^"^^^w-^ ^^% (M^f^^ '':^^^ ' ^■w^- - - - ■ A ' ■■■•■'*■ ' ' DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FRIENDS OF DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Frank Baker I 1 Sfti^f^^: v^'//e Articles of i$62, where it is declared, that no Man can officiate in the Cm- gregation without a lawful Call. And the Word Congregation in that Article is of the fame Import with the Word Church at this Time, § i. Page l Therefore the y give a wrong Expofition of this Articky who from thence infer, that every private particu- lar Congregation has Authority within it felf to call and fend Bifiops or Prie/is, § 2. p. 4. The Church of England does not exprefly declare an Epifcopal Commiffon necejfary in her Articles, Ik'- caufe jhe had done it before in her Ordinal, $ 3. ^ . . . p. 6 For in her Ordinal Jhe has declared the Three Orders of BijlopSy Prieftsy and Deacons, Jo be of Divine In- jittution : And that none can he admitted to any 'f thefe Orders hut by a Bijhop or Bijhops, § 4. p. 9 A 1 fhi iv The CONTENTS. Therefore the Church of England not chargeable with any Def.ci on this Head. Tet becatije fome ivho have been ordained according to her Ordinal, and given their Affent and Confent to it, have piiblickly maintained that Epifcopicy is not necefjary, it is thought convenient to prove that it is fo, both from the Scriptures, and the DoBrine of the Primitive Church, § 5. p. 11 *Three Orders of Minifl'ers, tho under different Names froM thofe mvj ujed, to be proved from the Scrip- tures, § 6. p. 1 3 TVhilfi Chrifl wm an Earth, there wm he himfelf chief Priefi or Bijlop, and under him liuelve Apo- files and Seventy Difciples, § 7. P- 14 After his Afcenjtbn the Apofzles, ivho were then in- creafed to more than 'Twelve i and zcere alfo caUed Ahgds, had under them Bijljops or Presbyters, and Deacons, § 8. ?• 17 'The Order of Apoftles, now called Bifiops, inflitmed to be perpetually continued in the Church, $ 9. p. i^ 'The Orders of Presbyters and Deacons alfo inftituted to he perpetual, § 10. p. 21 Only thofe of the chief Order could ordain and fend others, proved from the Scripture, § 11. p. 22 I0}y the chief Order called by the Name of Bijhops^ tho' vefied with Apoflolical Pozuer, §12. p. 26\ Bijlops Succeffors to Chrijl, as he was chief Cover- nour of the Church whilft he continued upon Earth. And to the Apoflles, as chief Governonrs after his Afcenjton, proved from St. Ignatius, § 13. p. 27 The The CONTENTS. v T^he fame proved from Irenseiils, § 14. p. 30 From Clemens Alexaiidrinus, § 15. P«37 From the Apoftolical Conftitutions, ^16. p. 39 F;»(07w Terrullianp § 17. P'40 From Origen, § 18. p. 42 From ^f. Cyprian, § i^. ibidJ From Firmilian, § 20. p. 45 From the Council of Carthage held by St. Cyprian, § 21. * ibid. From the Apoftolical Canons, § 22. p. 45 From the Councils in general luhich preceded the Council of Nice, § ij. P- 4^ A Recapitulation of the foregoing Proofs^ § 24. P-54 An Epifcopal Commiffion nectjfary to the valid Ad- miniftration of Sacraments, proved from Scripture., §25. p. 55 *Tho others are not exprefly prohibited to adminijler Sacraments, yet fuch Prohibition is implied in the CommiJJion, § 26. P- 59 Plea of Neceffity not fitfficieijt to authorize Lay-men to baptize, § 27. p. 61 Particular Cafes conjidered. T'he Cafe of an Heathen defiring Baptifm in a Ship^and in Danger of Deaths Inhere no Clergyman can be had, § 28. p. 6z Cafes vi The CONTENTS. Cafes put by Knig Henry VI.II. concerning what a Chrtjlian Prince Jhould do jf he conquered an Hea^ then Nation^ and had no Chriftian Priefts "with hirh ? Or tf all the Bijhop and Prtefls in his Coun- try Jlsou Id die ? JVith the Anfwers then given, § 29. p. 66 lijefe Anfiuers conjidered. I'he Anfiver which J aid a Chrijiian Prince might in fuch Cafes make Bijhops and Priefts J Jhewn to be contrary to Scripture, §30. p. 70 The other Anfwer, that they tnight inftruSt the Peo- ple, as one private P erf on may inftruB another, in the Knowledge of Chriftianity : But might neither preach .authoritatively, nor minifier the SacrafnentSy itor do any thing peciiliar to the Prieft's Office, or authoriz.e any Perjons to perform thofe Offices : But muft wait with Patience till they can procure BiJJjops and Priefts regularly ordained, proved a- greeable to the Scriptures^ §31. p. 8a "The difference between inftrnEling as a private Perfon, and preaching authoritatively as a Prieft, § 32. 7wo Inftances in aj^ient Hiftory of Nations converted by Lay-meUi and what was done in thofe CafeSy § 33> 34- P- 85 Thefe Inftances parallel to one of King Henry the VlllthV Cafes, § 35. p. 90 Our fir ft Reformers rejected the former Anfiver, and adhered to the latter, § 3<5. P- pi 77j? N'ecejftty of an Epifcopal Commiffton to the valid Adminiftration of the Sacraments further proved from the Scriptures, § 37, 58, 3^, 40, p. ^5 And The CONTENTS. vji And from the Fathers, §41, 42, 43, 44, 45. . - ^ P- i°4 ^K/i /row; f/;f Djjciphne oj the Primitive Church, §45. p. up 'T/j€ Popijh Schoolmen and Canonifls the firfl after Aenus that maintained Bifbops and Presbyters to le the fame Order , ibid. From them Luther learned his Notion of the Identity of Bijhop and Presbyter, and tho hut a Presbyter himfelfy took upon him to confecrate Bijhops. And his Fol/ozuers have aFied upon the fame Principle to this Day, § 47. p. 123 AlfOt^t^ the fame time Zuinglius, and after htm Cal- vin, maintained the fame Notion. And extended it jo far M to make Ordination it felf unneceffary, S48. P- 129 "The Opinion of the Divines of the Church 0/ England before the Reftoration of King Charles II, concern- ing the Necejjity of Epifcopacy, confidered. The firfi 'Temporal Princes that embraced the Refortnation facrilegiom, § 49. p. 144 But lefs facrilegiom in England than in other Coun- tries, -whereby Epifcopacy has been preferved a- mongji Hi, § 50. p. 146 ObjeEiions made by Calvinifts and Papifts again/i the Epifcopal Succejfion in the Church of England, §51- ibid. pirfi ObjeBion of the Calvinifts, that we derive our Orders from the Church of Rome, anfwered § 52. p. 147 Second Vlll Tlie CONTENTS. Second OhjeBion of the Calviniils, that the Roman Succeffion is not clear and indifputable, anfweredy $ 53.54- P-^5?^ Firfi OhjeBion of the Romanifts againjl our Form of Ordination anfweredy §55. P- i 5 5 Second OhjeBion, that our firft reformed Bijbops un- der Queen Elizabeth were confecrated hy Lay-men^ flnfwered. And Archhijhop Parker, with the other Bijhops in the beginning of that Reign^ proved to have been regularly and camnically confecrated by true BifiopSj § 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 6^, 64, 6$, 66. p. 163 Afhon Conclufion of this SuhjeBy § 6j. p. 183 THE (I ) <>^<^-«d^<>^-*>^'«t>^-^?<>^-«»<3 "^'•^hich is his Body. Now in all thefe Places the Word Con- gregation muft CiQ^ni^y as much as the Word Church in its largeft Extent. For the Lord did not add to one fingle Affembly of Men met in one Place, but to the whole Society of Chriflians : Saul did fiot perfecute, nor Herod vex one particular Meet- ing of Believers, but the whole Body wherefoever difperfed, and Saul particularly carried his Per- fecution from Jerufalem to Damafcui-, that is, from one Province to another, and it is certain the Chriftians of feveral Provinces muft have diftind: Aflemblies for Religious Worfhip, and could not meet together in one Place. So alfo Chrifi is not the Head of one particular Aflcmbly met in the (b) Matth. xvi. i8. (c) Afls ii. 47. (i) Afts viii. 3. (0 Afts xii. I. (/) £ph. i. 22, 23. B 3 fame 4 T'/'^DivineRight fame Place, but of the whole Body of Catholick Chriftians wherefoever difperfed in all Parts of the World. And indeed I am perfuaded that in the Emlih Bible then ufed in the Churches of this Realm the Greek Word hy.K\mi that is, about (g) the' Year 1568, tho' the Word 6itjcx»crj* is there generally tranflated Church) yet it is fometimcs tranflatcd Congregation, even where it cannot be confined to an Aflembly met in one Place, as in thofe Words of our Saviour to St. Peter, it is not rendred as in our prefent Bibles, on this Rock J will build my Church, but on this Rock I will build my Congrhgation. Alfo above Forty Years after, in the Year 160-^, (h) we find the Word Congregation ufed in this Serjfe in the Canonical Prayer appointed to be ufed before all Sermons, Ledures, and Homilies, where we are ordered to pray for the whole Congregation of Chriftian People difperfed throughout the whole World. § II. I thought it neceflary to be thus particular in the Explanation of the Word Congregation, and to fhew what was the Senfe of the Word at the Time when thefe Articles were drawn up, that I might thereby obviate the Expofition I have (g) Strypss Life of A. B. Parker) ^, 272. (b) Can. $5. heard ft o/*Episcopacy, i^c, 5; heard that fome have made of this Article, as if the Compilers of it had fuppofed that there was a Power of Ordination, or a Power of calling and fending Miniftcrs in every Parifh, Chapclry, or the like, where a Congngation of Chrijiians was regularly a/Tembled for Divine Worfljfp, confc- quently that in every fiich Congregation there are Perfons who have Authority to call and fend Mi-v niilers, and therefore he that is called and fent by any fingle Congregation^ or by Perfons appoint- ed in any Congregation^ that is, in any Parifli or Chapelry for that Purpofe, is lawfully called and' fent to be a Minifter according to the Dodrine of the Church of England. But this Obji-^tion is of no Weight, becaufe, as I have fhewed, the Word Congregation at that time had the very fame Signification with the Word Churchy it being ge- neraliy, li not always, fo ufed in the Englijh Bible then read to the People in all Parifh Churches, and therefore when it is faid ^vho have publick Authority given unto th.m in the Congregation to call and fend M/nifters, it is juft the fame as if it had been faid voho have fublick Authority given unto them in the Church. It is alfo certain in Fad, that from the beginning of the Reformati- on to this Day the Church of England never au- thorized or acknowledged any Minifter or others in any particular Congregation to have any fuch Authority, but only in the Church diffufive. The Meaning of the Article therefore is plainly this. It is not lawful by the Law of God for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick preaching or ?;//- niflring the Sacraments in the Congrlgation or Church of Chrift before he be Lnvfully called ac- cording to the Law of God, and fnt to exectite the fame. And thofe ive ought to judge laiufully cat' led and fent according to the Law of God, xvhich be chofen and called to this JVotk by^Aiah who by P 3 the 6 The DivineRight the Law of God have puhlick Authority given unto them in the CoxNGRegation or Church of" Chrift, to call and fend Miniflers into the Lord's Vimyard'. I have put in the Words according to the Law of Gody bccaufe it is certain that is meant by the Word iaivftil in this place. For thefe Articles were not drawn up by the Judges, or by the Par- liamentj or any Civil Magiftrate, who alone have Authority to declare what is lawful by the Laws of the Land, but by the Bifhops and Clergy af- fembled in Convocation or Synod, who were ever cfteemed to be Interpreters or Expofitors of the Law of God, and to have Authority to de- clare what was agreeable to his Laws, and what not, but never had Authority to declare what is agreeable to the Temporal Laws, and therefore when fuch an AiTembly declares a Matter to be lawful or not lawful, we can underftand it to be meant according to the Law of God only. Con- fequcntly when they fay. It is not lawful for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick peaching or tninijiriyig the Sacraments in the Church , they could not mean that it was not lawful in this Realm only by Virtue of the Temporal Laws here in Force, becaufe they had no Authority to /declare or expound thofe Laws, but that it was not laioful according to the Law of God, and therefore could not be allowed in any Realm, in any Country, in any Church or Society of Chri- Jiians. And without Difpute it is and muft be the Divine Law by which all Articles of Religion, as thefe are, muft be tried. § 111. Indeed it muft: be confefted that this Ar- ticle does not tell us how many Orders of Men arc appointed to minifter the Word and Sacraments^ or whether more than one Order of Men may minifter thefe QSaa^Sf neither does it inform u^s who of Episcopacy, iffc, j who are thofe that have publick Authority given un- to them in the Church to fend Minijiers into the Lord's Vineyard. However this Article fufficiently teaches that a CommifTion is neceflary on this Occafion, and that there are fome Men who have Authority in the Church to give fuch a Coramiffion. An4 this the Compilers of thefe Articles might very well judge to be fufficient, becaufe the Church in her Ordinal had before declared this Matter more particularly. For in the Preface to the Forms of Ordination, it is faid, that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripures and Ancient Authors, that from the Apojiles time, there have been thefe Or- ders of Minijiers in ChrijFs Church, Bifiops, Priefls and Deacons, which Offices were evermore h:id in fuch reverend Ejlimation, that no Man by his own private Authority, 7night pre fume to execute any ofthefn, ex- cept he were firji calledt tried, examined nnd knovjn to have fuch Qrialities as were requijite for the fame, and alfo by publick Prayer, with Impoftion of Hands ap- proved and admitted thereunto. And in the Form for the ordering of Deacons, we are taught, that it appertatneth to the Office of a Deacon in the Church, where he jhall be appointed, to afffl the Prieft in Di- vine Service, and fpe daily when he minifireth the Holy Communion, and to help him in the Dijhibution there-. ef, and to riad Holy Scriptures and Homilies in the Congregation, and to in/lruSi the Youth in tie Catechifn, to baptiz^e, and to preach if he be thereto admitted by the Bijhop. And in the Form of ordering Priefts, we learn thap it appertaineth to his Office to preach th2 IVord of God, and to tninifter the Holy Sacraments. And in the Form for confecrating a Bijljop we are taught that over and above what is common to him with Priejls and Deacons he is admitted to the Government of the Church of Chifl, and is thereby vefted with a Power to ordain and fend others. And accordingly when a Deacon is to be ordained, ' ' B 4 it 8 The Divine Right it is faid that when the Day appointed by the Bijhop if come, the Arch-deacon or his Deputy Jhall prefent unto the Bijl)Op fuch as d:Jire to he ordained j and after the Bifhop has prayed with the Congregation for them, put proper Queftions to them, and received pro- per Anfwers trora them concerning the Nature of the Office whercunto they are at that time to be called, and concerning their Purpoi'e faithfully to difcharge the fame, he then lays his Hands upon them and ordains them. The like is aho done in the ordering of Priefts, only here, the Priejls that are prefent lay on thair Hands together with the BiJJjop. And fo in the Confccration of an Arch-hiJJiop or Bijhop, the Prayers are offered and the Qiieflions put by the Arch-bifhop or Bifhop who performs the Confccration, and then he with the other Bi- fhops prefent lay on their Hands and confccrate him. Here then is no Ordination, no Confccra- tion of a Minifter can be made according to the Doctrine of the Church of England but by a Bi- fhop: every Pcrfon to whatever Order he is to be ordained muft.be prefented to the Bifhop, he muft try, examine and approve him , he muft lay his Hand upon him, or ordain him before he can be a Minifter of any Order in the Church. And tho' in tlie Ordination of a Prieft, the Priefts that are prefent lay on Hands top,cthcr with the Bifhop, they may, not do it without him: The Perfon to be ordained muft be prefented to him, he muft try and approve him, he muft lay his Hands upon him, he muft fay the Words of Ordination and commit the Charge to him. The Priefts are fub- ordinate Affiftants or Aifeflbrs to him, but can do nothing in this Cafe when he is away. Since then the Church had been fo particular as to this Matter in her Ordinal, and had there fo fully declared who were the proper Minifters o^ 'fhe Word and Sacraments, and who were autho- rized <)/ Episcopacy, i^c, 9 rlzed to ordain or fend thefe Minifters, there was no Occafion*fbr her to be fo particular in her Ar- ticles, and it was fufficient there to fpeak in gene- ral Terms, fince thofe who wanted further Infor- mation might fo eafily receive it from the Ordinal. § IV. She alfo declares thefe three Orders to be of Divine Inftitution, when fhe fays that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scrip- ture that there have been thefe Orders of Miniflers in ChrijVs Church : For the Scriptures arc the Word of God, and therefore if thefe Orders are to be found in the Scriptures and approved by them, then are they approved by the Word of God, and are authorized by God himfelf Further, it is de- clared in the Forms themfeK^es, that every one of thefe Orders was inftituted or appointed by the Holy Ghofl. Thus in the Form for ordering Deacons^ it is faid. Almighty God, which by thy Divine Pro- vidence j haft appointed divers Orders of Minifters in the Church, and didft infpire thine Holy Apoftles^ to chofe into the Order of Deacons, the firft Martyr St. Stephen, &c. Here it is plainly taught that the Apoftles ordained the firft Deacons, confequently inftituted that Order, by Divine Infpiration. hi the ordering of PrieBs, the Prayer runs thus. Al- mighty God, Giver of all good Things, which by thy Holy Spirit haft appointed divers Orders of Minifters in thy Church, mercifully behold theje thy Servants now called to the Office of Priefthood. And in the Confe- cration of a Bjfliop, Almighty God, Giver of all good Things, which by thy Holy Spirit haft appointed divers Orders of Minifters in thy Church, mercifully beheld this thy Servant, nozv calTd to the IVork and Miniflry of a Bifhop. Now from this Prayer thus ufcd in e- very Form of Ordination, it is manifeft that the Church believes every one of thefe Orders to be of Divine Inftitution, and that (he alfo believes them lo The Divine Right them to be feveral and diftind Order^;For in the ordering Deacons it is declared that the Apoftles were infpired to inftitute that Order, and in the other two Forms that the Holy Ghofi has appointed, diverfe Orders of which, one is called Priefis and the other Bijhops : For if the Bjfhop was not of a diverfe Order from a Prief}, but only a different Degree of the fame Order as a Dean or other dig- nified Perfon may be with relation to a PanJIy Prieflj he could not need a New Ordination, nor ^vouId it be fit to fay upon that Occafion that God tci5 appointed divers Orders, unlefs he was then cal- led to one of thofe divers Orders, and then by ad- ding Now called to the Work and Minifiry of a Bi~ Jhop we are plainly taught that a Bijhop according to the Doftrine of the Church of England is a divers Order from a Prie/i. The Preface fays there have hceu thcfe Orders^ Bijhops, Priefis and Deacons, and ]the Prayer fays there are divers Orders appointed by the Holy Ghofi, and appoints this Prayer to be ufed at the Ordination of BiJJjops, Priefis and Deacons ; a plain Argument that every one of thefe Orders is appointed by the Holy GhoR. It would be ab- furd, not to fay blafphemous, to give it as a Rea- fon why we may expect his Bleffing on the Ordi- pation of a Bifiop, becaufe he hai appointed diverfe Orders in his Church , if a Bifiop was not one of thofe divers or diffinft Orders. Can any thing therefore be plainer than that the Church of En- gland holds Epifcopacy or the Order of Bifliops to be of Divine Inflitution, and one of thofe diverfe Orders which God by his Holy Spirit has appoint- ed ? It appears alfo from the Forms of Ordination, that without a Bifiop no Perfon can be ordained cither Deacon, Priefi or Bifiop, confequently that Bifi^opfonly are the Men ivho have publick Author tty given unto them in the Congregation or Church of jGodj to call and fend Minifies intQ the l^ord's Vine- yard. of Episcopacy, ifc. 1 1 yard. And therefore according to the Doftrine of the Church of England declared by her Ordinal and Articles as they expound each other, it is not laivfitl for any Man to take upon him the Office of pub- lick Preaching, or mfniRring the Sacraments in the Congregation or Church of Chrift, before he be law- fully called and fent to execute the fame by fome Bijhep, that is, before he is Epifcopally ordain'edj and this is the Law of God, who by his Holy Spirit has ap- pointed the Order of Bifhops, and direded that only thofe who are of that Order fliould ordain others, confequentiy is a Law not only obligato- ry in the Church of England , but throughout the whole Catholick Church. And therefore our Church further declares in the Preface to the Forms of Ordination, that no Man Jhall be ac- counted or taken to be a lawful Bijhopy Priefl or Dea- con in the Church of England, except he hath had Epifcopal Cvnfecration or Ordination. That is, the Church of England cannot allow any Man to be a lawful Minifter and qualified publickly to preach the Word and minifter the Sacraments except he has been Epifcopally ordained. The Church of England alfo further declares (h) that although in the vijtble Church the Evil be ever mingled zvith the Good, and fometime the Evil have chief Authority in the Minifiration of the Word and Sacraments ; yet forafmuch as they do not the fame in their own 'Name hut in ChriR\\, and do minifter by his Commiffion and Authority., we may ufe their Miniflry both in hearing the MAfrd of God, and in the receiving of the Sacra-^ 'ments. Neither is the EfeSi ofChriffs Ordinance ta- ken away by their Wickednefs, nor the Grace of God's Gifts diminijhed from fuchy m by Faith, and rightly do receive the Sacraments miniR red unto them, which be ih) Article 26, 1 2 The Divine Right tfftfiual becauje of CbriR's Infiitution and Promife, although they be minifired by evil Men. Here the Church plainly makes the Vah"dity of the Sacra- ments depend intirely upon Chrift's Cominiffion. For the Reafon alledged wjhWthey may be recei- ved from Evil Minifters, is bfecaufe fiich Miniiters have Cofnmijjton and Authority from Chrifi, and that Sacraments fo received are effeSiual becaufe ofChnfi's Jnjlitution and Prom: fe^ which evidently implies that where there is no fuch Commiilion there n not the Jnjlitution and Promifc of Clrif^y confequently they are not effeEiual without ths Commijfion. Thus the Church of England moft clearly maintains and af- ferts both the Divine Right of Epifcopacyy and alfo the Necejfity of an Epifcopal Commijfion to ths Valid Adminijiration of the Sacraments. § y. The Church of England therefore cannot be accufed of any Defeft upon this Head ; yet be- caufe many who pretend to be zealous and hearty for the Church oi England, and fome who bear the Charader of Pricfis, nay Bifiops of this Church, and who have been ordained according to the Forms of Ordination here eftabliflicd, and have iubfcribed to thefe Articles and to this Ordinal, in which Epifcopacy and the Epifcopal Commijfon are declared fo necefl'ary and of Divine Appoint- ment, have neverthelefs thought fit to afifert pub- lickly, and maintain both in the Pulpit and in iprint, that an Epfcopal Commiffion is not nccejfary to the Valid Adminijiration of the Word and Sacrar ments, I think it very proper to be more particu- lar upon this Head, and to prove this Divine Right of Epifcopacyy and the Necejftty of an Epifcopal Commiffion, both from the Scriptures and the Do- ctrine and Praftice of the Primitive Church, to the Time of the Council of Nice, the Time which I pfleem to be the proper Standard by which the Po^riqe ^Episcopacy, t^c* j j t)octrine and Difcipline of the Church ought to be regulated. Becaufe the Catholick Church was then certainly very pure and uncorrupt, was then diftufed into all Parts of the known World, and united in one Communion : And therefore if" we ever hope to have it io united again, it muft be upon the fame Principles, for it never was united on any other, and we have reafon to believe ne- ver will or can be, becaufe the Principles on which it was then united were not derived from Human Prudence, which is too weak ro compafs fuch an Union, but the Dodrine and Pradice of Chrifi and his Apoftles. § VI. Firft therefore I will (hew from the Scrip- tures and ancient Authors , that from the Apojiles Ihne there h^ve been thefe Orders of Minijiers in Chrijfs Churchy BtjhopSy Priejis, and Deacons. I confefs indeed that thefe are not every one di~ ftinguifhed in Scripture by thefe Names, not but the(e Orders are in the Scripture, and plainly enough diftinguifhed there, and the Names alfo are in the Scripture, but not each Name particu- larly and conftantly applied to a diftinct Order,- for as I before obferved when I treated on the Independency of the Church, the Names Bijlop' and Presbyter are there promifcuoully ufed for the fame Order. But our Dilpute is not about Names but Things, for i^ tkere be Three divers Orders of Minifters in Scripture, which wc find to have been inftiruted by C/jj-/// and his Apoftles, to which thefe Names were either in or immediately after the Apoilles Time affixed and appropriated, then we may both fay that they are of Divine Inftitu- tion, and alfo have been from the Apoftles Time, altho' we do not find every one of the Names fo affixed and appropr;ated. I will therefore as briefly as I can fliew from the Scripture that there were 14 The Divine Right were Three Orders of Mfnifters inftituted \>^ Chrifi and his Apoftles, and then will fhew front ancient Authors that the Names Bijhops, Prie/ls, and Deacons, have been frc^ra the Apoftles Times appropriated to thofe Orders. § VII. We read (0 that John the Baptifi had a great Multitude of Difciples or Followers, whom he conv^erted and baptized, for there -Ment out to him Jerufalem, and a// Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and ivere baptiz^ed of him in Jordan confejftng their Sins, (k) But Jefus made arid baptiz,ed more Difciples than John. (/) And of them he chofe Twelve, whom alfo he named Apoftles, and fent them to preach the Kingdom of God. (m) After thefe the Lord appointed other Seventy alfo, and fent them two and two before his Face into every City and Place whither he himfelf would come. So that du- ring our Saviour's Life here oh Earth he had Three Orders of Minifters in his Church : Firft, Chrift himfelf, the great Shepherd and Bifliop of Souls, then the Twelve Apoftles, and after them the Seventy Difciples. And the Apoftles were plainly fuperior to the Seventy, being fent out with a larger Commiffion, being fent into all Parts of '\judea, wherefoever they found any En- couragement, but the Seventy were confined to go only to thofe Places where Chrift himfelf in- tended to come. So that the ApoftleS were plain- ly authorized to aft in Chrifi's Stead, and to re- ceive and admit Converts into his Church ; but the Seventy feem to have had no fuch Power, but were only appointed to prepare the Way for Chriji, that when he hinifelf came to them he (0 Matth. iii. $, 6. (h) John iv. i. (;; Luke vi. 13, h, 2. Matth. X. I. Mark iii. ig. vi. ?• («) Luke x. i. ^ (?/ E p I s c o p A c Y, iSc. 1 5 might find them ready and prepared for him, and then he himfelf might admit and receive them as his Difciples. Befides, the Apoflles are frequent- ly fpoken of in all Parts of the Gofpel as Cbrijl's more immediate Officers, who generally attended upon him, and were VVitneffes to all his great and wonderful Works, and whom he frequently em- ployed, but the Seventy are but once mentioned. A fure Argument that the Apoflles were of a fu-- perior Order to them. But tho' the Apoflles were plainly fuperior to the Seventy, and had Autho- rity {n) to preach (o) and baptiz^ey or admit Con- verts into the Church of Chrifly yet they had no Authority to commifTion or fend others to do thofe Things. For as Chrift alone had Autho- rity to fend them, fo he alone had Authority to fend other Seventy alfo. And this he takes oc- cafion to let them know at the time of his fend- ing them forth, (p) The Haryeft truly is pleiiteoiUi hit the Labourers are few. Pray y£ therefore the Lord of the Harve/i that he vjill fend forth Labour- ers into his Harve/i. Now thefe Words being fpo- ken both to the Twelve and to the Seventy at the very Time when he gave them their Commifrion to Preach, was a plain Intimation to them, that if they found the Work too great for them, fo as they wanted more Affiftance, they fhould not take upon them to commiflion others, but defire him who was the Lord of the Harvcfe to fend more Labourers. An evident Argument that whofo- ever has Authority to minifter the Word and Sa- craments himfelf, has not therefore an Authority to ordain and commiffion others to that Office. Since Chriji when he gave his Apoflles a Com- ^ (w) Matth, X 7. (0) John iv. 2. (p) Matth. ix. 37, 5S. luke t, 2, miffion i6 T/»6' Divine Right iniflion to do the one, fo plainly reftrai'ned theiii from doing the other, and required them to apply- to himfclf on that Occafion as to the Lord oi the Harveft. Thus have we plainly found Three Orders of Minifters in the Chriftian Church whilft Chriji was on Earth. That is, Chri/i him- felf the Head and chief Minifter or Bifhop, then the Twelve ApoiHes, who were next unto him, anfwering to the Priefts or Second Order, and then the Seventy Difciples, as an Order below the Apoftles, and anfwering to the Deacons. But then it is to be noted, that when our Saviour fettled this Oeconomy in his Church, he had confined it to the Jeiuilh Nation and Country, for when he fent his Difciples forth to Preach, he charged them, faying, (q) Go not into the IVay of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to the loft Sheep of the Hotife of IfraeL (r) And being raifed up by God to be a Prophet like unto Mofes, tho' in all refpe6ts very far fuperior to him, he judged it proper v/hilft he faw convenient to have his Church: confined to the Jewifb Country, to keep ftridly to the Mofaical Oeconomy in the Government of it, and therefore as Mofesy to whom he was like, had under him (s) Jkvelve Princes, Heads of the 1'ribes; and likewife (t) Seventy Elders, to whom God imparted of Mofes's Spirit, that they might help to rule the People under him, fo Cbrift alfo chofe Tzuelve Apojtles, to anfwer to the twelve Princes, and Seventy Difciples, according to the Number of the Elders. And therefore after the Refurreftion, (u) the Apoftles being commanded not to depart from Jerufalem for fome Time, did. (q') Matth. X. 5, 6. (r) Deut. xviii. i^. Afts vii. 37. i$) Numb. i. 4. (0 Numb. xr. »6» («^ A6is i. 4* by ^Episcopacy, i^c\ 1 7 by Divine Direction , fill up the Number to Twelve again, when Judas by his Tranfgreffioii had fallen and died, and thereby made a Vacan- Cyj that fo long as the Church wa's confined to Jtidaa, they might preferve an Oeconomy exadly parallel to that fettled by Mojes^ even fo Far as to confine themfelves to juft the fame Number of Officers. But when they had begun to enlarge the Church beyond the Bounds oijud^ay and to invite not only Saniaria^ but all the Gtntiies into it, tho' they prefer ved the Sacred Oeconomy fez- tled by Chrifl, fo far as to retain the divcrfc Or- ders of Minifters which he firft eftablifhed, yet they had no longer any Regard to the Numbers "T-welve and Seventy; for St. Paul and St. Bamaboi, and diverfe other, were added to the Number of the Apoftles, and for the Seventy, we hear nothing of them after the Refurrcdion. § VIII. However, as I have already intimated, the Sacred Oeconomy of Three diftinfit Orders continued in the Church whilft it was under the Government of the Apoftles , as it had done whilft under the immediate Government o^ Chriji on Earth. For as whilft our blelfed Saviour was in his State of Humiliation in this World, there was he himfelf the Head and chief Governour of the Church, under him the Twelve Apoftles, and below them the Seventy Difciples : So when he was gone, the Twelve Apoftles fucceeded him in the Office of governing, guiding, and direfting the Church, without any Superior on Earth, and fupplied the Place of their Mafter, (xu) being fent by him as he vjas fent by the Father, and the Elders and Deacons ordained by them fupplied (w) John XX, 21. C the iS T/'e Dl VI NE R IG HT the Places which they and the Seventy held undef CbriR before the Rcfurreftion, before they had received that full Power which he thought fit to confer upon tliem, when he was about to afcend into Heaven. Wherefore altho' they did not pre- tend to commifTion or fend any to preach the Word or miniftcr the Sacraments whilft Chrifi was here on Earth, he having, as I have fliewed, forbidden them to do it then, and to make their Application to him,if they wanted Affiftance, that he the Lord of the Harveft would be pleafed to fend more Labourers into his Harveft ; yet now after the RefurreAion being vefted with a larger Power, and appointed to fupply their Matter's Place, as his Deputies and Vicegerents, they in a fhort Time began to give Commiffions and to ordain others to execute the Minifterial Office under them, as they had executed it under Chnfi before his Death and Refurredion. Thus (x) they ordained Deacons to take Care of the Wi- dows and the Poor in the daily Miniftration ; But they ordained them not to that Purpofe only, but alfo to Preach and Baptize. For Philip, (y) who was one of thefe Deacons, foon went down to preach at Sajnaria^ where he made many Con- verts, and baptized them, but he could not fet- tle a Church there, he could not lay on Hands either to confirm thofe whom he had baptized, or to ordain Minifters among them ; wherefore he gave Notice of what he had done to the Apo- ftles, and they fent Peter and 'John, Two of their own Order, to do thofe Things which Philip could not do. . And as they thus ordained Dea- com to execute fuch Minifterial Offices as they thought proper to commit to them, fo they alfa (x) A^s vu iy) Afts viii, ^, ^e. or- (?