〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or a LETTER To a Friend; tending to prove, 

I. That Valid Ordination ought not to be repeated.  
II. That Ordination by Presbyters is Valid.    
WITH AN APPENDIX, In which, some brief ANIMADVERSIONS Are made upon a Lately Published Discourse of M. JOHN HUMPHREY, concerning RE-ORDINATION.  
By R.A. a Lover of Truth and Peace.  
Nulla ostenditur causa, our ille qui ipsum Baptismum amittere non potest, jus dandi amittere possit, utrumque enim Sacramentum est; & quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cum baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur, ideoque in catholica utrumque non licet iterare, nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes etiam preapositi pro bon● pacis correcto schismatis errore suscepti sunt, & si visum est opus esse, ut eadem officia gererent quae gerebant, non sunt rursus ordinandi, sed sicut Baptismus in iis, ita ordinatio mansit integra; quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitatis pace correctum est, non in Sacramentis quae ubicunque sunt, ipsa vera sunt: & cum expedire hoc videatur Ecclesiae, ut praepositi corum venientes ad Catholicam societatem honores suos ibi non administrent; none eye tamen ipsa Ordination is Sacramenta detrahuntur, sed manent super eos, ideoque eye in populo manus non imponitur, ne non homini, sed ipsi Sacramento fiat injuria, Aug. Con. Epist Parmen.  Lib. 2. Cap. 13. 
London, Printed for J. S. and are to be sold in Westminster-Hall and Paul's Churchyard, 1661.   

Eruditissimo Viro Joanni Humfreio in agro Somersetensi, Concionatori fidelissimo, R.A.S.P.D.  
POstquam hanc qualemcunque Responsionem non ad umbilicum modo, sed & ad calcem perduxeram, incidit mihi in manus Libellus tuus de Re-Ordinatione, in quo nihil reperi, quod Humfreium non spiraret, i.e. Virum Doctum, Candidumque & Pacis Ecclesiasticae studiosissimum: nondum tamen a me obtinere potui, ut in sententiam tuam pedibus eam; sed è contra, dum Argumenta tua ad examen revoco, firmius mihimet persuadeo Ordinationem sine insigni divinae Legis violatione, & gravissimo Ecclesiae scandalo non posse iterari. Patefiet illud ex Animadversionibus in diatriben tuam, quas ideo publici juris feci, ut tu vel veritatem a nostra parte stare agnoscas, vel saltem nos sine ratione non errare fatearis. Hanc Opellam meam, si dignam judices cui quicquam reponas illud unum exorandus es, ut nolis Adversarium (si tamen Adversarium) tuum contumeliose tractare. Satis acerbitatis nostrae virus evomuimus. Sciat jam Orbis Christianus nos Presbyterianos posse placide dissentire, & totius causae definitionem solius Sacrae Scripturae Arbitrio permittere. Hac Ratione quae Argumenta praeponderent gravitate sua facilius pendent aequi Lectores. Eterna illa lux Spiritu suo mentem tibi illustret, Dux iste maximus Manum dirigat, ut quae vera & salutaria sunt, & comprehendas certo, & promas fideliter; idem ille Deus me cui non ulterius permittitur in vinea laborare, dignetur aeterna in coelis requie, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Christian Reader,  
I Should needlessly show myself a Non Conformist, if I should send thee into the book without prefacing something concerning the Author, matter, and occasion, of what is here exposed to thy view: For the Author, thou art entreated to look upon him, as one who loves not to see his face in troubled waters, but would gladly spend his All upon those fundamental practical truths, in which all sincere Christians are agreed, having sadly observed all along this disputing Age, that the best of men in handling Controversies, have discovered more corruption in themselves, then mistake in their Adversaries; nor hast thou any reason to be offended, that he hath concealed his Name, which is published, would not have advantaged the Treatise, but rather have prejudiced some against the reading of it, and tempted the Respondent (if any one count so slight a piece worth answering) to make personal reflections, with which men's writings now a days are as full, as is the night of darkness: The matter discoursed of, is Re-ordination, a thing as generally condemned by the ancient Church, as Re baptization, yet now hugely justified, even to the censuring of all those who cannot submit to it. Men Renowned for their Piety and Learning, men that have been Ordainers of others lead the way, and those who have been ordained by them follow after, never considering whether the nature of the Ordinance be not such as makes it uniterable, nor whether they shall not hereby justify the rigid Prelatists in all their hard speeches against Presbyterian Ordination; for why should they be blamed who called it a Mock-Ordination, seeing the men who gave and received it, are content to let it be accounted such, taking the very same Orders that they do who were never looked upon as Ministers? all the Answer that is given is, that they do not renounce their former Ordination, nay, they openly declare, that they look upon it as valid, only they take a Confirmation from the Bishop, a Licence, as it were, to exercise that Ministerial Authority which hath been already conferred on them: But one would think rational men should not so easily suffer themselves to be deceived, Is there any thing in that form and manner of making and consecrating Priests and Deacons, that looks like a bare Confirmation? Are not all things so contrived and managed, that Ordainers and Ordained would be ridiculous, if they should intent any thing less than the conferring of the esse Ministeriale. I present unto you, Reverend Father in God, these persons present, to be admitted Deacons. If any one here can help himself by a mental reservation, and say, that he is presented to be admitted Deacon, which he is already, yet when presently after the Bishop saith, Brethren, if there be any of you, who knoweth any impediment, or notable crime in any of these persons presented to be ordered Deacons, sure he cannot think, that to be ordered Deacon, is only to be confirmed Deacon. Likewise, in the form by which a man is made Priest, there are many phrases used, which make it not at all to look like an admission, ad eundem gradum; and the very fees themselves that are paid, declare it to be something more. As for the occasion of writing what is now published, thou mayest soon perceive it was the Letter of a Friend, desiring the Author's judgement in the case: it is now published, to this end, that if any one be of a contrary mind, he may be induced to let us know his own reasons, and his Answers to ours, and this will be a work of high charity, to convert us from such an error, as is like to hinder us from exercising our Ministry. But let not any man think, he shall be able to convert us by railing, by bitter jeers, or Sarcasmes; the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. We shall think the cause is but weak, which must be supported by opprobrious language. This, good Reader, is all the trouble that is thought meet to be given thee by way of Preface. O pray for the peace of Jerusalem!   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: OR, A Letter to a Friend, tending to prove, 1. That Valid Ordination ought not to be repeated. 2. That ordination by Presbyters is valid.  
SIR;  
THat when you were invited to the constant preaching of the Word, I persuaded you to be ordained, is no matter of my repentance, nor need it be any matter of your repentance, that things standing as they then did, you made choice to be ordained by mere Presbyters, without a Bishop.  
I had in my eye that of the Apostle, How shall they preach, except they be sent, Rom. 10.15. that of the Prophet, Jer. 23.21. I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied; v. 32. I sent them not, nor commanded them, therefore they shall not profit this people, saith the Lord. Nor could I forget what holy, zealous Luther, hath in his Commentary on the Galathians: Non satis est habere verbum & puram doctrinam; aportet etiam ut vocatio certa sit, sine qua qui ingreditur, ad mactandum & perdendum venit, nunquam enim fortunat Deus laborem eorum, qui non sunt vocati, & quanquam quaedam salutaria afferunt, tamen nihil aedificant.  
