) I need not deal with them in th••s Disputation: for all of them that ever I yet met with, do grant the validity of Presbyters Ordination, and the truth of the Re∣formed Churches and their Ministry, and Ordinances: otherwise it were easie enough to vindicate all these from them also, if they denyed them.

Sect. 60. Argument 18. Ad hominem. If the late English Prelates had a lawful call to their Prelacy, then much more have Ministers Ordained by Presbyters a lawfull call to their Ministry. But the Prelates say that they had a lawfull Call to their Prelacy: therefore, &c. The reason of the Consequence (which only will be denyed) is, 1. Because the Presbyters are Ordained to an Office that is of Christs Institution; but the Prelates are Conse∣crated to an Office that is not of Christs Institution, but against it, and against the light of Nature (in taking on them the im∣possible Government of an hundred, or many hundred Churches) as was shewed in the former Disputation. 2. Be∣cause the Prelates hold an uninterrupted Succession of Legiti∣mate Ordination necessary to the Being of their Prelacie (I mean, such as now we dispute against, hold this) but so do not

the Presbyters. The said dissenting Prelates are still upon their N••mo dat quod non habet; which therefore we may urge upon them. And 1. They cannot prove an uninterrupted Succession themselves, on whom it is incumbent, according to their prin∣ciples, if they will prove their Call. 2. We can prove that they are the successors of such as claimed all their Power from the Roman Vicechrist, and professed to receive it from him, and hold it of him as the Catholick Head, and so that their Ordination comes from a seat that hath had many interruptions, and so had no power of Ordination, by their Rule: For when the succession was so oft and long interrupted, Nemo dat quod non habet: and therefore all that followed must be usurpers and no Popes: and those that received their Offices from them must be no Officers: But the Presbyters that Ordain will give a better proof of their Call then this.

Sect. 61. Argument 19. Where the Office is of Gods Instituti∣on, and the persons are endued with Ministerial abilitities, and are Orderly and duly designed and separated to the Office of the sa∣cred Ministry, there are true Ministers, and Valid administrations. But all these are found in the Reformed Churches that have Or∣dination without Prelates: therefore, &c. The Major is unde∣nyable, as containing a sufficient enumeration of all things neces∣sary to the Being of the Ministry.

Sect. 62. The Minor is proved by parts. 1. That the Offi••e of a Presbyter is of divine institution, is confessed by most: And I sup∣pose those that deny it to be of Scripture ins••i••ution, will yet have it to be Divine: But if they deny that, yet it sufficeth us, that it is the same officer that they call a Bishop, and we a Presbyter; that is, the chief Pastor of a particular Church.

Sect. 63. 2. And that the persons are duly or competenly qua∣lified for the Ministry, nothing but Ignorance, Faction and Ma∣lic••, that ever I heard of, do deny. (Supposing the humane frailties, that make us all insufficient gradually for these things) The Ignorant that know not what the Ministerial qualifications are, do judge as carnal interest leadeth them. The Factious rail at all that be not of their mind. Grotius thought the opinions of the Calvinists made them unfit materials for the Catholick Edifice that by his Pacification he was about to frame. So do most other Sects, reject those as unworthy that suit not with

their minds. And malice (whether ••n••mated by Heresie, Pro∣phaness or Carnal interest) will easily find faults, and unweari∣edly slander and reproach: But besides such I meet with none that dare deny the competent abilities of these Ministers

Sect. 64. And 3. That the persons are Orderly and duly sepa∣rated to the work of the Ministry is thus proved. Where there is a separation to the Ministry by mutual Consent of the person and the flock, and by the Magistrates authority, and by the Appro∣bation and Investiture of the fittest Ecclesiastical officers that are to be had, there is an orderly and due separation to the Ministry; But all this is to be found in the Ordination used in England and other Reformed Churches, without Prelates: therefore &c. This proves not only the Validity of their Ordination, but the full Regularity.

Sect. 65. God himself (as hath been shewed) doth by his Law appoint the Office of the Ministry, imposing the duty up∣on the person that shall be called, and giving him his power, by that Law. And then there is nothing to be done, but to deter∣termine of the person that is to receive this power and solemnly to put him in Possession by Investiture. Now the principal part of the former work is done also by God himself: by his Qualifying the person with his eminent Gifts▪ and giving him oppor∣tunities and advantages for the Work. So that the people and Odainers have no more to do, but to find out the man that God hath thus qualified, and to elect, approve and invest him; and usually he is easily found out, as a candle in the night. So that the two great acts by which God maketh Ministers, is his In∣stituting Law that makes the office, and his Spiritual and Natu∣rall Endowments given to the person; which the Church is but to find out, and call into use and exercise. And therefore we may still truly say, that the Holy Ghost maketh Pastors or Overseers of the Church, as well as formerly he did Act. 20.28.) because he giveth them their Gifts, though not such Miraculous Gifts as some then had; By his common Gifts of Knowledge and Utterance, and his special Gifts of Grace, it is the spirit that still makes Ministers, and still Christ giveth Pastors to the Church.

Sect. 66. It is therefore to be noted that, Eph. 4.6, 7, 8, 11 the way of Christs giving officers to his Church is said to be by [gi∣ving Gifts to men] and the diversity of Offices is founded in the

diversity of the Measure of Grace, (or these Gifts) [To every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Therefore he saith, Ascending on high he led captivity 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and gave Gifts to men (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) — And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and T••••chers] So that giving Gifts, and giving Apostles, Pro∣phets▪ &c. are here made the same work of God: Not that 〈…〉〈…〉 and Approbation of these gifts is hereby made unneces∣sary, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this is Gods principal act by which ••e giveth Pa∣stors and Teachers to the Church, and by which the Officers a••e distinguished. For the Church is to discern and submit to those that are thus gifted; and to follow the Spirit, and not either contra••ict or lead him. When God hath thus gifted men, the main w••rk is done, for making them Ministers (i•• withall he give t••em opportunities and advantages for the work) and it is the Churches Duty ••o Own and Approve these Gifts of God, and to do their parts to introduce the person: And if the Ordainers refuse this, in case of Necessity, the gifted person is bound to im∣prove his Gifts without them. I say [in case of Necessity] using the best Order that is left.