/ Epi SCO p AC Y, £ifr. 19 ordained Elders^ Presbyters or Pticjis (tS) in every Citji to feed the Church of God which he hath put- chafed with his own Blood (a). Thefe Elders or Presbyters (for that is the Word in the Original} are alfo called Bijhops, for fo ( b) St. Paul called the Elders or Presbyters of Ephefm when he fent for them to come to his Epilcopal or Apoftolical Vifitation at Miletm, faying, Take heed therefore to your fehes, and to all the Flock over which th^ Holy Ghoji hath made yen BijhopSy our Tranilarion reads it Overfeersy but the Original is Bij/jops. Thus after the Refurreftion, as well as before, do we find Three Orders of Miniflers in the Church. Firft the Apoflles , who were chief Officers or Governors of the Church, who (tood in the Piace of Chrifl, being fent by him as he ivas fnt by the Father-^ -then the Bijhops or Presbyters, who were next unto them, (landing in the Place which they had whilft Chrif7 was here on Earth ; and hftly, the Deaconsy anfwering to the lower Order of the Seventy Difciples. § IX. And that thefe Three Orders of Jpo^ files, Bijliops or Presbyters, and Deacons, were eve- ry one intituled to be perpetually continued in the Church, is alfo to be proved from the Scrip- tures and ancient Authors. That the Apoflolical or higheft Order, which was appointed to fup- ply the Place of Chrifi himfe'f after his Afcenfion, was intended by him not for a Temporary, but a perpetual Inftitution, is evident from the Com- miflion he gave them after his Refurredion. tor (c) having iingled out the Eleven Apoftlcs, .(^0 out of above Five Hundred^ to whom he appeared at (X) Aas xiv. 23. (i) Aas XX. 28. (6) /vas XX. 17, 28. (*) Matth. xxvjii. i<5, £?f, (i) \ Cor. xv. 6. C 2 ome 20 ll:ie Divine Right once after his RtfurreciioHj and appointed them alow to meet him at a Mountain in Galilee, he [pake unto them^ faying. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Eanh. And having thus declared his own Power, he commits it to them, and fays. Go ye therefore, as my Deputies and Vicegerents, and difciple all NatwnSy baptiz,ing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl , teaching th.m to obferve all things whatfoever I have commanded you. And lo I am with you ahvay, even unto the End of the World., Amen. In which lad Words he plainly fliews that their Office was in- tended to be continued ahoay, even unto the End of the World., and he confirms this Promife with an Amn., thereby teftifying that he would verily and indeed fulfil it. Now it was plainly the Apo- ftolical Office which our Saviour here promifed he would be alway prefent with, to ratify and confirm their Miniilrations. For it was only the Eleven Difciples or Apoftles, whom he had before fent, as. he was fent by the Father, to whom he made the Promife. And that the Pro- mife was made to the Office or Order with which he had vefled them, and not to their Perfons, h evident, becaufe otherwife his Promife muft have failed at their Deaths, and confequently he was fo far from continuing with them to the End of the World in the Discharge of this Office, that he did not continue with them an Hundred Years, for all thefe E'even Apoftles were dead in lefs than that Time. But fome pretend that the Words which we here tranflate the End of the 11/hJd, fignify no more than the End of that Age. But ii they are underflood to fignify no more, then the Commiffion to difciple by Baptifm, and to teach what Chrift had commanded, mufl end with that Age alfo, and then Chrijlianity mufl have ceafed with that Age^ fo that ever fince our Preach^ fl^EPISCpPACY, i^c, 2 1 Preaching has been vain, and your Faith alfo vainj for it has fince had no Promife of Chr/Jl to depend upon, if this Promife is to be extended to no longer Time^ and that is not Fiinh, but Frefumpttony which is not founded upon any Promife. But h' the Promife is to be extended to the End of the World, and that it raufi be, or there can be no Chriftianity in the World, then mufc the Office, the ApoUolical Office or Order, to which it was made, continue fo long. For C/jr//i did not fay, / am alway prefent to ratify and confirm thefe Mmiftrations by vohomfoevcr pe>for;nedy but I am with you alway; with you whom I have fent, as I was fent by the Father, wkh y^n whom I have appointed to difciple all Nations by Bap- tifm, with you whom I have appointed to teach all Things which I have commanded, and will ratif-y and confirm what you do in thefe Mini- flrations, that is^ you who "are commifHoned for that Purpofe. Therefore the Office, the Apoflo- lical Office, to which this Commiffion was given, muft continue for the Miniftry of thefe Ordinan^ CCS, or there is no Promife that thefe Ordinances Ciall be effectual to any after the Death of thofe Perfons to whom this Commiffion was panicu^ iarly given. But it' the Ordinances continue , then the Commiflion alfo is continued, for the Promife is not made to the Ordinances, but to the Commiflioncrs in the Mmiflration of thole Ordinances : And therefore if thofe who have not the Commiflion undertake to adminifter them, there is no Word of Promife to make fuch Minifh-ations effeftuaj. § X. That the Office of Preibyters or Elder^^ ca'led alfo Bishops in the Scripture, was intended tQ continue always in the Churchj is evident from CI 5 their 22 Ths Divine Right their Ce) being ordained in Every Church ; for an occafional Temporary Officer needed not to be ordained koJ' ^AUKtKr lav, throughout the Church. But there beinu (I think) none who hold the Neccffi- ty of any Minjfters at all, but who allow the Or- der of Presbyters to have been inftituted for a per- petual ftanding Office in the Church, I need not give my felf the Trouble to prove it very parti- cularly. The fame may be laid alfo of the Order of Deacons, whom (fj we likewife find in the fe- vcral Churches founded by the Apollles. § XI. Thus have we Three Orders of Mini- flvrs in the Scripture, appointed and fettled by (thrift and his Apoilies, for the perpetual Go- vernment of Chrjjis Church, and to minifter his Word and Sacramtnts unto the People commit- ted to their Charge. Whilfl Chrifl was here on Earth, there was he himfelf the Supreme Head and Governour of his Church, and under him the Twelve Apoitles and Seventy Difciples, to affifl: him in the Miniflration of the Divine Or- dinances, in fuch manner as he was pleafed to appoint and dired them. And neither the Apo- ftles nor the Seventy Difciples, whilft he was here with them, had any Power or Authority to fend others to miniiter in Sacred Offices, but if they found the Work too much for them, were direct- ed to apply to him who was the Lord of the Harveft, and intreat him to fend more Labourers into his Harvcfl. But when he afceiided into Heaven, then the Apoftles being made his Vice- gerents, and fent by him as he was fent by the Father, ordained Presbyters and Deacons to aifift them in their Miniftry, as they and the Seventy ie) Afls xiv. 23. (/; Philip, i. i. i Tim. iii, S, afTiftcd ^Episcopacy, iSc 2 j affifled Chrift himfeif whilfl: he was here on Earth. And as they did nothing whilft Cbnjl was with them on Earth but by his Direction and Appoint- ment, fo after his Afcenfion the Presbyiers and Deacons did nothing but as under them, and according to their Diredion and Appoincmcnt. And as they and the Seventy, fo long as Chriji was with them in this World, did not take up- on them to commifTion others to aflift them in the Miniftry ; fo neither after the Afcenfion did the Presbyters or Deacons take upon them to com- miflion others, but that was done by the Apoitles only, or by fuch as they appointed to fucceed them in the Apoftolical Office ; whom they or- dained, not to minifter* under them, as the Pres^ byters and Deacon^ did-, but to labour with rheni, as their Allbciares or Equals. Such an one was T'itMii whom (g) St. Paul calls his Partner and FcHoiu-bslper. Such were (A) Soflhenes, (i) Tiinothy, and (/t) SilvanptSj whom St. Paul joins with himfelf in the Infcription of feveral of his Epiftles, which would have been very abfurd in an authoritative Epiftle (and all St. Paul's are fuch) if their Autho- rity had not been equal to his own. Such alio was (/) Epaphroditm, whom he exprefly calls an Apo^ file tho', as I have before obferved, our Tranfla- tion renders it M.ffengey) as well as his Brother and Companion in Labour^ and Fellow Soldier, Ti- tles which he gives not to (m) the Bijhops or Presbyters, and Deacons of Philippij but only to him who was their Apoftle or chief Paftor. Now when St. Paul wrote to any Churches in general, or particularly to the Bijhops, or Presbyters^ and (fi) 1 Cor. viii 23. (h) \ Cor 1. i. (') i C-ir. i t, Philip, i. I. Col. i. I. Philem i. (i; i TfulT. i. i. ? Tlie-J; y i, Q) Philip, iit 25, im) Philip, t. i. J5^<^eo?ii 24 The Divine Right Deacons of a Church, as when he wrote to the Vhihf plans , he gave no Directions concerning Ordination, nor told them who or what Perfons were proper to be chofen and admitted into the Miniftry, wh ch he, that is (o particular in other Mutrers, would not have omitted, if it had be- lorii^id either to the People in general, or to the Bijhop.f, or PresbyterSi and Deacons in particular to have appointed or ordained fiich Minifters. But whvrn he wrote to Timothy and Titm fwho, as I have fhewed, were of the Apollolical Order) then he gives full Direftions concerning Perfons to be ordained, and lets them know whom they ought to admit into the Miniflry, dircfting {n) Timothy to lay H.mds ftidthnly on no^Ianj and telling T/>«i (o) that he left him in Crete to ordain Elders in eve- ry City. Nov it cannot be thought that St. Paul would have been fo particular upon this Subjedt in his Epift'cs to thcfe Two Perfons, who were, as I have Ihewed, of the Apoftolical Order, and /hould fay nothing of it in any other of his Epi- fties, if it had no: belonged to Men of the Apo- ftolical Order particularly, and to no others, to ordain BijhopSy or Presbyters^ and Deacons. For had any fuch Authority belonged to the whole Body of Chriflians in any Church, as fome have pretended it does, can we think that amongft fo many Epiftles as we have iw the New Teltament fcnt to feveral Churches, we fhould not have one Word concerning Ordination in any of them, but only in the T'vo EpiAles to Timothy, and in that to Titm? This, I think, is a very reafonable Argument. However, it is plain, even to De- monflration, that the Apoftles, and Men of the Apoftolical Order, had this Authority to ordain (w} I Tisi. V. 22. {o) Tit. i. 5. and ^Episcopacy, t$e, 2^ and fend others : And there is not the leafl Inti- mation in Scripture that any others, whether Deacons or Presbyters, had any fuch Authority, fince we find no others to have exercifed it, nor any Diredion given to others about it It is alfo maniftll:, that whilft our Saviour was on Earth, only he could fend Labourers into his Harveft, and that the Apoftles alone (being fent by him as he was lent by the Father) had that Authority after his Afccniion, and th^re is not the Shadow of any Proof that they committed this Authori- ty to Presbyters; for Authority- to minifler the Word and Sacraments , was no Authority to commiffion others to perform thofe Offices, fince, as I have fhewed, the Apoftles had Authority to minifter the Word and Sacraments whilft Chrijl was with them, but not to fend others for that Purpofe. There being therefore demonftrativc Proof that the Apoftles, and thofe whom they had ordained to the fame Order with themfelves, were authorized to ordain or fend Minifters, and nothing like a Proof that any others could do it, we may very fairly affirm, that it does not appear from the Scriptures,that anytinferior Order could ordain. And for as much as the Apoftles were called and fent by C/;;//?, and appointed by him to be a perpetual ftanding Order of Miniftcrs in his Church, whom he has promifed to be with alway, even unto the End of the World, which has been alfo fully proved, it is certain that their Office, which we now call by the Njme of Epif- copjcyy is of Divine Rights being an Office infti- tuted by Chrifl himfelf, who is 'very God as well as very Man, to be the ordinary, ftanding, per- manent Miniftry in his Church, to which the chief Government of the Church was by him committed. s5 XII. But 26 The Divine Right § XII. But for as much as there were fome Things peculiar to the Twelve Apoftles, which were not communicable to their Succelfors, fuch (/>) as to have been from the beginning Eye Wit- ncffes and Mimjiers of the Word, (q) to have heard from the beginning, to have feen xuith their Eyes, to have looked upon, and with their Hands to have handled the Word of Life : (r) And alfo to have been Witnejfes of his RefurreSiion : To which we may add that particular Divine Infpiration which they received by the Holy GhofI:, (j) zvhom the Father fent in Chrifi^s N^tme to teach them all things-^ and to bring all things to their re?nembrance what- focver he fiid unto them, whereby they were ren- dred infallible in the Account which they gave of the Life and Ads of ^efa^ Chrif7, and in the Dodrines which they delivered to the World by Preaching or Writing, and therefore their Books contained in the New Teftament are received by the Church as the Word of God, being written by the infallible Directions of his Spirit. For this Reafon, and upon Account of thefe incommuni- cable Privileges of the firft Apoftles, thofe who fucceeded them in their Office of gov^erning the Church, humbly abftained from the Name Apo- files, and contented thcmfelves with the Name of Bifiops, which (as I have before obfervcd) was in the Scripture Language given to the Second Order, who were then promifcuoufly called either Bijl'ops or Presbyters. For immediately after the Death of St. John (the laft Survivor of the 12 Apoftles) we find the Three Orders diftinguifhed by the Names of Bijhops, Priejis, and Deacons, as (p) Luke i. 2. (^; I John i. i. ^r) Ac\s i. 32« C-O John xiv, 26. I of Episcopacy, i^c. 27 they are to this Day ,• and the fame Power in the Government of the Church which our Saviour exercifed, and did not communicate to his Apo- files till after his Refurredionj is exprefly decla- red to have been in the Bifhop, and the Presby- ters are faid to poflefs the Place which the Apo- ftles held under Chrift whilft he was here conver- fant with them : And the Bifhops are aflerted to be the Apoftles Succeflbrs in that Power which they had vefted in them by Chri/l, when he was going to leave them after his Refurredtion, and the Presbyters are declared to be under them. This I fhall briefly prove by fome few Inftances from the Fathers which lived before the Council of Nice. I fay, fo?ne few InflanceSj becaufe if I ftould u,o about to colled; all the numerous In- fiances which may be produced to this Purpofe from the Fathers of the three firft Centuries only, I might write a Volume upon this one Head : But this has been already done by fo many ex- cellent Pens, that I may well content my felf with a few plain Inftances, referring thofe that require more to the many larger Volumes which have been written on this Subjed of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. § XIII. I fhall begin with the Tcftimony of St. Ignatipti Bifhop of Antiochy who was Contem- porary with St, John the Apoftle. For St. John (0 died at EphefMi about the Year of our Lord 104, and St. Ignatipti (u) fuft'ered Martyrdom about Three Years after, in the Year of our Lord J 07, having been Bifhop Forty Years, fo that he was alfo Contemporary with many other of the CO Cave Hift. Lit. Vol. i. p. 10. («) Cave Hift. Lit. Vol. 1. p. 2$, Afoftles gS The Divine Right Apoftles alfo. In his PafTage from Antioch to Home (vvhither he was carried to be thrown to the wild Bcalts in the Amphitheatre, for his bold ConfcfTion of the ChnlHan Faith before the Em- peror 'Trajan) he wrote Seven fhort Epiftles to feverai Churches, diverfe of whofe Bifliops came to vific him , and fupply his Wants upon the Road. In which Epi/lles he aHcrts the Divine Right of Epifcopacy as fully as may be. (w) In his Epiflle to the Magnjftam he fays, / admonijh that you, jiudy to do all thi/igs in the Unity of God, the Bijhop prefiding in the tlace of Godf and the Presbyters in the S at of the Apoftles, and the Dea- cons mofi dear to me having the Mimjlry of Jefus Chrift committed to them. And to the Tralhans he fays, (xj And for as much ai you are fuujeci to your Bijhops m to Jefus Chrift, you feem to me no to live according unto Men^hut according to J'>.fus Chrift, who died for you ., that believing in his Death you 7nay avoid Death. It is therefore necejfary that oi you do already, fo you Jhould do nothing without your Btjhop : But be jubjeci alfo to the Presbytery., m to the Apofiles of Jefus Chrift our Hope, in whom jpay we be found coaverfant. It behoves alfo the Deacons, behig the To-rov (Ttuj^oTetii t >CT5roAsyi/, 59 r cP'/ay/qvau, T zuoi yKvKv- ']lraVi 'TcZTira^jSi^av J'totKov'ia.y 'Iho"? Xetra- ^d t/lugvej. § 6. T St >iwct< 'hD^avoi'Tet, 'ii'ci, 'vrt'^-^acfTii &;<; t ^a.-oltov «6yT«> TO '^rv^Avei'^ i/,'.'ivyntz. ' PiiayKcuov a/ gr/i/, ct;fiJ). /Jd Ttul. § 2, Mi-. is manifeft from his naming Polycarp amongfc them, thereby plainly teaching us that the others (c) Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apoftolis inftituti funt Epifcopi in Ecclcfih, & fucceffores eorum ufq; ad nos. Iretjx. lib 3. cjp. ■}. (d) Apoftolorum do£lrina , 85 antiquus Ecclefiae flatus ia univerfo mundo ; & charafter corporis Lhrilti fecund urn fuc- cefliones Epircoporuni, quibus illi earn, qua? in unoqucqj loca efV, Ecclefiam tradiderunc Jren. lib. 4. cap. 69. Ce) Omnes ii, valde pofleriores funt quam Epifcopi, quibus Apoftoli tradjderunt Ecdefias. Jren. lib. 5. cap. 20. were ^ 2 The Divine Right were all of them fiich Bifhops as Poly car p. Now that Polycarp was fuperior to the Presbyters, and the Head or Chief over a Presbytery, is evident from his Epiftle to the Philippiansy when he fent them the Seven Epiftles of St. Ignatim^ Four of which were written by that glorious Martyr in his Houfe, Two more were written to himfelf and his Church of Smyrna, and the other was written to his Neighbour Church of Philadelphia i fo that he could not but be able to procure ge- nuine Copies of every one of them. (ii) This Epiftle of St. Polycarp begins thus: Polycarp and the Presbyters that are 'with him-y to the Church of God which dvcells at Philippi. This Infcription plainly teaches us that Polycarp was Chief above a Company of Presbyters^ and St. Jgnatim, who was fome Time in his Houfe, in his Epiftle to him. W' ftiles him Bijhop, faying, Ignatius, vjho is nlfo called Theophorus, to Polycarp Bijhop of the Smyr4-i:ans. And that he was fuch a Bifhop as Ignatius fays ftands in the Place of God or Chrifly is evident, not only from what I have quoted before from that Father out of his Epiftle to the Sm}rn7*' j'tAKOVOlf )^ [Jl.iT A\j\wV y-Ol 75 fcif®" -^ofjo ^HV hi &tS. Jgnu- ad hljarf, § 6. and (pfEPISCOPACY, iSc'» ^ ? and may I have the fame Portion with them in the Lord. I \\2ivc been the more pafticular upon this Point, to prove Folycarpj and confeqiiently the rcli: of thofe Bifhops whom Ireruus liames as Succef- fors to the Apoftles, to have beeh fuch Bifhops as Ignatius fpeaks of, who had fo plainly an Autho- rity above Presbyters , excelling them both in Order and Dignity, and to whom the chief Go- rernment of the Church belonged, fo that nothing could be done in the Church without the Bifbop, becaufe the Presbyterians, from their great Ma- ilers Blondel and Salmafius, have endeavoured, from the Authority of Ireu'zus, to reduce thefe Bifhops, whofe Succeflibii he fpeaks of, down to the Rank of Presbyters, becaufe he fometimcs calls them fo. Thus (^) Mr. Withers fpeaks, after ha- ving made Ignatius a Presbyterian, as has been al* ready obferved, and fays, A fecand Witnefs to the fame Purpoje is Iren^tis, Bijhop 0/ Lyons, ivho flou- rijfjed in the Second Century, zvho thus exprejfes him- felf when difputing againfl the Valerian Heretitks. When (fays he) we challenge thofe who are Ene- mies to Tradition, to have recourfe to that Tradi- tion which is derived from the Apoflles , and which by a Succession of Presbyters is prefer- ved in the Churches,* will they fay that they are wifer not only than Presbyters, but even than the Apoftles themfelves ? If any thing can be more ex- prefs and poftive, 'tis the Ajjertion of the fame Au- thor, who in another place affirms^ That Men ought to obey thofe Presbyters that are in the Church, even tliofe who have their Succession From The Apostlis, who, with the Succe/Jion of Epifcopacy, have received the certain Gift of Truth, accord- iris to the good Pleafure of the Father. In vjhich (\) Truth tried, p. 80, D Quo- 54 The Divine Right QttotMion there are thefe tiuo things plainly affivnied : Firft, T'hat Presbyters are Succellors to the Apoftles. Secondly^ 'That their Succeflion, and the SuccefHon of Epifcopacy, is the fame things and by confequence that according to their original Jnjlitution they were the fame with Bijhops ; tho Cuftom and the Corfent of Churches has fince made fo great a Difference. 'Tis further remarkable that this 'venerable Author is look- ed upon hy our Brethren Oi an eminent and topping Prelate ; and therefore cannot he fufpeBed of Partia- lity in favour of an inferior Order., or of any Dejign to derogate from the Dignity and Honour of his own CharaEier. But Mr. Withers might have known, it he had been pleafed to have examined thofe who had v/ritten on the other fide, that this Ar- gument ot his had received a very full Anfwer long before he produced it, and particularly from Dr. Parker Bifhop of Oxford, in his Account of the Government of the Chrijlian Church for the firfl 6:0 Tears, where that Learned Prelate having fhewed, that (a) as foon as the Apoflles were with^ drawn, and fo the Name of an Apofile began to be laid afide, the Name of Bijhop was appropriated to their Succejjors in the Supremacy ; fo that we find not one Writer after the Apojlles Time that doth not very c.irejully diftinguijh the Names of Bijhop and Presby^ ter^ the one as peculiarly appertaining to the Supreme Ord.r, the other as to the Inferior, fo as never to give the Name of Bijhop to a Presbyter, or of a Presbyter to a Bijhop, proceeds to anfwer fuch Inftances as are here brought by Mr. Withers ; and fays, / know indeed that Blondel, Salmafius, and Daille, that Geneva Triumvirate , or Confederacy for the Subverfon of the ancient State of the Chrijlian Churchy have, after their ufual manner, raked together vafl (<») pas- 54> 55) 5«f , and whenever they fpeak of them, appropriate it to fubordinate Presbyters, to ex- prefs their DiftinElion from Bijhops ; but when they fpeak of Bijhops of former "times, they give themfome- titnes the Appellation of Presbyters, m it is equiva- lent to that 0/ Ancients, and Jig,nfics not their Ojpce, but their Antiquity in the Church, and fo might be given not only to all Orders of the Clergy, but to the Laity, and the whole Body of Chriflians, by ii-hom the Apofrolical T^r adit ion was any way conveyed down to after Ages. And it was upon that Occafion that they ufed this Word, to Jhew the Certainty of the Convey- ance of the true Chrijiian DoEirine from the Apofiles, in that they received it from the Ancients that recei- ved it from them ; in this Senfe, and in this only, do they ufe the Word, as it denotes not their Office, but their Age. 1'his one fiort Obfervation is a clear An- fwer to aU their voluminous Heaps of CoUeBions, that tho' they make a great Shew to the Ignorant with the Length of th^ir 'Train, yet they all run upon this poor and dull Mijlake, aa will appear more fully when zue come to Particulays. In the mean time it is enouih to our prefeat Purpofe, that the Epijcopal Succeffton to the Apojilesjs fo unanfvjerahly proved and attefled by the moji ancient Writers of the Church, and that without Ambiguity or Equivocation in their Words. And then in particular as to' the forecited Words of Irenaus quoted by Mr. Withers, he fays (b) What, cannot a Man prove the Certainty of the Tra^ (b) p. 10 1, loi. D i ditlon 36 The Divine Rig h t dition of the Churchy as Irenaeus often doth, by the Undoubted T'ejtimony (f the Ancients^ but they muji all trrimediately be transformed into Presbyters ? And that he fo frequently gives them that Title in refpeSi of their Antiquity J not their Ofpce, is f9 evident from the Pajfages thdmjelvesy that it is a burning Shame for Learned Men to f erf ft fo fiublmnly in jo thick a Mifiake. Otheruife it js certain that he never con- founds either the Name or the 0-ffice of Presbyter and Bijkop , and derives the Succefjwn of proper Bijhops from the Apofiles, fuch as the Bifiops of Rome and Polycarp, who had their Presbyters under thefn, as is evident from the Jnfcription of Polycarp'j own Epj/ile , and the Proceedings of the Presbytery at Rome againjl Marcion ^ neither indeed could he confound the Names, who fo well knew the DiftinBion of offices, as having been firft a Presbyter himfelf, and then a Bijhop. What an endlefs Outcry do thefe M^n keep up with IrenasusV Presbyters, as if they alone had been iynmediate Succeffors to the ApoftleSf and he had knoicn no higher Order of Men called Bi" fhops, ivhen himfelf was advanced from the lower Or-' der of Presbyter to that of a Bijhop, when he has fo often exprefly dijlinguijhed them ? fo that if he had expreffed hifnfelf carelefly, and fometimes called a Bij'lop a Presbyter, it were nothing but wilful Per-- verfenefs from thence to conclude that he knew no Difference between the?n, and plainly to give the Lie to his own Declaration of his own Senfe ; but when there is not one Paffage in nil his Writings in which he ftiles a mesr Presbyter a Bilhop ; and when every Paffage in whiih a Bjjhop is fiiled a Presbyter, fo ap- parently explains it felf to be underjlood of their Age^ not their Office ; after this to interpret it of their office^ plainly fijews that Presbytery has no other Way to preferve it felf, than by putting Tricks upon Anti- quity. From what this Learned Prelate has there- fore faid, it is evident that Mr, Withers has gi\Q-n us ^ E p r s c o p A c V, tffc, ^ 7 «s a wrong Tranflation of the Palfages he has cited from IreNaus, and that the Word he rendcis Presbyters fhouJd be rendred Ancients, and then his v/hole Argument from Lenaus falls to the Ground. It is aJfo obfervable th;at Mr. H^itbe.s himfeif reprefents Iren^us as an eminent and top^ ping Prelate, and one that cannot therefore be fuf-. peEled ef Partiality in favour of an inferior Order, or of any Dejign to derogate fro?n the Dignity and Honour of his own Charnlier. But if he had fuch a Charader, and had fuch an inferior Order of Presbyters fub/eft to him, and was an eminent and topping Prelate, could he think himfeif and his Inferiors to be of the fame Order? If this is not a Contradiqtion, I will not pretend to fay what is. § XV. The next Author I fliall produce, is Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourifhed in the latter End of the Second Century, about the Year 192, ^nd fliall begin with that very Paflage which Mr. IVitbers (c) quotes to prove this Father alfo to have been a Patron of Presbytery. I fhall therefore firft recite his Words. A third IVitnefs, who fpeaks the Language of the former, is Clement of Alexandria, who alfo fiourijhed in the fyji Ages of Chriftianity. Having fpoken 0/ Judas his EL-clicn to the Apojilejhip, and his unworthy Conduci in it, he proceeds in thefe following Words : Wherefore Atat- thias, tho' he was not chofen together with the reft, when he had approved himfeif worthy to become an Apofile, was fubftitutcd in the room of Judaa. And it is poffible even NOW for thofe who exercife themfelves in the Divine Command, who live knowingly , as becomes the Gofpel, to LCO Tmh mUj p. 80; 81. P 3 '^^ ^ 8 The Divine Right be enrolled in the Number of the Apojiles. This is a real Presbyter of the Church, and a true Minifter of God's Will, ii he does and teaches the Things of God; nor is he efteemed a juft Man becaufe he is a Presbyter, and ordained by Men; but becaufe he is a juit Man, therefore he is •taken into the Presbytery. In the firjl of tbefe Sentences this Learned Author takes it for grantud, that hi the Age in which he lived, feme M^n might be reckoned in the Number of the Apoftles; by which he mufl underfiand their Succejjors in the Gofpel Miniflry, they themfelves being dead feme Scores of Tears before. In the next Sentence he defcnbes the Man that deferves fo high a Character, and that is the Presbyter, who adorns his FunBion by a w:fe and holy Converfatioii. And it is evident to any one that ionfults this Paffage, that the Presbytery, in the latter fart of it, anfwers to the Catalogue of Apoftles in the former ; and this being granted, we need no more to prove the Validity of a Presbyterian Ordination. BVit if this be not granted, then it proves no fuch thing. For '\^ he had not mifreprefenred the Paf- fage, by putting the now ambiguous Word Mini- fier inftead of Deacon into it, there would have been no Colour for VVyre-drawing it to his Meaning. And it is plain that this was not done by Mr. Withers inadvertently, but with Defign, for when, he quotes this Paffigc in the Greek in his Margin, juft where the Word ^lety.ovQ-, Dea- con, (bould come in, he puts an &c. and fo gives us bun one half of the Original, for fear the Rea- der, who might underftand that Language, might be thereby undeceived, and fee that CLmens here fpeaks of all the Three Orders, the Bijhop, who is the Perfon he fpeaks of, as who may be now en- rolled in the Nianbcr of Apoftles, and after him the Vresbyter, and then the Deacon. And the Words immediately following this PafTage quoted by Ml. ^Episcopacy, ^c 3 9 Mr. Withers, plainly /hew that the Pcrfcn whom he fpeaks of as taken into the Presbytery^ is not ta- J^-en into the higheft Order: faying, (d) And al- tho* he be not honoured ivith the firjl Siat here on E^i'thf yet he jh all Jit upon one of the four and twenty Thrones , judging the People , as John fays in the Apocalypfe. And a little after he fays again, {e) For here alfo in the Church the Orders ej Bijhops-, Friefis, and Deacons 3 are, as I think. Invitations of the Angelick Glory. So that Chinens plainly ac- knowledges and fpeaks of all the Three Ortlers, and alfo fays exprefly that the Presbyter does not Jit in the highejl Seat, confcquently that the Per Ion he fpeaks of as enrolled, m the Number of the Apo- Jiles mull be the Bifhop, notwithftanding Mr. IVi- thers by a partial Citation of it would wreft it to the Presbyter. § XVI. I (hall mention but one Paffage more from Mr. Withers, becaufe the reft of his Cita- tions are from Authors after the Time of the Council of Nice, which is the Period I have fixed for my prefent Enquiries. He fays then, (/) / Jhall next prefent the Reader iioith a Pa/Jage to be found m the Conftitutions commonly called Apoflo- lical, pretended to be drawn up by St. Clement their Difciple, 'T^is agreed on all hands that they are not fo ancient as the Jirfl Compiler of them would fain perfuade the World : Du Pin fuppofes that their frji (d KdLP c.»iT«u9* cm yT}{ 'V^ajoKet^iJ^eJ-'i- (J.i\ T/^/iiflH, cv TOli HKO(jl K) Tiajii'i;(TI KctQiS'ei^ ■d'^VVOli, 'f hctOV Ktl-iVVy <^? (pmiv Iv rti ' A'roKo.KV'^tri 'lueivv\]f' Ckm. Alex. Strum. 