You, 'tis like, had in your thoughts the example of the Transmarine Reformed Churches, and the judgement of our own Protestant Divines at home unanimously, till of late, determining Ordination by Presbyters to be valid.  
But now it seems you begin to question, whether you may not do that which will be a virtual and interpretative renouncing of your former Orders, take a second Ordination from some Bishop, and his Chaplains; the grounds you go upon are: 1. Because else it will not be possible to get any preferment in the Church: 3. Because some that were voiced formerly to have more of the Presbyterian in them then you, have already actually submitted to such a second Ordination.  
To deal plainly with you, either you are not the man that I have ever taken you to be, or else you have always had pectus praeparatum against all objections of this nature; either you did not sit down and consider before hand, what it would cost you to be a Minister of the Gospel, or it is not possible that the two things you mention should weigh much with you.  
Suppose the Anabaptistical Sectarian Frenzy should have so possessed the late Governors, as that they would have collated no live but on those, who though baptised in infancy, would afterwards take a second baptism at adult years. Suppose also that some learned, and seemingly godly men had yielded to Rebaptisation, would you forthwith have betaken yourself to some pond or river, and been dipped in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? If so, than your Religion is very much at the mercy of your Superiors, and we may thank the Parliament for your Orthodoxy.  
I presume you will reply the case is different, that you may with better conscience take a second Ordination, than a second Baptism: But I pray you where lies the difference? Is Baptism an Ordinance of God? so is Ordination: Is Baptism a Sacrament? so is not Ordination in the strict sense, but quid hoc ad Iphicli boves? It might be a Sacrament, and yet be iterable; for the Lord's Supper is in the most proper and strict notion a Sacrament, and yet by the appointment of God it is to be received more than once by all that have opportunity: That Ordination is not a Sacrament, makes it not iterable, because the end unto which it is by God appointed, is sufficiently attained by one administration of it, and the end of Ordination being once attained, to receive it a second time, would be to take an Ordinance of God in vain, as I shall by and by have occasion to prove more largely.  
For this is the method I intent to use with you: 

1. To show that you ought not to take Ordination from the Bishop, except your Ordination by Presbyters was a mere nullity, and in natura rei invalid.  
2. To show that your Ordination by Presbyters was not, cannot be rationally accounted, a mere nullity: These two things done, 'twill not be difficult for you to gather my sense about the case of conscience by you propounded.    
As to the first, I must premise two or three postulata, and they shall be such things, as to save myself a labour, I shall desire may be granted, but if they should not be granted, I should be able easily to prove them.  

1. I suppose that you are certain, you were ordained by Presbyters; for if there could be an invincible doubt, whether you were de facto, ordained or no, I should then grant you might for sureness sake be ordained in an Hypothetical form, si non ordinatus sis, etc.  
2. I suppose that when you were ordained by Presbyters, such a form of words was used as made you a Minister, not of any particular, but of the Catholic Church, for had you been made Minister only of that particular Church unto which you were first called, than your relation to that Church ceasing, you ceased to be a Minister, and so are returned to the condition of a private Christian; and therefore you know that the rigid sort of Independents do judge, that when their Pastor preacheth out of his own Congregation, he preacheth only as a gifted Brother, and charitatiuè, not as a Church-Officer, or authoritatiuè.  
3. I suppose that if you be ordained by a Bishop, you are to be ordained in such a form of words as is used when men are made ex non Ministris, Ministri, ex non Clericis, Clerici. This I suppose, because I have all along heard, that as many as have been reordained by the Bishops, have been by them looked upon and considered as Laics, being first made Deacons, than Priests in the very selfsame form and order that they are ordained, who never had any Consecration to the Ministerial Office.   
Were your former Ordination only to be completed and confirmed, I would not inject the least scruple into your mind, because I know, that though your Ordination by Presbyters was lawful, and sufficient to make you a Minister, yet it was perhaps not exactly legal and Canonical (at least, if there be any Law extant in England, declaring those, and those only that are ordained by Bishops, to be lawfully ordained) & 'tis but prudential to procure some instrument to ratify that which peevish people will be apt to take exception against.  
You know the late Parliament hath made an Act, in and by which, all, whether ordained by Bishops or Presbyters, are confirmed in their live, though not instituted and inducted according to the letter of Laws in force, before these most unhappy unnatural divisions. In this Act Ministers rejoice, and plead it against those who disturb them, yet do not think that they have been all this while Intruders, and Usurpers.  
Semblably would our Prelates so far consult either their own credit, or the peace of the Church, as to emit a general confirmation of all Ordinations by Presbyters, provided that the persons so ordained, be upon examination found sufficient, such a confirmation would not only be submitted to, but also most thankfully received, for in so doing we should stop the mouths of gainsayers, and yet give no occasion to our friends to call into question the validity of any Ministerial Acts done by us all this while.  
Nor would I in the least dislike it, if our Bishops (such of them as are holy, and may be supposed to have any interest and favour at the Throne of Grace) would when any are removed to a new charge, call their Presbyters, and pray for a blessing upon the endeavours of persons so removed, yea, and lay hands on them. I am much mistaken, or else such a practice may be warranted from Acts 13.2, 3. As they ministered and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate now unto me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. You need not tell me that chrysostom, and some other Commentators of good esteem, do understand this place of Ordination to an Ecclesiastical Office, I know they do; but yet seeing Paul was an Apostle before this time, seeing he expressly affirmeth, Gal. 1.1. that he was an Apostle not of men, neither of man, but by Jesus Christ; seeing also 'tis not said, separate unto me for the office, but for the work (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whereunto I have called: I judge it most probable, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is there spoken of, was not Ordinativa, but Optativa. Of this judgement is the learned Samuel Maresius, in his Examen of some of the questions determined by our judicious Prideaux, p. 32. So was Mr. Richard Vines in his excellent Sermon before the Parliament, upon the day of humiliation for the growth of Errors, Heresies, etc. p. 16. where you may find him also quoting Spalleto, lib. 2. de Rep. Eccl. cap. 2. parag. 12.  
But this I say, that he who hath once been ordained to the office and order of a Presbyter, and knows himself so to be, ought not by a second Ordination to be set apart to the same office.  
This I prove to you 1. from the (so called) Canons of the Apostles, Can. 67. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo Ordinationem susceperit, deponitor tam ipse, quam qui ipsum ordinavit.  