Sect. 67. This being premised, I come to the Argument (§. 64.) And the Major is undenyable, because there are all things enumerated, that are Necessary to the determination of the person qualified, that is to receive the power from Christ▪

Sect. 68. And the Minor I prove by parts, 1. That our Mi∣nistry have usually the peoples consent, is a known case that needs no proof: 2. So is it that they have the Magistrates allow∣ance, and his Authority appointing Approvers for their In∣troduction, and allowing Ordination and commanding Ministe∣rial Works.

Sect. 69. And doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs, that if he command a qualified person to preach the Gospel, and command the people to re∣ceive him, I see not how either of them can be allowed to diso∣bey him: (Though yet the party ought also to have recourse to Pastors for Ordination, and people for consent, where it may be done.) And Grotius commendeth the saying of Musculus, that would have no Minister question his Call, that being qua∣lified, hath the Christian Magistrates Commission. And though

this assertion need some limitations, yet it is apparent that Ma∣gistrates power is great about the Offices of the Church. For Solomon put out Abiathar from the Priesthood, and put Zadeck in his place, 1 Kings 2.27, 35. David and the Captains of the host separated to Gods service those of the sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Ieduthun who should Prophesie with Harps, &c. 1 Chron 16.4. And so did Solomon, 2 Chron. 8.14, 15. They were for the service of the house of God, according to the Kings Order, 1 Chron. 25.1, 6. And methinks those men should acknow∣ledge this, that were wont to stile the King [In all causes, and over all persons the supream Head and Governour.]

Sect. 70. But 3. We have moreover in the Ordination of the Reformed Churches, The approbation and solemn Investiture of the fittest Ecclesiastical Officers that are to be had. And no more is requisite to an orderly Admission. There being nothing for man to do, but to determine of the qualified person, and present him to God to receive the power and obligation from his Law; it is easie to discern, that where all these concur (the Peoples Election or Consent, the Magistrates Authority, the determi∣nation of fit Ecclesiastical Officers, and the qualification and consent of the person himself,) there needs no more to the designation of the man. Nor hath God tyed the essence of the Church or Ministry, to a certain formality, or to the interest or will of Prelates▪ nor can any more ad ordinem be required, but that a qualified person do enter, by the best and most Order∣ly way that is open to him in those times and places where he is. And that we have the fittest Approvers and Ordainers, I prove.

Sect. 71. If the most of the Protestant Churches have no other Ecclesiastical Officers to Ordain but Presbyters, then is it the most fit and orderly way to enter into the Ministry in those Churches by their Ordination, and those Presbyters are the fit∣test that are there to Ordain. But the Antecedent is a known truth. If any in denyal of the Consequence say, that the Churches should rather be without Ministers then have Ordina∣tion by such, they are confuted by what is said before.

Sect. 72. And if you say, that they should have Bishops, and it is their own fault that they have not; I answer, Suppose that were a granted truth, it can reach but to some that have the

Rule: It is not the fault of every Congregation, or expectant of the Ministry: It is not in their power to alter Laws and forms of Government: and therefore they are bound to enter by the fittest way that is open to them.

Sect. 73. Moreover, even in England; the Presbyteries are fitter for Ordination then the present Bishops: (as to the Nati∣on in general) therefore the Ordination by Presbyteries is done by the fittest Ecclesiastical officers, and is the most regular and desire∣able Ordination.

Sect. 74. I prove the Antecedent by comparing the Ordina∣tion of the Presbyteries and the present Prelates. 1. I have before shewed that the English Prelacy is more unlike the Primitive Episcopacy, then our Parochial Presbytery or Epis∣copacy is; and therefore hath less reason to appropriate to themselves the Power of Ordaining. 2. The Ordaining Presbyters are Many, and known persons; and the Prelates few, and to the most (and except three or four, to almost all that I am acquainted wi••h) unknown. 3. The Presbyters Ordain Openly where all may be satisfied of the impartiality and Order of their proceedings: But the Prelates Ordain in Private, where the same satisfaction is not given to the Church. 4. Hereupon it is easie for any vagrant to counterfeit the Prelates secret Or∣ders, and say he was Ordained by them, when it is no such mat∣ter; and who can disprove him? But the publick Ordination of Presbyters is not so easily pretended by such as have it not, and the pretence is easily discovered. 5. The Prelates for ought I hear, are very few, and therefore few can have access to them for Ordi∣nation: But Presbyteries are in most countreyes. 6. The Prelates, as far as I can learn, Ordain Ministers without the peoples consent over whom they are placed, and without giving them any notice of it before hand, that they may put in their exceptions if they dissent: But the Presbyters ordinarily require the consent of the people; or at least will hear the reasons of their dissent. 7. The Presbyteries Ordain with the Magistrates allowance, and the Prelates without and against them. Those therefore that are Ordained by Prelates usually, stand on that foundation alone, and want the consent of People and Magistrates; when those that are Ordained by Presbyteries have all. 8. Ordination by Prelates is now pleaded for on Schismatical grounds, and in sub∣mitting