1. 6. p. 667. B.' j'j/.rii J^'o^m. Clem, /ikx- Sttom. 1. 6. p. 667. D. if) Truth tried, p. 81. P 4 Jppear^ 40 The Divine Right Appearance in the IVorld was in the 'Third or Fourth Century- I (hall not therefore cite thefn as the IVords of St. Clement, but as the Senfe of the Church in that Age in which they were received ; but thus they ex- Jirefs themfelves : Let the Presbyters {fay they) be efteemed as thofe who are in the Place of us the Apostles, 'thef M^ords are fo plain, that they need no Paraphrafe, and efeciunlly confirm the thing for which they are produced. But if we look into the Place which he has cited, we /hall find that they make jaft as much for his Piirpofe as the PafTages cited by him from Ignntiusy which I have before confidered, and of which they feem to be a Tran- fcript. For in this very Place where they make the Presbyters to be Succeflbrs of the Apoftles, they make the Bijhops the Succeflbrs of Jefus Chrif7. And in this Senfe the greateft Zealots for Epifco^acy maintain Presbyters to have fuc- ceedcd the Apoflies, that is, lo have fucceeded to the Place which the Apoft'es had under Chrifl whilft he was with them on Earth, that is, whilfl they were neither the chief Governors of the. Church, nor had any Power to ordain or fend others. But they that can make Ignatius and the Apojlolical Conftitutions the Patrons of Presbytery, may make even what 1 now write to be ^ Defenfe of Presbytery. For as Ignatius, (o the Apoflolical Conftitutions., are very i'ull of the Authority of Bijhops above Presbyters, and teach us a'fo, that after a Man had been ordained a Presbyter, he mud be ordained again by another Form before he could be a Billiop, even as it is at this Day. § XVII. TertuUian, who was himfelf a Presby- ter of Cartha'ie . and flourifhed toi^ether with Clemr/is Alex and. itus about the Year 192, chal- lenges the H'^retic'.is to (hew their Succellion from thq c/ Episcopacy, iSc, 41 the Apoftles, as the Catholick Church could do by a Succeflion of -B7//jo/>i-, faying, (g) Let them fet forth the Original of their Churches : Let them turn ever the Regijier of their Bijhops, and fo going doivn by Succejfrons from the Beginning, Jhew that he who •was the firji Bijlop, had one of the Apoftles, or of the Apojiolital Men xvho was in full Co7n;niinion voith the Apo(ileSy for his Author and Predecejfor. For in this manner the ."^pofiolical Churches bring down th^ir Re- gifiersy 05 the Church of the Smyrneans had Polycarp placed over them by John, as the Church of the Ro- mans had Clement ordained by Peter : As the other Churches alfo fet forth thofe who iver-e made Btjhops over them by the Apoftles. And that T'ertullian looked upon Bifhops as an Order fuperior to Presbyters, and confequently means fuch Bifliops in this place, is evident from his diftinguifhing the Three Orders in other Parts of his Work, and particularly in his Book concerning Baptifm, where he fays, (/?) "the chief Prieji, which is the Bijhop, has the Right to give it, and after him the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bifoop's Authority, for the Honour of the Church. In which Words he no: only plainly teaches that there (g ) Edant ergo Origines Ecclefiarum fuarum : evoh'ant ordinem Epifcoporum fuorum, ita per ruccefliones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Epifcopus aliqueni ex Apoftolis, vel Apoftolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apoftolis perfeveraverir, liabuerit autorem & antecefforem. Hoc enim mode Ecdefiae Apoftolicae cenfus fuos deferunt , ficut Smyrnceorum Fcclefia habens Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocarum referr, ficut Roma- norum Clementem a Petro ordinatum : proinde uciq; ut cete-« rae exhibent, quos ab Apoftolis in Epifcopatum conftitutos, Apoftolici feminis traduces babeant. Tcnuli. de pr^jcript. ^i- vcrf. Hi&reXi (b) Danti quidem habet jus rnmmiis facejdos qui eft Epifco- pus, dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen line Epilcopi autoritate, propter fcclefis honorem. TertulJ. dn Btptif wei'e 42 The Divine Right were thefe Three Ciders in the Church, but alfo (declares the Bijhop to be the Chiefy and that nei- ther Deacons nor Presbyters could baptize, or coh- fcquently perform any other Minilterial Duties^ t)uc by an Authority derived from him. § XVIII. Origeriy who lived a while after I'er- tutliany and was the Scholar of Clemens Alexandri- pusy flourifhing about the Year 230, teaches, that Eifliops are fet over us by God, and confequent- ly have a Divine Right to their Office; For fpeaking of our Saviour's Obedience to his Mo^ ther and her Husband, he fays, (/) If Jefus thq Son of God was fubjeB to Jofeph and Mary, jhaU not 1 be fubjeSi to the Bijhop, ivho is ordained by God to be my Father ? Shall not J be jubjeEi to the Presby-r ter, who by the Divine Vouchfafement is fet over me ? Here the Bijhopy as diftinguiftied from the fresby-^ teYy is pofitivcly aflerted to have been ordained by God. Origen was alfo himfelf a Presbyter, and tho' ill treated by his Bifhop D^metrtus, yet never pretended to be his Equal. § XIX. St. Cypriany who was Bifhop of Car- thage about the Year of our Lord 250, is fo full upon this Subjcdt, that a Man may write a Vo- lume out of his Works alone, jhewing Bijhops to have been appointed by God to be the chief Governors of the Church, to have fucceeded the Apojihs, and to have an Authority over Presbyters and Deacons, even fuch an Authority, that neither Deacons nor Presby- ters can adminifler any Divine Ordinances but in Sub- (i) Si lefus fillus Dei fubjicitur Jofeph & Mariae, ego non fubjiciar Epifcopo qui mihi a Deo ordinacus eft Pater? Non fubjiciar Presbytero qui mihi Doraini dignatione pra^pofitu? eft ? Orig. Bom, 20. m Chiaitbci. ^yji- of Episcopacy, i^c, 4^ ordination to tbem. This any Man will be foon convinced of, who fhall ^ivQ himfelf the Trouble fo read a Book called T'he Principles of the Cypria- nick Age, and another called T^he Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianick Age, both written by f the late Right Reverend and Learned Mr. John SagCy a Scotch Bifhop. And therefore I fhall con- tent my felf to s,'ivq. two or three Citations from this Father, defiring thofe who would have fur- , ther Satisfaction in this Matter, to confult thofe two very excellent and learned Treat ifes. Roga- ticnus (an African Bifhop , and confequently a Suifiragan to St. Cyprian, who was Primate of that Province) wrote to delire his Advice how to deal with one of his Deacons, whom he found rebelli- ous ,• St. Cyprian in his AnAver to him has thefe Words: {k) Deacons ought to reynember that our Lord chefe Apostlis, that is, Btshops and Rulers; and that tt ivas after our Lord's Afcenjton that Dea- cons ivere made by the Apostlts, for the Service of Their Episcopacy, and of the Church: pVherefore as We (Bifhops) ought to do nothing again(i God, •who 7nakes Bishops ; fo neither ought Deacons to do any thing againfi Us (Bifhops) by whom they are made. It is necejfary therefore that your Deacon , concerning zvhom you lurite, jhould acknoivledge the Honour of the Priest, and mak' SatisfaBion to the Bishop his Ruler in the humblefi manner. Affain, (k) MeminiiTe autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apololos, id eft, Epifcopos & Piaepolitos Doniinus elegit; DL^co.nos au- tem poft afcenfum Domini Apoitoli confticuerunr Epifcopi'us fui & EcLleiia; iiuniftros: quod ft nos aliqiiid audera contra Deum pcfTumus qui Eiiiicopos t'acir, pnffanc & contra nos Dia- coni a quibus fiunt. Ec idco oportet Diaconum de quo Icribis agere audacise fu3e poenitentiam, & hoaorem facerdotis agnof- cere, & Epifcopo Prffpoiico fuo plena humilitace fatisfacere. Cy^r. Ei>i^. ?, v/riting 44 The Divine Right writing to Cornelius Bifliop of Rome, he fays (I) 'This, Brother, is and ought to be our principal L.a~ hour and Study, even as much as ive are able, to take care that that Unity may ftill obtain which xvas dsh- vered by our Lord and by his Apoflles to Us (Bifhops) Their Successors. And as he thus fpeaks of Bijhops as Succejjors to the Apoflles, and fuperior to Deacons, To he alfo /hews that they are fuperi- x>r to Presbyters in feveral Places, and particularly where he fays, {ni) How great reafon have we to be afraid of the pf/rath of God, when foms Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gofpel , nor of their Own Place, nor thinking on the future judgment of Gody nor confidering that they have a Bishop now their .Governor, are bold to ajjume all to themfelves, to the Contempt and Reproach of their Governor, a thing never heretofore atte?}ipted under any of my Pre- deceffors. And in another place he alfo fays, («) / hear neverthelefs that there are fome Presbyters nei- ther mindful of the Gofpel, nor confidering ivhat the Martyrs have written to us, and not referving to the Bishop the Honour pf his Priefihood, and of his Chair. (I) Hoc enim vel maKime, Frater, & laboramus & laborare debemus, ui unitatrin a Domino & per Apoftolos nobis fuc- cefToribus tra.diiam quantum poffumys obtinerc curemus. Cjprian, Epifi. 42. (m) ' ;uo:l rnim non periculum metuere debemus de ofFenfa Domini, qujndo aliqui dc Presbyteris, nee Evangelii, nee loci fui memoifs, Prd neq; fucurum Domini judicium, neq; nunc iibi praepoiiCum Epilcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino fub antec ffuribus fa£tum, cum contumelia & contempcu Prae- pofiti totum fibi vendicent. Cypriav. EpiSi. 16. (v) Audii) tamen quofdam de Presbyteris, nee Evangelii niemores, nee quid ad nos Martyres fciipfcrint cogitantes, nee Epifcopo honorem facerdotii & cathedrss refeivantes. Cyprian, § X^, Fir^ <7/'Episcopacy, £ifr. 4^: § XX. Firmiliariy the Contemporary of St. Cy- prian, and Bifhop of Cafarea in Cappadociaj fpeaks of Bifhops alfo as Siieceflbrs to the Apoftles, fay- ing, (0) The Power of remitting Sins was given to the Apojiles, and to the Churches vjhich they founded^ and to the Bishops Who Succeeded To The Apostles By a Vicarious Ordination. § XXI. In the famous Council of Carthage,he]d by St. Cyprian to debate concerning the Baptifm of Hereticks, where were prefent a great Number of Bifliops of the Provinces of Afnck, Niimidiay and Mauritania, together with their Presbyters and Deacons, we find feveral in thofe Debates fpeaking of the Succeffion of Bijhops, and of the Epifcopal Authority^ as of what was known to all, and a Matter not queftioned by any. Thus {p) Fortunatus a Thucabori fays, 'Jejus Chriff our Lord and God, the Son of God the Father and Creator, built his Church upon a Ruck, and not upon Herefy, and gave the Power of baptiz,ing unto Bishops. In thefe Words he plainly teaches us that Bijhops, as di- flinft from Presbyters (for there were Presbyters and Deacons too prefent in the Council) were then efteemed to be the fame Order with the Apoftles^ and confequently their SuccefTors, for that Commiffion which our Lord gave to his Apoftles^ he here fays was given to Bijhops, which (0) Poteftas ergo remittendorum peccatorum Apoftolis data eft & Ecclefiis qiias illi a Chrifto mifli confticuerunt, & Epif- copis qui eis onlinatione vicaiia fuccefferunt. Inter Bpifi. Cy- prian. Bpid. 75 Cp) Jefus Chriftus Dominus & Deus nofter, Dei Patris & Creatoris filius, luper Petram aedificavic Ecclefiam fuam, non Cuper Hserelim , & poteftatem baprizandi Epifcopis dedic. Coudh Carth. inter oper. Cjpr, num. 17. had 4^ The Divine Right had been an odd way of arguing, unlefs Apofttes and Bijhops had then been looked upon as the fame, (q) ConfeJJor Venantius a Timifa faid, Chrijh our Lord and our God going to the FfJtber, commen-^ ded his Spoufe fthe Church) to Us (Bifhops). For tho' Priefts and Deacons were prcfent to hear the Debates, yet none but the Bijhops fpoke in this Council, therefore by the Word Us in this place he muft mean the Bijhops^ and thereby aflerts them to be Succeffors to the Jpofiles, for it was to the Apoftles that Chrifl committed the Care of his Church. Gonfe(for Clarm a Mufcula giving his Suffrage, faid, (r) The Sentence of our Lord •^efm Chrifi is manifefl, fending his Apostles, and to them alone committing the Power given him by his Father : To Whom Wf (Bifhops) have Succeededj governing the Church of our Lord with the Same Power. Nothing can be plainer than this Tefli- mony, that in that Age Bifliops were efleemed to be the Succejfors of the Apo files, and to be veft- ed with the fame Power which our Saviour com- mitted to them juft before his Afcenfion inta Heaven. § XXII. The Apoflolical Canons, which, as Bi- fhop Beveridge has learnedly proved, contain a Colledion of Canons made in the Three firft Centuries, and before the Council of Nice, fpeak of the Three Orders of the Clergy, flill retained in the Church of England, and fpeak of the Bi- fhop all along as fuperior to the other two, and- iq) Chriftus Dominiis & Deus nofter ad Patrem proficif- cens, Sponfain fuam nobis commendavit Ibii. vum 49. (r) Manifcrta eft fententia Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti, Apo-' ftolos Tuos mittentis, & ipfis folis poteftatem a Patre fibi datam permittentis, quibus nos ruccefTimus eadenj poteflatc £cclefi- am gubernantesi Mi. num. 79. o/ E p I s c o p A c Y, £jff. 47 as chief Governour of the Flock of ChriR, I ihall cite only a few of them on this Occafion, as they \yc in the learned Mr. yo/mjons Tranflati- on, in the Second Volume of the Vade Mecum, The firft Canon is this. Let a Bijhop be ordained by tivo or three Bijhops, a Priejl by one Bifiop, and fo likewife a Deacon, and any othe;r Clergy/nan. From whence (as the judicious Tranflator well obfervcs) We may find, that the Three holy Orders retained in our Churchy were then alfo di/iinguified from each ether as they now are ; and that the Power of Ordi- nation was referved to the Bijho^s only. Alfo, that tho' it be the prefent PraBice of the Church of Eng^- land for all the Pric/is that are prefent to lay on Hands at the Ordination of a PrieR, yet '^tis clear fro?n this Canon that this is not effcntial to conferring of Priefls Orders. Titus by himfelf v)m to ordaiti Prieils in every City of Crete, and fo zvas Timo- thy at Ephefus. The Twelfth Canon fays. If a Prieft or Deacon leaving his own Parijh (that is, the Diocefe to which he belongs) go to continue iit another without his Bifiofs Confent, let him only communicate as a Lay-man. This fhews that the Bijhop had an Authority over Presbyters and Dea- cons, and that they might not leave him without his own Confent. The Twenty-fourth Canon fays, If a PriefJ, defpijtng his Bijhop, gather a fe- parate Congregation, dnd ereB another Altar, being not able to canvici his Bi/Jjop of any thing contrary to Godlinefs and Right eoufnefs, let him, and the Clergy- men that confpire with him, i^e depofed, and the Lay- men be fuff ended from Communion, after a tuird Ad- monition from the Bijhop. From whence it appears that Priefls or Presbyters could not ofRciate in any Divine Offices but in Subordination to their Bi- fhop, and that if they did otherwife they forfeit- ed their Charader, and were to be degraded. The Thirty-fecond Canon is alfo full to this Pur- po^ft : 48 The Divine Right pofe : Let the Prie/ls Mnd Deacon; do nothing tvithout the Knoivledge and Confent of the Bijhop ; for with him the People of God are emriifted^ and of him th^ Account will be demanded. The Forty-feventh Ca- non fays. If any Clergyman do unjuflly calumniati a Bijhopy let him be depofed : For it is written, T'hou fialt not fpeak evil of the Ruler Of Thy People. This plainly fhews, that in the Opinion of the Church in thofe Ages the Bilhop was efteemect to be the chief Spiritual Governour of the Flock, and to hold the fame Place in the Chrifiiatt Church which the High Prieft had in the Jewijh Church, fince they apply the fame Words to him which St. Paul applied to the Jewijh High Prieft. § XXIII. All the Councils which we meet with in the Hiftory of the Church, as well before the great and general Council of Nice as after- wards, were held by Bijhops ; and tho' Presbyters and Deacons were allowed to be prefent at them, and to fubfcribe to the Decrees, yet they were not allowed to enact authoritatively, as the 5/- Jhops did, but all they did here, as well as in other Places, was in Subordination to their Bifiops. I fhall take notice of three or four of thefe Coun- cils, which we ftiall find were all held by Bifhops prefiding over feveral Churches, (s) Thus Eufe- bim tells us, that when the Controverfy was on foot, about the Time when Rafter ought to be celebrated, there were feveral Councils of Bi- fhops held in feveral Places on this Occafion, as in Paleftine, where Theophilm Bifliop of Cafarea, and Narcijfus Bifliop of Jerufalem, prefided. Ano- ther at Rome, under Vicior the Bifhop there. Ano- ther of the Bifliops of Pontusj over whom Pahnas (s) Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. I. 5, c. 23, 24, was of Ep I SCO PACY, i^c, 49 xvas Prefident, as being the moft ancient and ve- nerable amongft them. Another of the Churches of GaUia, of which Irenais had the Ovcrfijht. Another of the Churches of Ofroenay and the Ci- ties in thbfe Parts. Another of the Church of Corinth i under Bachy litis their Bifliop, and a very great Number of others in other Parts, who all declared that Ea(ier ought to be kept on the Sun- day. On the other fide, the Bifliops of Afta^ un- der Polycmtes Bifhop of Epbefus, were for keeping Enfler on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon, whe- ther that happened on a Sunday or not. Now we may infer from thefe Councils, which were all held in the Second Century, that isy in thc- very next Age to the Apoftles, that all Churches in all Parts of the World were governed by jB/- Jho^Sj and that when any Controverfies happened, the Bijhps met to decide them. In the next Century, about the Year 243, {t) we find a Synod of Bijhops afl'embled at Bo/ira in Arabia to con- demn the heretical Dodrines of Beryllus the Bi- fliop of that Church, where indeed they admitted Origen a Presbyter to enter the Lifts and difpute with Beryllus, which he did fo effedually as to convince him of his Error, which was more than the Bifhops who had before engaged him were able to do. Yet Origen was not therefore ever efteemed as a Bijhop, but lived and died a Presby- ter: A fure Argument that it was not the Learn- ing or Eminence of any Presbyter that caufed him to be ftiled a Bijhop; for Origen was apparently more eminent than any of the Bijhops allembled in this Council, fince their Names are all buried in Oblivion, but his ftill remains. -And he was alfo more learned than any of them, fince he was (0 £ufcb. Hift. ficclef. I. 6. c. 33. E able ^0 Tlje Divine Rig«t able to convince an Heretick, whom they had be- fore tried to convince in vain, (u) In the Years 2^5 and 270 w^ere Synods held at Antioch againft Paulus Samofatenus Bifhop of that Church, who was there depofed for Herefy, and Domnus fubfti- tuted in his Place, of which the Bifhops alTembled on that Occailon gave an Account by a Synodical Letter to the Catholick Church, in which the Three Orders of BijhofSy Priefis, and Deacons, are mentioned in the Infcription of the Epiftle, as thofe who were then of greatefl Eminence in the Church. In the beginning of the next Century, about the Year 314, we have the famous Synod of Aries y {w) fummoned by the Emperor Conftan" tincy as Eufebius tells us, at which were three Bri- tijh Bijhops prefent, out of every Province one, (x) Ehorius Bifliop of Tork, Refiitutus Bifliop of London, and Adelpbius Bifhop of another City, which our Antiquaries are not fully agreed about, but the moft probable Conjecture is Lincoln, Sacerdos a Presbyter and Arminim a Deacbn accompanying them and attending on them. This Teftimony I have produced to (hew that we had the Three Orders of Bijhops, Priefts and Deacons in the Bri" tiJh Churches in thofe early Ages of Chriftianity, as well as in all other Churches. And, as {y) Bi- fhop SttUingfleet fays, I fee no reafon to queftion a SuccefTion of Bifhops here from the fir ft founding of a Chriftian Church, there being no other Church in. the Chriftian World which derived frojn the Apoftles, •which had not a Succejfion of Bijhops from them too ; and we cannot trace the Piijiory of other Churches far- (u) Fufeb. Hill Ecclef. 1. 7. c 28, 29, 30. (7") F.ureb. Hift. Ecclef. 1. 10. c 5. (x) Cave Hift. Lit. Vol. 2. p. 105. StillingfleeC Orig. Brit. p. 74, ^r. Birgham Orig. Ecclef. Vol. 3. Pare 2. p. 482. (/; StiUingacet Orig. Brit. p. 75, 83, 85. tJkr o/* Epi SCO p ACY, Efffi 51 ther than ive can do that of their Bifiopa. As for Jttflance, the firft Coaverfon of the Churches 0/ Africa is much in the Darky but as Joon as we read any thing conjiderable of them, xve meet with a Council of Bi- /hops, viz. of Agrippinus and his Brethren, out of the Provinces of Africa, Numidia, ^k^;/^ Maurita- nia, and he was not the immediate Predecejfor of St. Cyprian (but a long Time before him) who fuffer- ed in the Ferfecution 0/ Valerian, Anno Dom. 258. And Tertullian puts the Proof of Apo{ko\ici\ Chur- ches upon the Succeflion of Bifliops from the Apo- ftles : PVhich were a fenflefs way of proceeding, unlefs it were taken for granted^ that wherever the Apoftles planted Churches^ they appointed Bijhops to take Care of them. Alt ho' therefore , by the Lofs of Records of the Britilh Churches, we cannot draw down the Sue- cejjion of Bijhops from the Apoftles 'Time, yet we have good reafon to prefume fuch a Succeffon, when upon the firft fummoning a Council by Conftantine, thref Britifh Bifhops appeared, one out of every Province, M they did in other Parts. And their Snccejfton was not in the leafl difputed among them, they fubfcribing to the Sentence and Canons as others did. And what Canons did then pafs,did no doubt as much con- cern the Britifh Churches to obferve, as any other Churches whofe Bijhops were there prefent. And in thofe Canons they diftinguifh the Three Orders of the Clergy very plainly, fome Canons relating to Bijhops, and others to Priejls and Deacons. As particularly it is decreed Can. 19. That no BiJJjop JJjall conf crate another alone, but he ought to take Seven with him, or at leafl Three. Pf^hich, as this learned Biftiop obferves, Jheivs the Number of Bi- jhops then in the Wcflrn Provinces, and fo in Bri- tain at thtLt time. For we find by other ancient Canons, that a Bifhop was to be confecrated by all the Bifhops of a Province, or at leafi by Three. We iaay therefore fropi hence colled that there were E 2 com-^ ^2 The Divine Right commonly about Eight Bifhops in thefe Provinces^ one of whofe Sees being vacant, the other Seven were to confecrate another. There being there- fore Three Provinces in that Part of Britain which was fubj'ed; to the Roman Empire, the Number of Bifhops here was about 24. Very near the fame Number we ftill have. After the Council of ArleSi the fame Emperor fummoned the great Council of Nice, to which, (z.) as Etifebini tells us, he fummoned all the Bifhops «-'^ct.v]a,-/hhv ^ ^av ?*%*> from all Places, and from all the Provinces of the Empire. And confequently from Britain as well as all the reft. And he alfo fays, (^a) thofe that ivere fummoned did come according to Appoint- ment with great Readinefsy not only for the fake of the Council, but of the Emperor. And he after fays, that the 7nofi eminent Bifhops of all Churches, as well thofe 0/ Europe cu Afia and Africa, did come to Nice* Alfo Conjiantine himfelf, in his Speech to the Council, when he comes to exhort them to agree to the keeping of Eajler all on the fame Day, (^) fays, / knov) your Wtfdom will eajtly confent that that fidll be obferved, which is already obferved with on? Confent in the City of Rome, in Italy, in Africa, in Egypt, in Spain, Gallia, ^wi Britain, in Libya, and in all Grxcia, in the Afiatick and Pontick Diocefe, and in Cilicia. Would Conjiantine have named Britain particularly among the other Pro- vinces, whofe Bifhops we certainly know were prefent in this Council, i^ Britain had not fent Bifhops thither as well as the other Provinces, to give a Teftimony concerning the Faith and Pra- diicQ of thQ Britijh Churches? The BritiJIj Bifhops (^) Eufcb. in Vit. Conftant. I. 3. c» 6. (a) Eufeb. in Vit. Conftant. 1. 3. c. 6. (Jf) Eufeb. in Vit. Conftant. I 3. c. 1*. wef5 ^Episcopacy, i^c. 5^ were prefent at the Council of Aries, which was before this of Nice, and at thofe of Sardica and Arjminum, which were after it : Can we then tliink they were not prefent at this, which was much more general than any of the other? Thefe I think are convincing Arguments, when there is nothing to be faid on the other fide to fhew they were not there, fince Athanajlms Syywdkon has been fo long loft, wherein all their Names were fet down who were then preicnt; and that Cata- logue of them, if it was diftind, which Epjph.i- nius had ieen, as (b) Biftop Stjlliiigfl^et oblerves.. So that it does not appear that their Names were omitted in the Lift of the Subfcribers, there be- ing no fuch Lid now in being that we have any Account of Now in this Council (befides what Hiftory tells us of'PrieJls and Deacons which ac- companied their Bijhops thither) we have thefe Three Orders of the Clergy named and diihn- guifhed in the Canons therafelves. Thus in the 15th Canon "tis decreed that neither Bifhop, Prieft, mr Deacon, remove from City to City. And in the 1 8th 'tis faid, nefiher Canon nor Cujiom permits that Deacons, zcho have not Power to make the Oblation, jlould adminifler the Body of ChriR to Priefts, who have tjjat Power : Let the Deacons therefore keep within their proper Bounds, and receive the Euchariji either from the Bilhop, whofe Attendants they are, or from the Priefts, and after them. Thus we fee that at the Time of this great Council, there was but one Bifhop in a Church, and feveral Pnefis and Deacons, for the Bijhop is here ffTokcn of in the Singular Number, and the others in the Piural. (b) O.rig. Brit. p. 91. El 5 XXIV. And 54 I'hs Divine Right § XXIV. And now I truft I have proved the Divine Right of Epifcopacyy having fo plainly fhew- ed that Bijhops (as diftinft from Presbyters) having a Power to rule and govern Presbyters and Den- consy as well as the People committed to their Charge, and alfo to ordain Bijhops^ Priefls, and Deacons, and thereby preferve the Gofpel Prieft- hood in a continued Succeffion to the End of the World, is an Order or Office inftituted and ap- pointed by God himfelf : That it was God who ordained and fcnt his Son our Saviour Jejm Chnji to be the firft great Shepherd and Bifiiop of our Souls. That he, whilft he was here on Earth, and exercifed his Authority and Miniftry Perfo- nally amongft Men, had Two Orders of Mini- fters under him, the Tivelve Apojlles and the Se^ venty Difcipks : And that neither of thefe had during that Time any Authority to commiffion or ordain others to that Miniftry unto which they were appointed ,• but if they found them- felves too few for that great Work, they were to pray him, the Lord of the Harveft, to fend more Labourers into the Harveft. That a little before his Afcenfion into Heaven he enlarged the Com- miffion of his Twelve Apoftles, and fent them, m tht Father had fent him, whereby they alfo recei- ved Authority to fend others, which they, could not do before. And accordingly they did fo, and as our Lord whilft here on Earth appointed Two Orders of Minifters to afTift him, and to aft un- der him in fuch manner as he thought fit to fend or employ them,- fo the Apoftles ftipplying his Place after his Afcenfion, appointed Two Orders of Men to acl under them, who were called ir\ the Scripture Language Bijhops or Presbyters, and Deacons; but thefe had no Power to ordain and fend others. Therefore that the Succeffion of • Mi- ^Episcopacy, ^c. 5 5 Minlfters might not fail and die with the Apojlhsy before they left the World they ordained others alfo to their own Order, who were alfo in the Scripture Language called ApofileSi Inch as 'Timo- thy) "Titptiy Silvanm , Epaphroditm, Archippns, &c. who were authorized, as the Apofihs, to ordain others, and to rule and govern the inferior Mi- nifters, and to continue their Succcffion in this manner to the End of the World. That after the Apojiles Time thefe Succeflbrs of their Order ab- ftained from the Name A^oflles^ and took that of Bijhops, which has ever fince continued, and the Three Orders from thofe Da^ys have been known by the Names of ^ijhops. Presbyters^ and Deacons. That the Fathers of the three firft Centuries, and the Councils held in that Time, down to the Council of Nice, have all taken notice of thefe Three Orders, and of the Order of Bibops , as the Chief of them. That fuch as have fpoken of the Succeflion of thefe Orders, have fpoken of Bijhops as Succeffors to the Apojiles. Or where any of them have fpoken of Presbyters as Succef-. fors to the Apojiles, they have in the fame place aflerted the Bijhop to be the Succelfor of 'Jeft'ii Chrtfi-, who ordained and fent the Apojiles, and during whofe Lifo. on Earth the Apoftles had no Authority to commiflion others. So that thofe who make Bijhops to have fucceeded to j^/ws ChriR, and to fupply his Place, and thofe who make them to fucceed the Apojiles, do not dif- agree in their Teftimony, nor with the holy Scriptures ; for the Scriptures tciich us that the Apojiles fucceeded to ChtiU, and therefore if the Bifhops fucceed the Apoftles, they mufl fucceed Chrifi alfo. And when any of them fay that the Bijha^ is in the Place of Chris}, and the Presbyters in the Place of the Apojiles, then they plainly feach that the Presbyters do not fland in the Place E ^ of 5^ The Divine Right of Apoflles , as the Apoftks ftood in the Place of Chrif}, and confeqiiently are nor their Succeflbrs, as they were Succeflbrs to him, but only ;:hat they bear chc fame Relation to the Bip^op that the Apcflles bore to C'.ynfi when he lived with them, as in the Primitive Times the Bijhop lived with his Presbyters. I might proceed and fhew, that from the beginning of Chriji'ianity to the Time of John Calvin, that is, for above 1500 Years, we find no Church without its Bijhop, tresbyters, and Dcaconsy nor any Allowance of any Ordination but by a Bijhof ; but having fixed upon the Age when the Council of Nke was celebrated as a proper Standard, by vhich all fubfequent Practi- ces are to be judged, I fiiall proceed no further upon this Point, but go on to the other part of this Propofition. § XXV. In the next place I will fiiew the Ne^ cejjity of an Ep if copal Commiffion to the valid Admi^ nijlratipn of the Sacraments. This mull: be foon evident to every one that confiders what a Sacra- ment is, and whence it has its Effect. Now our Church defines a Sacrament to be an outivard and vfil: Sgn of an imvard and jpi ritual Gracey given unto my ordaiiV'd by Chrifi himjelf, as a means where^ by zje receive the fame ^ and a. Pledge- to ajftire Mi thereof It teaches us aifo th:t Baptifm and the Loras Sapper are fuch Sacraments. Now whence do thefe Sacraments receive their Validity? Cer-^ tainly not from any th-'ng tliat is naturally intrin- jfick to the outward vifible Sifri, but from the In- ftitution of Jefm Chrif}. Water is in it felf a weak and beggarly Element, and in its own Na^ turc no more capable of w.i^iing away Sins than the Blood of Calves, or of Goats, or of'imy othet Animal which was wont to be facrificed undec the Law. Bread and Wine hav,e no more natural ••' ' ... - g^. (?