About the Authority and Antiquity of these Canons I will not contend with you, Dr. H.H. in his Reply to Dr. Owen, p. 10. acknowledgeth. that they were not written by the Apostles, nor by Clemens at the appointment of the Apostles, p. 12. and that his meaning in calling the second Canon genuine, was only to intimate, that it was not one of those 35 later Canons that were esteemed by learned men Novitii and Adulterate. The truth is, the opinion and esteem of the Latin and Greek Church hath been very differing and contrary, concerning these Canons: 'Tis certain, that the Synod assembled in Trullo, Can. 2. speaks honourably of all the eighty five Canons, for these are the words they use, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. John Damascen fears not to reckon them among, and equal them with the divinely ●nspired books of the New Testament; De fid. Orth. lib. 4. c. 18. But a Synod at Rome, about the year 494. decrees, that these Canons, as well the first fifty, as the other thirty five, are all spurious, and to be reckoned among those writings quae ab Haereticis sive Schismaticis conscripta vel praedicata sunt, quaeque nullatenus recipit Catholica & Apostolica Romana Ecclesia. Nor doth it signify much, that Dionysius Exignus, who lived not long after that Roman Synod owneth fifty of those Apostolical Canons, for he was, as Mr. D' ailee hath noted, p. 439. Homo ortu, ac natu, cultuque ac eruditione exterus; and therefore was willing to set off those Canons the best he could to the Romanists; yet seeing all these Canons are of some considerable Antiquity, I thought it not amiss to quote one of them, and let the Argument drawn thence far as it will.  
I argue secondly from the practice of our English Church, If any one had received Ordination from the Papists, though such an Ordination be very corrupt, very superstitious, yet because it was judged valid, the party who had received it, was on his Conversion looked upon as a Minister, and admitted to exercise all offices ministerial, without any new Ordination. In like manner, if any one in the Marian Persecution was ordained beyond the Seas, I find not that it was required of him, that he should be again ordained according to the form and mode used in the English Churches.  
I could name you hundreds that were acknowledged as Ministers, and suffered quietly to enjoy Ecclesiastical Benefices, and to perform all sacerdotal offices, merely on the score of their Ordination by Presbyters beyond the Seas, or in Scotland: But lest I should be tedious, I shall only mind you of one example related in the History of Scotland, penned by A. Bishop Spotswood, When some were to be ordained Bishops for Scotland at London-house, Anno Dom. 1609. a question was moved by Lancelot Andrews, Bishop of Ely, touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops, who, as he said, must first be ordained Presbyters, as having received no Ordination from a Bishop; the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, that thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful. This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at the day, and in the place appointed, the three Scottish Bishops were Consecrated.  
In which story I desire you to take notice, that the ground of Bishop Andrews question, whether they were not to be made Priests before they were consecrated Bishops, was his supposition, that having been ordained by mere Priests, they were not Priests: When it was once carried against him, that the Ordination by Priests was valid and lawful, he without scruple proceeded to the Consecration of them, though never made Priests in the way that Priests are made in England.  
I was also told, that in the late conference before his Majesty, when it was moved, that they who had been ordained by Presbyters, during the late distraction, might not be compelled to take any other Ordination: The Episcopal Divines refused to yield to that motion, and being pressed with the judgement of Antiquity against Reordination; they answered, that in calling such persons to be ordained by a Bishop, they did not call them to Reordination, but to Ordination, their former Ordination being not only irregular, and non-Canonical, but also null: And had they not fled to this, they must of necessity have been brought to repeat the Ordinations, that during the distractions, were made by Bishops, they being not done without manifold irregularities, as to time or place, or some other such circumstances.  
I prove thirdly, that he who is ordained with a valid ordination, ought not to be again reordained, because by submitting to such reordination, he doth take an Ordinance of God in vain: You are not of the number of those who deny Ordination to be an Ordinance of God, if you be, I must turn you over to D. Seaman, M. Lyford, the London Ministers, who have largely discussed that question, and irrefragably proved, that Ordination is so necessary, that no man can ordinarily, without breach of God's Law; enter the Ministry without it: You will rather say, that by being reordained, a man doth not contract the guilt of taking an Ordinance of God in vain; but if that be your answer, I thus assault you, To take an Ordinance of God either for no end, or for no such end as God hath appointed it unto, is to take an Ordinance of God in vain; but to be reordained after preceding valid Ordination, is to take an Ordinance of God either to no end, or to no such end as he hath appointed it unto. Ergo. If either Proposition need confirmation, it is the minor; but of the truth of that you will not long doubt, if you will but a little consider what the end of Ordination is, and that cannot better be gathered, then from the definitions that are usually given of Ordination, they are to this purpose, Ordination is an act, whereby in the Name of Christ, meet persons are separate and set apart to the work and office of the Ministry. Now I ask when you were ordained, were you thus separate and set apart or not? If you were not, than you were not ordained; if you were, what use serves your reordination unto? Perhaps you'll say, by that means you shall procure institution from the Bishops, and be the more acceptable to the people: But I pray you, where do you find any (I will not say precept, but) allowance of God, to take Ordination to satisfy the humour of unreasonable men? what example in Antiquity to encourage you to such a compliance? Friend, think on't impartially, was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of, conveyed to you by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery? if it was not, you have much to answer, for taking upon you to command the people to receive you as one of Christ's Ambassadors, they might have told you, that they were as much Ambassadors as yourself; if it was, do you think it would be any thing less than ludere sacris, to submit to another examination, and to have the Bishop and his Chaplains pray, that you may now receive that gift?  
I will conclude this first head of my discourse, when I have first minded you, that it is not long since, through the iniquity of the times, some Episcopally ordained, were constrained to have their residence either in the Gallican or Belgic Churches, where there is no Ordination but by Presbyters, would these Divines have been content to be reordained after the mode of those Churches, before they had been permitted to receive the double honour due to them as Ministers? if they would not, (as I presume they would not) why do they require that from others, which they would not have been content others should have required of them?  
If you should plead on their behalf, that their Ordination was valid, so is not Ordination by Presbyters; that I shall prove to be false and Popish by and by.  
If secondly you should allege, that our Prelatists would not require reordination from Divines ordained beyond the Seas, because they were not in a capacity to receive Ordination from a Bishop, but so were we that lived in England; and therefore deserve to be looked upon and dealt with as Laics, till we have repent of our Schism and Heresy, and that there's no better way to manifest our repentance, then by humbling ourselves, and receiving orders from them.  
Unto this allegation I have two things to say: 1. Supposing, (but not granting) that it was Schism for our young Divines to take Orders from Presbyters, when as with some little cost and trouble they might have received them from some Bishop. I say, that men's being Schismatics, doth not invalidate or make null either the Orders which they give or receive, nor hath the Church of God ever been wont to punish Schism, by compelling the Schismatic to receive new Orders: For this, you may please to read Gisber. Voetius Desper. causa Papat. lib. 2. sec. 2. cap. 13, 14. Nay, nor do our Episcoparians call such as were ordained by Episcopal hands to reordination, though sundry of them have fallen off from their Government, and joined in with Presbyterians, which yet they must have done, if Schism do evacuate and annihilate their Orders; if by being ordained by Presbyters, we fell into Schism, repentance, and the blood of Christ must take off the guilt of that sin, not reordination, and paying fees to the Bishop, or his Officers.  
But secondly, I am still so blind, as not to see, that it was any Schism to be ordained by Presbyters, for all Schism is sin, and all sin is a transgression of some good and righteous Law; but there was no transgression of any good righteous Law, in receiving orders from Presbyters, for if so, then either of a divine or humane Law; not of a divine, for there is not a Law of God requiring us not to be ordained by any but a Bishop; not of humane Law: For 

1. I cannot find any Law of the Nation enacting, that all Ordinations shall be made by a Bishop, and his Presbyters, and no otherways.  