to it, with many of them, we must seem to consent to their Principles (that all other Ordination is Null, and the Churches are no true Churches that are without it.) But Presbyteries Or∣dain not on such dividing terms. 9. We hear not of neer so much care in the Prelates Ordinations in these or former times, as the Presbyteries; I could give some instances even of late of the great difference, which I will not offend them with expressing. 10. Most of them that we hear of, Ordain out of their own Diocesses, which is against the ancient Canons of the Church. 11. Some of them by their Doctrines and their Nullifying all the Reformed Churches and Ministry that have no Prelates, do shew us that if they had their will, they would yet make more lamentable destructive work in the Church then the hottest per∣secutors of their late predecessors did. For it is plain that they would have all the Ministers disowned or cast out, that are not for the Prelacy. And what a case then would this land (and others) be in? (Of which more anon.) So that we have reason to fear that these are destroyers, and not faithful Pastors. I speak not of all, but only of the guilty: For again I say, we very much Reverence such Learned, Worthy men as Bishop Morton, Bishop Brown∣rigg, and some others yet surviving are. 12. The Ordination by Prelates, as things now stand, endangereth mens liberty in the exercise of the Ministry, by some things in the Manner which I shall not mention. Review the rest that I said before in Cap. 5. and 6. and then judge, Whether he that in these dayes is Or∣dained by a Learned Grave Presbytery (and perhaps where a City Pastor is Moderator or President, and many of the Ordain∣ers are the fixed Presidents or Bishops of a Parochial Church, having a Presbytery where they preside,) I say, Whether such be not separated to the Ministry in the most orderly way that is now to be found existent? and come not in at the door that God would have them to enter at.

Sect. 75. It is strange that those men (among the Papists) that allow of the Cardinals choosing a Pope, and exercising so much Government as they do over all the Christian world, and all this under the name of Presbyters of Rome, should yet be against Ordination by such Presbyters as are indeed Parochial Bishops, and accuse it to be a Nullity. I see not how these things cohere.

Sect. 76. But yet many Papists are more moderate in this▪ then those at home that we now deal with. That Erasmus, Richardus Armachanus, Gui••el. Durantes, and many more of them, were on our side in this point, is commonly known, and manifested by abundance of our writers, some of them Bishops, and some Episcopal Divines themselves.

Sect. 77. And divers of their Schoolmen do maintain that the [Ord•• Episcopalis non differt à Caracthere Sacerdotali, nisi sicut forma intensa a se ipsa remissa] as Soncinas relateth (in 4. Sent. d. 25.) the sentence of Paludanus, which Voetius recites.

And the same Soncinas, and Voetius after him do cite Aureolus, proving that Gradus Episcopalis & Sacerdotum non sunt distinctae potestates, &c. Quia Sacerdos authoritate Papae potest Sacerdo∣tem instituere. Ergo non differunt potestas Episcopalis & Sa∣cerdotis, nisi sicut potestas impeditae & non impedita: quae tamen est eadem. Antecedens probatur, quia omnis virtus activa, non impedita, potest transfundere seipsam] To the same purpose Cu∣sanus and many more.

Sect. 78. Hence it is that Presbyters have of old had a place in Councils, yea and a suffrage too: and the Council of Basil did decide and practise it: which is allowed by many of the Papists. And hence it is that divers of the Papists do make Episcopal preheminency to be but of Ecclesiastical Institution.

Sect. 79. That the Chorepiscopi did ordain, and their Ordina∣tion was Valid, though they were not accounted Bishops (any otherwise then our Parochial Bishops are) is a thing that hath been spoken of so oft, and by so many, even Bishops themselves, that I shall pass it by.

Sect. 80. And saith Voetius, even among the Papists, the Ab∣bots and such regular Prelates that are no Bishops, and the Cha∣pter of Canons may Ordain; yea and exercise other acts of Juris∣diction, as excommunicating, &c. It is not therefore proper to the Bishops.

Sect 81. It is therefore as Hierom speaks of Confirmation by a Bishop only, in honorem Sacerdotii, a matter of Ecclesiastical institution for Order, and not of Divine institution that Presby∣ters without Prelates should not Ordain: As Leo first Bishop of Rome saith (Epistol. 86. ad Episcop. Gall. & German.) there are Quaedam Sacerdotibus Prohibita per Canones Ecclesiasticos,

ut Consecratio Presbyterorum & Diaconorum.] It is the Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain, and not the Scriptures that never knew a Presbyter without the power to Ordain.

Sect 82. Were there no Ordainers to do that office, or none but such as would oblige us to sin, it were Gods regular way to enter by the Peoples choice and the Magistrates authority with∣out them, this being in such case the open door: therefore it is more evidently Gods Regular way, when we have both these and the best Ministerial Ordination besides, that is on good terms to be had. I do not only here plead that such a Ministry is not Null (as I did before) but that the entrance in such a case is not sinfull.

Sect. 83. There being nothing left to men herein, but the due designation of the person (before the reception of his power from God) the Peoples Election it self may serve for that de∣signation, where Ministerial Approbation is not to be had. But the ordinary course, where Necessity doth not prohibit us, is that all three concur, viz. The Consent of the people, because we can∣not Teach and Rule them against their wills: 2. The Appro∣bation of the Ministry, because they are best able to judge of mens abilities. 3. The Allowance of the Magistrate, for the orderly and advantagious exercise of our office. But the first is of the greatest necessity of the three.

Sect. 84. That the people have power of Election, when just authority (Civil or Ecclesiastical) doth not suspend it or limit it, is so easily proved that it is commonly confessed. Its well known that for many hundred years the people had in most or many Churches the Choice of their Bishops or Pastors, or joyned with the Presbyterie and Ordainers in the choice. Blondellus, Voetius and many more have sufficiently proved this and other parts of the peoples interest, by unanswerable evidence.