/ E p 1 s c o p A c Y, i^c. 57 Refemblance to the Body and Blood of CAw?, than any other fort of Meat or Drink, and con- fequently cannot more naturally reprefent them. But as Chrift has appointed one Baptijmfor the Re- iniffton of Sins, and as he has alfo appointed Bread broken and IVine poured out to reprefent the breaking of his Body and the jhedding of his Blood, and has alfo ordered that we Jhould eat this Bread and drink this Cup in Remembrance of him, and has promijed that v^hofoever does fo fiaU^ partake of his Body, and Blood, Jhall be one Flejh and Blood zvith him, who- foever is baptized or waflied with Water accord- ing to his Ordinance, and whofoever eats of the Bread and drinks of the Cup which he has ap- pointed to be eaten and drank, receives the Re- miflion of Sins, and becomes one with ChriR, and Chrifi with him. But then it is not every Kind of Baptifm or of wafting with Water that will have this Etfed : It is not every Kind of eating Bread and drinking Wine that wjII make us Par- takers of the Body and Blood of ChriR. It mull be done according to his Inftitutioa, or it is not the Sj-crament which he has ordained. Now when ChriR ordered Baptifm to be adminiflred to all Nations, when he appointed that all fhould eat of that Bread ahd drink of that Cup, he did not only ordain in what Manner or with what Form of Words thefe Sacraments fhould be cele-^ brated, but likewife direded what particular Perfons fhould celebrate them. Thus when he ordered all Nations fhould be made Difciples by Baptifm, (c) he did not indifcriminateiy com- mand all Perfons that fhould know how to recite the Form of Words with which Baptifm was to be adm»niftied, to baptize^ but the Apojlles only^ whom 58 The Divine Right whom he chofe out of a vaft Multitude of his Difciples, and to them particularly, as I have be- fore obferved, he gave Commiffion to go and dif- ciple all Nations, baptiz^ing them. So alfo when he inftituted the holy EuchanfJ, he did not commit the Miniftration of it to all his Difciples, (a) but only to the 'txvidvt. And to them only he faid (e) This Do, that is, confecrate Bread and Wine, ^nd diftribute it, as 1 have now done, in remem- brance of me. But i^ he had deiigned to give the fame Power and Commiflion to all that believed on him, he would not have excluded or fiiut them out of his Company when he gave thefe Commif- ITons to adminifter both his Sacraments. For the Apofiles on neither of thefe Occafions met our Sa- viour by Accident, but by Appointment: When he gave them the Commiflion to baptize, they came to meet him at a Mountain in G^/z/^'f, where he had appointed them ; when he authorized them to minifter the holy Eucharift in remem- brance of him, they were affembled by his Dire- ction to celebrate the Paflbver with him. Whereas if he had intended to have commiilioned more for cither of thefe Purpofes, he could as eafiiy have ordered more to have attended him upon either of thefe Occafions. But by not requiring their Attendance, and at the fame time requiring that o'i the Apojiles, lie plainly excluded all the reft, and ftewed that his full Purpofe and Intention from the beginninj^ was to give the Commiflion for the Miniftry of both thefe Sacraments to the'; ^poftles only, and to no other. id) Matth. xxvi. 20. Mark xiv. 17. Luke xxii. 14.. (?) Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 2$. § XXVI. I of Episcopacy, ifc^ 59 § XXVI. I know it is objefted that a bare Pmifjion in this Cafe does not amount to a Prohibition, and therefore Jiace our Saviour only forbore to coni^ mand, but did not prohibit his other Difci{>les to ad- mimfitr his Sacraments, lue have no Ground from Scripture to fay that none but Bifhops, as SuccefTors to the Apoftles, may ?ninifter them, or that if any others do it, they are invalid, and of no Efftci ivhat- Joever. But we anfwer, that an Om;^jon in this Cafe does amount to a Prohibition. For wherever a Commiffion is neceflary to authorize an Aft, who- foever is left out of the Commiffion, is unauthori- zed, and therefore cannot perform that Aft-fo as to make it valid. Thus for Inftance, a Com- miffion is necelfary to authorize any Perfons to lifl: Soldiers to ferve his Prince, and he who hag not a Commiffion, tho' he fhould never To formal- ly lift Men into the Service, and ffiould exercife and train them up to all the Difcipline of War, this might indeed fit and qualify them for goodt Soldiers, but they would be no more entred intq the Service of the Prince, than if they had not been lifted at all. They could challenge none of the Rights or Privileges of Soldiers, nor if they run from their Colours could they be puniflied as Deferters. They muft be lifted again by a proper Officer, or they will be no more than other common Subjefts : nay, both they, and he that pretended to lift them, will be in a worfe Condition than other Subjefts, and liable to the Prince's juft Anger for pretending to be Officers and Soldiers without any Commiffion, And yet I never could underftand that a Prince when he granted a Commiffion to levy Men, or any other Commiffiion whatfoever, did exprefly or in direft Terms forbid any other to do what he authori- zed thofe to do whom he did commiffion. Foi: a Com- 6o The Divine Right a Commiffion is always given to authorize 4 Man to do that, which without fuch Commiffion neither he nor any one elfe has otherwife a Right to do. And thus our Saviour when he fcnt his Apojlles to minifter the Sacraments, gave them a Commiffioa to do that which neither they nor any one elfe had otherwife any Right to do. For to difciple Perfons in Chrift's Name, and fo to enter them as Soldiers into his Service, and to make them Partakers of his Body and Blood, was a Right which neither they nor any elfe had a Title to, but by Commiffion and Authority from him. Therefore thofe that were not authorized by his Commiffion, could have no Right at all to baptize or minifter the Euchariftj for the not put- ting them into the Commiffion was both an Ex- clufion and a Prohibition alfo in fuch a Cafe. And therefore if a Man not fo coramiffioned fiiould take upon him to baptize,^ or admit Men into his Church to be his faithful Soldiers and Servants, tho' they fliould otherwife inftruCt them never fo well in all the Articles of Faith and all the Duties of Chriftianity, yet would they not thereby make them true Cbriflianf, and give them a good Title to the Promifcs of ChriR, becau'fe they had no Authority from ChnR to make them' Members of his Body. For being not authorized by his Commijjjon to admit Members into his Church, their Ads of this Kind muft be null and x'oid, fince there is nothing to make them valid, the bare A6ts themfelves being of no Worth or Efficacy, but merely as Chrif? inftituted them, and no Perfon having any Right whatfoever to minifter them but merely by his Commiffion. There was therefore, no occalion for our Saviour to prohibit others from adminiftring his Sacra- ments, fince the authorizing fome and not others was it fcif in the nature of ihe thing as full a Pro^s hibition of b1? I s c o p a C Y, ^6, 6\ j^ibklon, as ii he had forbid them to do thefc things in exprefs Words. § XXVII. The only Argument that t have heard given as a Realbn why Lay-men may mini- fter fuch Ordinances, is, that otberivife a Man may happen to die before he can receive them from a Clergyman : And is it not better that a Lay-man JJjotild adminifler them^ than that a Man fuould go out of the IVorld without them ? But where does the Scripture teach us that God will accept of fuch Miniftrations in Cafes of Neceffity ? Is there any Promile of God for it? If there is not, we have no Ground to believe it. For Faith Is and muft be founded upon fome Promife. For when Chriji fays, (/) He that believeth, and is baptiz^ed, jhall be favedj he plainly means, he that fliall believe what he and his Apoftles had and lliould preach as the revealed Will of God : not what any oiie fhould believe- upon the Didates of his own Phantafy, or upon meer Human Reafon , without any Authority from the Word of God whereon to ground his Belief For when we build our Hopes upon what has no Foundation in the Word of God, this is not Faith, but Preftimption : And. the Scripture teaches {g) that Faith cometh by hear- ing, and hearing by the Word of God. So that ac- cordifig to the Scripture there is no Faith but what is derived from God's Word. And the fame Scriptures alfo teach, (/;) that whatfoever is not of Faith, is Sin^ Now the Promifes of God with relation to the Sacraments, at leaft as to the Sa- crament of Baptjfm (as I have before fhewed) are not made to the Aft it felf, but to the Perfons by whom that Sacrament is ordered to be admi- (/; Mark xvr. i6, (g) Rom.x, 17, (b) Rom. xiv. 23. niftred. 62 The Divine Right liiftred. For Chriff does not fay, J am with the jlSi of l;aptiz.ing or luajhing in the Name of the Father^ &c. But he fays, (/) Lo, I am with You alway, with You my Apojiies ^ with You whom I have commiflioned to minifter Baptifm , and with Your SuccefTors, to the End of the World. The Promife being therefore not made to the bare Baptifm or wading with Water, but to the Apo- files and their Succejfors, who were commiffioned to minifter that Sacrament, thofe that are not baptized by Perfons fo commiflioned, have na Promife to depend upon, that they have received Chri/fs Baptifm : And therefore for any to believe that they have received it, is not Fatth, but Pre- fumption, and being not of Faith, St. Paul tells us it is Sin. It is Sin in the Perfon who pretends to adminifter it, for he takes upon him an Office unto which God has not called him , he afts without Authority, and prefumptuoufly fuppofes God will ratify that which he has given him no Commiflion to do : It is alfo Sm in the Perfon who receives it from one whom he knows to have no Commiflion to give it, for he alfo is prefump- tuous, and expeds a Blefling where God has made no Promife of any. Since then it will be Sin both in the Giver and Receiver to have the Sacraments pretendedly given and received by and from fuch as have not received Authority to adminifter them, there can be no Neceflity to warrant fuch Lay-Miniftrations, becaufe no Neceffity can war- rant the Commiflion of a Sin. § XXVIII. But particular Cafes are alfor put fipon this Occalion : As, ftippofe an Heathen on hard a Ship,- where no Clergyman can be had, jhould CO Matcbt xxviii. 20^ I o/ Episcopacy, iSc 6^ hy Difcourfe ivith fome Chriflians he finds there, bs converted to the Chrijiian Religion, and jhould. then fall feck^ and at the Point of Death earnejlly dejire Baptifm, mufl thofe good Christians who oonverted him, fuffer him to die unhaptiz^ed ? May they not ix fuch a Cafe venture to adminifler that Sacrament to him ? But the Anfwer already given to the gene- ral Argument, is alfo a full Anfwer to this parti- cular Cafe. None of them can adminifler it to him, neither can he receive it from any of them without Sin. And therefore even fuch Necejiity cannot warrant the Adion. All that is to be done in fuch a Cafe is, that thefc good Chrijiians who have converted this Heathen, ought to kt him. know, that how beneficial foever Baptifm would be to him, yet for as much as they have no Com- miflion to adminifler it, they cannot help him to the Benefits of that Sacrament. But however (ince it proceeds from no Fault of his own that he mufl go out of the World without it, he may neverthelcfs have a good Hope in God thro' the Merits of Jef^i Chrifi ; for tho' God hath obli- ged us to the Ufe of Ordinances, in order to ob- tain Salvation, yet he has not tied himfelf up to thofe Means, as if he was not able to fave with- out them. That he had therefore better die without any Baptifm at all, than to receive fuch pretended Baptifm, as it would be Sin for them to give or him to take. That God faw his ear- nefl Defire of Baptifm, that he faw his Faith and Repentance, which were his Qualifications for it, that he knew he wanted not Baptifm thro' any Fault of his own, but merely becaufe he could not procure any one who had CommifSon to ad- minifler it; that the Scripture it felf taught us, that a Man might be faved without adually re- ceiving this Sacrament, when the not receiving it proceeded from no Contempt of the Ordi- nance^ 64 The DivineRight nance, but merely from the want of* an Opportu- nity to have it adminiftred. That the penitent Thief was not baptized, and yet went with our Saviour into Paradife, notwithftanding our Lord had long before that Time declared Baptifm ne- cefl'ary to Salvation, when {k) he faid to Nicode- ntppi) that except a Man be born of tVater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: That thofe Perfons the Apoftle fpeaks of (/) xu/ja luandred about in Defarts, and in Mountains^ and in Dens and Caves of the Earthy of whom he fay^ the IVorld ivas not worthyt were all that Time de- flitute of the Divine Ordinances, fuch of them as belonged to the Jewijh Church before Chrifi came into the World , were driven from the Temple and the Altar, and kept from offering the legal Sacrifices, by which RemifTion of Sirt was then ordinarily to be obtained ; and fuch as afterwards belonged to the Chrijlian Church, ma- ny of which were forced to live in the fame man- ner, as Ecclefiaflical Hiftory teaches us, during the Ten fevere Perfecutions they fulfered under the Heathen Emperors, and the other Perfecuti- ons which many afterwards fuffered under the Arian Emperors, were a long Time deflitute of the Word and Sacraments, and yet did not mif^ of Eternal Salvation, becaufe they could not par- ticipate oF the Sacraments before they went out of the World ; for if they had, the Scripture would never propofe them to us for Examples. i confefs indeed that St. Auguflin f if we may de- pend upon a Citation of Gratian, faid to be ta- ken from his Works) does determine this Cafe (i) John iii. $. (J) Htb, xl j8. 4>thef- dfEpiscopACY, i^c, (55 otherwife, and fays, {m) that tf there wad but one Per/on in the Ship -who had been baptix.ed himfe/f, h; ought to baptiz^e him. For which he gives no o her Reafon but this, that no Body can fay that he is to be defertedy who being in imminent Danger of Deathy defires to be_baptiz,ed. Which is very true, in cafe any one was prefent who had a Commiffion to baptize j but if there be no one prefent who has fuch a Commiflion, then the Man cannot be faid to be deferted by any of them j for he cannot be faid to defe-i't another, who has no Power to help him. But St. Auguftins Opinion', and that of thofe who have iince followed him, is plainly founded on a Miflake oV Chriji's Comm flion to baptize. They all along fuppofe the Validity of Baptifm to depend upon the Element of Water and the Form of Words in the Name of the Tri- nity ,• whereas the Promife of ChrijTs perpetual Prefence with the right Adminiflration of this Sacrament, is not made to the bare Act of bapti- zing in the Name of the Father, dec. but to the Minifter whom he has commiflioned to baptize. For he does not fay (as I have more than once obfcrved already) / am with the rB of Baptifm performed in this Form now prefcribedy but lo, I ai?i with You alway, with You whom I have commif- fioned, when You perform this or any other Part of that Miniflry which I have committed to You. Any other pretended Baptifm therefore miniftred by fuch as have no Commi/Tionj's deditute of this Promife, and being fo, is of no Effecl: or Validi- ty, for it is not Chrifi's Baptifm, but a Baptifm of Human Invention. And if it be not Chnjis Bap- (m) Non enim poteft quifquam dicere, rellnquendum tff: ilium qui morte itnminente baptizari defidcrat. De covf.cnu Dili. 4. Of. 36. F ti'm. 66 Tk D I V I N £ R 1 G M t tifm, it cannot make the Receiver a Chrifiiariy nOr can it be of any manner of Benefit to him, but leaves hira juft in the State he was in before, or, indeed puts him into a worfe Condition j for it he knowingly received it from one who had no CommilTion to miniffer it, he is guilty of giving his Aflent to the Profanation of that facred Or- dinance. And what is faid of Baptifm, the fame may be aifo faid of the other Sacrament of the Enchari/i, and of all the other Ordinances, which tve learn from the Scripture to, have been mini- ftred only by the Apo'fi2es , and fuch as they or- dained for that Purp<9^. If thofe Ordinances cannot be received in^ regular Method from Perfons duly authorized to miniflcr them, they are not to be received at all ; for ^e< have Aut thority from Scripture to {s.tisiy us, that God wiU accept us when we want his Ordinances without any Fault of our own, but we have no Warrant to receive them otherwife than he has appointed. § XXiX. Another Cafe we find (n) put by King Henry VIII. to his Divines among the Queftions concerning the Sacraments, which is, whether (if it fortuned a Chrijiidn Prince learned, to conquer cer^ tain Dominions of Infidels ^ having none but 'Temporal learned Men with him) if it be defended by God's Law, that he and they Jhould preach and teach the. Pf-'brd of God there, or no ? And alfo make and con- fiitute Priefis, or no ? Alfo whether it be fore-fended, hy God^s Law, that ( if it fo fortune that all the Bi^ Jhops and P>iefls of a Region were dead, and that the IVord of God jhould remain there unpreached, and th6 Sacrament of Baptifm, and others unminiflred) that (n) Burvet's Hift. of Reform, Vol. i, Record Book ^, Num. 21. Queft. 13, 14. fixe' ^ E p T s c o p' A'C y; i^c, 6 J the King of th^it Region fnould make Bijhops and Triefls to Jtt^pjy tJje jame^ or no ? We may eafily fee the Defign and End of thefe Queries, for if a Prince, or other Lay Power, have Authority in Cafes of Necejfty to make Bifhops and Priefls, then are they Judges o( fuch Neceffty, and confequent- ]y may do it whenever they fee convenient. Now to thefe Queries the Biftops and Divines of that Tune returned diiferent Anfwers. ^fchbifliop Cranmer anfwers pofitively, that ir is- not- ngainfi G.od^s Law, hut contrary they ought indeed fo to do-; find there be Hiflories that vjitnefs, that fome Chri- Jlidn PrinceSy and other Lay^men unconfecrate^ ha^e done the fame. But he tells us not wh^t thofe Hiflories are, nor where to find them. But Lee Archbifliop o'lTork anfwers, Yt> the fir Ji pan of this Queflion, touching teaching and preaching the H^ord of God in cafe effuch Need, ive think that Lay-men not ordered' not only may, but mufi preach Chrift and his Faith to Infidels, as they JhaH fee Opportunity to do the farne-i and mujt endeavotir themjelves to win Mifcr earns to the Kingdom of God, if thnt they can; for M the ivireMJn faith, God'h2:th given Charge to every M.anof his Neighbour ; and the Scripture of God chargeth ev^ry Man to do all the Good that he can t.p all Men : And fu'rely this is the high- e/i Almi, to'^d-raw Alcn from'fhe^ D.evjl the Ufuyper, and bring them [to God tl/e very Oioner ; mh^refdre m this Caje every'- A^mi and'll^niak may be an E^jdn- geHjl-y and of thi^sdlfo we have K:f ample. But iffuch^ trig the fecond pdrt^ for^Cafe of NeCcffity, m \ve firtd, neither Scrip}:' re vior F:,\imple^ that zvi'll bear thai any ' Alan y l 'rie((fyitdy-'}nakf,'th4t-ifs to fay, may .g/.vc ^ l,j: u. ck/ fj^ Vriefihood' to hnotlT^r, and Aut'ho i'ty therewith to'mrrf^er in the fiid OMe-r, and to Ufe fu^hTozuer and yfpt^, i^i ^appertaineth to Priefthood grounded in the Gofpei: So we find in fuch Cafe of Need vihat hath been d'dne in' orte'of the ancr- F ^ ent (>S. The Di vijsi E Right tut H'riters : Ahho this Authority to ordain, aftef ths Form afore-mentionedy be not to Lay-men expre/lji prohibited in Scripture, yet is fuch a Prohibition im- plied, in that there is m fuch Authority given to them in Scripture 9r otherways ; for fo much cii no Man may ufe this, or any other Authority which cometh from the Holy Gh.jl, unlefs he hath either Commijfon grounded in Scripture, or elfe Authority by Tradition, and ancient Vfe of ChrijTs Church univerfaEy received over ail. Thefe are the two oppofite Opinions given in thefe Cafes, to one of which the othet Anfwers were generally agreeable, tho' fome, as Dr. Coren particularly, avoided to give a dired Anfwer, and fay, ihat in fuch a Cafe I do believe that God would illuminate the Prince ; fo that either he himf'lf Jhould be made a Eifoop, by internal Work- ing of God (m Paul woi) or fome of his SubjeBs, or ilfe God would fend^ him Bijhops from other Parts ; and 06 ftr pnaching of the Word of God, the Prince might do it himfelf, and other of his learned SuhjeSis^ Althi) they were no Priefis. But as thefe Divines give no Authority , nor other Proof for their Opinions, but deliver them barely as their own particular Opinions, for that reafon the Anfwers they have feverally given are alfo of no Authori- ty, further than we can confirm any of them by Scripture, or the Praftice of the ancient Church. Tho' before I do that, I think convenient to ob- ferve, that thefe Cafes, as they are put, neither have happened in the World, nor indeed is there any Probability, I may fay Peffibility, that they ever fhould happen. The firft Cafe fuppofes a Chriftian Prince to conquer a Nation of Infidels, and to have only Lay-men with him. But did ever any Prince, Heathen or Chriftian, go forth with an Army without any Priefts in it of his own Religion ? Or was it ever read or heard of a Chriftian King that had no Chriftian Priefts in bis 1?/* E P I s C O P A C Y, £jff, 69 his Army ? Or did ever any conquering Prince cut off all Communication, or futfer it to be cue oft", between his own Country and^ that which he conquered ? And ii' his Communication with his own Country was not ciit orf, he could not want Chrifiian Priefts. So that the Suppoiition is alto- gether unrcafonable. And the like may be laid in the other Cafe. For what can be a more un- reafonable Suppofition, than to fuppofe that ail the Bijhops of a Region or Country fhould die fo juft together as to break the Succeffion fo entirely, as that one fhall not be left to preferve it ? Nay, the Queftion goes further, and fuppofes all the Priefts to be dead likewife. I do not deny but fuch a thing may be : AH the Biftops and Priefts too may dicy or be banifhed out of fome parti- cular Country or Kingdom; but I deny that fuch a. thing can reafonably be fuppofed under a Chri- ftiati King : Such an one will not extirpate his Bifhops and Priefts either by Death or Banifli- mentj and if they be not fo extirpated by Vio- lence, the Succeflion cannot fail in any Country whatfoever ; for fo long as Bifiiops and Priefts are permitted to live in Security, and receive Protection from the State, they will take care to continue the Succeffion there, fo that the Word fhall never remain there unpreached, nor the Sa^- craments unminiftred. The Cafes therefore be- ing built upon fuch unreafonable Suppoiitions as never have yet happened, neither can reafonably be fuppofed ever to happen, it is evident that they were propofed with a De/ign to bring the Bijhops and Dtvwes, to whom they were propo- fed, to give fuch Anfwers as might tend to place the Spiritual as well as the Temporal Power in the Crown. A thing which King H nry VIII, plainly aimed at when he took that ftrange an4 unheard of Title , Supream Head Of The f 3 Church, yo The D I v i N e R i G n T Church. But th^ Bijhops and Divims not coming entirely into his S^qntimcnts, he never thought it prbper to attempt t^ malsc B^fiop or Priejis by his own Authority, but left them to be confecra- ted and ordained in rJbe fame manner as they were before. I fhail therefore briefly examine the two oppoiite Opinions, and enquire which is the right. § XXX. The one Pa^-ty fays, That Lay-men in thafe Cafes have Author it] to jnjiijhr the Sacrament/^ and to make Prie/is. But what reafon have they for it ? Or what Authority from Scripture or Pri- mitive Pradice ? even none at all that I can find. Archbifhop Cra}imer indxcd does fay, that there be Hifiories that vjitnefs that feme Chrr^iian Princes-^ and other Lay-men unconftcrate, have done fo. But he tells not where thofe Hiftories are to be met .with, nor gives any one Inftance. And I am ve- ry confident that no HiHory before his Time withefles any fuch thing as he here pretends they do. Therefore till fach Example is produced, I ihall not trouble my fe!f to make E^nquiry after it. A\'\pon Niicejfity.^ So Dr. Red- mayne fays,. / think they might in fuch Cafe of Ne- cessity. So Dr. Syimnoit^s :\ikQ\v'ihy, I think that in fuch a Necessity. . Dn Cox alfo, Jh thefe Cafes of ExTream-.Necbssity. And Dr. D-^j' fays , The fame Necessity fiatiding. The only Plea there- fore which is made for this Opinion being Ne- cessity, I fhall examine that Matter, and very briefly Df the Sin of Jerobo- am, if he takes upon him to make Priefisy tho' in a Cafe of extreme Neceffity, as Jeroboam did. As therefore Jeroboam's Priejis under the Law were only nominal, not real Priejis, for God ne- ver accepted them as his Priejis ; fo if a Chrijiian Prince or State, or any other Lay Power whatfo- ever, fliould take upon them to make Bifiops and Priejis, or appoint Perfons to perform thofe Offi- ces by any other Names or Titles, fuch as Mini- fiers of the Gofpel, or Mmifters of God's Word, thefe Perfons fo appointed neither could nor would be God^s Minijiers, Bifoops or Priejis, any more than Jeroboam's were. They would have no Authori- ty from God (ti) to jiand before the Lord, to intriijier unto him, and to blefs in his Name. It is true Je^ roboam and his Priefts did oifer Sacrifices upon (tu) the Altar which he had ereded. But thofe Sacrifices were fo far from being acceptable to God, from rendrmg him propitious and graci- (i) St. Jude, ver. ii. (t) Num. xvi, ii« (u) Deut. z. S. C"'^ 1 Kings xii. 32, 33. ous 7« The D I V T K E Right ous unto Jeroham and his People, that they fm- mediatcly provoked God (x) to fend a Prophet to denounce Vengeance againft him and his Peo- ple. And when this would not prevail with them to ceafe from this Wickednefs, but Jerobo- am ftill went on to make of the lo-wefl of the People Priefts of the high Places, God by the Mouth of his Prophet Ahijah (y) renewed his Threatning, and faid, Bihold, I zvill bring Evil upon the Houfe «/ Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pijfeth againfl the IVally and him that is [hut uf and lift in Ifrael, and ivill take away the Remnant of the Houfe 0/ Jeroboam, iw a Man tahth away Dung, till it be all gone. Him that dieth 0/ Jerobo- am in the City JhaS the Dogs eat ; and him that dieth in the Field jh all the Fowls of the Air eat : For the Lord hath fpoken it. For tfye Lord Jhall fmite Ifrael as a Reed Is Jhaken in the IVater, and he fhall root up Ifrael out of this good Land which he gave to their Father Sf and jhall fcatter them beyond the River, be- caufe they have made their Groves, provoking the Lord to Anger. And what was here threatned, was afterwards fulfilled, (z.) For Baajha the Son of Ahijah confpired againjft Nadab the Son of Jero- boam, and flew him, and reigned in his Stead. And it came to pafs when he reigned, that he fmote all the Houfe of Jeroboam • he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had dejiroyed him, according unto the Saying of the Lord which he f pake by his Ser- vant Ahijah the Shiionite : Becaufe of the Sins of Jeroboam which he finned, and zvhich he made Ifrael to fin, by his Provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Ifrael to Anger. And as the Prophefy was thus fulfilled with regard to Jeroboam and his (x) 1 Kiags xiii. 1. ^c. (y) i Kings xiv. $, 10, 11, \%; (^) I Kings XV. 517, 28, ?9, 30. 