2. If there had been any such Law, it might be questioned, whether it could oblige the conscience in such times of confusion as we were fallen into.  
3. If a man had been ordained by a Bishop in those days, he could not have got any Ordination every way argeeable to the Laws of the Land: Our Bishops tell us, that the Canons of 1603. are Law, if they be so, they themselves, during the late distractions, did transgress them with a witness: What if I should further add, that seeing our Bishops had clogged Ordination with Subscription to things unnecessary, disputable, to our apprehension sinful, they are the Schismatics who enjoin such Subscriptions, not we who refuse them.   Several weighty Arguments to prove this, might be transcribed out of Mr. Hales his Tract of Schism, a Discourse so solid, and yet become so scarce, that if in stead of being reordained yourself, you would get that reprinted, it would much oblige me.  
But it is time to come to the Second Part of my Task; which is to show, That Ordination by Presbyters is valid: which I shall endeavour by these following Arguments:  
1. If Presbyters and Bishops be not different in Order, than Ordination by Presbyters is valid: But Presbyters and Bishops are not different in Order, Ergo.  
The Consequence of the Major is founded on that Maxim, so frequently used by the most Reverend Usher, Ordinis est conferre Ordines; Proposition so evident, that it is acknowledged even by Dr. H. Ferne, one of the greatest upholders of the lately declining Episcopacy, in his Compendious Discourse, Page 115, 116, 117, etc.  
The Minor, That Presbyters and Bishops are of the same, and not a different Order, shall be proved by as good Authority and Testimony, as is produced, or can be expected in a Controversy of this Nature, viz. It shall be showed, that this was the general Sentiment. 

1. Of our Protestant Divines, whether English or Transmarine.  
2. Of very Learned, Famous Papists.  
3. Of Ancient Fathers living before some of the Controversies depending betwixt the Papal and Reformed Churches were in being.    
In writing of the Judgement of such Divines as are commonly called Reform and Protestant, I might be large: Indeed I scarce know one against me. The Late Archbishop of Canterbury, when he was to answer for his Degree, did give this for one of his Questions, An Episcopatus sit Ordo distinctus? Affir. But he was sufficiently checked for that Heterodoxy, by Dr. Holland, the Regius Professor, as you may find in Mr. Prynnes History of him. If you should be so curious, as to ask whence Mr. Prynne had that Relation? I can tell you, he had it from Dr. Prideaux, who was present at the Disputation. I can further assure you, that the Doctor of the Chair was so moved, that he told his Wife when he came home, that he had a Papist that day to answer under him in the Schools. Setting him aside, and some violent Followers of his, Protestant's generally hold, that a Presbyter and a Bishop do differ, Gradu, not Ordine: I'll not trouble you with Quotations from the Transmarine Divines, lest you should say they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor yet will I transcribe any thing from Dr. Field or Dr. Whitaker, or Dr. Rainolds, because 'tis yielded, that these, and several others held Episcopacy to be only some superior Degree and Eminence. Mr. Francis Mason renowned for his Defensio Ministerii Anglicani, hath in a set Discourse maintained, that Episcopacy and Presbytery are not distinct Orders, and that therefore the Ordinations of the Churches beyond the Seas are good and valid.  
Go we to the Times of King Edward the Sixth, in which, he Foundations of our Reformation were first laid. You may gather from Mr. John Fox, Vol. 2. Pag. 658. Edit. London 1631. That that young Josiah, by the Authority of his own Regal Laws, appointed certain of the most Grave and best Learned Bishops, and other of his Realm, to assemble together at his Castle of Windsor, there to argue and entreat, etc. Much I have longed to meet with an Author, from whom I might learn what was done at that Meeting; but could not hear of any one hat had met with any thing that might give me or others satisfaction, till of late casting mine eye cursorily upon a Piece Published by Mr. Edward Stilling fleet, a very Judicious and Peaceable Divine, I understood, that by some singular Providence, there came to his hands an Authentic M.S. of the Proceed here. From that, we are assured, that T. C. A. of C. afterwards Martyr, gave it in as his Judgement, That Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion. And from the same M.S. it further appears, That the Bishop of Asaph, Therleby, Redman, Cox, all employed in that Convention, were of the same Opinion, that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same; Redman and Cox expressly citing with approbation the Judgement of Jerome. Of the same Judgement undoubtedly were the Composers of that Tract, called the Institution of a Christian man, as may be seen in what they delivered about the (than so called) Sacrament of Orders. In a word, our Martyrs did so generally opine, that Episcopacy was no superior Order to Presbytery, that Dr. Heylin. in his Historia quinquarticular is, Part 2. p. 17. doth on purpose caution us that we should not attribute too much to them, or measure the Doctrine of our Church by them, lest we should be forced to allow the parity or Identity rather of Bishops and Priests, because John Lambert (he might have named many others) did so conceive. In the Primitive Church, saith he, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons, that is to say, Ministers, as witnesseth, beside Scripture, St. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul: Whereas those whom we now call Priests, were all one and no other but Bishops, and the Bishops no other but Priests, men ancient both in age and Learning, so near as could be chosen; nor were they instituted and chosen as they be now a days, the Bishop and his Officer, only opposing them, whether they can construe a Collect: But they were chosen also with the consent of the people amongst whom they were to have their Living, as showeth St. Cyprian: But alack for pity such Elections are banished, and new Fashions brought in. By which, saith the Doctor, Truly (if it may serve for a Rule) our Bishops must be reduced to the Rank of Priests: But falsely doth he add, that then the right of Presentation must be put into the hands of the people, to the destruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom.  
If I would produce all the Testimonies of the Learned among the Papists, my Papers would swell to too great a Bulk. D. Forbes the Scotchman, who hath deserved well of the Hierarchy, doth amply prove, that it was the general Opinion of the Schoolmen, that Episcopacy and Presbytery are the same Order: See his Irenicum, Lib. 2. Cap. 11. P. 154, 155, 156, 157, 158. You may also have recourse to Mr. Mason in the before commended Treatise concerning Ordination beyond the Seas by Presbyters. This also did so much stick with Bishop Hall, that he would not maintain Episcopacy to be a superior Order, though he were by Archbishop Laud much pressed so to do. See the Letters that passed betwixt these two Prelates, recorded by Mr. Prynne in Canterbury's Doom.  
Would you have me go higher yet to the Fathers, that deserve more reverence than these Popish Schoolmen.  
I might bring you Michael Medina, a Pontifician Writer, acknowledging that chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, were of the same mind with Aerius: See him, Lib. 1. De Sacrorum Hominum Origine & Continentia, Cap. 5. But because he is so severely chastised by Bellarmine for this concession, c. 15. De Clericis: I desire you to consider seriously, and impartially to ponder what is by Presbyterians produced out of these Authors themselves.  