Sect. 85. Cyprian saith that this is by Divine Ordination. Epist. 68. (edit Goulartii) p. 201. [Propter quod plebs obse∣quens praeceptis Dominicis, & Deum metuens, à peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis sa••crificia miscere, quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi: Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina authortate descendere, ut Sacerdos plebe praesente,

sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus at{que} idoneus publico ju∣dicio ac testimonio comprobetur—Coram omni Synagoga jubet Deus constitui Sacordotem, id est, instruit & ostendit Ordi∣nationes Sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 oportere, ut plebe praesente vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur: & sit Ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium suffragio & judicio fuerit examinata. Quod postea se∣cundum Divina Magisteria observatur in Actis Apostolorum quando de Ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur, surrexit inquit Petrus in medio discentium; fuit autem turba in uno: Nec hoc in Episcoporum tantum & Sacerdotum, sed in Diaconorum Ordinationibus observasse Apostolos animadverti∣mus, de quo & ipso in Actis eorum scriptum est: Et convocave∣runt, inquit illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum — Quod utique idcirco tam diligenter & caute convoata plebe tota gereb••∣tur, nequis ad altaris Ministerium, vel ad Sacerdotalem locum indignu, obreperet. Ordinari enim nonnunquam indignos non secun∣dum Dei voluntatem, sed secundum humanam praesumptionem, & haec Deo displicere, quae non veniant ex legitima & justa Or∣natione, Deus ipse manifestat per Osee Prophetam dicens, sibi ip∣si constituerunt Regem, & non per••me. Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina & Apostolica observatione observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quo{que} & fere Provincias universas tene∣tur, ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem cui praepo∣situs ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi qui{que} conve∣niant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime n••vit, & u••iuscujus{que} actum de ejus conversatione perspexit. † Quod & apud vos factum videmus in Sabini collegae nostri ordinatione, ut de universae fraternitatis suffragio & de Episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant, qui{que} de eo ad vos literas fecerant judicio, Episcopatus ei deferretur, & manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur.] And so he goes on to shew that even the Bishop of Romes restoring of Basilides, was not valid to rescind the foresaid Ordination of Sabinus, which was thus made by the Bishops on the peoples suffrages. And yet our Diocesans

have, alas, too commonly thrust on the people against their consent, such unworthy persons, as of whom we may say as Cyprian (ibid.) of these, [Cum{que} alia multa sint & gravia delicta quibus Basilides & Martialis implicati tenentur; frusta tales Episcopatum sibi usurpare co••antur, cum manifestum sit ejusmodi homines nec Ecclesiae Christi posse praeesse, nec Deo sa∣crificia offerre debere.] I have cited these words at large, because they are full and plain to shew us the practice of those times, and are the words of an African Syrod, and not of Cyprian alone, and shew that then the People had the chiefest hand in the Ele∣ction or designation of the person, which is it that I have now to prove.

Sect. 86 Pamelius himself while he seeks to hide the shame of their Prelates Ordination, from the light of these passages of Cy∣prian, doth yet confess and say, [Non negamus veterem Electionis Episcoporum ritum, quo plebe praesente, immo & suffragiis plebis eligi solent. Nam in Africa illum observatum constat ex electione Eradii Successoris D. Augustini, de quo extat Epistola ejus 120. In Gracia aetate Chrysost. ex lib. 3. de Sacer. In Hi••pa••is ex hoc Cyprian•• loco, & Isidor. lib. de Officiis. In Galliis, ex Epist••l. Celestin. Pap. 2. Romae, ex iis quae supradiximus, Epist ad An∣t••n Vbi{que} etiam alibi ex Epist. Leonis 87, Et perdurasse eam consuetudinem ad Gregor. 1. usq ex ejus Epistolis: immo & ad tempora us{que} Caroli & Ludovici Imperatorum, ex 1. lib. Ca∣pitulorum eorundem satis constat.] This full confession from the mouth of an adversary, may save me the labour of many more al∣legations concerning the judgement and practice of the ancients.

Sect. 87. He that would see more may find enough in Vo••tius de Desparata causa Papatus lib. 2. c. 12. Sect 2. & passim. And in Blondel. de jure plebis: & Goulartius on the foresaid notes of Pamelius on Cyprian, p. 205 Among others he there citeth those known Canons of the Carthage Councils, three and four out of Gratian [Nullus ordinetur clericus nisi probatus, vel examine Episcoporum, vel populi testimonio] Et. [Episcopus sine concilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet, it•• ut civium conn venti∣am & testimonium quaerat] (What and where is that Clergy without whose Council our Prelates Ordain not; and that peo∣ple whose suff••ages they require?) And saith Goula tius, Ob∣servanda est Car••li ut & Ludovici Constitutio [Sacrerum Ca∣mnum

non ignari, ut Dei nimine sacrosancta Eccl••sia suo liberius patiatur honore, assensum Ordini Ecclesiastico praebemus, ut Epis∣copi per Electionem Cleri & p••puli, secundum statu••a Canonum eligantur.] Its certain then that the people were sometime the sole choosers, and the Pastors the approvers; and sometime the People and the Pastors joynt Electors; and sometime the Pastors chose, but forced none on the people, against or without their Consent (as Pamelius confesseth) till Popular tumults, divi∣sions, and other reasons occasioned the change of this ancient Custome. And therefore it is most certain, that an Election by the people may be a valid determination of the person.

Sect. 88. And the person being once sufficiently determined of, the power and obligation doth fall upon him immediately from God; so that were it not that the Pastors Approbation is part of the Determination, there would be nothing left for Ordination, but the solemnizing of their entrance by Investi∣ture, which is not essential to the Ministerial Office, but ad bene ••ss••, makes to a compleat and orderly possession, where it may be had, and where it cannot, Election may suffice.