1h"i m t ln^ (^Episcopacy, Ciff* 77 Family, Co was it afterwards fulfilled with regard to his whole Kingdom. For (a) the Lord rejeEied all the Seed of Ifrael, arid affliSied them, and deli- vered them into the Hand of Spoilers, until he had cafi them cut of his Sight. For he rent Ifrael from the Houfe of DaVid ; and they made Jeroboam ti>e Son of Nebat King : And Jeroboam draije Ifrael from foUoiiiiiig the Lord, and made them Jin a great Sin. For the Children of Ifrael walked in all the Sins of Jeroboam which he did, they departed not from them : untii the Lo'rd remo'ved Ifrael out of his Sight, (15 he had f aid hy all his Servants the Prophets. So v:a5 Ifrael carried aviay out of their own Land to AiTyria untc this Day, and never returned from that Captivity. This u'as the Efted of a King's taking upon him to make Prie[is upon pretence of Neceffi'.y, it brought utter Deilrudion upodi him, his Family, and his People. And therefore by Parity of Reafon (fof thefe things, as I have fhewed, were written tor our Exaiiiple and Ad- monition) \i a Chrijiian King, tho* urged thereto, as he may think, by great Necefjity, fhall take upon him to make B:!bops and Prieftsi the pretended Sacraments and Services which fuch Mock-Bijhopi and Priefts fbould offer, would be fo far from an- fwering the End and Defign for which Chriftiaa Sacraments and Services were appointed, they would be fo far from rendring God propitious and gracious to the People who fhould receive them at their Hands, that they would tend to pull down his Judgments upon then! : They would be fo far from procuring Remiilion of Sins, the great End for which the Chriftian, Ordinan- ces were appointed, that they would aggravate and encreafe them. God, who has fhewed us (i; 2 Kings XTii. 20, 21, 2r, 2 J. by 78 'the DtV/St'e fti^H^ by the Examples of thofe who wandred in De- farts and Mountains, and in Dens and Caves of the Earth, as I have already obfcrved, that he both call and will fave us without Sacrifices or Sacraments, where he by his Providence has put it out of our Power rightly to partake of fuch Miniftrations, has alfo taught us by this and other Examples, that he will not have his Ordi- nances profaned, or offered to him by Priefts that are not of his own Appointment ; no, not altho' they fhould be appointed by Kings and their Peo- ple, and in Cafes of very great Neceffoy. For what Necefjity can be greater than that of Jerobo- am and his People^ who had not a true Priesi left amongfl them? Nay, Saul had alfo the Plea of Necejfuy {b) for offering a burnt Offering hirafelf. For this was the Excufe he made to Samuel, fay- ing, (c) Becaufe I Jaw that the People were feat t ey- ed from me, and that thou camej} not luithin the Days appointed, and that the Philiftines gathered them- f elves together to Michmafh •• Therefore faid /, the Philiftines iviS come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made Supplication unto the Lord: I forced my felf therefore, and offered a burnt Offering. Yet all this Neceffity which he here pleaded, in his own Behalf, could not be accepted. (a\ And I may alfo add, from that Time to the Reign of King Henry VIII. when thefe Queries were firft flarted. For tho' Aerim in the Fourth Century did. main- tain that B.'JJjops and Presbyters were the fame, and confequentiy that one Presbyter might ordain ;inother, (ti) for which he was condemned as an Heretiik ; yet he never proceeded fo far as to af- firm that there was no Difference between a Lay- man and a Prief?, or to fay that Lay-7?ien in the Abfence of a PriefJ might adminiflcr the Sacra- ments, or that a Company of Lay-men might make Pnefis amonglf themfelves, and Neceffity would be their Warrant for fo doing; or that the Apoftks themfelves made Bishops and Pricfls, only becaufe there was at that time no CJy.ijiian Prince to do it. Thefe were fuch wild and extravagant Dodrines as came not into the Thoughts of the Ancients, but were referved for the Invention of ihefe later And More Refined Ages of the W^orld ! And therefore being fuch late Doctrines, («; Epipban. Haerer, 7$, rhey o/ Episcopacy, Isfr. 93 they mufl be falfe, for 'truth is always moB anci- enty and Faljhood is always novel, and of a later Date. But however late this and fome other modern Doctrines may be, the Holy Spirit of God forefaw them, and therefore took care to make fuch Provifion againft them, that ali Pcr- fons might fee on which fide the Truth lay, if they would impartially examine and enquire af- ter it i and the H O L Y SPIRIT did par- ticularly reveal to the Apoflles, that there would Difputes arife concerning Epifcopacy, and there- fore direded them to fettle the Orders of the Church in fuch manner as might tend to make thofe inexcufable who fhould begin thefe Dif- putes, as we learn from the Teftimony of St. Cle- menty St. Paul's Contemporary, and Felloiv-La- boiirery (x) as he himfelf calls him. For in his Epiftle to the Conntbians (which he wrote (y) as Dr. Milles fays, a little after the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul, and before either St. John's Epi- ftles, or Revelation, or Gofpel, were written^ and confequently before the Canon of the Neia I'eflament was compleated, which Epiftle (z.) in the firft Ages was wont to be read in the Chur- ches, as Eufebim tells us) he pofitively fays, (a) that the Apoftles knevj from the Lord Jefus Chrift, that Contejis would arife ■concerning the Episcopal Name, and for this Caufe, having ferfeSi Knowledge (x) Philip, i?. 3. (y') ProlcgQm. in Nov. Teft p. \6. (X) Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3. c 16. avJ'iifj ^ K»\^y\AV tivTuy. Clemem. £piji. ad Cor. § 44.. 94 57;e? Divine Right vf thefe things J they did ordain thofe whom ive have mentioned before j and moreover^ did efiablijh the Con-^ fiitution , that other approved Men (Jjould fucceed thofe who died, in their Office and Minijiry. Is not this as dired a foretelling as can be of the Herefy o( Aeriptiy which was not ftarted till 300 Tears af- ter this was written ? Is not this as dire(5t a Pro- phecy of what was vented by Luther and Calvin 1500 Years after the writing this Epiftle, con- cerning the Identity of Bijhops and Presbyters ? And is it not likewife as dired a Caution againft thofe new and ftrange Doftrines ? It is alfo as dired againft Archbifhop Cranmers Anfwers to King Henrys Qucvks. For he fays , that the yipofiles having a perfed: Fore-knowledge that juch Contefls would happen about the Epifcopal Name or Order, took the beft Care to prevent it, by eftablifiiing Bifliops and Paftors, to fucceed each other in a continued Succeffion. But Archbifhop Cranmers loofe Opinions broke in upon this Suc- cefjionj and plainly tended to bring in another Prie/ihood, which had no Succejjion at all to be de- rived from Chrifi and his Apojiks : And confe- quently being not agreeable to this Apoftolical Conftitution, could be no Chrijiian Priejihood. Such things as thefe could not be foretold but by the Spirit of God. Since therefore we have feen the Prophecy fulfilled, tho' fo many Years after, let it work in us a full Conviftion, that thefe Difputes which have rifen amongft us con- cerning Epifcopacy, are not agreeable to the Will of God : That the Apofiles endeavoured to pre- vent them, by a firm Settlement of the Epifcopal Succeffion • confequently that thofe who have rai- fed thefe Contefts about the Epifcopal Name, and endeavour as much as lies in them to overthrow this Apoftolical Settlement, by pretending that Sijhops and Presbyters are the fame, or by plead- ing o/ Episcopacy, ^c, 95 insj that there may be Cafes oF Neceffity which may authorize thofe who are not fucceffively or- dained to the Ep if copal Office^to exercife the Fun- dions oF a Bijhop, are phiinly condemned by the Spirit of God, who, as St. C/fWi-K^ teftifies, fore- warned the Apoftles of fuch Gainfayers, and di- rected them to provide againft it, by eftablifliing a SLicceffion, which, by the Bleffing of God, has ftill continued in this Church of England parti- cularly, notwithflanding all the Oppoiition has been made againfl: it, and by the Grace of God I truft will continue to the End of the World. § XXXVII. Yet further to clear this Point of the Nsceffity of an Ep if copal Com?nifJton to the 'valid Adininijlration of the SacramentSy I will produce fome more particular Authorities from the Scrip- tures and ancient Fathers for this Purpofe. I fhall begin with a Text already quoted from St. Paul, Q) Hoiu jhall they preachy except they he fent ? Now the Word Preachings as I have before obfervcd, cannot in this place fignify the bare publifiiing or telling what the Gofpei contains, tl?e bare tel- ling or acquainting People that Chrifi came into the 'World to fave us from our Sins, to purchafe an eternal Inheritance for us, and that if we will be Partakers of this Inheritance, we muft believe in him, and be obedient to his Commandments: Neither is it the particular telling them what they are to believe and do, and teaching them every Article of Faith, and every Precept of the Gofpei; becaufe, as I have fhewed, every Man or Woman that underftands thefe things, may and ought in their feveral Stations, and as proper Occafions otfer, to do this, whether they are {b) Rom. X. 15. fent. ^6 The Divine Right fent, that is, whether they have a Commi/Iion, or not. But here St. Paul fays a Comm>fJton is necef- fary to preach ; no Man can lawfully preach except he le fent. Therefore it is plain that by Preaching in this place, he means fomething more than barely publifhing the Doftrine of ChriR, he muft mean the publifhing it with the Authority of an Ambaflador from God, who when he has brought the People to believe what he has taught, can alfo receive them into the Flock of Cbrifi by Baptifm, and then admit them to the holy Eu- charift, and there make them Partakers of the Body and Blood of Chrif}, without which their bare believing will be but of little Advantage to them. This is what our Saviour himfelf called Treachingy when he gave Commiffion to his Apo- ftles, and (c) /aid unto them, Go ye into aU the IVorldy and preach the Gofpel to every Creature. For here by the Words preach the Gofpel) he plainly means the very fame that St. Matthew relates concerning the Apoftolical Commiffion , when our Saviour faid, (d) Go ye therefore, difciple all Nations, haptiz,ing them in the Name of the Father^ and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofi, teaching them to obferve all things whatfoever I have co?nmanded you. Becaufe immediately after he has faid preach the Gofpel, he adds, (e) He that belie vet h and is haptiz.ed, jhall be faved. Which would be but an odd Confequence of the foregoing Precept, if tkc Words preaching the Gofpel did not alfo include an Authority to baptiz,e, and to perform all thofe OiEces which we find afterwards to have been performed by the Apojiles, and thofe whom they ordained for that Purpofe. And therefore tho* (0 Mark xvi. 15. id) Matth. xxYiii. 19. (e) Mark xvi. 16. bare of E p I s CO PACY, ifc. 97 bare teaching or inftruding others in the Know- ledge of what we our felves underftand, be, as I have obferved, a natural Duty, which every one has a Right to, and our Saviour did not abrogate any natural Duties; yet to preacfj) in the Gofpel Senfe of the Word, that is, to teach loith the Au- thority of an Ambn[)ador fro7ti Chrift, and to admit tbofe who are fo taught into his Flock by Baptifnty and then to direEi and guide them, as Spiritual Fathers or GovernourSi and fee that they olferve all things which he ha5 co^nmanded, is no natural Duty, but muft require a Commiffion .from ChriR. For who ihall take upon him to be Chrijfs Ambafi'ador, whom he has not commiffioned to be fo? And therefore St. Paul fays, How jh all they preach, how fhall they teach with that Authority which Chrifi gave to his Apoftles, and their SuccefTors, except they be fent ? Which is a manifeft Declaration that they cannot do it except they have a Commiffion for that Purpofe. Since then it is fo evidently alTerted bySt, Paul, that no Man can preach, that is, teach authoritatively, with a Povcr alfo to adminifter the Gofpel Ordinances or Sacraments, without being fent, or having a Commiffion fo to do; fince alfo no Man can fend or give fuch Commiffion but Bijhops, the Succeffors of the Apojili's, as I have before proved from the Scrip- tures, it is plainly evident from the New Tefia- ment that an Epifcopal Co?nmif/icn is necejjary for the -valid Adminijlration of the Sacrainents. § XXXVIII. Again, (/) when an Angel from Heaven was fent to Comelim, to acquaint him that his Prayers and his Alms were come up for a Memorial before God, he did not take upon him (/) Afts X. I. jnanded them to be baptix^ed'in the Name of the Lord. And fo Cornelius and his Friends were baptized by fuch as the Afoftle commiflioned or appointed for that Purpofe. If therefore an Angel from Heaven durft not attempt to preach authorita- tively, and to adminifler the Sacraments, becaufe he had no Commiffion, how fhall any Man, bemg not lawfully commiffioned for that Purpofe, un* dertake to do it ? $ XXXIX. He ^ Epi s c o p AC Y, £:fr. 9^ § XXXIX. He that miniilers the Sncmmentiy ads in Chrijt's Name; for if they are not done in his Name, they cannot be bis Sacraments. And can a Man act in Chnjfs Name that is not com- mi/fioned by him to a(ft fo? The A6t v/Iiich one Man may do in the Name of another, is oF Force and Validity, where one Man gives another his Commiffion, or Letter o(- Attorney, as we call it, to ad for hira : But where tiiere is no fuch Com- miflion, and yet a Man will pretend to ad for another, thofe Acts are of no Validity, nor can they bind the Man in whofe N^jme they were aded. Now the Sacraments and Ordinances of Chrif}, when minillred by Virtue of his Commif- fion, bind him to ratify in Heaven what is fo done in his Name on Earth , becaufe he has fo bound himfelf by his own Promife, (g) {aying, IVhatjoever ye (hall bind on Earth jball be bound in Heaven^ and vohatfoever ye [hall loojd on Earth jhall be locffed in Heaven- But Chnfl can be obliged to ratify no more than he has bound himfelf to ra- tify by his own voluntary Proniile, that is, to confirm the Ads of thofe whom he has commifli- oned, thofe to whom he (/;) committed his Kys, which were only his Twelve Apojllesy to udiom, as I have (hewed, Biihops only are Succelfoii l£ therefore another Man not fo comrailTioned un- dertakes to perform thofe Ads of binding and loofngy which from the Apoltles Pradice we learn were to be performed by the Minillry of the Word and Sacraments, granting the Benefit of them to the Penitent, and denying them to the Impenitent, what he does can be of no Validity, nor receive a Ratification in Heaven. For Chriji (g) Matth. xvi. 19, xviii. 18. (^^ Match, xvi. 19. H 2 did 100 The Divine Right did not f2.yy IVbatfoever Any One jJjall bind or loofe on Etirth, jhall be bound or loofed in Heaven; but xvhatfoever Ye ftsall bind or loofe : Ye my Apo- ftlesy Ye whom I have commifTioned for that Piir- pofe. The fole Validity therefore of the Word and Sacraments depends upon the CommilTion to minifter them to fit Objects. Any Man indeed can dip another in Water, or pour Water upon him, and fay, / baptiz^e thee, &:c. Any Man can break Bread and diftribute Wine, and fay, the Body of our Lord Jefus Chrifl^ Sec. becaufe the Acts in themfelves are natural, and fo may have a na- tural Efteft. Such a Baptifm may wafli the Body, becaufe that is the natural Effeft of Water, and fuch a Diftribution of Bread and Wine may feed the Body, becaufe that is the natural Effed of thofe Creatures : But Water cannot naturally wafh away Sin, or cleanfe the Pollutions of the Soul, neither can Bread and Wine nourifh the Soul unto Life Eternal ; but meerly by Virtue of Chrift''s Inditution : Therefore if they are not adminiftred according to his Inftitution, that is, by Perfons commiffioned by him ffor fo he ap- pointed them to be miniftred, giving not his Promife to the Elements, or to the Words of Jn- ftitution, but only to the Perfons fo commiffion- ed) then are they not Chrifts Sacraments, but only natural Ads, and can have no more than a natural Efteci: : And for as much as Chrijl has confecrated them to Sacred Purpofes, whofoever pretends to -^pply them to thofe Purpofes without his Commiffion, is guilty of the higheft Profane- nefs and Sacrilege, and brings a Curfe, and not a Bleifing upon the Ad. For ii it be a great Of- fence to ad: in another Man's Name, and to pre- tend or undertake to bind him by any fuch Ad or Obligation, without his Commiffion or Order for that Purpofe j and if fuch Ad ihall not be bind- i <7uuSi ^ , , \ (p) "fiy,eiv>i 7» ^zK\i- n- ci'o^.Tov '^^^'^oyi'^i^. ■w^k-rov if ohv (J-n (J.'nvov x«tA«<&5 yei^tetviitAKKoL )tj \i). ^JTSf k:>u Tivii c/TjVxoTTor ^' y.AK^criVy yuej-i ■') Avn nrcLvlA Tir^xi-itTiv. hi Touroi q iit ov^wif^S'n- Toi (J.01 (pcUVOvJ), SlA n.fJ.i) SeCdtfJi Kcir I'JJOKbjJ Ci'MA^z?l' K^iSiHy I^iUt. AA M-ijTnnf. §. 3, 4. Coilr 1 06 The Divine Right Congregation afTcmbled together for Divine Worfhip, becaufe he reprefents God-, the B/jbop of all : And therefore we have no reafon to expe(^ the Concurrence of God to ratify and confirm his Ordinances, if we rejed the Concurrence of the Bifiop, v/hom he has appointed to reprefent him. He direds (j) his Epiftle to the Phdadel- l^hians, as he exprefly tells them, chiefiy to thofe rjho are at Vnity xvith the Bifliop, and with the Presbyters and Deacons under him. (j-) In the Epi file it felf he fays. Being therefore Children of Light., and of the Truthy fly from all Separation and eiJil Docirine : But vohere the Shepherd is, there as Sheep follovj htm. (t) For m many m are of God, and 0/ Jefus Chrifl, they are with the Bifoop. Ancl a h"ttlc after he adds, (u) I cried jianding in the niidft of you, I fpake with a loud Voice, Hearken To The Bishop, And To The Presbytery, And To The Deacons. But fome fufpeBd that J fpake thefe Words m having Knowledge of the Se^ paration of fo7ne among ft you : But he for whofe Sake J am bound, is my Wit nefs, that I learned not this from any Man zvhatfoever ; hut the Spirit fpake to me^ (r) MecA/r* «ac iv ivl &i(Tiv cruu TsJ oms^Ko-Tra, iy roli cwi Cet^et «t>toAK9rtTe. Js,tiat ad Phihdeiph 2^ tt)*Oa-oi jIB 05a «V/i' )y 'liKTs Xev eoi vaov Qii t«- fftT«. r ivccxTiv ctynTaTi. tjaj f/. oTrt^KoTCi 'sr^<)c^ 0«of Culiv. ^Avji- Igyut. ad Polycarp. § 6. ^b) 'WLnS'iv tf.v6-. (m) AOs XlY. 26, (w) Afts XV. i, ^c, (0) Afts xvili. 82, 23. Place ^ E p I s c o p A c Y j i^c. 115 Pl^ce (p) and continued there. Where (hewing fbme Fear of the judniz.ing Chrijliam, and being by them drawn oft from Communion with the Gentiles i St. Paul reproved him for this want of Conftancy. The Scripture therefore plainly fiiews lis, that the Church o\ Antjoch was founded by the Apo/iies, and for fome Time governed by them, and that St. Peter in particular came to that Place, 'and we have reafon to believe continued there fome confiderable Time, lince we find no further Account of him in the Scriptures, except- ing that one of his own Epiftles (q) fpeaks of his being at Babylouy a City {landing upon the fame River with Antiocb : A good Evidence that he fpent fome Time in thofe Parts, (r) And Eccle- fiaftical Hiftory informs us that he for Six or Se- ven Years prefided over the Church there as its Bijhop. And then departing to publifh the Gof- pel in other Parts, he (s) confecrated Euodiusy who was the firft Bijhop ot Antioch after himfelf, who having fit there about 23 Years, St. Ignntius fuccecded him, who having ruled that Church 40: Years, or thereabouts, and being then a very Old Man, wrote the Epiilles I have here cited as he was going to fuff^er Martyrdom, We may from hence reafonably conclude that he was one of the firft Converts in the Church oi Antioch , confe- quently was inftrufted by Paul and Barnal^cUy and by other Apojlles and Apo/iolical Men, which came thither in great Numbers from y^rufalem-, he li- ved there, and received Inftruftion from St. Peter during thofe Years he perfonally prefided over (p) Galat. ii. 11, ^c (tj) i Per. v. 15. (r) Eufeb. Chron. ad Ann. Chr. 43. Hieron. Comment, in Epift. ad Galat. cap. 2. St. Chryfon. Encom. St. Ignat. Mart- (x) Eufeb. Ecclef. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 22. & 45. I that 114 "The Divine Right that Church, and became io eminent under Euo- dipfiy St. Peter's Succcflbr in that great See, thaf he was judged, even by the Apojiles thcmfelves, who were guided by an infallible Spirit, to be the fitteft Perfon to fucceed him in that Chair. And can we think that a Man who was thus inftrudted by To many of the Apojiles y who was confecrated a Bijhop by them, and that of fo eminent a Church, who prefided over that Church fo many Years during the Lives of fome of the Apoflles, could be deceived himfelf, and not know what was the Authority of a Bijhopy what Duties and FunSions he was to perform, and what Obedience the Peo- ple owed to him, efpecially when he lived in an Age in which the extraordinary Infpirations of t^e Holy Ghoft were frequent, and was himfelf alfo blefibd fometimes with thofe Infpirations, and particularly, as he himfelf affirms, when he charged the People to do nothing without their Bi- jhop ? Or can we think he could have any Purpofe or Intention to deceive thofe he fpake and wrote thefe Things to ? That is, not to be believed of fo holy a Man, and a Difciple of the Apojiles, efpecially at the time when he was bound with Chains, and going to his Martyrdom. The moft profligate Wretches when they come to die, will hardly die with a Lie in their Mouths^ much lefs therefore can any fuch thing be fufpeded of fp holy a Martyr, who had been above Threefcore Years a Servant of ChriR, at the time when that Service was attended with all manner of Worldly Troubles and Afflldions, and confequently no Man could have any Worldly Intereft to ferve by profefling Chriflianiiy, and 'was now going to lay down his Life for that Profcffion. If he would have told a Lie for any Worldly Intereft, the on- ly Inducement any one can have to lie, he neededl not to have been bound with that Chatn, which he men- ^jTEptscopacy, Efff. 115 mentions his having upon him when he wrote his Epiftles. Could he have told a Lie, or denied himfelFto be a C/rnfiiany he might have efcaped that Death he was then going to fufter at Rome- And can we think that he who would not tell a Lie to fave his own Life, would as he was going to his Death tell a Lie for no Purpofe at all, but merely to deceive? He that can believe fuch a thing of this holy Martyr, is not fit to be difpu- ted witn, he is paft Conviction. Since then it is • fo evident that St. Ignat.-m could not be deceived himfelf in the Account which he gives us of the Epifcopal Authority, and the Neceffity of an Epif- copal Commijjhn for the Miniftry of the Sacra7?ients, nor can be in the leaft fufpeiSed to have any pur- pofe to deceive us, it we had no otlier Authority but his, we ought to believe Epifcopacy to be of Divine Right, and that an Epifcopal Commiffon is mcejfary to the valid Adminijtrarion ef the Sacra- ments : much more reafon have we then to believe it, when we find it alfo confirmed by the Scrip- tures, and the Pradice of the truly Primitive Church, from the Time of the Apoitles to the Council of Nice, as well as in all the following Ages, to the very Time of John Calvin. This Matter therefore being fo fully proved from the Scripture, and this mofl ancient Father, whole Authority, for the Reafons aforefaid, is juftly re- puted next to the Scripture, I (hall not be very careful to produce other Authorities for this pur- pofe, only one or two at ths diftance of 40 or 50 Years f:om esch other, to fhew that the fame con- tinued as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church to the Time of the Council of Ntce. § XLin. The next therefore I (hall produce is TertuUian, who bears Teftimony to this as the Dotone of the Church, tho' h;s own private I % Dpi- ti6 The Divine Right Opinion was contrary to it. (0 Having diC-^ coLirfed of Baptifnti the Sacrament by which w^ are initiated into the Church, he fays, It remains for the Concliifion of this Mtitter, to give an Admoni- tion concerning "what is to be olferved in the giving and receiving Baptifm. The Chief Prieft, xvhich is ^/je- Bifliop, has' the Right to give it -^ from hence the Presbyters and Deacons receive the Right alfoy but not vjithoiu the Bifhop's Authority, for the Honour ef the Church : which being preferved. Peace is alfo preferved. Otherroife Lay-men alfo have this Right. For what is equally received by all, may be equally given by all. His Teftimony here is very plain, that according to the Order then obferved by the Church, none but the Bijhop could baptiz,e, and the Presbyters and Deacons commifftoned by him. It it therefore evident from this Teflimony, that this was the Dodrine of the Church in the Age wherein he lived. But what follows is plainly Iiis own private Opinion, which is of no more Weight than the Argument he founds it upon will bear, and that is very weak and fallacious. His Argument is, every Man may give what he hoi received^ which is certainly falfe : Every Freeman of a City cannot make another Man free of that City ; but it muft be done by the proper Officer : Every one that is naturalized a Member of any Country or Kingdom, cannot therefore naturalize another: Becaufe a Man has received a Commif- fion to be a Juftice of the Peace, or an Officer in (0 Strpereft ad concludendam raateriolam, de obfervatione quoque dandi & accipiendi baptirmi commonefacere. Dandi. quidem habec jus rummus facerdos qui elt Epifcopus, dehinc' Presbyteri i^ Diaconi, non tamen fme £pifcopi aud^oritate propter Ecckfiae honorem. Quo Talvo, falva pax eft. Alio* quit! etiam Laicis jus eft. quod enitn ex aequo accipitur, ex xquo dari poteft. TcrxnU" k Ba^tif, art 9 ot (mS^ nuaii dvethACoxri 7- 4thmi[, Epiil' ad I'racom. Edit, Bsnsdict. Tom' i. /)» 265. ncnt. r//?, and no other j and therefore intreated that they might not be dealt with as Aliens to the Church of God, but might with other Chrrjiiam participate of the holy Myfteries. They got Letters from the Martyrs and Confe0brs (who had endured the Torments, and flood firm to their Religion, and were Hill in Prifou on that Account) to tefti- fy that they believed their Repentance to be fin- cere, and to inr^eat that they might not be ex- cluded from the Communion of the Church. But then all this Application was made to the Bijhops and their Presbyters i' diS the only Pcrfons that could admit themto thjs Communion. But aU thefe Proreflations, Entreaties and Letters, would not move the Bijhops to admit them, till they had " gone thro' fuch a Coiirfe of Penance as they tlioaght ^/Episcopacy, t^c. 1 21 thought fit to prefcribe them on this Occafion : And when fome Presbyters, in the Abfence of the Bijhop, had too haftily admitted any of th'efc Lip- fed to Communion, the B^'Joop not only reproved thofe Presbyters, but alfo ordered thofe Perfons Ihould ftill be kept out of the Church, till they were duly and regularly reftored by himfelf, or with his Confent and Approbation. All this is evident from a great many Letters written by St. Cyprian and his Fellow Bijhops upon this Occa- fion, ftill extant in St. Cyprians Works, which are too many to be here particularly cited. But now if the Bijhops Authority or Commifjion had not at that: time been thotight abfoliitely necejjary to the valid Ad- ?niniftration of the Sacraments, can wc think that theie Men, who were fo carneflly dcfirous to par- ticipate of them, and who not only in their own Opinion, but in the Opinion alfo of the Martyrs and Confeflbrsj had given due Teflimon ies of the Sincerity of their Repentance, would have futfered themfelves to have been fo long barred from the holy Eucharift, and have undergone a. long Penance of feveral Years, in order to have that Sacrament miniftred to them by the Bifliopj or fuch as were commiffioned by him, if they had conceived that any other Perfon could have validly adrainillred it to them ? They were in great Hafte to be admitted, and St. Cyprian com- plains of their Violence and Threatnings' towards himfelf, becaufe he did not think it proper to admit them till he had made a further Trial of the Sincerity of their Repentance, and had advi- fed with his Collegues on that Occafion. Where- as if another Perfon could validly have admini- ftred the holy Eucharifl to them, they neither needed nor would have given themfelves fo much Trouble about the Matter, and the Confc.iVors, who 122 TJje DivineRight who defired they fiiould be admitted, could as eafily have adminiftrcd the Sacram.iir to them themfelves, as to have wrote to the Bifhop to dc- fire him to do it. At leaft they migiit, and no doubt would have done it, when the Bifhop re- ftifed it, li they had thought that they could have done it. 'Tis true, whep they found ihey could not be admitted by St. Cypriany fomc of them got Fortunatm, one oF his Presbyters y to be confecrated a B-/hopj that he might receive them, and he did To. And fo they made a Schifm in the Church of C •nhage. But this is ftili a further Argument that they thought a Bijhop and an E}.if-> copal Commijjion neceffary for this Purpofe, in- that they did not think Fvnunntmt whilft a Pnsbyter-, could receive tiicm to Communion, in Oppoliti- en to his Bijiiopy who had ibrbidden it : But ha-f ving gotten him to be oruained a B/pop, they fuppofed there could be no Doubt of the Validi- ty of his Acts. Not confidering that there could not be another lawful Biljiop of Carthage during the Life of St. Cyprian. However, it is Jftill a Proof that all that called themfelves Chrijlians in thofe early Ages of the Church, whether they were Catholicks or Schifmatkksy were unanimoufly qi Opinion that an Epifcopal Commtffion wad he- ceffary to the valid Adminifiration of the Sacraments. And we have all the rcafon in the World to be- jlieve that it ever was the Opinion of the Church, till the Schoolmen and Canonijts, one to advance the Pope's Authority, and the other the Power of the Priefthood in the miraculous Transformation of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of ChriH-y when t!ie Dodrine of T'ranfubjlantiation was invented, advanced the Power of Presbyters (o high, and depreiled that of Bi,hops fo low, that they began to be taken for one and the fame Order :t cf Episcopacy, £iff . 125 Order, and that the Bifiop was only faperior to the Presbyter in Dignity, as if there was no other Dirference between them, than betwixt a dignified Clergyman and a Parijh Priefi. But this Opinion was broached in the later and moft corrupt Ages of the Church. However this went no further jthan Opinion, and tho' Gratian put thefe Opi- nions into his Collection of Canons, which were confirmed by the Pope, yet they produced no great Effeds, but the B/jhops ftill maintained their Prerogative and Jurifdidion over their Presbyters and People, except where the Papal, which was alfo an Ep if copal Power, interpofed. § XLVII. From this Opinion, flatted in the corrupt Ages of the Church, Luther when he had caft off the Pope's Authority, took upon him to maintain that Bfjhops and Presbyters were the fame, and that nothing could be done by a Bijhop, but what might alfo be done by a Presbyter. And the Lutherans in the Stnalcaldick Articles, from the Authority o^ St. Jerome (as they pretended) declared Bijhops and Presbyters to be of the fame Order, and to have the fame Power ; and for a Bi- ftiop to be in any thing fuperior to a Presbyter, was only a Matter of Human Ltjiitution. But becaufe I have been accufed of mifreprefenting the Lu-^ therans in this Particular, I will give their Opi- nion in their own Words, as they fland in the Smalcaldick Articles, wherein tiiey explained more particularly what had been only generally aflerred in the Confejfton of Augshurgh ; and as they were publifhed by Lucas Ojiander a zealous Lutheran^ and printed at Tubinge in Germany, which were alfo fubfcribed by thoCe very Divines who fub- fcribed the Confejfion of Augsburgh, and the Apo- logy of that Confeifion drawn up by Philip Me- lanHhon. 