Ambrose his words are these; Post Episcopum Diaconatus Ordinationem subjicit: Quare? Nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est. Uterque enim Sacerdos est. Sed Episcopus primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter, Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est. But these Commentaries, 'twill be said, though bearing the name of Amb. are not his. To avoid trouble and Dispute about a Controversy, which is not much ad rei summam; I grant the Commentaries are not the Commentaries of Ambrose: but then they are the Commentaries of one Hilary, as ancient as Ambrose, a Deacon of the Church of Rome. For it is observed by D. Blondel, that under that name Aug. quotes some words still extant in those Commentaries; and Augustine had a very reverend esteem of this Author. Though, if I mistake not, B. Hall in one of his replies to Smectymnuus, speaks of him very slightly and contemptibly.  
chrysostom in a Piece of his, never that I find, excepted against as spurious, his Homilies on 1 Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. there's not, saith this Holy Father, much difference betwixt Presbyters and Bishops: What think you? Did he mean they were of different Orders? He would then have said, they differ as much as may be, as much as Presbyters and Deacons do.  
The Collection of Questions on the Old and New Testament was very anciently ascribed to St. Augustine, 'tis not now by Learned men thought to be his; but the Author, whoever he was, had Antiquity and Learning enough to set him above Contempt. These are some of his words, Quid est Episcopus, nisiprimus Presbyter, hoc est, summus Sacerdos? Now I pray you, do not these words plainly imply, that a Bishop is but of the same Order with a Presbyter? Suppose you should meet with these words in any ancient Author, Quid est Praesidens, nisi primus Socius? Would you not quickly thence infer, that that Author judged the Precedent to be of no higher an Order then that of a Fellow?  
If this make you not of Michael Medina's Opinion, I then turn you over to Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanctae, Lib. 6. Annot. 324.  
Only you must give me leave to reply before I leave this Argument to two Objections, which would not be so great, had they not been used by so great Scholars.  
Obj. 1 'Tis said that Aerius is by Epiphanius reckoned among Heretics, for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters.  
Answ. It must be acknowledged that Aerius is by Epipha. on that account among others, branded for an Heretic, Heresy 75. with whom also jumps St. August. de Haeres. c 53. But, 

1. there's no mention of any Aerian Heresy either in Theodoret, or Socrates, or Sozomen, no not yet in the History of Eustathius, Bishop where Aerius was Presbyter.  
2. 'Tis acknowledged by most Protestants, that some things charged upon Aerius as Heretical, are not truly such. And if Epiphanius miscalled some of his other Opinions, so might he this also about Church-governors.  
3. This Opinion of Aerius about Bishops and Presbyters, was not condemned, nor so much as heard in any Council; and therefore some have judged that Epiphanius, though otherwise a good man, yet being hot and choleric, and incensed against Aerius, might condemn him out of private hatred.  
4. If Aerius was, as he is represented, turbulent, and factious and causelessely separated from those Churches in which there was a Bishop; I will easily grant, that he might justly be reputed an Heretic in that large sense in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken by Epiphanius and some other ancient Writers; for it is evident enough, that with them sometimes it denotes only a schismatic.    
I must not conceal it from you, that Dr. Jer. Taylor hath made some reply to all or most of these Ans. in his Episcopacy Asserted. Which Reply I am obliged to take notice of, lest I should seem to wave any thing that is brought against us. Thus therefore he, pag. 330. A Dissent from a public or a received Opinion, was never called Heresy, unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholic Doctrine: For the Fathers many of them did so; as St. Austin, from the Millenary Opinion; yet none did ever reckon them in the Catalogues of Heretics; but such things did only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to Catholic Faith, though in minoribus articulis, or to a holy Life.  
This is rather peremptory than satisfactory, If the Reverend Doctor had said, that nothing ought to be called Heresy, unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholic Doctrine, I might have let his Affirmation pass without a censure. But to say, that never any thing set a man in the Catalogues of Heretics made by Epiphanius, August. Philastrius, but what was either directly opposite to Catholic Belief, or to a holy life, is such a— as hath scarce dropped from the Pen of a Learned man. What thinks he of the Quartodecimani? Was their Opinion contrary to a holy Life, or to the Catholic Belief? I trow not. Yet are they listed among Heretics. Philastrius also reckoneth those in the number of Heretics, who thought, that the breath of life was the rational Soul, and not the Grace of the holy Spirit: but I do not imagine, that the Doctor can think that this Opinion was either contrary to the public Faith of the Church, or to holy Life. Let him proceed. p. 331. It is true that Epiphanius, and St. Austin reckon his denying Prayer for the dead, to be one of his own Opinions, and heretical; but I cannot help it if they did, let him and they agree it, they are able to answer for themselves, but yet they accused him also of Arianism, and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no Heresy, because the Fathers called him Heretic in one particular upon a wrong Principle? We may as well say this, as deny the other.  
Why then may not we also say, if Epiphan. and Austin condemned his asserting the parity of Ministers for heresy, we cannot help it; let Aerius and they agree it, etc. This is our Argument, they miscall one of his Opinions, therefore it may be, they did miscall the other. If they justly accused him of Arianism, (which whether they did or no, I find Learned men to doubt) then indeed he was an Heretic; but it will not thence follow, that whatever else he held was Heresy. He hath not yet done; for ibid. He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his Heresy was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men, as Epiphanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. This is but just affirmed; and therefore it will be sufficient Confutation to deny it. He that reads Hierom and Ambrose, will not think the Opinion ridiculous, or a scorn to all sober men. I shall follow him no further: for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople, is a huge Impertinence. Let it be Schism and Heresy (which with the Fathers assembled in that Synod seem to be all one) to divide from Canonical Bishops (such are not they who are neither chosen by the Clergy, nor by the People) and to set up Conventicles contrary to theirs: How will it hence follow, that it is Heresy to hold that Presbytery and Episcopacy are the same Order? To as little purpose, or less, is what follows out of the Council of Paris. And concerning the Acephali, p. 332, 333. The Acephali were so called, saith Isidore, because the Head, Chief, and First of them, could not be found. That seems to be a mistake, for Severus was the Head of them. Let us therefore betake ourselves to Nisephorus, (an Author certainly not very Reverend) to see whether he can give us any better Information about them. He tells, lib. 18. c. 45. That these Acephali were a madder sort of Eutychians, who maintained, there was but one nature in Christ: Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind; but it may be there's something in the Name that will touch them, and all that follow Hierom. Acephali saith Nicephorus, dicti sunt, quod sub Episcopis non fuerint: Proinde Episcopis & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque Baptismus, juxta solennem & receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratus, neque oblatio, aut res aliqua divinafacta, Ministeriumve ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. They would it seems, have no Black-Coats, as the late Phrase was. What is this to them, who would have Bishops willingly enough, only deny that they are of a distinct superior Order to Presbyters?  
Object. 2 The Second Objection is made from our English Church, which seems to make Episcopacy and Presbytery different in Order: For in the Preface of the Book Entitled, The Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons: It is said expressly, That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, Deacons. It follows not long after, And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, it is requisite that no man (not being at this present, Bishop, Priest or Deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following: In the body of the Book itself, we find a Prayer in these words following; Almighty God, Giver of all good things, who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy Servant, now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop, etc.  
Answ. This Objection seems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin, so very strong, that he hath urged it in two several Treatises, the one called Respondet Petrus, p. 98, 99 The other called Certamen Epistolare. the particular Page I do not now remember: But, 

1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion, it is so far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures, that there were from the Apostles times these Orders of Ministers in the Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove, that from no Testimony of Scripture it can be proved, that there were in the Apostles time any Priests or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken. He thinks that in the Apostolical Writings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth constantly signify a Bishop, and that all the Churches, of which any mention is made in Scripture, were governed only by Bishops and Deacons.  