Sect. 89. Voetius, de Desperata causa Papatus, lib. 2. sect. 2 cap. 20. doth by seven Arguments prove against Iansenius, Electionem tribuere Ministerium: & esse proprie ejus fundamen∣tum. The first Argument is from the Definition of Election: the second from the Canon Law, which giveth a Bishop his power before Consecration, and gives the Pope a power of go∣verning the Church before he is inthroned or Consecrated. The third is à similibus, in Oeconom••e and Policie: the founda∣tion of marriage union is mutual Consent, and not Solemniza∣tion. Coronation (saith he) doth not make a King (he means, not fundamentally, but compleatively,) but hereditary Succession or Election. He may well be a King without Coro∣nation, as (saith he) the custom is in Castile, Portugal, &c. The King of France dependeth not pro jure regni on the Arch∣bishop of Rhemes, but saith Barclay, hath the right and honour of a King before his Coronation. An elect Emperour govern∣eth before his Coronation. Quoad potestatem administrandi regni (Galli••i) unctio & Coronatio nihil addunt inquit Commentator sanctionis pragmat. fol. 4. His fourth Argument is from the na∣ture of all Relations, quae posito fundamento & termino, in sub∣jecto

dicuntur existere: atqui Solemnizatio, seu Consecratio, seu Ordinatio, seu Investitura (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v••cant patres Graeci) illa externa quam nos confirmationem dicimus, neque est funda∣mentum, neque terminus Ministerii, aut Ministri; sed legitima electio & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ecclesiae est fundamentum Ministerii, & ista vel illa particularis Ecclesia est terminus, in quo est correlatum Oves seu discipuli, ad quod refertur relatum Doctoris seu Pastoris. (Though some of this need explication and limitation, yet its worthy consideration.) His fifth Argument is from the Confes∣sions of the Adversaries, citing Sylvest. Prieras, Immanuel Sa, Onuphrius, Navarrus, yea Bellarmine and Pope Nicola••, who maintain that [In summo Pontifice p••st Electionem nulla alia requiritur confirmatio; quia statim ut electus est suscipit admi∣nistrationem. And to this agreeth their Practice, who at the Council of Trent had many Bishops meerly Elect, and Elect Cardinals are admitted to Elect a Pope. His sixth Argument is [Quod Consecratio seu Investitura potest ab••sse aliquo in Casu: Electio autem nunquam: ergo fundamentum Ministerii seu po∣testatis Ecclesiasticae est Electio & non Consecratio; which he endeavours to confirm. My opinion of the fundamentum potesta∣tis, I have expressed in my Christian Concord othrrwise: but yet I consent, as is there expressed, to the Necessity of the peoples Consent to our Office.

Sect. 90. Argument 20. If those in the Reformed Church∣es that are Ordained by Presbyters, have as good a call to the Ministerial Office, as the Princes of the Nations (yea any one of them) have to their Soveraignty or Power, then are they true Ministers of Christ, and their administrations valid to the Churches, and their Ministry to be received. But the Antece∣dent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. And I prove them both.

Sect. 91. The Secular power will be granted, as to the most (at least) of Christian Princes and other Soveraigns: when the Holy Ghost commandeth subjection to the Higher Powers, even when they are Heathen, and come in as Ne••o did, Rom. 13. we may well take it for granted that Christian Magistrates, that have no better title then he, are such as we must be subject to: even those that have not so lawful an entrance, as may justifie their possession, or free them from the guilt of flat Usurpation,

before God, may yet ••e such while they are in possession, as we must be subject to for Conscience sake▪ and all their administra∣tions are ••s valid to the innocent subjects, as if they had as good a title as the best. They that deny this, must overthrow almost all the Common-wealth's on Earth, and turn Subjection into Rebellion.

Sect. 92. The Consequence then is proved from the parity of Reason, in both 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ The title of such Princes is so far good, as that subjection is due to them, and their Government valid: our title to the Ministry is at least as good as theirs: there∣fore submission or obedience is due to us, and our administrati∣ons valid to the Church. And that our title is as good as theirs, will appear by a due comparison.

Sect. 93. 1. God is equally the Author of our Office, and of theirs. He that appointed the Magistrate to Rule by force, appointed the Ministry to Teach, and Guide, and Worship pub∣likely before the Church. There is no Power but of God: even Magistrates could have none, unless it were given them from above. 2. Usurpation therefore is a sin in Magistrates as well as Ministers. And there is the same reason, why it should invali∣date their actions, as ours, if we were guilty of it. 3. The Dis∣senters rule [Nemo dat quod non habet] concerneth the Magi∣strate as much as the Minister, and somewhat more. A man may do more in works of service to others without a special Office, then in Magisterial Government. Magistracy is a Rela∣tion that must have a foundation or efficient cause, as well as Ministry. If a Giver that himself hath the Power given, is ne∣cessary to make Ministers, then also to make Magistrate, (which yet is false in both, if you speak of humane Donation to the Soveraign) The effect can no more be without a cause in them then in us. 4. I•• the Election or Consent of the people be enough to make a Magistrate, or to be the foundation or dona∣tion (as they suppose) of his authority, then much more may the election or consent of the people, with the approbation and investiture by Presbyters, and allowance of the Magistrate, prove those in question to be true Ministers. 5. No Prince on earth that ever •• heard of, can prove any thing like an uninterrupted succession of legitimate Princes from a Predecessor immediatly authorized by God. If Hereditary Princes that are the Succes∣sors

of Usurpers are not to be obeyed, it will be hard to find an Hereditary Prince that is to be obeyed: so that their case is worse then the case of Ministers.