1 24 The Divine Right ianclhn. Here then they fay (x) St. Jerome teaches that the difttnB Degrees of Bifiiops and Presbyters, vr PaftorSj are oyily conjiituted by Human Authority : uind the thing /peaks it Je/fy becatife the Office and the Comjftand is plamiy the fame, and Ordination alone aftenvards made the Difference between Bifhops and Paftors. For Jo it tiias afterwards injlituted, that one Bifiiop Jhould ordain Minifters of the Word in many Chttrches. But becaufe by the Divine Lain there is no Di^erence betixseen. a h'\^o^ .and a Paftor, there is no doubt but an Ordination of fit Minifters made, by ^ Paftor in his own Church is firm, and ap-, proved by Divine Right. Therefore ivhen tJfofe or- dinary Bifliops perfecute the Gofpel, and will not ordain fit Perfons to the Minifiry, every Church in this Cafe has the Right and Power to ordain her Mi^ niflers. They fay alfo, (y) If Bifliops would rightrr. ly difcharge their Office, and take care of the. Church) (x) Hie docet Hieronymus, diftinftos gradus Epifcoporutn & Presbyterorum, five Paftorum, tantum humana autoritate conftitutos eiTe : idq; res ipfa loquitur, quia officium & man- datum plane idem eft, & fola ordinatio poftea diTcrimen inter Epifcopos & Paftores fecit. Sic enim poftea inftirutum fuit, ut unus Epifcopus ordinaret Miniftros verbi in pluribus Eccler (lis. Quia autem jure divino nullum eft difcrimen inter Epif-^ j:opum & Paftorem, non eft dubium ordinationcm idoneorum Miniftrorum a Paftore in Ecclefia fua fd£>am, jure divino ratam & probatam elTe. Itaq; cum Epifconi ifti ordinarii Evangelium perfequantur, & idoneos ad minifterium ordinate nolint, unaquxq; Ecclefia in hoc cafu jus & poteftatem habet ordinandi Miniftros fuos, Ofiind, Epiii. Bifi. Ecckf. Cent. \6. lib. 2. cjp. 37. f. 3 CO (y) Si Epifcopi fuo officio re£le furgerentur, & curam F.ccle- ii£ & Evangelii gererent, poflet illis nomine charitatis & tran- quillitatis, hon ex neceffitate, permitci ut nos & noftroi concionatores ordinarent & confirmarent, Quia veto nee funt, nee effe volunt veri Epircopi, Quapropteft, ficut Vetera exempla Ecclefiae & Patrum nos doceiit, idoneos ad hoc offidum ipfi ordinarc debemus & volumus. Ihid. p. 282. qijd (/ E p I s c o p A c Yj ^e, 125 and of the Gof^el, they might, By Way Of Cha- rity, And For Peacb Sake, Not Out Of Any Necessity, he Permitted to ordain and confirm fu ^ad our Preachers. But becaiife they neither are^ nor "Will .be true Bishops, therefore-, according as the ancient Examples of the CHURCH and of the Fathers teach. u.i. We Our Selves Ought, And Will ordain fit Perfons to this Office. And accordingly they did take upon them to ordain not only fuch to whom they gave the Names of Pafiors or Presbyters, but alfo fuch as they called Bijhops, (z.) Thus the Eledor of Saxony having nominated Nicolas Amjdorfipn to be Bijkop . oi Naumburgh , this Noble Alan and Bachelor ( as Melchior Adams ftiles him, after he had been Pa- fior of the Church of Magdeburg 18 Years) was ordained Bifliop by Luther, Nicolas Medler Pafior o/Naoburg, George Spalatine 0/ Aldenburg, and Wolfgang Steine of Leucopetre, laying on their Hands together 'with him. Thus were the German Bijhops or Superintendents (as they have been iince called) amongfl the Lutherans ordained by fuch as pretended themfelves to be no more than Pres- byters : And that not thro' any Neceffity (which yet would not have autliorized fuch an Attempt) but upon Principle : (a) And Luther wrote a Book in H/gh Dutch to juftify it, which he entituled, I'he Example of inaugurating a true Chrifi:ian Bijhop. (?) Itaq; die vicefimo Januarii Anno 1542 prxfente J. Friderico Elcdloje, & J. Ernefto fratribus, Ducibus Saxonise in ipfo oppido Naoburgi ad Salam , vir hie nobilis & ccr- lebs Epifcopus, ordinatus eft a Luthero, fimul manum iitipo- nentibus Nicolao Medlero Paftore Naoburgenfi, Georgfo Spa- latino Aldetiburgenfi , & Wolfgango bternio Leucopetraeo. Melckr Adam, de viiit Ccrmun. Thuolcg in vit. Nic. Amfiorjf. pjg. 69. (x) Welch. Adam in loc fupra citat. & in fit* Luther: p. 150. I fay 1 26 The Divine Right I fiiy they lay under no Neceffity of ordafnini^ ^ Bijhop in fuch manner at that time, becaufe {b) Six Years bcforCiHerman Archbifliop of Colen had begun a Reformation in his Diocefe, and at this very time that they thus pretended to ordain Amfdorfimi was endeavouring after a yet further Reformation, and had Philtp MelanSihon, Luther s Bofom Friend, then with him, to advife him in that Affair; fo that they might have had Am/dor^ fim confecrated by a froteflant Bijhp, if they had pleafed. But to do it themfelves was agreeable to the Dodrine of the Smakaldkk Articles, which they had fubfcribed, and were refolved to zdi accordingly, {c) In the fame manner John Bu- genhagen fettled the Lutheran Religion in Den- mark, and like his Brother Luther, made nezi) Bi' Jhops or Superintendents there, in the room of thofe that were ejeded, for there was not one of the old regular confecrated Bijhops which joined there with the Reformation. So that there is no real Epifcopacy in a regular Succeflion, agreeable to the true Primitive Epifcopacy, in any Lutheran Coun- try, except in Sweden, if they have in Truth prc- ferved it there. Nor was it Neceffity, as I have (hewed, that caufed them thus to deviate from the Primitive Inftitution of ChriR and his Apo- ftles, but Principle, and a Principle drawn from the Dregs of Popery; (d) Gratian the Canonift having cited a Paffage in St. Jerome, which dropt from that Father when he wrote in Heat and (6) Ofiand. Epift. Hift. Ecdef. Cent. 16. lib. 2* cap. 3^. p. 251. & cap. 48. p. 344. ic) I^Jrg's Animadverfions on CMolefworti^s Account of VentMrk, p. 174, & Ofimi. Epift Hift. Ecclef. Cent. \6. lib. 2. cap. 39. p. 311. C^) Dift. 95, c. 5. olim idem erat Presbyter qui & Epifcopus. Paffioa o/ Episcopacy, Bfc 1 27 PaiTion again ft the Infolence of the Roman Dea- cons, they pick'J it up, and laid it down as a Principle of their Reformation, tho* diredly con- trary to the Inftitution ot Chrifl and his Apofiles-, and the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and the unanimous Opinion and Teilimony of all the Fathers to the Time of the Council of Nice, and long after, and even contrary to many other Paf- fages of St. Jero?ne himfelf. But about Two or Three Centuries before the Reformation, this Notion of Bijhops and Presbyters being one and the fame Order, became a current Dodrine a- mongft the Romamjis, and from thence the Lu- therans pick'd it up, and Girhard a Luther ait Au- thor (e) gives us a Multitude of Canons cited from Grat/an, together with a great Number of Quotations from Schoolmen, Canonifts, Cardi- na.s, and other Popijh Writers, alferting the Iden- tity of thefe Two Orders. And the Smalcaldick Article before quoted is plainly founded uport thofe Citations. And it is very certain that the Court of Rome laboured hard to prevent Epijco- pacys being declared to be of Drome Right in the Council of Trent^ and Father Lainez, made a long Speech of Two Hours to hinder the paffing of that Decree, (/j declaring, That it ivas a Contra- diBion to fay that the Pope vjos Head of the Church and the Government Monarchical, and yet to affirm that there was any Power or 'JurifdiBion not derived from him, or derived any other way. The Lutherans indeed rejeded the Popes Supremacy , and that ' very juftly, but retained the other Opinion of Epifcopacys being a meer Human In/iitution, decla- ring they could admit it by way of Charity, or for (d) Gerh. Confeff. Cathol. Part z. Artie deCler. Y* 2%^c, (f) Hift. Goncil. Trident. Hb, 7. Pe^-ce 1 28 The Divine Ricrir Peace fake, hut: not that they thought it in any mnn-^ ner necejfary : And therefore never toOk any care to preferve the Epifcopal SiiccefTion in any Coun- try but Sweden, tho' they might have done it by Herman Archbilhop of Colen if they had pleafed ,*• for one Bijlwp may confeerate another in Cafe of Nectflity, as Pope Gregory told Auguflin our firft Archbifhop of Canterbury. Neither was he the only Bijlop that came over to their Communion, for Petrm Taulus Vergerius Bifliop of J^ijlinopolis Xg) came over to them not long after Herman; io that they might not only have had valid^ but alfo Canonical Epifcopal Confecrations, if they had pleafed. {h) For the Canons allow Tzvo Bijhops to cdnlecrate another. But they had no Regard to their Charafter, nor does it appear that they were treated or refpecled more than meet Presby^ ten, but went on to confeerate or ordain by Presbyters only, according to the Dodrine of the Smakaldick Articles, which were afterwards con- firmed in the Concord, (z) a Book which all the Divines and Schoolmafters amongft the German Lutherans are obliged to fubfcribe, by a Decree figned in the Year 1580, by above Fourfcore Princes and States of that Communion, amongft which were Five Dukes of Brunfwick Lunenburg, (k) In which Concord alfo they expreOy affert and maintain the Ubiquity of the Body of Chrift, and its- Union with the Bread and Wme in the Lord^s Supper^ and that the Body and Blood of Chrifi are there cor- porally prefent, and eaten by the Communicants, whe- ther they be good or bad: and exprefly condemn the- contrary Docirines. . / Cg) OfmL Epit. Hift. Eccl. Cent. 16. lib. 2. cap. 71. p. soo, $01. (h) Can. Apoft. 1. (i) oftand. Epit. Hift. Eccl. Cent. 16. I. 4, c 5,. (,k) Art. 7. 8. § XL VIII. ^Episcopacy, £jf^. 1 29 § XL VIII. About the fame time that Luther began his Reformation in Germany^ Zuinglius alfo began to do the fame in Switz^erlandy and foon after Calvm did the fame at Geneva y and ill France. Thefe two agreed fo near in their Opi- nions, that their Followers have fince been in- differently called either Zuingliam or Calvimjhy but they differed in many Points iVom the Lutht- i\ins, and have ever fince held different Commu- nions, however in the Point of Epifcopacy they agreed with them, holding Bijoaps and Presbyters to be but one and the fame Order, or rather, that there is but one Order of Minijhrsy that is, of Perfons who have Authority to minijler the IVord and Sacraments in the Church. {I) For tho' they ttll us that there fiould be in the Church Paflors, Elders, and Deacons, by which one might imagine that they had T/ree Orders of Minifiers, yet when we come to examine what they mean by them, we Jhall find that the Elders and Deacons have no- thing to do in the Miniftry of the Word and Sacraments, but anfwer to our Church-wardens. ■ and Overfeers of the Poor. For thus they defcribe them. (;«) The Elders Office is, together with the Paftors, to overfee the Churchy to gather and keep up the folemn AJfemblies, and to take care that the Members in Communion do perjonally appear at thofe holy Congregations y to make Report of Scandals and offences in Conftftoryy and with the Paftors to take Cogntz,ance and paf( Cenfures on them. Now ex- cepting the lafl Claufe, their Elders are exadly the fame as our Church-wardens, (n) "The Dea- cons Office is to coUiB and dijiribute ,~ by the Ad^ (I) Confeir of Faith, Art. 29. (m) Dirdpl. of the Re- form. Iq Frmcfft cap. 3. Cao. 3. (n) Ibid. Caa. 4. K vic9 l^O T/'^ Dl V I NE R IGHT njice of the Conjljlery fthat is, the Veftry) Mortiet unto the PooYy Sick, and Prifonersy and to "vijit and take care of them. This is exactly the fame with our Overfeers of the Poor. And (o) it is decla- red immediately, that it doth not belong unto the Elders or the Deacons Office to preach the Word of God, nor to admimfter the Sacraments. So that there is no other Order amongft them to whom they allow the Miniftry of the Word and Sacra- ments, but him whom they call the Pafi or. Nor are there any different Degrees among thefe Pa- ftors, but they are all of the fame Order and the fame Degree. For fo it is declared by them in (p) their Confeffion of Faith, where they fay, We believe that all true Pa/lors, in whatever Places they may be difpofed, have all the fame Authority, and equal Power among themjelves under 'Jefus Chrif?, the only Head, the only Sovereign, and only univerfal Bijhop ; and that therefore it is unlawful for any Church to challenge unto it felf Dominion or Sove^ rcignty over another. So that all Superiority what- foever of one Church or Paflor over another, is by them declared to be unlawful-^ in which they have run a Length beyond the Lutherans , for thefe allow that Bijhops , or an Order of Men above common Pa/lors or Presbyters, may be ad- mitted and retained in Charity, and for Peace fake, but the others ftiake it an Article of their Faith that fuch Superiority is Unlawful. And therefore whatever any of their Divines may fay in their Writings, or whatever Complements they may make to the Church of England occafi- onally, or howfoever they may, many of them, pretend the Plea of Neceffity, and that they want Bijhops only becaufe they could not have them. (o) Ibid. Can. 5. (p) Art. 30. this (P/' E P I S C O P A C Y, ^C, T ^ I this is plainly nothing but meer Cant and Gri-* mace, to impofe upon us. For this Declaration concerning the Parity of Pafiors, and the UNaAW- FULNESS of Imparity amongft them, confequently the Unlavvfulness of Epffcopacy, which conliiis in an Imparity of Pajlors^ is not a Matter of meer Difcipline amongil them, which may be changed according to Times and Circumftances, but an Antcle of Fait/jy which is unchangeable. Neither had they any more Nccejjiry than the Lutherans to fet up a Minijlry without Epifcopacy; for foon af- ter they began their Reformation (q) the Arch- bifhop of Aix, the Biftop of I'roies, and the Bi- fhop of Ufez.^ went over to their Communion. So that they had even a Canonical Number of Bijhops to continue the Succeffion amongft them, if they had pleafed to make ufe of itj but they contemned and defpifed it) nay, exprefly decla- red againft it : And reckoned it an Advancement if they fiiould admit them after Trial into the Minijhy amongft them. For fo they decreed in their Synod at Orleance^ held, in the Year 1562, a little after thefe Bijhops came over to them : (r) If it happen., fay they, that a Bishop or Curate dejire to be Promoted unto the Mimflry of the Gof- pe/y they may not be received till fuch time ci5 they are firjl admitted Members of the Churchy renouncing all thi'ir Benefices and other Rights depending on the Church of Rome, profejjtng affo publickly R pentance for their pajl SinSy as they jhall he ordered by the Confiflory, and after Long Trial And Proof had of their Repentance^ and godly Converfation, They May Be Chosen Into The Ministry Of The Gospel, according to the Canons of our Church Dif- d) Du. Viny Centur. 16. Vol. 2. p. 407. (j) pick's Synodicon, p- 23. K 2 ciplinci 1^2 The Divine Righ"^ cipliney 6 and 8 of the Synod of Paris, and 3 of Poidiers. That is, they may then be made Mi- nifiersj in the fame manner that other Candidates for the Mhiiftry are made fo, according to their Difcipline, looking upon them to be but nicer Lay-men, and treating them as fuch. Their firft- Min.'fhrs alfo were but meer Lay-men, as is ac- knowledged by themfelves. That is, they were Men who were never ordained to any Orders in the Church, either of Bijhopt Priefi, or Deacon, but pretended only to an extraordinary inward Call. That is, they fancied themfelves fit Perfons to minijler the MA)rd and Sacraments, and fo took the office upon them of their ozun Heads, without any other Miffion. For thus they tell us in their Co«- feffion of Faith, (j) IVe believe that it is not lawful for any Man of his ozvn Authority to take upon him- jelf the Government of the Church, but that every one ought to be admitted thereunto by a lawful Ele- ction , If It May Possibly Be Done, And That The Lord Do So Permit. Which Exception we have exprefly added, Because That Sometime (As It Hath Fallen Out In Our Days) the State ef the Church being interrupted, God Hath Raised Up Some Persons In An Extraordinary Man- MER To Repair The Ruins Of The Decayed Church. And tho' they had fome which were Priefis ordained in a regular SucccfTion, nay, and Bijhops too, as I have before fhewed, yet they rejefted thofe Ordinations, and ftiick by their own extraordinary Call. For thus they declare and decree in the Synod oi Gap, Anno 1^03. (t) l^h3 Queflion being moved, whether in treating of the Call of our firfl Paflors and Reformers, it were expe- dient that we jhould lay the Strefs of that Authority (s) Art. 51. (t) jQuick's Synodicon, p. 227. /or ^Episcopacy, i^c. 135 for Preaching mid Reforming , upon that Call and Ordination they had in the Church of Rome, or no ; this Synod doth jtidge, that ice ought, according to the^ One and 'thirtieth Article, to found it principally Upon Thbir Extraordinary Vocation, Where- by They Were, By An In^vard Fowi rful Im- pulse From God, Raised Up, And Commanded To Exercise Their Ministry , rather than to charge it upon the Jerry Relicks of a corrupted Call and Ordination in the Romifh Church. Nay., now -they have laid afide the Pretences to an extraordi^ nary or emhujiajlical Call, and pretend to ordain Minifters by Impofnion of Hands, according to the Apoftles Practice, yet they do not hold fiich hn- pojition of Hands to be in any -jj/fe necejjary, but that E/efiion alone is fufficient. ^•o that if a Company of Lay-men, of what Rank foever, get together, and chufe one amongft themfelvcs to be their Miniiler, that is a fufficient Vocation to that Office. For thus they decree (u) in the Synod at Paris 166$, Becaufe that in the Ninth Ar'icle of the Difcipline it is faid, that when Minijlers are to be confirmed, there Jha/l be Impojition of Hands upon them , Yet Not As Of Pure Necessity : It ts demanded whether the Churches that have no fuch Ctijlom , fl}Ould for 1'ime to come fubmit unto the Vfage of it ? The Reply was, that there being neither Precept nor Promife touching this Matter, There- fore No Necessary Obligation Should Be Established About It. (lu) And again in the Synod of Roche I, in the Year 1571, they order this Claufe to be added to their Eighth Canon ol- Difcipline concerning Ordination, that, Al— tho the Uf.ige of Impofttion of Hands be good and holy. Yet It Shall Not Be RtPUTto Necessary, ivi) ^iik'% S^nod. p, 62. (ro) Ibid. p. 93. K 3 As I j 4 '^^^^ Divine Right As If It Were Of The Substance Of Ordi- nation. Thus have they, by their loofe Princi- ples concerning Ordination , laid the Church open to every enthu/i.ijUcal Pretender, that can get a Congregation to follow him, and chufe him for their Pajhr, and then he becomes a Minijier of ths Gofpel, and may minifter the Word and Sa- craments as he plcafes himfelf, for he has no Su- perior, it being exprefly ordered by their Dif- cipline, i^x) that no Minijier jhall claim or exercife any Primacy or JurifdiSiioH over another. And to prevent all Pretences to a Superiority or Impa- rity, it is further ordered, that Minifter s Jhall pre- ftde by "Turns in their Conjiflories, That So None May Claim a Superiority Over His Fellow. And whatever Pretences any of them may make of their Defircs to have Epifcopacy reftored a- mongft them, yet when they meet together in Synod, their Declarations there are ftill oppofite to it. A notable Inftance of which we have in the Synod of Dortj in the Year i<5ip, (y) whither Bifhop Carleton being fent by King James I. he told fome of their Divines, that the Caufe of all their 'Troubles -wcis bscaufe they had no Bijhops a- mongft them , who might reprefs turbulent Spirits^ that broached Novelty-, every Man having Liberty to [peak or writs what thsy lift : And that as long oi there were no Ecchftaftical Men in Authority, to re- prefs and cenfure fuch contumeliom Spirit^ , their Church could never be without T'roulLs. To this their Anfwer was, T'bat they had a great Honour for the good Order and Difapline in the Church of England, And Heartily Wished They Could ^x) Difcipline of the; Reformed Churches in France, Chap. J, Can, 15, 16. {^J Colliers Ecclefiaft. Hift. Vol.2- p. 7i7, 7i8. ]Estab I ISH pers may have done in their private Capacity, or to pleale the Court) did not look upon the Calvm'fts as of the fiime Religion or Communion with us, may appear from Archbiftop Laud's refufing to receive a Brief, wherein they were declared to be fo, as Heytyn informs us in the Life of that Prelate. (a) " For tho' he was not fo unmindful of ttie " Foreign Reformed, as not to do them all good '* Offices when it came in his way, Specially *' when the Doctrine or Difcipline of the Church (l) Quicl\ Synod, p. i8o. ^&) ffeylyn'% Life of A. B. Idwi, p. 395, 306, flf I ^8 The Divine Right •' of England was not concerned in th^ fame, yet " he would do this no further than might ** confift with the Honour and Safety of this " Church- For in the Ye:ir 1634, having recei- •' vcd Letters from the Qnecn of Bohemia about *' the Furtherance of a Collcftion for the exiled " Miniflers of the , Palatinate ; he ^oved the " King fo etfedually in it , that his Majefty « jrranted his Letters Patents for the faid Colle- «' dion to be made in ail Parts of the Kingdom : *' which Letters Patents being fealed , anq " brought unto him for his further Direftion in ^' Profecution of the fame, he found a Parage in ** it which gave him no fmajl Caufe of Offence, " and was this that followeth, viz.. JVbofe Cafes ^' are the more to be deplored, for that this Extremity *' is fallen upon th&mfor their Sincerity and Coriftancy *' In The True Religion, Which We, Toge- *' THER With Them , Professed , And Which •' We Are All Bound In Conscience To " Maintain To The Utmost Of Our Pow- " £rs ,* "whereas These Religious And Godly *' Persons being involved amongft others their Coun- •* trymen, might have enjoyed thsir Eftates and For- ** tunes J if with other Backfliders in the 'Times of *' Trial, thi-y would have fubmitted theinflves to " the Antichkistian Yoke , and have renounced •* or diffcmbled the Profeffi'in of The True Reli- *"'' gion/' Upon the reading of which Paflage he obferved two things : Firll:, that the Religion **^ of the Palatine Churches was declared to be " ^\^Q fame with onrs. And Secondly, that the " Doftrine and Government of the Church of " Rome is called an Antichriflian Yoke ; neither *' of which could be approved of in the fame *' Terms in which they were prefented to him, '* For firit, he was not to be told, that by the '• Religion of thofe Churches all the Calvinian '■S Rigors, cf Episcopacy, i^c. 139 " Rigors in the Point of Predeftination, and the '• reft depending thereupon, were received as or- '*^ thodox ; that they maintain a Parity of Mini- ^' fiers Directly Contrary Both To Th£ ''^ Doctrine And Government of the Church "^ of England ; and that Parem a Profeffor of Di- " vinity in the Univerfity of Heydelburg (who *' was not to be thought to have delivered his " own Senfe only in that Point) afcribes a Power *' to inferior Magiftrates to curb the Power, con- " troul the Pcrfons, and refift the Authority of ^' Sovereign Princes, for which his Comment on *^ the Romans had been publickly burnt by the *' Appointment of King 'James. Which as it «' plainly proves x\\2iVths Religion of thofe Churches' " Is Not Altogether The Same ivith that of " ours^ fo he conceived it very unfafe that his " Mijcfty fhould declare under the Great Seal of " England, that both himfelf and all his SubjeEis " Wire bound in Confcienceto maintain the Religion '« of thofe Churches xvith their uttermojl Power. And " as unto the other Point, he look'd upon it as a *' great Controverfy, not only between lome Pro- " teftant Divines and the Church of Rom?, but «' between the Proteftant Divines themfelves , " hitherto not determined in any Council, nor " pofirively defined by the Church of England-, «« anci therefore he conceived it as unfafe as the " other, that fuch a doubtful Controverfy as the '' Pope^ being AntichriR, fhould be determined " poficively by Letters Patent under the Great " Seal of England, of which there was great Dif-^ '* ference even among the Learned, and not re- " folved on in the Schools. With thefe Objefli- " ons againft that PafTage he acquaints his Maje- " fty, who thereupon g;ive Order that the faid " Letters Patents fhould be cancelled, and nc\ff " ones be drawn, in which that Claufe fhould "be X.40 T^e Divine Right ^ be corrected or expunged ; and that being ^' done, the faid Letters Patents to be new fcal- " ed, and the faid Colledion to proceed accords- ^' ing to the Archbifliop's firll Deiires and Pro- " pofition made in that Behalf." But it may perhaps be faid, that notwithftanding all thefe Declarations made by the Calvimfis in the Behalf of the Pnrity of Mini/iers, yet there is an Imparity amongft them, for they have their Super intendentSy which is but another Name for BijhopS) as appears from the French Confefjion, {b) where they fay, JVt believe that it ii expedient that they ivho be chofen SuPERiNTEi^DENTS in the Church, jhould ivifely con- Jult among theinfelves by what means the whole Body may conveniently be ruled. "By which it appears that thefe Superintendents are Perfons bearing a chief Rule in their pretended Churches, fo that one would be very ready to take them for fome- thing more than their ordinary Fajiors, and yet in Truth they mean no other, as they have them- felvcs taken care to inform us in their National Synod of Gap ; (c) where they fay, the IVord Su- perintendent in the 'Two and Thirtieth Article, is not to be underjlood of Any Superiority Of One Pastor Above Another, but only in general of fuch a6 have Office ^nd Charge in the Church, that is, either Pajior, Elder, or Deacon. So that the Word, in their Senfe of it, is fo far from /ignify- ing fomething more than a common Pajior, that it is only ufcd by them as a common Denomina- tion for all that they call Church Officers. And fo tender are they of their beloved Parity, that they take it as an high Affront for any of our Divines to write againft St. Thus becaufe Dr. Sutcliffe Dean of Exeter^ and Adrian Saravia then a Pre- ib) Art. 32. CO ^M/.i's Synod, p 227. bcndary of E p I s c o p A c Y, i^Ci 141 bendary of Canterburyy wrote feme Jearned Trads in Dctenfe of Epifcopacy, and took occafion to fliew that Parity of Minijiers was no Inftitution of Chrifij they thought proper not to order an An- fwer to be written againll what they had advan- ced, which no Body would have blamed them for, if they could have done iti. but to remonftrate againft them to their Sovereign, and (d) in their National Synod at Montpelier 1598 they ordered^ that Letters jhall be ivritten to my Lord the Ambajfa- dor oj England, and to Monfieur de la Fountaine, Minifter oft/n^ French Chirch in London, to inforjn them of thofe injur iopn IVntings publifued againfl: our Churches by Sutclifte and Saravia, and they be deji— red to apply themfelves to the Qjieen, that juch IVri" tings may not be printed. Thus could they publifli Articles in their Confeffwn of Faith diredly oppo- fite to the Doftrine and Government of the Church of England, and confirm them in every National Synod ; and fuppofe that the Church of England was obliged to take no Notice of ir. And when our D. vines faw it neceffary to vindi- cate our own Dodrine and Government againft their novel Articles of Faith, which they couid not well do without fome Reflections on thofe Arti- cles which were fo contrary to it, they had the Modefly to think that our Sovereign, and the Defender of our Faith, was obliged to fupport tlKtirs in Oppoficion to it : And to fupprefs thofe Books which were written in Dcfenfe of our own Church, bccaufe they were not agreeable to the firai-ige Conceits (as Bifliop Car let on calls them) which were put into their ConfciTion. But it does not appear that our Qiietn took any Notice of their Rcmonflrance. However, they were fuffi- id) Q^ick'i Synod, p. 2oj. * ciently. 142 jT/^e^ Dl V I NE R IGMT ciently revenged of the Church of Englandj for all that Sutcliffe, or Saravia, or any elTe of that Communion, had written againft them, by taking care to fpread their Calvimftical Notions in this Land to fuch a degree as to raife a Party a- mongft our felves, which at once overturned both Church and State. And yet fome Men amongft us are ftilJ fo modefl as to think the Church of England ought to lay afide the Do- ftrine of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, and the I^ecejjfity of an Epifcopal Commiffion for the valid AdmintfiYation of the Sacraments, purely to gratify this Party, and the Foreign Reformed, from whom this Party borrowed their Notions, and by whom they have been from time to time fup- ported and abetted. And thofe who refufe to part with thefe Divine Truths (as I truft I have proved them to be) are by thefe Men accounted uncharitable. But furely Charity can never ob- lige us to part with Divine Truths, and embrace the contrary Errors : And it is certainly much more charitable to fhew Men their Errors, when we fee Men embrace fuch as are dangerous, as this certainly is^ than to footh them in that Er- ror, and make them believe that they are right, when we fo certainly know and fee that they are wrong. But it is faid, that at this rate we un- church all the Foreign Reformed Churches. But we anfwer, that lue neither do, nor can unchurch them : Yet a they have unchurched themfelves, by fhut- ting themfelves out of the Corporation ereded by Chrjf}, under the Government of his Apoftles, and the Bijhops their Succeffors, and ereding a new Corporation according to their own Fancies under the Government of an upftart Set of Pa/tors or Minijiersy who had no original Authority de- rived to them by a fucceflive Ordination from the Jpojiles, but afl'uraed and ufwrped this Au- thority (?/ fi p I s c o p A c Y, i^c, 145 tliority upon an inward enthufiaftical Vocationj we cannot but think it the higheft Charity to en- deavour to make them fenfible of this fatal Er- ror, which may be of fuch dangerous Confcqucnce to them. And tho' according to the Example of Archbifhop Lmid before mentioned, Vv'-e are and fhall always be ready to help and relieve them ia any Diftrefs, yet we cannot think them of the fame Religion with our felves, nor hold a religi- ous Communion with them. Neither can we ex* cufe their want of Bijhops upon the Plea of iVi?- ceffity^ when we fee that they make it an Article of Faith, that the Church ought to have no EijhofSy that is, no M'rniflers or P^iorSy of which one is fiiperior to another. Tho' even the Plea of Ne^ ceffity would not excufe thern in the pretended Miniftry of the Sacraments. For i'c they could have none with an Epifcopal Commiffion to mi- nifter them, they ought to bear the want of the Sacraments with Patience, till God ftould vouch- fafe to fend them Bijhofs or Epfcopal Priejis with Authority to minifter them. And God did vouchfafe to fend both the Lutherans and Calvi- nifis fuch Bijhops and Ep if copal Presbyters, as I have already (hewed : But they neither of them had any. Regard to the Epifcopal Commijfion, but the Lutheran Presbyters took upon them , in direct Opposition to Scripture and Antiquity, to or- dain others, whom they alfo called Pajlors or Presbyters : And the Cahinifls, without any man- ner of Regard to a SuccefTion either of -S/j-^o/?