2. The Doctor might have remembered what he pressed against Mr. Hickman, That Apices Juris nihilponunt; then would he not so confidently have urged passages in the Preface.  
3. At least he might have done well to consider, that his so much magnified Objection is a stolen one, and hath received its Answer from Mr. Mason, in the before-commended Treatise. It most unhappily falls out, that I have not the Book at hand; but if my Memory fail me not, more than ordinarily it doth, the Author of the Necessity of Reformation, gives you his full sense, if not his very words. That Book when it speaks of the making of Bishops, calls that a Consecration, not an Ordination, as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters; calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons; the other, the Form of Ordering Priests: But when it speaks of the other, it changeth this word Ordering, and calls it the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop; which shows plainly, that the Book of Ordination never means to make Bishops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor, but in a distinct Order of Christ and his Apostles Institution, superior to a Presbyter. Indeed the Preface doth not say, these three Orders, but only these Orders of Ministers, and in the Prayer, it is not said, that the Bishop is called to the Order, but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop.    
I had thought, here to have concluded my first Argument: But there is one Medium seems to me so considerable, to prove that a Presbyter is of the same Order with a Bishop, that I cannot omit it. You know, that it was required that a Bishop should be Ordained by three Bishops at least: Yet Anastasius in the Life of Pope Pelagius, tells us, that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Bishops and one Presbyter, who is by him called Andreas Ostiensis. Doth it not hence manifestly appear, that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the same Order with a Bishop, and impowered in case of necessity, to confer the very degree of Episcopacy? At this Example, the Learned Author of Episcopacy asserted, is very angry, and tells us, p. 166. That, Pelagius his taking in the Priest, was but to cheat the Canon, & cousin himself into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination. Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three Bishops, and better, because, so they were Bishops, the first Canon of the Apostles approves the Ordination, if done by two. But this is too slight a way of answering Antiquity. We must not till we see better reason, think that Pelagius and the two Bishops were so unworthy, as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon, or so wicked, as to make use of an hand, that being imposed, signified no more than would the Imposition of a Lay hand. Nor do I think, that in those days it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Bishop or no: For the Council of Nice requires three at least, and the consent of those that are absent signified by their Letter. And Pope Damasus in his fifth Epistle to the Bishop of Numidia, and other Orthodox Bishops, hath these words; quod Episcopi non sint, qui minus quam atribus Ordinati sunt, ordinati Episcopis, omnibus patet, quoniam ut bene nostis. prohibitum a sacris est partribus, ut qui ab u●o vel a duobus sunt ordinati Episcopis, nominentur Episcopi. Si nomen non habent qualiter Officium habebunt. And in the 16 Canon of the African. Council, at which were present no fewer than 217 Bishops, it was decreed in haec verba; forma antiqua servabitur, ut non minus quam tres sufficiant, qui fuerint a Metropolitano directi, ad Episcopum Ordinandum: And this usage they seem to have borrowed from the Synagogue, for it was a fundamental Constitution among the Jews, that Ordination of Presbyters, by laying on of hands, must be by three at least, as may be seen, Misna & Gem. tit. Sanhe. cap. 1. By the way, I desire you to take notice, how our Episcopal Brethren deal with us in this controversy; they call upon us to show them an example of a Presbyter laying hands on a Bishop; this case could not happen, but in the defect and absence of Bishops, for modesty will not permit a Presbyter to lay on hands, Bishops sufficient to do the work being present, and such defects of Bishops could be but very rare; but once we find there chanced to be such a defect, and then a Church of no mean denomination thought a Presbyter sufficient to do what a Bishop was to do: Now when we bring this example, they rail against it, and say, that it was done only in the want of a Bishop, and it had better have been left undone.  
My second argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, I'll put into this form; Either Ordination by Presbyters is valid, or else something essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters: But nothing essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters; ergo, etc.  
The major is evident, grounded on this plain Proposition, that it is only some essential defect that can make a thing invalid or null; he that wants either body or soul, is no true man, he that hath them, is truly a man, though he want many of the integral parts which concur to the integrity and perfection of a man.  
The minor I thus prove, if any thing essential to Ordination be wanting in Ordination by Presbyters, it is either material, formal, final, or efficient cause; but neither of these is wanting, ergo, nothing essential is wanting.  
Let the material, formal, final causes be what they will, doubtless they may be found in Ordinations by Presbyters, as well as in Ordinations by a Bishop, only we are told there is not a due efficient cause, for God hath appropriated Ordination to a Bishop, and it cannot have its effect, if performed by any other than him that hath attained Episcopal Dignity.  
This being that foundation, upon which the confidence of those who nullify all Ordinations by Presbyters, whether at home or abroad, is built, I shall take liberty to inquire, 

1. Whether if there were a Law of God appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop, it would follow, that all Ordinations without a Bishop are null?  
2. Whether there be any such Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop?    
As to the first, I humbly conceive, that if a Law could be produced, appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop, it would not follow, that Ordination without a Bishop were always invalid and null, my reasons are; 

1. Because 'tis generally agreed, that Jus Divinum rituale cedit morali, & necessitas quod cogit defendit.  
2. I find, that whereas by the Law the Priests were to kill the sacrifices, yet at such a time, when the Priests were too few, the Levites did help them, 2 Chron. 29.34. and neither God, nor the King, nor the people, offended at their so doing.  
3. Baptism is appropriated to the Ministers of the Gospel, yet if at any time it were administered by a Midwife, who neither was a Minister, nor was capable of being made such, such baptism was not by us here in England judged a nullity; yea, 'tis affirmed by sundry Schoolmen, that if baptism were administered by one Excommunicate, it were valid, and not to be repeated; and either my notes do fail me, or else this was the judgement of St. Augustine, for Melancthon out of Austin, ad Fortunatum, tells us this story, That two men were in a ship which was like to perish in a storm at Sea, the one very godly, but yet not baptised, the other baptised, but excommunicated; there being no other Christian in the ship with them, and they fearing they should be both cast away, knew not what to do in that condition; he that was not baptised, desired baptism by the hands of him that was excommunicate, and he that was excommunicate, desired absolution from the other, whereupon the question was moved, whether these acts were valid and good; Austin answers they were, and commends the actious.    