Sect. 94. For, though 1. No Pastors on Earth can prove an uninterrupted Succession of persons lawfully Ordained. 2. Nor is it necessary to prove a Local succession; because God hath not tyed his Church to Towns or Countries, and a Church and Pa∣stor that are banished into another Land, may there be the same Church and Pastor, though in and of another place: yet 1. We have a succession of possession in the Office itself. 2. And a succession of actual Ordination in great probability: no man can prove against us that we receive our Ministrie from any that were not actually Ordained. Yet this much is not Necessary to our Office.

Sect. 95. Object. But Christ hath tyed the Office of the Ministry to a legitimate Ordination; but he hath not tyed the Ma∣gistracy to a lawful Title. Answ. Here are two falshoods barely affirmed, or implyed. One is that a just Title is less necessary to the Magistrate then the Minister; when the Reason of both is the same. Title is the foundation of Right. Magistracie is a Right of Governing. No Relation can be without its Founda∣tion. The other is, that God hath tyed the Office of the Mi∣nistrie to a legitimate Ordination. This is unproved, and I have proved the contrary before. It is our Duty to enter by Legiti∣mate Ordination where it may be had; and thus we do. But if any of our Predecessors (perhaps a thousand or five hundred years ago) did enter otherwise, that doth not invalidate our Ordination or Ministrie, nor is it any of our sin.

Sect. 96. As Ministers were at first Ordained by Imposition of hands, so Kings were chosen by God, and (in the Church) anointed by a Prophet, or special Officer of God; and some∣time by the people (that is, by their suffrages appointing it, or consenting to it) as appeareth, 1 Sam. 10.1. & 15.17. & 16.13. & 24.6. 2 Sam. 2.4, 7. & 5.3. & 12.7. & 19.10. 1 King. 1.45. & 5.1. 2 King. 11.12. & 23.30. 2 Chron. 22.7. so that there is as much in Scripture for this manner of their investiture, as there is for Ministers Ordination by imposition of hands; yet may they be Kings that have no such Investiture; much less all their predecessors. We then that have a due Investiture, may

prove our Ministry, whatever our predecessors had.

Sect. 97. I come now to the Arguments of the adversaries of our Ministrie, which I need not stand long on, because they are few and scarce considerable, and sufficiently answered in what is said. And first its said by a Learned man (Diss••rta••. de Episcop. contra Blondel. Praemoni••. ad L••ctor. sect. 4.13.) [Nos illud in hac disc••ptatione pro concesso positum cens••bimus, Nemin••m rect•• dare quod non habet: eumque aut e••s qui hac potestate indu••i nun∣quam fuerint sine vi••latione aut sacrilegio qu••d••m sibi arrogare aut assumere aut aliis aeque à Deo non vocatis, aut missis communi∣care neutiquam posse. [Illud hic nobis unicum m••minisse sufficiet, unumquemque in Anglicana Ecclesia ab Epi••copis ordinatum Presbyterum, nulla ordinandi alios facultate (aut per se, aut quà quolibet comparium caetu munitum) praeditum esse, nec igitur ••am sibi rectius arrogare posse, quam si Diaconorum, immo Laico∣rum unus, aut plures, tali potestate nullatenus induti, idem ausur∣sint.] The summ is: Presbyters have not this power▪ therefore they cannot give it.

Sect. 98. Answ. If the Argument run thus [No man can give that which he hath not: Presbyters have not the Office of a Presbyter: therefore they cannot give it.] I then deny the Minor: They are not Presbyters, if they have not the Office of a Presby∣ter: that therefore which they have (to speak in the Dissenters language) they may give.

Sect. 99. But if the Argument be this [No man can give that which he hath not: Presbyters have not a power of Ordaining: therefore they cannot give a power of Ordaining] I answer as fol∣loweth. 1. We receive not our Office by the Gift of man, whe∣ther Presbyters or Prelates. The Power is immediately from Christ, and men do but open us the door, or determine of the person that shall from Christ receive the power, and then put him solemnly into possession. It is the first Error of the adver∣saries, to hold that this power is given by men as first having it themselves. In the Popes case Bellarmine himself will grant us this (Respons. ad 7 Theolog. Venet. p. 246.232.) [Saepe (inquit) jam dictum est, Electionem Cardinalium non conferre potestatem, sed designare tantummodo personam, cui Deus potestatem tribuit.] And yet that [In summo Pontifice post electionem nulla alia re∣quiritur confirmatio, quia statim ut electus est, suscipit admini∣strationem,

ut declarat Nicol. Papa Can. in nomine, di••. 23.] pag. 175. And of the Power of Princes, the Dissenters will grant it (for we have it in their writings) that the Power is from God immediately, though the people may elect the person. You will thrust out all Princes of the world by this Argument, and say▪ [No man giveth that which he hath not: the people have not a Power of Government: therefore they cannot give it.] I would answer you as here: God hath the Power, and he giveth it: but the people that have it not, may design the person that shall receive it from God: as the Burgesses of a Corporation may choose a Major or Bayliff to receive that power from the Soveraign (by the Instrumentality of a Law or Charter) which they had not themselves to use or give. And so a Presbyterie (and sometime the people alone) may design the person that shall receive the Office of the Ministrie from God, though they had it not them∣selves to use or give.

Sect. 100. Resp. 2. By this Argument and its supposition, none are true Ministers that are Ordained by Prelates: for they have not the Power of the Ministrie to Give, but only to Vse: no Ordination is a Giving of the Power, save only by way of ••nvestiture, which supposeth a Title and Right before, and is not of absolute necessity to the Possession: for in several cases it may be without it.