^ or Presbyter Sy fet up a new Order of Men, whom they called Pa/iors or Miniftersy not deriving thcif Authority from any that went before them, but taking it up of their own Heads by an inward enthufiaftical Motion, which they called an ex- traordinary Vocation. But fuch an extraordinary Vocation 144 ^'^^^ Divine Right Vocation may any one hare that has Inlpuderlcc enough to pretend to it. § XLIX. But fome may fay, that thofe who have pleaded moft ftrenuoufly for Eptfcopacy be- fore the Relloration of King Charles II. tho' they have argued for it as of Divine Right, yet have not nlade it necejfary to the Being of a Church, as we do now, and have exprefly difclaimed that Notion, and particularly (e) in the Remonjirants Defenfe, fuppofed to be written by Bilhop Hall 1641 , where it is faid, that by Divine Right is not to be underjlood an exprefs Laiv of God requiring Epifcopacy , m of Absolute Necessity To The Being Of a Church , but an Injiitution of the Apoftles, infpired by the Holy GhofI, Warranting It Where It Is, And Recluiring It Where It May Be Had. Now this Diftindion was plainly made for fear of giving Offence to the Foreign Reformed, who, it was generally fuppo- fed, could not have it. But when rightly weigh- ed and confidered, is in Truth no Diftindion at all, as is very well obferved by the (f) SmeBym- nuans in their Vindication of their Anfxver to the %umble Remonftrance, where they fay, *' If not re- ** quiring it to the Being of a Church, how then ? '' Requiring it only luhere it may be had : What a " ftrange Limitation is this ? Where is it that " Epifcopacy may not, muft not be had, if it be " an Ordinance of Chrift? Where is it that the " Churches of Chrift may not have Word, Sa- " cramencs, Paftors and Bifhops too, if they be •• his Ordinance ? It is true indeed., fome there " are that cannot have Lord Bifliops, pompous " Bifliops, and once a Canon provides that they CO Page 55. (/) Page 75, ^6, « fliould *' ILould not be in little Villages, Ne vilejcerei: " honos Epifcopatm ^ but thefe himfelF acknow- " ledgeth are but the Accejjaries o/Epifcopacy by *' the Donation of magnificent Princes. But what is " the meaning of this, zvhere it may be had? Whan " does he mean, where it may be had with the *' Favour of the Prince ? Then the Primitive " Church had never had any. Or where it may " be had with the willing Subjediion of the Peo- " pie? Then Epifcopacy (liall be an Ordinance, " i^ the People will have it fo. IVhere it jnay be *' had; What? with Quiet and Conveniency ? " Then you make that which you call an Ordi- " nance of God fubjcft to Man's Convenience. *' Or what ? with Poilibility ? requiring that " where Epifcopacy may be had pofTibly , it " (hould ? What is this lefs than a Command ?" So that in Truth they faid as much as we fay now, only they were willing to have made a Di- flindion if they could for the fake of the Refor- med abroad, but it was a Diftinction we fee would not hold, except we v^-^ouIq make an Or- dinance of God fubjed to the Will of the Prince, or the Humours of the People, or the Conveni- ence of particular Men, who wanted to get the Revenues of Bifhopricks into their own Hands, and could have no Pretence to do fo without cafting off Epifcopacy it felf For if the Biftop of Geneva, or the Bifhops of Germany and the Ne- therlandsy haH been pofleffed of no Lordfhips or Lands, they might have continued unmolefted to this Day, and we had been troubled with no Difputes concerning the Divine Inilitution of Epifcopacy. But the chief Bufinefs of the firft Temporal Princes and Magiftrates that favoured the Reformation, was to 2,^1 all the Revenues of the Church into their O'.vn Hands, and to enrich themfelves with the Spoils of the Ptiejls. Which L was 1 4<5 Tfje Divine Right was a very great Hindrance to the Progrefs of the Reformat 10 N^ and put the Ckrgy of that Age, whcr were before inch'nable enough to bring about a real Reformation of corrupt Dodrines and Abufes, upon milking a Stand, where they had Power to do fo, and come to a Refolution of reforming nothing. § L. However, God be praifed, here in Eng- land the King and his Courtiers were contented with the Abbey Lands, and fome of the beft Manners of the Bifhopricks, at lead God thought fit to put a Stop to that Avarice which for many Years feemed infatiable, fo that raoft of the Bi- fhops Sees had a pretty tolerable Maintenance left them : And our Reformation was effeded, tho* not without Sacrilege y yet with a lefs Degree of it than in other Places. By which means Epifco- pacy has been ftill preferved amongft us, tho' not without great Oppofition irom powerful Parties, who once prevailed fo far as feemingly to have utterly extirpated it Root and Branch, but by God's Providence it revived again, and is ftill continued amongft us, and we truft that by God's Blefling and Providence it will continue to the End of the World, unJefs our great Wicked- nefs (hould provoke God to give us up as a Prey to the Adverfary, and remove our Candleftick out of its place, as he has done to many once flourifhing Churches. § LI. But being now returned again to the Epifcopacy of the Church of E:igland, it is conve- nient that I fay fomewhat in Anfwer to the Ob- jections made againft it by the Calvinifls or Pres- byterianSy and the numerous Seds fprung from them on the one hand, and the Papijis on the Other; Both thefe charge us with the want of ail o/ E p I s c o p A c Y, 6ifr. 1 47 an Apoflolical Snccefjlon o( Bijhops, and confequtr.t- ly of Pncfts and Deacons^ but upon different To- picks. The former charge us with a Breach in our Succeflion, becaufe our firft Bijhops derived their Orders from the corrupt Church of Rome, which being an Apoftate , Antichrifttan Church, can have no true Bijhops or Paftors in it; thereiore Orders derived from them muft want the Apcjh- lical Succeffion, becaufe they are fallen from the Apojiolical DoEiriyie and Faith. And in the next place they fay, that even in the Church of Rome the SuccefHon cannot be traced up to the Apo- {Wts, becaufe they are not yet agreed amongft themfelves who was the firfr Bifhop of RvmL' after the Apoftles: And befides there have been fre- quent Schifms and Anti-Fopss in that Church, which have entirely broke the Succeflion there. On the other fide the Pnpijis tell us, that wc can- not derive our Succeffion from them, becaufe we do not ordain according to their Form of Ordi- nation. And in the next place, that Parker, our firft Archbifliop of Canterbury under Queen Eli- z^abeth, from whom all our Ordinations have been fince derived, was nor confecrated by B^- JJjops : But fuch as were at mod but meer Presby- ters. To thefe Objjclions I think it proper to fiiew what Anfwers have been returned, which I cannot but think are fuch as muft fatisfy all un- prejudiced Perfons. § LII. Now as to the firft Objcftion, we fay, that the Church of Rome, xho* it be not a right or found Church, is neverthelefs a true Church, as a Man is a truj Man, tho' his Soul be corrupted with Vice, and his Body with loathfom Difcafes, yet he cannot be called a nght found Man ; how- ever, fo long as he had a Body and Soul united, no Body could deny him to be a Man, nor would L 2 any 148 Vje Divine Right any one deny his Dcfcendants to be fo : And tho* a found and virtuous Son defcendcd from fuch a Father would have no great occafion to be proud of his Birth, yet he mull acknowledge that he re- ceived his Human Nature from him, tho' his Health, Strength, and Virtue, were otherwife acquired : And being become a found Man both in Body and Soul, he might judge it expedient to avoid the Company of fuch a Father, for fear of Infection. The Jewifi Church, tho' frequent- ]y infected with Idolatry, and over- run with Cor- ruption, yet never ceafed to be a Church fo long as that Oeconomy continued j and thofe good Pne/lsj who at feVeral times joined with the re- ligious Kings of that Nation , to reform the idolatrous Corruptions and Abufes which were brought into it, derived their SuccefTion in the Pricfthood from idolatrous Fathers, yet this was never thought to have invalidated their Succefli- on. Thofe who could derive their Pedigree from Aaron-, how wicked or idolatrous foever any of their immediate or remoter Anceftors had been, were neverthelefs the true, proper, and only Priefts they either had or could have. And tho' God frequently raifed up Prophets, Men divine- Jy infpired, to threaten them for their Idolatry, and other Sins, and to exhort them to Repen- tance, yet he never raifed a new Priejlhood, nor authorized any other, befide the Sons of: Aaron, to cleanfe either the Tabernacle or Temple, or to come near to him to oifer the Sacrifices pre- fcribed by the Law. Their Idolatry, and other Corruptions, did not diveft them of the PrL/i- hood^ nor make any Breach m the Succeffion of it, but only made their Sacrifices and other Offer- ings unacceptable, till thofe Corruptions were reformed and cut off. So we fay, that the Ido- latry and Corruptions of the Church of Romsy tho' ^'Episcopacy, i^c, 149 tho' they have made their Worfhip abominable, and therefore unacceptable to God, yet for as much as they have a Succeflion oF the Chrifiian Prieflhood derived from Chrif} and his Apojihs, and receive the holy Scriptures as a Rule of Faith, tho' but as a partial or imperfed Rule, and both the Sacraments as inftrumcntal Caufes and Seals of Grace, tho' they add more, and mifufe thefe, cannot but be a true Church in Ejjence.y and their Pne/ls true Priejis, and as capable ot con- veying that Charader to others after ihem, as the idolatrous Priefis among the Jews could and did convey it to their Succeflbrs, altho' it would be unlawful to communicate with them till they for- fook their Idolatry. Belides the very Word Re-^ formation (which all Proteftants, of what Denomi- nation foever, have applied to their own Com- munion, efpecially the Calvimjis (the firft Starters of this Objedion, and the firft that renounced the Derivation of Orders from the Church of Rome) who call themfelves the Reformed by way of Eminence ) obliges us to acknowledge the Church of Rome for a true Church. For that is what we fay that we have reformed. And could we reform that which is not ? We did not pre- tend to ered a new Church, but only to refurm, that is, corred and amend the old one, which we found by Length of Time to have been over-? fpread with Errors and Abufesj thofe we juftly cafi: otf, but we pretended to cafe oft' no more. And therefore as the SuccefTion ot Paftors in the Three Orders of Bifiops , Priejis, and Deatons , was no Corruption, but an Inlh'tution ot ClmH and his Apoftles, as I have before proved, we judged it as neceffary to preferve that Succeflion as any thing elfe. It is true, Abufes h!id crept into the Manner of conferring thofe Orders, yet for as much as the eifential Parts remained in their L 3 Foni^ 1 50 • The Divine Right Form of Ordination, we only lopped off the fu- perlhtions Adjundts, not thinking our fclves any more obIig<^d to rejcd the Orders themfelves for the Sake of thofe Corruptions, than to rejeft the Word and Sacraments becaufe they had corrupt- ed them alfo. - § LIII. The next Objedion which relates to the Certainty of the Roman Succcffion, will be as eafily anfwered. They tell us firft, that we have no Certainty of the Beginning of this Succeffion from the Jpofiles. It is pretended diac St. Peter was the Founder of that Church, and the firft Bijhop of it, and yet learned Men have taken up- on them to prove that Apoftle never was at Romj. Then as to his Succeilor there is as little Certainty, for fome fay it was Linm, fome Cletm, or AnachtMy and others ClemenSj and the moft learned in this Kind of Knowledge are not a- greed which was the Man, or how to reconcile the Difference. But we fay, that whether St. Pe- ter was ever at Roms or not, it is certain St. Paul was there, the Scripture as well as Ecclefiaflical Hiftory is very clear in that Point. And I have already proved that it was St. PauPs Practice, where he nad converted and fettled a Church, not only to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, to af- fift him in ihe Miniflry, but alfo a little before his final Departure from any Place, to fettle a Bijfjop there, to guide and govern thofe Presbyters and Deacons in hiv Stead, or'as Succeflbrs to him, and that thus he pL^.ccd Timothy at Ephefm, and Titus at Crete; and therefore ii we couid not di- reftly fay who was the firil Bifhop of Rome after the ApojlL's, yet fince St. Paul was one of the Founders of that Church, we have no rcr by Bifliop Burnet^ and Mr. Strype., yet not only their common People feem ftill to believe it, but fome of their Men of Learning, and who have latelieft wrote againft the Church of England^ have not been afhamed to give broad Hints as if this Story had not yet been cleared. Thus the Author of the Cafe re-fiaied 3 in Anfwer to Mr. ; Le/ly's ^Episcopacy, ij'c. 165 Leflfs Cafe jlated between the Church of Rome and the Church 0/ England, printed iji^j (>) tells us, that he has a learned Friendy ivho in a jhort time roill fuhlijh an unanjiverable Dtjjertation upon the Nullity of our Ordinations. And the Author of a more learned and judicious Anfwer to that Book of Mr. Leflfsy which is entituled, 'T'he true Church of Chriji Jhewed by concurrent 'Tejhmonies of Scripture and Primitive 'Tradition ^ printed 1714, fays, ( s) that we have not yet proved even the Validity Of Our First Ordinations. It is true, neither of thefe does diredly trump up the Nags- Head Fa- ble, they were afliamed to do that in cxprefs Words, but that they meant that, or fomething to the fame purpofe, is evident from what the latter of thefe Authors tells us ^itcrwarcls. (0 It lias, fays he, no fmall Mortification to the firji RefortnerSj that if they had any Orders at all, they muft have them from the Church of Rome, which they deferted. T^his made it convenient to deny the Neceffity of Ordination. And Cranmer, in a Piece produced by Dr. Burnet, maintained before an Affem- bly of Bijhops, that the Kings Eletlion and Nomi- nation only J without any other Ceremony ^ was Juffici- ent to make both Priefts and Bilhops. And 'Tis , Well If This Opinion was not praBijed upon Parker and others. So that he plainly intimates, as it he thought, ot at leaft would have the World believe lb, that Archbijhop Parker and his Collegues had only a Lay Ordination or Appointment to their Office ; which whether made at the Nags- Hiad or elfewhere, is the fame thing. § LVII. And here I cannot but obferve the Ingenuity of this Gentleman, in making fuch a (r) p, 31. r.O p. 32. CO p. 33- M 3 partial 1 66 The Divine Right partial Quotation from Bifhop Burnet's Hiftory. For tho' It does indeed appear there that Cranmer did deny the Neceffity of Ordmation, as I have alio before obferved, yet Bifhop («) Burnet fhews in the fame place, that thu^ and fome others, were fin- gular Opinions of hisy and ivere not efiablijhed m the Docirines of the Churchy but laid afide aj particular Conceits of his own. And that he himfelf afterwards upon debating the Matter, changed his Opinion, and fubfcribed a Book, foon after publijl^ed, which is di^ reEily contrary to his Opinion fet down in the Papers b-fore fubfcribed by him. And whatever Cranmer s private Opinion might be in this Cafe, I have fhewed that it neither had Influence on the Do- drine or Pradice of this Church. For the Time v/hen Cramner denied the Neceffity of Ordination was about the Year 153P, after which the Bifhops of this Realm continued to be regularly nomina- ted, elected, and confecrated, as before. Thus not long after thefe Debates about the Neceffity of Ordination, (w) April 4, 1540, Edmond Bon- ner was confecrated Bifhop of London, and Nicolas Heath Bifhop of Rochejier, by Stephen Bifhop of Winton, Richard Bifhop of Chichefler, Robert Bi- iliop of St. Afaph, and fohn Bifhop of Herefordi by virtue of commiffional Letters from Archbi- fiiop Cramner. And the lame Year alfo, Decejnber ip, Thomtu Thirlby was confecrated the firil and only Bifliop of Weflminjter, by Edmund Bifliop of London , Nicolm Bifhop of Rochejier , and John Suffragan of Bedford-, by virtue alfo of commiffi- onal Letters from Archbifhop Cranmer, as appears from our Rcgillcrs. Now the Confecration of thefe Three was never queflioned by the Roma- (u) Hift. of Reform, p 276, 4th. Edit. ^ (») Strypc^s Memor. of A, B. Cranmer , p. 90. iiiflSj o/ Episcopacy, i3c. 167 nijli, notwithftanding King Henry VIII. Had long bef-ore this caft off the Pope's Power in this Realm, and all the Bifhops in England-, as well the Confecrators as the confecrated, had renoun- ced his ufurped Authority and Jurifdiction : For thefe Three were moil eminent Bifhops in Queen Marys Reign , and principal Confecrators of Cardinal Pole to the Archbifhoprick of Canterbuyy. And in the fame manner were all the other Bi- fhops confecrated during the Remainder of King Henry s Reign, that is, by the Archbifliop himfelf, with the Affiftance of two or three other Billiops, or by three or four Bifhops avSing by commifTional Letters from the Archbifhop. And our Bifhops were alfo confecrated in the fame manner during the whole Reign of King Edward VI. faving that all, except Bifhop Ridhy, were confecrated ac- cording to the refor?md Ordinal, of which I have already treated , and proved that Confecrations made according to that Ordinal, want nothing ef- fential to a fiiffictent and valid Confecration. But it would be tirefome both to me and the Reader to fet down the Name of every particular Bifhop, and fay by what Bifhops he was confecrated; and therefore I fhail refer thofe who defire further Satisfaction, to the Regiflers of thofe Times, and to Mafon, Strype, &c. who have given an Account of thefe Matters from the Regiflers. 5 LVIII. But whereas the Authors and Repor- ters of the Nags-Head Fable pretend, that Q^ieen Eliz,ab-eth's Bifhops would gladly have been con- fecrated by a Bifhop, if they could have got one to have performed that Office for them ; but the Bifhop of Landaff, being the only Bifhop who complied with the Reformation at that time , refufmg to confecrate them, they were forced to content themfelves with a Lay, or at beft M ^ a Pr^sr i^S The Divine Right a Presbyterian Ordination, which is muc\\ to the fame Eft'ed : I think it proper to fhew, that they neither Jay under any fiich NccefTity, nor does it appear that they ever had fo much as a Thought of being ordained by any but Bifhops, nor that any who was ever reputed to be a Bifhop of this Church, was otherwifc ordained. For befides Antkony Kitchin Bifhop of Landajf before menti- oned,.,there were no lefs than Six Bifhops of the reformed Church of England^ who had been con- fecrated in the Reigns of King Henry VIII. and King Ediuard VI. that were actually living and in England at the time when Matthew Parker, the firft Archbifliop of Canterbury in Qiieen Eljz.a- beth's Reign, was confecrated to that See, and lived alfo feveral Years after that and many other Confecrations. For by the way, I think it alfo proper to fhew, that the firft Confecration in that Reign was not of many together, as this Nags- Hsad Fable fuggefts, but that Matthew Parker was firft confecrated by four Biftops, and that after that he and two or three others regularly and at different times confecrated the reft. § LIX. The firft of thefe Bifliops, who lived to the beginning of Qtieen Eliz>aheth's Reign, was (x) [Villi am Barlow, who was made Bjfliop of St. Afaph about the latter End of the Year 1535, four Years before that Opinion about the no Ne- ceffity of Ordination was ftarted. And in the be- ginning of the Year after was tranflated to St. David's-, where he continued all the Reign of King Hsnry, difcharging all things belonging to the Office of a Bifliop, even fo far as to ailift at {x) Whxrx. de Epirc. Afaven. p. 359. OAafon^ p. 127. Stry^e\ Memcr. of A. B. Cranmerj p. 37, ^ • ■ the (?/ Episcopacy, t^c, i6() the Confecration of other Bifhops. And parti- cularly was one of Three which confecrated Arthur Buckley to be Bifhop of Bangor^ February ig, 1541, who retained that See near Two Years of QjJcen Marys Reign, even to the time of his Death. So that altho' the Regifter has omitted to enter BarlovSs Confecration, and the Names of the Bifhops by whom he was confecrated. yet for as much as he was received and communica- ted with as a Bifhop, to the End of King Henrys Reign, by the Popijh Bifhops of that Time, Heathy Gardener^ Bonner, Tunfial, Thirlbyy &c. and a Bi- fhop alfo who was confecrated by him, and but two others, was received and acknowledged as fuch in the Reign of Queen Mary, when Popery was re-eftabliflied in this Realm, I fee not how the Papifts can queftion his Conjecration. For it is apparent that thofe who were acknowledged for Bifhops in King Henry's Reign, as well as be- fore and after, were nominated, eleded, confirm- ed and confecrated in a regular manner. Now we find Barlow's Nomination, Eledion and Con- firmation ; but the Regifter , thro' Carelefnefs, omitted to enter the Confecration. However, it is certain he could not have been permitted to execute the Epifcopal Fundion without it, as well by the Laws of the Land, as the Canons of the Church : And therefore fince he did fo long execute the Epifcopal Fundion, we have no rea- fon to queftion his regular Confecration by three Bifhops at leaft : For there is no Pretence that, there was any want of Bifliops at that time to perform the Office. In King Edward's Reign he was tranftatcd to Bath and l-Vells : (y) which he was forced to refign in the Second Year of Queen (j) Burnetii Hift. of Reform* Vol. 2. p. 256, 4th Edit. Mar/i 1 70 The Divine Right JVIarji and then got beyond Sea to fave his Life. In the beginning of Qrieen Eliz.abetljs Reign (z,) he returned into England, was cle6ed to the See oF Chichejler, (a) and died Auguji 13, 1568. So that he continued a Bilhop above Two and Thirty Years : In all which Time, no not in the Reign of Queen Mary, when being profccutcd for being married, be was forced to rcfign, his want of a regular Confecration was never ob- je6ted to him. Nor have I read that ever it has been obj'efted from that Time to this: For the Romanjfis , who tell the Nags-Head Fable, take no Notice of him, nor of any of the other Bi- fiiops, but only Scory, as if he alone had con- fccratcd the firft Bifhops in Queen El:z.abeth's Reign, and he they pretend was no BiJJjoj), only a Ufurper of that Name. But (h) our Regiflers ihew that he and Miles Coverdale were regularly and canon ically confecrated together Auguji 30, 3551, by 1homa6 Cranmer Archbifhop of Canter- bury, Nicolas Ridley Bifliop of London, and John Hodgekin Suffragan Bilhop of Bedford. Now that the Three Confecrators of Scory and Coverdale were real Bifhops, is alfo certain. That Cranmer was a Bifhop, the Romanifts cannot deny, for be was confecrated before an entire Breach with Fo7ne, by virtue of the Papal Bulls for that Pur- pofe, and alfo received the Pall from the Pope. Ridley alfo was confecrated Bifhop of Rochefter, Septe'mher 5 , 1 547, by Henry Holheach Bifhop of Lincoln, John Hodgelin Suffragan of Bedford, and 'Thomas Suffragan Bifhop of Si don. Thomas Suffra- gan Bifhop of Sidon was a Bifiiop confecrated be- (a) Stryps% Life of A. B. Parker, p. 302,. C^) tAxfon, p. 65, 93. Stryf£% Memor. of A. B. Cravmr, p. 19, 176, 271. fore of Episcopacy, i^c, 171 fore the Breach with Rome, as his Title fliews j tor immediately after that Breach, Ann. 16. H. 8. an Ad of Parliament was made to appoint certain Towns in this Realm for the Titles of Suftragan Bi/hops, and after that Time none were confe- crated here to any foreign Titles, as was practi- fed before. So that there can be no Difpiite as to him. Of Hodgekin Sutfragan of Bedford I fliall have further occafion to fpeak afterwards, (c) And for Henry Holbeach Bifhop of Lincolny he was confecrated Suffragan Bifhop of Brijlol (before a Diocefan See was there erected ) March 24, 1^37-8, by ^ohn Hilfey Bifhop of Rochejier, Hugh Latimer Bifhop of Worcefier , and Robert Parfevj Bifhop of St. Afapb, Nine Years before the Death of King Henry VIII. and the Romanifis have ne- ver queftioned the Confecration of any Bifhops in that Reign. Whenever they do, we fhall be ready to prove the Succeffion then, as well as before or after. Scory and Coverdale were thus confecrated Bifhops of Rochejier and Exeter, and Scory was after tranflated to Chichefler : In Queen Marys Reign they were forced to f5y beyond the Seas, and returned again in the beginning of Queen Eliz,a(;eth^s Reign, and Scory was then tranflated to Hereford, (a) and Coverdale being grown Old and infirm, chofe a retired Life, and contented himfelf with the Parifh Church of St. Magnm at the Foot of London- Bridge, where he died in the Year 1565, being above Fourfcore Years of Age. But Scory being a much younger Man, continued in the See of Hereford above Five and Twenty Years, and died not till June (c) Nixfon, p. 90, Strype\ Memor. of A. B. Cranmer^ p. 63. (d) Burnet's Hift. Reform. Vol. 2. p. 366, 4th Edit. Stripe's Life of A. B. P^rkr, p. 149. Athen. Oxod. Vol. i. Col. $84. z6, 172 The Divine Right z6, 1585. (0 John Salisbury SuftVagan Bifliop of 'Thetford was another reformed Bifliop, living in the beginning of Queen Eliz^abetl/s Reign, who was confecrated March 19, 1536-7, by T'homas Cranmer Archbifiiop of Canterbury, Nicolcn Shaxton; Bifhop of Sarum, and Jubn Hiljey Bifhop of Ro- chefier. Ten Years before the Death of King Henry VIII. And was confirmed Bifliop of Man, Jpriljy 1571* the 14th Year of Queen Eliz^abeth, and died not till the latter End of September 1573. (/) John Hodgekin Suffragan Bifhop of Bedford was confecrated December 9, 1537, by John Stokefly Bilhop of London, John Htlfey Bifhop of Rochefier, and Robert Parfeiu Bifhop of St, Afaphy Ten Years almoff before the Death of Henry Vlil. concerning whofe Bifhops there is no Difpute. And if the Romanifls think fit to difpute the Con- fecrations of that Reign, they mufl alfo difallow thofe in Queen Mary's Reign, even of Cardinal Pole himfelt, for they all derived their Cbnfecra- tions from King Henry'?, Bifliops And particu- larly Thomas Thirlby Bifhop of IVe/lminJhr, and afterwards of Ely, who was one of their Confef- fors in the Reign of Queen ElJz,abeth: For this John Hodgekin Suffragan of Bedford wa.s one of his Confecrators. And tho' he was never higher ad- vanced than to be a Siifiragan Bifliop, yet he af- iifled as a Bifliop at the Confecration of no lefs than Fourteen Bifhops in the Reis^ns of King Henry VIII. King Edward VI. and Queen EliZ,a- Leth, He lived to the Year 1560, and how long CO Anig. facr. Vol. i. p. ^\^. Athen. Oxon. Vol. i. Col. 599. Nlafon, p. 126. Memor. of A. B. Cranmer j p. 39. Life of A. B. Grindal, p. 175. 00 ,n ,» (f) ^ifov, p 90, 93, 127, 128, 134. Memor. of A. B. CrANmir, p. 63, 95, after c^ E p I s c o p A c t, ^c, 1 7 J after I do not find, (g) To thefe I fhall add ^ohn Bale the famous Antiquary, who was con- lecrared Bifliop of OJfory in Ireland in the Reign of King Edivard VI. who flying alfo into foreign Parrs in the Reign of Queen Mary:, cared not to return again to Ireland^ but coming into England as foon as Queen Eli'z>nbetb obtained the Crown, he was made a Prebendary of Canterbury, and. there died in the Year 1563. There being there- fore fo many re-formed Bijhops living and in Eng- land in the very beginning of Queen Eliz,al;etl}'s Reign, before any new Bifhops were nominated and eleded, there was not the leaft Occafion for them to obtain their Confecrations by any ex- traordinary Methods, when they could fo eafily have Bifliops to confecrate them whofe Succeilion was indifputabJe, and accordingly Matthew Par- ker was firfl: confecrated by four of thefe Bifliops to the See of Canterbury, and then he confecrated the refl with the Affiflacce of fome of thefe. § LX. (A) The Conge de Elire for the Election of an Archbifhop to the See of Canterbury, then vacant by the Death of Cardinal Po/e-, was dated July 18, 1559, upon the Receipt of which the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury met July 22, and then, having read the Queen's Letters Patents, appointed the firfl Day oi Auguft for the Day of Eledion, and meeting on that Day for that pur- pofe, they chofe, and declared Matthew Parker (the Perfon nominated by the Qupen in her Let- ters miflive) to be their Archbifhop eled, accord- ing to the ancient Cuffom and the prefent Laws {g) Strype's Life of A. B. Farker, p. 143. (h) Strype's Life of A. B. Purler, p. $2 , ^c, CMafoti, of 1 74 *^^ Divine Right of this Realm, All thefe Ads were particularly and exaftly recorded by John Incent, at that time Publick Notary for the Diocefe of Canterbury, and fiibfcribed with the Addition of his Name and Sir- na?ne, and Jigned with his own acmjlomed Sign-, with the Apfenjion of the common Seal of the Dean and Chapter j in Faith and "Tejiimony of all and fingular the PremiJJes ; being thereunto efpecially asked and required- In which exprefs Terms he concluded thefe Ads. The Third Day of Angujl next fol- lowingjthe Dean and Chapter conftituted William Darrel one of the Prebendaries of that Church, Anthony Hufe Efq; 'John Clerk and John Incent Publick Notaries, their Prodors, to ad and per- form all things for them in this prefent Bufinefs. On the Sixth of Auguji thefe Prcdors came to La?nbeth, and read and exhibited all thefe Ads to Mattheiu Parker, who there gave his Allent and Confent to the faid Eledion in a particular Form of Words drawn up in Writing tor that Purpofe, which he then read. And Inftruments were made of all and fingular the Premises, at the Defire of the faid Eled, and the forefaid Prodors, and be- fore thefe Witnefles , being fpecially required thereunto, viz,. Richard T'averner Efq; John Baker Gent. Ralph Jackfon and Andrew Pierjon Clerks. The Dean and Chapter alfo certified the Queen of the Eledion, and of the whole Procefs of it, earneftly praying and befeeching her Majefty to give her Affent to the Eledion, and caufe it to be confirmed. In purfuance of which Requeft the Queen caufed her Letters Patents to be iflued, bearing Date at Redgrave, September 9, to Six Bifhops, viz,. Cuthbert T'onftall Bifhop of DurhaWy Gilbert Bourn Bifhop of Bath and fVells, David Pool Bifhop of Peterborough, Anthony Kitchin Bi- Ihop of Landaff , William Barlow Bifhop , and Jahn Scory Bifhop : commifSonating them to con- firm eTfEpiscopACY, £ifr. 17^ firm and confecrate the Eied:, and commanding that they fhould do all things requifice to the fame, as had been accuftomed, according to the Laws and Cuftoms of the Realm. But fome of thefe Bifhops declining this Office, and the Clanfe yds nut minm quatuor •veftrum being omitted in the Inftriiment, the reft could not ad without them : wherefore the Queen ifliied out her fecond Letters Patents with that Claufe, dated December 6, 1555?, and direded them to Anthony Kitchm Bifhop of Landafi William Barlow formerly Bi- fhop of Bath and WeUsy now Eled of Chichejier^ John S:ory formerly Bifhop of Chichsfter , now Eled of Hereford, Miles Coverdale fome time Bi- fhop of Exeter, John Hodgekin Suffragan Bifhop of Bedford, John Salisbury Suffragan Bifhop of I'hetford, and John Bale Bifliop of O/fory in Ire- land. The Confirmation was performed Decem- ber 9 in Botu-Church regularly, and according to the ufual Cuftom, by four of thefe Bifliops, Bar- low, Scory, Cover dale , and Hodgekin. And th6 fame Bifhops confec rated him in Lambeth Chapel on Sunday, December 17, 1559, according to the Ordinal of King Edward VL which Form of Confecration I have already vindicated. § LXL Thus was Archbifhop Parker confecra- ted fingly by four, whom I have proved to have been every one Bifhops, regularly confecraced to that Office many Years before; for Barlow and Hodgekin I have fhewed were Bifhops above Twenty Years before, long before the Death of King Henry VIIL and therefore their Orders can be no more queftioned than the Orders of thofe whom the Romanijis celebrate as ConfefTors in. the Reign of Queen EUz.abeth; for Barlow and Hodgekin were confecrated by the fame Kind of Bifhops, and by the very fame Form of Ordina- tion 176 The Divine Right tion by which Heath, Bonner, Thirlby, &c. wer<3 confecrated. And Scory and Coverdale, tho' not confecrated by the fame Form of Ordination, but by the Ordinal of King Edward VI. Reign, yet were regularly confecrated by Three Bifhops, as has been proved, which brings the Difpute folely to the Validity of Confecrations made by that Otdinal, which has been already difcufled. Neither was Scory the principal Ordainer of Archbifhop Parker, as the Popifli Story pretends, but Barloiv, who was the eldeft Bifhop. Barlow fat in the Chair, and the other Three, Scory, Co^ •verdak, and Hodgckin, prefented Parker to him, and he recited the Prayers, and faid. Almighty God, Giver of all good things, which by thy Holy Spirit haft appointed divers Orders of Minifters in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the IVork and Miniftry of a Bijhop, &c. He, together with the other three, laid his Hands upon him, and he was the Perfon which faid the Words of Confecration, T'ake the Holy Ghoft, and remember that thou ftir up the Grace of God that is in thee,, by I??ipofttion of Hands, ike. the Words which it has been fhewed St. Paul fpake to Timo- thy, fignifying that he was thereby confecrated to Timothys OiHce, or the Office of a Bijhop. Then indeed after he was thus confecrated by Prayer and Impofition of Hands, he delivered him the Bible, but laid it not either on his Head or his Shoulders, as any part of his Confecration, for that was compleated by the Impofition of Hands and Prayer, but by way of Exhortation he faid to him. Give heed to Reading, Exhortation , and Docirine, think upon thefe things contained in this Book, &c. Neither were thefe things done in a private Room either at the Nags-Head in Cheap- fide or elfewhere, but in the Archbifhop's Chapel at Lambeth, in the Prefence of Publick Notaries, and Cf Ep I $ CO PACY, if C^ IJJ and many other Witneflfes of the Solemnity. So that not (o much as one Tittle of the Popijh Nags^ Head Fable has fo much as the Shadow of Truth. And all this appears from the Regifters and Re- cords of thofe Times, which are the moft au- thentick Evidences the Matter is capable of: And whofe Credit can never be overthrown or lefTi^ned by a meer hear-fay Story, not mentioned by any Writer till Forty or Fifty Years afterwards. § LXII. (/) It muft indeed be confefled that Saunders, who was living at that time, does fayj that the Reformers had neither three j nor /o much as two Bijhops then amongjl them. But this Tefti- mony is of no Weight, when it is fo evident from the Records of that Time, that befide Kitchin Bifhop of Landaf y who renounced the Popijh Communion, there were then in England no lefs than Six reformed Bifbops , IViiJiam Barlow i yohn Scoryy Miles Coverdahy John Salisbury^ John Hodgekin, and John Bale. Such a negative Tefti- mony againft full pofitive Evidence {if Saunders was a credible Author) is of no Force It is ve- ry likely that none of thefe Bifhops were of Saun- deri's Acquaintance , but becaufe he did not know them, or know them to be Bifhops, does it therefore follow that they were not fo, altho' the Regifters and Records of that Time tell us, not only that they were fo, but alfo tell us the Time when, and the Perfons by whom they were con- fecrated, the Sees they filled, or the Titles they had > He mull; fuppofe Saund.rs to be endued with Infallibility, that fhall believe his Word be- fore plain Fad fo fully recorded. And I mufl (/) Mec inter fe aut fres duoTve Eplfcopos baberent, iSiMii U Sibiffii. Afi^Ut^fi- UB. ji /». 