I come now to inquire, Whether there be any Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop; I say, there is not; if any say there is, illi incumbit probatio, he must proffer tabulas, produce the place where such a Law is recorded: For my part, having read the Scriptures with my best eyes, I could never find any such place, nor could I ever meet with that Episcopal Divine who could direct me to such a place; some have sent me to Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and of late one hath ventured to tell us in print, 
Mr. Sandcrof Ordination Sermon.  that this Text is as it were a kind of Magical glass, in which an eye, not blind with ignorance, nor bleered with passion, may see distinctly the face of the Primitive Church in that golden Age of the Apostles, the platform of her Government, the beautiful order of her Hierarchy, the original and derivation of her chief Officers, and their subordination both to one another, and to Christ the great Bishop of our Souls in the last resort; together with the manage, and direction of the most important acts of Government, both in point of Ordination and Jurisdiction too. This learned man's phrasifying thus concerning his Text, puts me in mind of that Impostor mentioned by Scultetus in his Annals, who persuaded certain Noble men, that he had adorned their Temple with very exquisite pictures, but such as could be seen only by those who were begotten in lawful wedlock; the Noble men, lest they should be thought not lawfully begotten, said, that they very well saw that painting: So here we are told of great matters that may be seen in this Text, but only by those whose eyes are not blinded with ignorance, nor bleered with passion; and so men will be ready to say, that they see these things, lest their eyes should be judged under these sad distempers; but I (who have my conscience to bear me witness, that I have often prayed for the eyesalve and Grace of the Spirit, that my understanding may neither be darkened with ignorance, nor bleered with passion) do ingenuously profess, that I am not able from this Scripture to collect, that the sole power, either of Jurisdiction or Ordination, doth reside in either Bishop or Archbishop. For,  

1. It's not improbable that Titus was left in Crect, and acted there, not as a fixed Bishop, but as an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist.  
2. 'Tis here said, that Titus was left to ordain Elders, but how? as Paul had appointed him: So that the question still emains, how Paul had appointed him to ordain, whether alone, or with his Sym-presbyters: Paul himself ordained not alone, for aught appears; for though he once spoke of the gift that Timothy had received by the laying on of his hands, yet elsewhere 'tis called, the gift received, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: If it should be said, that this Presbytery was a company of Bishops, who in that first age of the Church, were called Presbyters, there needs no other answer, but that this is only said, and not proved: If it should be said, that this Presbytery did only act associative, and not authoritative, which, if I mistake not, is the distinction and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the learned Bishop Prideaux in his Fasciculus: I could easily reply, that the terms are not opposite, and that the gift and authority is plainly said to come by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, as well as by the laying on of the hands of the Apostle; which answer will also serve to that evasion which is excogitated concerning the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage; Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, manum super caput ejus tenente, etiamomnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant; brought by Presbyterians to prove, that there is an  power of Ordination in Presbyters, and that in the judgement of those who made that Canon, the Bishop alone should not ordain. Doctor Downham, and another learned Doctor, (but lately dead) would bear us in hand, that this was only done for greater solemnity, not as if the Presbyters had any power to confer orders, but only to testify their consent. But can any one who is inquisitive after truth be thus satisfied? Let any one instance be produced of any one's laying on of hands in Ordination, only to testify their consent: The people did in the first and purest Ages, testify their consent, as might be proved, by six hundred testimonies, yet were they never allowed to lay on hands in any Ordination of Presbyters, or Deacons.  
3. I do much question, whether if this example did every way fit and suit our Episcopal Ordinations, it were sufficient to argue a Divine Right. I know no party, no interest, no persuasion of men, that count themselves obliged to conform to all Apostolical examples.   
Object. But Episcopacy is of Divine Right, and if so, what should be proper and peculiar to it, if Ordination be not?  
Answ. In this objection you put me upon a new task, which yet I will not decline, and shall show you: First, that our Prelatical brethren have not been able to prove Episcopacy to be of Divine Right: Secondly, give you my reasons why I conceive it is not of Divine Right.  
1. I say, the Prelatists have not been able to prove its Divine Right; to evince this, I must examine the arguments brought by them.  
Lately one preaching at St. Mary's, Oxon, took an occasion, where his Text offered him none, to assert the Divine Right of Episcopacy in his Sermon, he quoted a place out of the Old Testament, in which the 72 Interpreters have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Now, quoth he, had there been but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And some say, that Elijah was Bishop of Samaria, and we know that our Saviour was a Bishop, and he made his Apostles Bishops, and they made Timothy and Titus Bishops; and therefore Episcopacy being founded on Old and New Testament, I cannot but think it is Jure Divino, for I cannot imagine, that it was a Ceremony to be abolished at the coming of John Calvin: Are you able to stand before this mighty argument? doth not the reading of it cause a greater trepidation in you, than ever was in the eighth sphere? Well, to cure you of your palpitation, I shall tell you, that the same Gentleman made Hernia to be a Fever, and yet Physicians notwithstanding are resolved to think it is bursted belliness, and that Hercules brought the River Eridanus through the Augaean Stable; and yet the unhappy Schoolboys will say, it was not the River Eridanus, but the River Alpheus; and therefore it is not impossible that the Gentleman might be out in his Divinity also, and that he was so, you will easily discern, so soon as your fear is a little over. I might put you upon too merry a pin, if I should play upon all the weaknesses of this Theologasters' argumentations, and therefore I shall let it pass,  
Take notice of those arguments which are brought to prove the Divine Right of Episcopacy, by men of better learning and judgement, having only premised this, that a thing can be of Divine Right but one of these two ways, either by the Law of Nature, or by some positive Law of God; they that would go about to prove that either Prelacy or Presbytery, or any other particular form of Church Government, is determined by the Law of Nature, would quickly bewray their weakness, all the divine right that Hierarchy can pretend to, must be founded upon some positive Law of God, and must be either some Law under the Old Testament still obliging, because not repealed, or else some new Law made under the Gospel. Our Prelatists' love to have both these strings to their bow: 1. They insist much on the inequality that was in the Tribe of Levi under the Old Law, to prove, that there should be still an inequality among Church-governors under the Gospel, the strength of which will soon be tried, if we first inquire what inequality there was in the Tribe of Levi, it must be acknowledged, that there was no universal equality in that Tribe, the Priests doubtless were above the Levites, being employed in a nearer attendance upon God's service: 'Tis also obvious, that among the Priests there was a superiority, Eleazar is by God placed over the Priests; but then I judge (as do most skilled in Jewish Antiquity whom I have met with) that much, if not all of this inequality, which is so largely described, Numb. 3.4. did not belong to the Tribe of Levi, as it was a Tribe, consisting of persons called out for the service of God, but as it was a Tribe: Every one of the Tribes of the children of Israel had its chief father, as may be seen, Numb. 34. The several families of the Tribe of Levi had their several heads, and Eleazar was appointed to be the head of these heads; so that to prove any thing hence, we must first suppose the Judicial Law to be in force, which would gratify the Anabaptists, and some other fanatics, more than we are ware of: I demand, would our brethren prove hence, that as there was superiority and inferiority of offices under the Law, so there may be, or must be under the Gospel; we'll not contend, for we can yield it to them, without any detriment to the cause of the Presbyterians, they have Presbyters and Deacons, and the office of a Presbyter is by all thought to be above the office of a Deacon; but I had thought they would from the Jewish pattern, have endeavoured to prove the Bishop's power of Jurisdiction and Ordination, whence they will fetch that I wots not, not, I hope, from the supereminent power of the Highpriest, the type of Christ, for than we shall bring in a Pope, not from the superiority of the Priests over the Levites, for the Priests had no Jurisdiction over the Levites, they had the several heads of their families, under whose jurisdiction they were; as for any power of Ordination, it could have no place, the Levites coming to their honour without Ordination, by succession; besides, in a case of necessity, I proved before, that a Levite might do the work of a Priest: If our brethren will grant, that a Presbyter may, in such a case, do the work of a Bishop, we shall be nearer an agreement then as yet we are. Thus have we, without any great difficulty, rid our hands of the argument drawn from the Old Testament.  