Sect. 101. Respons. 3. A man may Instrumentally give or deliver both Right and Investiture in that which he hath not him∣self, nor ever had. Your servant may by your appointment, deliver a Lease, a Deed of Gift, a Key, or twig and turf, for Possession of house and lands, though he never had house or lands or possession himself. It is sufficient that the Donor have it, that sends him.

Sect. 102. Resp. 4. Presbyters have the Power of Presby∣ters, or the Ministerial Office: and if they can give that (which certainly they have,) then they can give a Power of Ordaining other Presbyters. For to Ordain others, is no more then they do themselves in giving the Power or Office which they have: there∣fore if they may do it, those that they give their Power to may do it; that is, may also give others that power which they have.

Sect. 103. But as to our case in hand, it sufficeth that we

prove, that Presbyters may give others the Office of Presbyters; whether this Office contain a Power of Ordaining, is another Question, but soon dispatcht, if this be granted: because (as is said) to Ordain is nothing else but to invest others with the Office or Power which we have our selves.

Sect. 104. Resp. 5. The Argument maketh more against the Prelates Ordination, on another account; because that (as is proved already) that Species of Prelacie that was exer∣cised in England (the sole Governours of an hundred or two hundred Churches) is so far contrary to the Word of God, that we may boldly conclude, that as such, they have no power to use or give: their very Office is humane, and destructive of the true Pastoral Office: and therefore as such, they have less pre∣tence of Divine Authoritie, then Presbyters, whose Office is of God. Yet do I not make their Ordination Null, because they were Presbyters as well as Prelates, and also were in Possession of the place of Ordainers, and had the Magistrates authority.

Sect. 105. Resp. 6. Presbytrrs have a Power of Ordaining: it is already proved. And to your confirmation (where you say that the Bishops gave them no such Power: therefore they have it not:) I answer: 1. I deny the Consequence. God gave it them: therefore they have it without the Bishops gift. 2. If by [Giving] you mean but an accidental Causation, or the action of a Causa sine qua non, or a designation of the Per∣son that shall receive it, then I deny the Antecedent. The Pre∣lates (and Electors) designed the person, and also invested him solemnly in the Office, which containeth this Power of Or∣dination which you deny them.

Sect. 106. Obj. The Prelates expressed no such thing in their Ordination. Ans. 1. It being not the Prelates but Christ that makes the Office, we must not go to the words of the Prelates, but of Christ to know what the Office is, though we may go to the Prelates (while the work was in their hands) to know who the person is. If a Prelate Consecrate a Prelate, and yet mention not particularly the works that are pretended to belong to a Prelate, you will not think him thereby restrained or disabled to those works. He that Crowneth a King, and they that choose him, though they name not the works of his Office and Power, do thereby choose him to all those works that belong to a King.

God hath set down in his Word, that the Husband shall be the Head or Governor of his Wife: if now the woman shall choose a certain person to be her Husband, and the Minister or Magi∣strate solemnize their Marriage, without any mention of such Governing Power, the Power doth nevertheless belong to the man; because God hath specified by his Law the Power of that Relation, and the man is Lawfully put in the Relation that by the Law of God hath such a Power: so is it in the case in hand.

Sect. 107. But yet 2. I add, that the Prelates and the Laws of England gave to Presbyters a Power of Ordination. For in all their Ordinations, the Presbyters were to lay on hands with the Prelate (and did, in all Ordinations that I have seen.) And if they actually imposed hands and so Ordained, it was an actual profession to all that they were supposed to have the power of Ordination, which they exercised.

Sect. 108. Obj. But they had no Power given them to do it without a Prelate. Answ. 1. By Christ they had. 2. You may as well say, that Bishops have no Power to Ordain, because they were not (ordinarily at least) to do it without the Pres∣byters.

Sect. 109. Obj. Saith the foresaid Learned Author (Dis∣sert. Praemonit. sect. 10.11.) [Vnum illud lubens interrogarem, an Hieronymus, dum hic esset, & Presbyteratu secundario fun∣geretur partiariâ tantum indutus potestate, praesente, sed spreto & insuper habito Episcopo, Diaconum aut Presbyterum ordinare (aut Presbytero uni aut alteri adjunctus) recte potuerit? si af∣firmetur, dicatur sodes, qua demum ratione ab eo dictum sit, Episcopum sola ordinatione (& ergo ordinatione) à Presbytero disterminatum esse] sin negetur, quomodo igitur Presbytero Angli∣cano, cui nullam, quae non Hieronymo potestatem, &c. —] Answ. 1. This is none of our case in England: we Ordain not, praesente sed spreto Episcopo: but most Countreyes know of no Bishop that they have, but Presbyters. 2. Hierom might have Ordained with his fellow-presbyters, according to the Laws of Christ, but not according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, that then obtained, or bore sway. 3. Hierom plainly tells you, that it is by Ecclesiastical appointment for the prevention of schisme, that Bishops were set up so far as to have this power more then

Presbyters, in the point of Ordination. 4. The English Pres∣byters are Parochial Bishops, and have an Office of Christs making, and not of the Prelates; and are not under those Ec∣clesiastical Canons that restrained Hierom from the exercise of this power. And therefore whereas it is added by this Learned Author [Quid huic dilemmati reponi, aut opponi possit, fateor equidem me non adeo Lynceum esse ut perspiciam] he may see that he could scarce have set us an easier task then to answer his dilemma.

Sect. 110. The second and their principal objection is, that We have no precept or example in the Church for Presbyters Or∣daining without Prelates: therefore it is not to be done. Answ. 1. I told you before how Bishop Vsher told me he answered this Objection to King Charl••. viz. from the example of the Church of Alexandria where Presbyters made Bishops, which is more.