297, ^ fay I yS The Divine Right fay that for the Record of Parkers Confecratiott, that perhaps no Record was ever more full and particular J as it has been printed by Strype^ Burnety and others. For it not only tells us the Time when, the Place where, and the Perfons by whom that Archbifliop was conlccrated, but alfo how La7nbeth Chapel was at that time adorn- ed, what Habit each of the Bifhops appeared in, how the Bifhop eledt was habited, in what Order they came into the Chapel, how they placed themfelves there, how every Part of the Cere- mony was performed, and in what Order they went out of the Chapel again. § LXIII. This Evidence is fo full againft the Romaniji Charge of Lay Ordination , (k) that they renewed not the Charge again till about Forty Years after it had been produced by Mafon they took Courage (at a time when the Church of England lay under a great Eclipfe, and they fuppofed no Body would vindicate her) and then boldly denied the Record it felf, and in a Book printed at Doway 1654, tell us, that they fmean- ihg the, Bifhops and Clergy of the Church of Eng- land )hdve feigned an old Record to prove their Or- dination from Cathotnk B'Jhops. But there is more than-oiie old Record produced on this Occafion, and did they feign every one of them ? Did they feign Qneen El/z^abeth's Letters Patents to Kitch- iHy Eariow^ S'ory, dec. to confirm and eonfecrate Parker ? Did they enter this Forgery in all the proper Offices where it is recorded, and in the proper Places of the feveral Books where it is fegiflred, .and yet no Body could tell when and how it was done ? Or were there no fuch Men (ft) Ji^pe's Life of A. B. TarlsTf p. 59, lirfnjj o/ E p I s c o p A c Y, i^c. 1 79 living at that time as JBar/ow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodg'fkin ? Have they forged the Names of thofe Bifhops, and forged their Pofllflion of feve- ral Bifhops Secs> for fo Barlow and Scory had Sees both before and after Parker s Confecration ? Did they forge the Confecrations of thefe Men alfo, and clap them into the refpeftive Regifters fo dextroufly, that none can difcover the Cheat by confulting the Records themfelves ? Did they forge that Barlow and Scory made a Figure in the Church of England above Thirty Years? Did they forge the Fourteen Confecrations that Hodge- kin afrn"ted at as a Billiop ? Or did they forge the Inftrument delivered into the Houl'e of Lords, \vhen Parker was returned there as confecrated by thofe four Bi/hops, before he could take his Seat in that Houfe ? And could all the Lords be impofed upon, and made to believe that Parker W2S confecrated by thefc Men, and yet there were rcaUy no fuch Men to confccrate him ? Was there a Man in the Houfe of Lords when Archbifhop Parker was firft introduced into that Houfe in the Year 1559 or 1560 (except fome young Lords jufl come of Age, or fome newly created) but muft remember whether Barlow, Scory^ and Co^ verdaky fat amongft them upon the Bifhops Bench not above Seven Years before ? Was it poffible to impofe fo groOy upon the whole Houfe of Peers, amongft which many Popifh Lords alfo fat at that time, in a Matter which their own Remem- brance could not but tell them whether it wag true or fajfe ? Now the Church of England muft have feigned all this, and a great deal more, im- poffiDle to be put upon the World, if it wer6 not true, or elfe Archbifhop Park.r muft be owned to have been regularly confecrated by the Bifhops which the Regifter fays did confecrate hihi. K z J LXIV. Let 1 8o The Divine Right § LXXV. Let us now hear upon what Grounds they pretend to make out the Falfity of fo many Records : which are as full and authentick Proofs as a Matter of that Age is capable of They tel4 us in the forementioned Book, that it iva5 proved by T'lvo IVitneJJcS. The former of them was Dr. Dar- bifiiire, then Dean of St. PaulV, and Nephew to Dr. Bonner Bijhop of London, who aJmofl Sixty Tears Jince (that is. Sixty Years before 1^54, or thereabouts , when this Book was printed at Doway) lived at Meufe Pont, then an holy religiom Man, very agedy but perftB in Senfe and Memory, who fpeaking what he kneiVy afirtned to ?ny felf (^{ays this Author) and another with me, that, like good Fellows, they made themfelves Bifhops at an Inn, becaufe they could get no true Bifliops to confe- crate them. My other Witnefs wai a Gentleman of known IVorth and Credit, dead not many Tears ftnce, "whofe Father, a chief 'Judge of this Kingdom, vijiting Archbijhop Heath, faiu a Letter fent from Bi- jJjop Bonner out of the Marfhalfea, by one of his Chaplains, to the Archhijhop, read while they fat at Dinner together, wherein he merrily related the man- ner how thefe neiu Bijhop s (becaufe he had dijfuaded Ogiithorp Bijhop of Carlile, fro?n doing it in his Diocefe) ordained one another at an Inn, zvhere they met together. And while others laughed at this new manner of confecrating B'JJjops, the Archbijhop himfelf gravely, and not zvithout Tears, expreffed his Grief to fee fuch a ragged Company of Men, come poor out of Foreign Parts, and appointed to fucceed the Old Clergy. Now not to cavil with this Author for calling Dr. Darbijhi^e Dean of St. PauFs, when he was never more than Canon of that Church : what Evidence did this Dodor give, more than his own bare Word, for what he faid } He did not pretend that he himfelf was either at the Lin e/Episcop ACT, e/f. »S' or near it, where this mock Confecracion he fpoke of ?.as mide. He oniy.told it as a Story that he had heard once upon a t.me. And fo had a great many others as well as he, for theN.igs-HjaJ ti ble was in Print before he died But it does not appear that he conld fay any thnig to the Matter from his own Knowledge. The other Evidence is a namelefs Judge, and a name e'^s <^'="-<="l^"' that heard him tell the Story, and the whole Re- lation is alfo given by a namelefs Author. And f Zh Evidence as th,s is fufficient to overthrow the Credit of fo many Regiftcrs and Records, ihen is it in vain for any Nation to make oj k'^^P ^"'"^ Records, when a meer hear-fay Story (hal deferve more Credit. But we know that hear-fay btones Treeafify invented and fpread, and the Authors of them not eafy to be found out, and very little Credit is to be given to them, even where they are not contradided : But where rhey are contra- difted by better Evidence, they are ot "« manner of Credit, nor deferve the leaft Notice. Whereas Regiflers and Records are by ''om^^'^'fy'"^^ be feigned or forged, they are pubkck Acts, ancl public! Officers are appointed for the keeping ihem, they are open, and liab e to the l^^^f^^\ of every one that pleafes to take a View ot them , and howfoever in Matters of private nature rela- ting to particular Perfons, it is poffible, and but poffible, fome Particulars may be mifreprefented in them, yet in Matters of publick nature, fuch a^ the Confecration of Bifhops, it is morally im|. poffible they ffiould be forged, becaufe fo many feveral Offices are concerned in that Attair. ^ LXV. However, the Romanifls have fo often and fo long told this Story, that they are now aOiamed to defert it, and own themiclves to have 182 , The Divine Right been impofed upon by it. And to make it more credible, they had the Confidence, in a Book printed at Roan id'yj, called a 7rentife of Catholuk Faith J to tell the World that it was owned by a Proteftant Bifhop : And named Morton Bfhop of Durham For the Man ; pretending that in the Par- liament oF 1541 he had acknowledged tiie Nags^ Head Confecration in the Houfe of Lords, and made a Speech in Vindication of it. But that learned and good Bifliop happening to be alive at that time when this Story was printed of him (which we may reafonably fuppoi'e they little thought of, he being then very old) did publickly under his Hand and Seal proteil and declare the faid Story to be falfe and moft untrue, dated Jul} 17, 1^58, and had it atttfted by a Publick No- tary. The whole Prottftation of which pious Bifhop is extant in Archbjfhop Bramhall's Bool$ ot the Confer at ion of Proteftant Bifiops vindicated. In which Treatife that learned Primate confuted, and moft eifedually overthrew the then late At- tempts of the Jefmts againft our Church, by this Calumny of the Confecration of Parker, and the other firft Biftiops of this Church in the Rei^n of Qnt^en Eliz^aheth. So that I do nor find that^they have fiiice had the Confidence openly and in Print to trump up thofe old Fables, only thofe two An- fwers before mentioned to Mr. lefly% Cafe Jinted have given broad Hmts as if they ftill gave Cre- dit to them: For which reafon I thought proper to be fo particular in the Confutat.on of them, fince It is not unlikely thefi- Papers may fall intq the Hands of fome who may roc have Opportu-^ liity of confulting the Authors I have cited, whp have lo fuily confuted the Roman/fis on this To- pick of our Ordinations. And I hooe I have proved Parker's Confecration by four Bif];ops tq the Satisfadion of every unprejudiced Pei fon. ■ § LXVI p/" E p I s c o p A c y, ifc, 1 8^ § LXVI. (/) Matthew Parker therefore having been himfelf confecrated Archbifhop of Canter- httry, December 17, 155P, by the Bifhops Barloiv, Scory^ Coverdale, and Hodgekin^ did four D.iy$ after, being St. T'HO MAS's Day, December 21, aflifted by Barlow, Scory, and Hodgekin, confccrate alfo in Lambeth Chapel Edmund Grmdal to the Bifhoprick of London^ Richard Cox to Ely-, Edxvin Sandys to IVorcefier, and Rowland Merick to Ban- gor. And about a Month after, which was Sunday, January 21, being aflifted by Grindal, Cox, and Hodgekin, he confecrated lhoma6 Toung to the Bifhoprick of St. Davids, Nicolas BuUingham to Lincoln, 'John ^ewel to Salisbury^ Richard Davis to St. Afaph, and Edmund Guejl to Rocheflsr. Thus Archbifhop Parker having been regularly confe- crated by four Bifhops, according to the Canons of the Church, as well as the Laws of the Land, the other Bifhops were alfo regularly confecrated by him their Metropolitan, in Conjundion with two or three of his Provincial Bifhops. And in the fame manner has the Succeflion been continu- ed from that time to this. And we are at this Day able to prove from our Regiflers and Re- cords (the befl: Evidence that can be produced in fuch a Cafe) not only the Year, Month, and Day when, but alfo the Perfons by whom every par- ticular Bifhop has been confecrated from that time to this. § LXVIL Having therefore I trufl: fully proved the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, together with the Nc'- cejp.ty of an Epifcopal Commi[fion to the valid Admi^ nflration of the Sacraments , from the Scriptures, (0 Stry^ii Life of At B. Vnrhery p, 63, 64. lAifon, p 134. N 4 ^n4 184 The Divine Right, *ijff. and from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, from the Councils held in th'ofe firft Ages, and from the Canons then made, down to the Time of the Council of Nice^ and proved the fame alfo to be agreeable to the Dodrine of the Church of England, as contained in her Articles and Litur- gy, notwithilanding fome of her pretended Sons (and I with I could not fay Fathers alfo) who have given their Afl'ent and Confent to that Li- turgy, and fubfcribed thofe Articles, have taught and publi/hed contrary Dodrine; and having al- fo fliewed that the Luthnana and Cnhinijh have rejeded this Form of Church Government, not thro' any Neceflity they had to do fo, but upon Principles unwarrantable, ^nd difagreeable to the Word of God, aud that whatever fome of their private Men may have faid or written in favour of EpifcQpacy, yet even thofe very Men of the Calvinifl Pcrfuafion have fubfcribed as an Article of Faith, that Superiority of one Paflor aluve ano- ther is unlawful, by which they condemn both the Primitive aud the Britijh Epifcopacy as unlawful al- fo : And having likewife vindicated the Succef- fion of our Englijh Bijhops from the Objedions made againfl; their uninterrupted Succeffion both by Papifis and P/esbyteriansj the latter of whofe Objcdions have alfo been repeated and made ufe of by fome who flile themfelves Presbyters of the Church of England, and yet are not afhamcd to lay fuch a Reproach upon their Mother which they are by ro means able to prove, I conceive there is nothing more that is needful to be l^u'd upon this Head, aud fliail therefore in due time f-*roceed to the next Particular meptioncd in vay Vindication. . . < • : JP I N I S. i8s ^ ^ ^ ^ -jp* ^ jf> j^ JT» ,£?* jr^ jTh jn, ./^ J** 1^ JTM .r* jr* jn. ^ itk jr> in> ^* irx in> ^ /^ J#^ APPENDIX- IN my late Tra(5l concerning the Independency of the Church upon the State, as to its pure Spiri- tual Powers^ amongft fome Objedions I had met with againft the Notion of Schifm, as laid down in that Traft, agreeable to the Principles of the truly Ancient Catholick and Apoftolick Church, one of them, p. 89, § 48, ftands thus : Was the Church of England Schijmatick under Queen Eliza- beth, when Jhe in Parliament depri'ved feveral Bi~ /hops for not acknov: I edging her Supremacy ? &c. To which I directly anfwered , That the Church of England ivas not Schifmatick under Qjieen Elizabeth, t ho' jhe in Parliament did deprive feveral Bishops ^ dec. which I endeavoured to prove, p. 93, by obier- ving, that Qjieen Mary when fie cams to the Crown turned out the Catholick and Orthodox Bijhops, which her Brother King Edward had left in Poff.ffion of the BijhoprickSifojne of which fie condeinmd to the Flames, and forced others to fly to fave their Lives. But it was the. Catholick, Orthodox, Reformed Bifiops that were jliU the rightful Bifiops of the Church of Eng- land, &c. ^0 that when Qjieen Elizabeth cam:' to the Crown, and with the Conjent of hjr Parliament turn- ed out the Pop'ifi) Bifiops, and refiored the Catholick Orthodox Bifiops to their Flocks, fije aSied but as a good Prince ought to do. This is the Subftance of the Objeftion, and of the Anfwer I then made to ic, Buc jS6 APPENDIX, But I have fince received a Letter enforcing this Objedion further, and I am told, that tho* this Reajoning may hold good if we carry eur View m further Lack than Queen Mary'j R^ig^iy yet -what jhall we fay to Bonner, Gardiner, Heath, and Day, luho were deprived by King Edward, not for any of thofe Errors or Corruptions in Docirine and Difcipline which Popery had introduced ^ for they all complied with the Rejormation fo far as was required of thentf excepting only that Heath and Day refufed to puU down their Altars and fubftitute 'tables ? I Jhall not trouble you here (adds the Writer of the Letter) with a Detail of what things were alledged againji Bonner and Gardiner, but refer you to Mr. Collier'/ H/fiory for the Matter of their IndjEimem, and a Lift of their Judges, who aBed, you know, by virtue of the Kin£s CommiQion. This I fear will alter the Cafe with refpeB to the Schifm between the Churches of Rome and England, and (^if J may be allowed to fay fo) J cannot fee how the Church of Rome became fchifmatick in relation to the Church of England, tiU her abominable Decrees in the Council of Trent ren- dred her heretical ; and for as much as Jhe then fore" clofed all Means of Re-union by her corrupt 'terms of Communion, (he likewife became fchifmatical. On the ether hand, for as much as the Church of England had made a Schifm before that time by the uncanonical and arbitrary Deprivations of the Bifiops before men- tioned under King Edward, / miift think JJje was fchifmatical in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. To this Objeftion I therefore think it behoves me at this time to return an Anfwer. And firft I think proper to obferve, that thq Church of Ro7ne was both heretical and [chifmatt- cal APPENDIX. 187 cal from the Catholick Church long before the Council of Trent : And had made her Terms of Communion unlawful by eftablifhing the Do- ftrmes of Furgatory, Tranful'fiantiationy the IVor^ jhip of Saints, Angels, Images, &c. The Popifli Bifhops were therefore Schifmatkks before King Edward's Days, and therefore the Bilhopricks were not here or elfevvhere properly and legally filled by them, tho' they adualjy poflefled the Ju- rifdidion and Revenues belonging to them, as the Arian Bifhops did in many Places in the Reigns of Conjlantim and Valens. And therefore how unjuitly foever Bonner, Gardiner, Day, and Heath, might be deprived by King Edward, when they had complied with the Reformation, yet it is certain they all reverted to Popery in Qoeen Mary's Reign, and thereby became heretical and fchifmatical, and fo loft a rightful Claim to their Bifhopricks before Queen Eltz^abeth came to the Crown. Confequently fuch of them as lived until her Reign were not the rightful Polfelfors of the Sees which they pretended to fill, and fhe had a juft Right to affift the Church with the Civil Sword, in ejeftinq them, as well as other Popijh Bifhops, and to defend and fecure fuch Orthodox Bifhops as the Church fhould put in their Places. But tho' the Popijh Bifhops be allowed to have been fchifmafical, and confequently to have been juftly ejected : yet, according to the Objector's Argument, the reformed Bifhops were fch[fni:iti- cal alfo, and therefore had no better Right to the Bilhopricks than thofe that were turned out to make room for them. To this then I anfwer in the next place, that admitting King Edward's Bifhops were fchifmatical (as indeed I cannot deny it, according to the Prmciples laid down i88 APPENDIX. in my Trafb concerning the Independency of the Church) becaufe they came into the Sees of inva- lidly deprived Bifhops, or communicated with thofe that did fo, yet when Queen Eliz,abcth came to the Crown they found the Sees all legally void, as being pofTeffed only by heretical Popifh Bi- fhops, who had no Right to any of them by rea- fon of their Herefy and Schifm. Confequently there being no Orthodox Catholick Bifliops who could lay a better Claim to any of thofe Sees than themfelves, if they then, or any of their SuccefTors jfince, openly renounced that Principle of Lay Deprivations which made them fchifmatical, and became in all other refpeds truly Catholick and Orthodox, by maintaining and adhering to the Dodrine and Worfiiip of the truly Primitive Ca- tholick and Apoftolick Church of Chrift, they at that time, Whensoever It Was, became the true rightful Bifliops of the Catholick Church in England. Another Point which the Writer of this Letter defires to be fatisfied in, is, a Pofition, p. 92, where fpeaking of the Church of England, as re- formed under King Ed-ward VL by the Afliftance of Martyr and Bucer, I fay 'tivas a very good Re- formation. And tho I conceive it hat fome DefeEls, and might he made more primitive, yet it hoi all things necejfary to Salvation. To this he fays* '* I believe it will be granted me that the Eu- *' chariftical Sacrifice is neceffary to Salvation, *^ fo then whatever Church has not the Euchari- ** ftical Sacrifice, has not all things neceflary to *^ Salvation. But our Church has not the Eucha- ** riftical Sacrifice : For if fhe does not ojfer what 5' our Saviour inftituted to be offered in ,the Eu? *• cha- APPENDIX. 1S9 '* chariftical Sacrifice, then fhe has not the Eu- »* chariftical Sacrifice. But fhe does not orfer ^' what our Saviour inftituted to be offered. Yoa *' know our Saviour offered Wine mixed luith Wa- " ter at the Inftirution of the Euchariftical Cup, "" which our Church does not, therefore cannot " be faid to offer what our Saviour inlHtuted to *' be offered. I fay, you know that our Saviour " did offer Wine mixed with IVattVy becaufe you *' have owned, />, 7. of your Introduction, that " we have Antiquity and Univerfality tor the *^ Churches Pradice in this Point : And mofl of " thofe early Fathers y Councils, and Liturgies^ " (Authorities too great to be difputed) which " inform you of the Church's Practice, affure " you likewife that our Saviour did it. " Nor is this the only ejjential DefeB our " Church is to be charged with m the Comme- " moration of this great Myflery, but fuch alfo " are, Firfli The want of the Invocation of the " Holy Spirit upon the Elements. Secondly^ The " not making an Oblation of the Sacrifice. " The latter of thefe you own to be an ejfential ^* DefeB in your Letter to Mr. Hart, which is *' prefixed to his Bulwark (iormed, (o that I need " not endeavour at the Proof of it. ** For the former, -yiz-. the Invocation of the " Holy Spirit , &c. we have the Authority of " Three of the Evangelifls that our Saviour did " it : i. e. that he eulogix-ed or euchariftiz^ed the " Elements, and we have likewife the Teflimony *' of St. Paul, when he reminds the Corinthians *' of what he had received of the Lord, and deli- ** vered to them concerning this Sacrament, " Ept/l I. Chap. XI. « And 190 APPENDIX. " And our Saviour himfelf at the Inftitutfori ** of this Sacrament lays this Injundion upon hii *' Difciples, nTn'sroiSTi, (^c. Now take the Verb «' «■#/«»' in what Senfe you pleafe, it will afford " me an Argument, either for the Matter (as " above infifted on) or for the Form of the Ce- ** lebration which I am here contending for. If " you take it as a facrificing Term, the Com- " mand will run. Sacrifice tha, viz. the Bread and " the Cup, oi I have mixed it, in remembrance of " me. If you take it in the common Acceptati- *' on of the Word, Do this, then the Command *' will run, Blefs the Elements^ and do all other AEis *' ivhich I have now done, in remembrance of me. And " that the Primitive Church conformed hereini " with refpeft both to the Matter and the Form, " we have the Authority of the earlieft Fathers " who give us an Account of the Chriflian Wor- " fhip, and likewife of the moft authentick Li- *' tureies now extant. -•••^ <*. *' Give me Leave therefore to ask you in what " tolerable Senfe we may be faid to retain this " Inftitution of our Lord's, when we obferve *' neither the Matter nor the Form of it ? If it be " anfwercd, that we do retain the Inftitution, " tho' maimed in fotne Parts of it, I ask again, " whether in a pofitive InjUtution every Part of it •' be not equally neceffary to be obferved , efpeci- " ally when there is nothing in the Nature of the " Things themfelves which can produce the Ef- " fcdts, but all the Benefits we receive thereby " are derived to us upon Account of our exaa: " Conformity to the Will of him that inftituted ^ them ? But again, ii every Part of a pofitive f* Inftitution be equally neceffary , where is the " Power APPENDIX. 191 "Power that can difpenfe with our Non-obfer- " vance of the foregoing Particulars? If there be " fuch a Power, that Power may difpenfe with as " many more Particulars , and fo on till the " whole be taken away, and then it will follow *' that our Saviour injiuuted fomething for a conti- " nual Remembrance of his Death, which might laW" ** fuliy be takeu away before his coming again. " It is urged by fome, that two of the three '' Things I have been fpeaking of, viz.. the In- " vocation and Oblation, are implied in the Prayer " of Confecration as it now ftands in our Litur- " gy ; if fo, I defire you to point out the Pafl'a- " ges to me, and give me your Comment upon " them J but I judge by your Pradice that you ** do not think they are to be met with there. If " they are, the third, /. e. the mixed Cup, is want- " ing, and the Ufe of it forbid by the Rubrick " before the Prayer for the whole State of Chnfi's *' Church. To this long Obje^ion againft the Church of England's having all things necejfary to Salvation, I muft confefs I know not how to return a fatis- faftory Anfwer. And muft acknowledge, that when I aflerted that it has all things neceffary to Salvation, I fpoke what I did think, becaufe I was willing to believe and perfuade my felf that it was fo. However, I will confider thefe Parti- culars more carefully when I come to treat of the Eucharift, as I have propofed to do in the Courfe of this Work. And fliall be very glad if in the mean time any Body will take off the Force of this Objection, by fhcwing, either that the inixei Cup, the Invocation, and Oblation, are not necefl'a- ry, or that they are to be found in the Liturgy as 192 APPENDIX* it now ftand$. This Objection has been already urged in Print in a Pamphlet called, Reufons for reftoring, dec. which was anfwered by another cal- led, No renfon for rejloring^ &c. But a Full Reply has been made to the No reafonj &c. in a Defenfe of the Reafons. And I muft own that I do think (till 1 can be better informed) that the mixed Cup, the Invocation, and Oblation , are necefTary, and that I cannot find them in the prefent Liturgy. Then the Wl-iter of the Letter proceeds, and fays, " A third Point I defire to be fatisfied in, " is, that it wm a good Reformation." Then he goes on, and fays, " Let us fettle the Account, " and fo v/e fhall better judge how much we are " Gainers by it. Fir/i, We diverted the Pope of ** his ufurped Power; but then we gave it to a *' Lay-man, who was not qualified to receive it. " Secondly, Wc reilored the Cup to the Laity, " but then ^^we reftored it but in part. 'Thirdly, ** We condemned the abfurd Do^rrae of Tranful- «' flantiation -, but then we deftroyed the Sacrifice *' too. Fourthly, We rejefted the Whim of Pur- ** gatory j but then we ftruck otf an Article of the ** Creed, and refufed Communion with the Saints ** departed. I might inftance in feveral other Par- ** ticulars, but I have not Time, and indeed it is *' fit I (liould beg Pardon for having detained you *' fo longi however, I hope my good Intenti9ns " herein will juftify me^ which were to fhew, that " altho' I am an Enemy to the Corruptions of <* Popery, yet I cannot flatter Martyr and Bucer fo ** far as not to think we ftand in almo/i as niuch " need of a Reformation from Calvinifm now, as ** we did from Popery in the Reign ai Edward the *• Sixth." APPENDIX. 195 Well then, fince the Writer of this Letter, whoever he is, wijl not allow me to fay that lu^ have n good Reformation, and has given fuch Rea-. fons for it as indeed I know not how to anfwer, yet I fhall ftill fay, that it is better than any other Reformation that ivm made from the Church of Rome ahut the fame time with rt, or any rime Jince, as it preferved to us the Epifcopal SuccefTion of the Priefthood, and thereby kept it in our Power to make it a very good Reformation , without any fo- reign Affiflance. The Lutherans and Calvmi/is, who have caft off Epifcopacy, and thereby de- ftroyed tha,t Priefthood which was fettled by Chn/l hirafelf, cannot reform their Errors, and return to a perfeft Unity with the truly Anci- ent, Primitive, Catholick and Apoftolick Church, without makmg their Application to Strangers, to reftore to them that Epifcopal SuccefTion of the true Priefthood, which they wilfully rejed- ed ; but we have nothing to do to compleat ouc Reformation, and make it perfeft, but to reftore that Part of the Doftrine and Worfhfp of the Chriftian Church which we ftill want, to make us one and the fame with that which was fettled by Chrift and his Apoftles, and which was ex- tended thro' all the known World at the Time of the Council of Ntce: until which Time, and longer, there was one Communion of Saint$ in all Nations and Languages, and the Charifmatay or extraordinary Operations of the Holy Spirit, continued in the Church. Therefore I canwot but think it the Duty of all Bifhops and Paftors of this, and every other Church, impartially ta examine and enquire what was the Doftrine and Worfhip of the Chriftian Church at that Time, O and 194 APPENDIX. and where they find their own Doctrine and Wor/hip to differ from it in any thing which was then thought material, that they ufe their beft Endeavours, and labour by Prayers to God, and Arguments to Men, to get all Things reftored agreeable to that Platform. For my own part, I muft declare, that whatever was then believed eflential to the Chriftian Dodrine and Worfhip, I believe to be fo flilJ : Whatever was then the iiniverfal Pradice of all Churches, I am perfua- ded ought to be fo now. Nor let it be faid, what can a private Bifhop or Prieft do in this Cafe ? Should he difcover never fo many eflential Defcds in Dodrine or Worfliip, his Hands are fo tied by Laws and Canons, that he has it not in his Power to corred the leaft of them. For in Inch a Cafe, that is, in Matters eflential to Chri- ftianity, no Laws or Canons can bind the Con- fciencej for no Human Authority can make void the Laws of Chri/iy or give us a bifpenfation for not obferving them. It is true, a Man may ex- pofe himfelf to Suffering by ading contrary to fuch Laws ; But Fear of fuffering for the Truth's fake , whatever may be thought of it in this degenerate Age, never affrighted the Primitive ChrilHans from their Duty. And they conquer- ed by Suffering, and made more Converts by that Teftimony which they gave to the Truth, by Dying for it, than they could do by Preach- ing and Writing. So that Sanguis Martyrum efi Semen Ecclejta, The Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Churchy became a Proverb. And I doubt not but if it fhould pleafe God to call any Bifhop or Priefl:, or other pious Chriftian , to fuffer for doing his Endeavour to reftore Pri- mitive Truths, and give him Grace to bear with APPENDIX. 195 with Courage and Conftancy whatever may be inflicted on him, it will be fo far from doing any Diflervicc to thofe Truths, that it will make many Converts to them, and will be a means of propagating them further than they would have reached otherwife. Whatever is elfential to Salvation muft be had, whatever Hazards we run to obtain it. And therefore ii any pri- vate Bifhop or Prieft find an efTential Dc(c€t in the Dodrine or Worfhip of that Church to which he belongs , and has not mean-s to get it amended by publick Authority or Allow- ance , he is obliged to corred it within his own Cure , whatever Danger he runs by (o doing. And for this reafon, tho' I was fure to (land alone in the Pradice (as I thank God I am not) I would mix Water with the Wine at the Miniftration of the holy Eucharift. I would offer the EuchariiHck Bread and Cup to G O D the Father, as the Sacramental or Reprefentative Body and Blood of his SON Jefus Chrift our LORD. And I would alfa pray to G O D the Father to fend the Holy Ghoft upon the Euchariftick Elements, to make them the Body and Blood of CHRIST our SAVIOUR. And .L.ihall pray for the Faithful departed, that they may reft in Peace, and obtain an happy Refurreftion. For I ara fully convinced that All These Are Neces- sary, Primitive And Catholick Parts Of DivLNE Worship, and therefore that no Hu- man Authority can abolifli or difpenfe with- out Obligation to the Pradice of them. And by GOD 's Grace I intend to give my Rea- fons why I am fo perfuaded , in the Trads O 2 which 196 A P P E N D I X. which are to follow; and in the mesn time Ihall refer my felf to the Pamphlets lately publifhed by a learned Gentleman, and which 1 have before mentioned, called, Riafous for refioring fome Prayers and DireBions , a.i they fiand in the Communion Service of the jirji re- formed Liturgy , compiled by the Bijhvps in , the Second and Third Tears of the Reign of King Edward VI. and the Defenfe of thofe Reafons. Booh^ ■•>€ «>2. .*>€- -o5 .*>s 5 .^/ .«os .*>s e .i