Sect. 111. But 2. I answer, you haue no example in Scripture or long after that ever Prelates of the English sort, did or∣dain, nor any precept for it, nor was such a Prelacy then known, as is proved; and therefore their Ordination hath less warrant then that by Pretbyters.

Sect. 112. And 3. I have told you before of Scripture war∣rant for Ordination by a Presbyterie, and also by the Teachers and other Officers of a single Church, as was the Church of Anti∣och. Prove that there was any Bishop.

Sect. 113. Lastly, it is confessed by the Dissenters that such Presbyters or Bishops as are mentioned, Act. 20. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1, &c. had power of Ordination: But according to the judgement of most of the Fathers (that ever I saw or heard of that interpret those texts) it is Presbyters that are meant in all or some of those texts. It is granted us also by the Dissenters that the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches in Scripture-times did ordain▪ and had the power of Ordination: But the Presbyters of England, and other Protestant Chur∣ches are the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches; there∣fore, &c.

Sect. 114. Object. 3. But the English Presbyters have broak their Oaths of Canoical obedience, and therefore at least are schis∣matical. Answ. 1. Many never took any such oath, to my knowledge: For my part I did not. 2. The particular persons

that are guilty must be accused: and neither must they be judged before they speak for themselves, nor yet must others be con∣demned for their sakes. In these parts, there is not one Presby∣ter I think of ten, who differs from the Prelates about Ordinati∣on, that ever took that oath. And therefore it is few that can be called Schismaticks on that account. Yea 3. And those few that did take that Oath, have few of them that I know of, done any thing against the Prelates.

Sect. 115. Object. 4. The English Presbyters have pull'd down the Prelates, and rebelled against them, and therefore at least are guilty of Schism. Answ. 1. The guilty must be named and heard: their case is nothing to the rest. It is not one often I think, perhaps of twenty, that can be proved guilty. 2. It was not the Scripture Bishops that they Covenanted against or opposed: but only the irregular English Prelacy before described: And the endeavour of reforming this corrupted Pre••acy, and reducing it to the Primitive frame, is in it self no schism.

Sect. 116. Object. 5. Ignatius commandeth them to obey the Bishops and do nothing without them. Answ. 1. Ignatius also commandeth them to obey the Presbyters as the Apostles of Christ, and to do nothing without them. 2. The Bishops that Ignatius mentioneth were such as our Parish Bishops or Presbyters are, that have a Presbyterie to assist them: They were the chief Pa∣stors of a single Church, as is before proved out of Ignatius, and not the Pastors of hundreds of Churches.

Sect. 117. I shall trouble the Reader with no more of their objections, seeing by what is said already, he may be furnished to answer them all: but I shall now leave it to his impartial sober consideration, whether I have not proved the truth of our Mini∣stry and of the Reformed Churches, and the Validity of our ad∣ministrations, and of our Ordination it self?

Notes

• 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. Read their words.
• Mr. T. P. calls himself Rector of Brington.
• Cyprian Ep. 28. p 64. ad Clerum de Gaio— Desideras••is ut de Philumeno & Fortunato ••ypodiaconis, & Favorino acoluthore s••ribam, cui rei non potui me solum ju∣dicem dire, cum multi ad∣huc de clero absentes sint, nec locum suum vel sero repetendum putaverint, & haec singulo∣rum tractanda sit, & liman∣da plenius ratio; non tantum cum collegis meis sed & cum plebe ipsa universa: How big was the Diocess then, and how much the Bishop ruled alone, may be hence conjectured; and whether Presbyters had any hand in ruling.

  Why doth Ignatius and Tertullian command them to be subject to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ, if they had not the Key of Government.
• Alphonsus à Castro doth maintain that H••eroms opi∣nion was indeed the same that from his plain and frequent expressions we averr it to be, and re∣buketh them that pretend the contrary.

  Hector Boe∣thius (before cited) saith (Sco••. Histor. l. 7. fol. 128. b.) that Ante Palladi∣um Populi suf∣frag••is ex Mo∣nachis & Cul∣da••is pontifices assumerentur. No Bishop then ordained them but Pres∣byters.

  And Balaeus (Centur. 14. c. 6.) saith [Ha∣bebant antea Scoti suos E∣piscopos ac Mi∣nistros ex ver∣bi Divini Mi∣nisterio plebium suffragiis ele∣ctos, prou•• Asi∣anorum more fieri apud Bri∣tanaos vide∣bant.
• ☜
• Cyrian Epist. 11. Plebi— Contra Episco∣patum meum, immo contra suffragium vestrum & Dei judicium▪ &c.
• This is not the way of our Prelates Ordination. And th••s shew••th that the Churches in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ays were not Diocesan, con∣sisting o•• ma∣ny particular Churches: else all the people could not have been present, be∣holders and consenters, at the Ordinati∣on of the Bi∣shops.
• †

  Still this shews, that the Churches of Bishops were then no greater then that all might be personally present, and fore-ac∣quainted with his life.

  Yea that it was the p••••∣ples duty no•• only to elect, but to reject, there's more then Cyprian affirm: Euse∣••••us H••st. Eccl. l. 5. c. 18. out of Apol••onus telleth us that Alexander a M••ntan••st, being a thief▪ the Congregation of which he was Pastor (so that was his Diocess) would not admit him.

  〈…〉〈…〉 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉— Secundum 〈…〉〈…〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de 〈…〉〈…〉
• Const••ntin•• in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the 〈…〉〈…〉 tells them that [in the election of their Bishops all men should freely deliver their opinion, and the general suffrage of all should be equally consi¦dered; becaus•• Ec••lesiastical Honours should be ob∣tained and conferred w••••••out 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and di••∣cord —] 〈…〉〈…〉 3 〈◊〉〈◊〉