Come we to inquire, whether J. Ch. by any action of his, did institute any such Hierarchy as is contended for; that he did, is thus argued by a learned Doctor, Episco. Asser. p. 22, 23. This office of the ordinary Apostleship, or Episcopacy, derives its fountain from a rock, Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters; for when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples, who believed him at his first preaching, Vocavit Discipulos suos & elegit duodecem ex ipsis, quos & Apostolos nominavit, saith S. Luke; he called his Disciples, 
Luke 10.  and out of them he chose twelve, and called them Apostles, that was the first Election: Posthaec autem designavit Dominus & alios septuaginta duos, that was his second Election; the first were called Apostles, the second were not, and yet he sent them two by two: We hear but of one Commission granted them, which when they had performed, and returned joyful at their power over devils, we hear no more of them in the Gospel, but that their names were written in heaven; we are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion, if they can but hold their own, and so we do, for after the passion, the Apostles gathered them together, and joined them in Clerical Commission, by virtue of Christ's first Ordination of them, for a new Ordination we find none, before we find them doing Clerical Offices. Ananias, we read, baptising of Saul, Philip the Evangelist, we find preaching in Samaria, and baptising his Converts; others also we find, Presbyters at Jerusalem, especially at the first Council, for there was Judas surnamed Justus, and Silas, and S. Mark, and John (a Presbyter, not an Apostle, as Eusebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas, who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem: These, and divers others, are reckoned to be of the number of the 72, by Eusebius and Dorotheus. Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministers, Apostles, and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them; these were distinct, and not temporary, but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearly a divine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them.  
Answ. This is a marvellous discourse, the tendency whereof I understand not; I think that Christ did neither institute Bishops nor Presbyters, in this first or second Mission.  
Both these Missions seem only temporary, and the 70, after their return, remained in the nature of private Disciples, till after the Resurrection they received a new Commission to preach and plant Churches; and the twelve, after this Mission, must needs be but a kind of Probationers, till Christ solemnly authorized them, and gave them that plenitude of power, which we find him not to do, till after his Resurrection from the dead, Mat. 28.18. Joh. 20.21.  
Of any power of jurisdiction or order that the twelve had over the seventy, by virtue of their Mission, there is not the least vola or vestigium in Scripture; the seventy had their power immediately from Christ, as had the twelve, and their Commission was as full and large, as was the Commission granted to the twelve, as will soon appear, by comparing Mat. 10. with Luke 10.  
I observe indeed from John 4.2. that Christ's Disciples did baptise, but see no necessity of restraining that phrase to the twelve, who were called his Disciples; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All the Writers of the harmony of the Gospel do agree, that this baptising was before any Gospel Ministry was instituted, yea, before that Peter and Andrew, James and John, were called to be fishers of men; that baptism therefore might be administered by any of these that did usually accompany the Messiah, he appointing them so to do, and so being chief in the action, the learned Isaac Causabons' words are considerable, Etsi non Christus ipse, sedejus Discipuli baptizabant; Christi tamen, non Discipulorum baptismus & creditus est, & vocatus: qua de re placet perelegantem Tertulliani locum proffer, sic ille in libro de baptismo: Sed ecce, inquiunt, venit Dominus, & non tinxit. Legimus enim, & tamen is non tingebat, sed Discipuli ejus; quasi revera ipsum suis manibus tincturum Johannes praedicasset, non utique sic intelligendum est, sed simpliciter dictum more communi, sicut est verbi gratia, imperator proposuit edictum, aut praefectus fustibus caecidit, nunquid ipse proponit, aut nunquid ipse caedit: semper is dicitur facere cui praeministratur, simile est quod Jurisconsulti tradunt videri eum facere, qui per alium facit.  
Besides, Christ in his administrations did, though in some things forsake, yet in many, if not in most things, follow the Jewish mode, and Mr. Lightfoot in his harmony of the New Testament, page 18. tells us out of Maimony in Issure, that to the Jewish baptism, it did suffice, if there were but three, though private persons present.  
In a word, we do not find that Christ before his Resurrection gave any order for the gathering of Gospel Churches, and therefore gave not any power to his Apostles over them, or any Officers belonging to them; consider we therefore what he did when he was risen from the dead, we find him appearing betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension seven times, at the third time of his appearance, he said to the Disciples, John 20.21. As the Father sent me, so send I you, and when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them, and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.  
In these words, Totius familiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut principatus in ipsa clavium promissione ante promissus singulis concredebatur, saith the learned Doctor Hammond, Disser. 3. page 150. and presently after, page 151. His duodecim in terris Christi vicariis ejus mandato aut diplomate munitis, eademque ratione a Christo Missis, qua ille a patre mittebatur; adeo omnis in Ecclesia authorit as in solidum & in integrum commissa est, ut non ea cuivis mortalium (demptis pauculis, etc.) recte tribui possit, nisi quem Apostolorum aliquis in profectionibus aut Provinciis ipsorum aut immediate aut mediate in potestatis & authoritatis suae participationem aut successionem admiserit.  
Let us therefore a little view that text in St. John 1. there are who say, that in those words, no Apostolical power is given, but only promised, As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you, i.e. saith Grotius, Brevi mittam praesens pro futuro: In this Exposition he is not singular, some ancienter than himself, by many years, went that way before him; his, and their ground so to do, was the speech of our Saviour, John 16.7. I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you.  
But I judge, with Tolet, that Christ's very breathing on them, makes it highly probable, that he gave them present Commission and Authority to that place, John 16.7. Cyril answers, that Christ did anticipate his promise, and that it was usual with him to give before hand some specimina of those things which he promised to do after his return into heaven: Another observes, that Christ doth not say, if I depart, I will give him unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you; and that the spirit is not properly said to be sent, but when he appears in some visible shape, which he did not till Pentecost, the Disciples did now receive the Holy Ghost, yet they did not now receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: To use Theophilacts phrase, they received him not to all the intents and purposes unto which they were afterwards to receive him, they were to wait at Jerusalem to receive the spirit, in order to those extraordinary gifts of working Miracles, speaking with Tongues, etc.  
But to whom is this Commission given? surely to all the Apostles, for though, as we read in the following verses, Thomas was absent at this apparition, yet his absence notwithstanding, the spirit might be, 
Vid. Cyrillum.  and was given to him: When the spirit of Moses was to be put on the seventy, it came upon Eldad and Medad, though they were in the Camp, Num. 11. The greatest question to me is, whether these words were spoken only to the eleven, and not also to the seventy, or at least some of the seventy, because I find, that the two Disciples that were going to Emaus, told the joyful news of Christ's Resurrection to the eleven, and to them that were with them, Luke 24.33. And as they thus spoke, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you, ver. 35. Nor is there any thing in Saint John, that can necessitate me to think otherwise: yet nevertheless, upon some other reasons, I am content it should be supposed, that this Commission was granted only to the eleven, as also that Mat. 28.18, 19  
But what hence can be gained, that will in the least prejudice Presbyterians, I wots not, the Apostles were all equal, and for those forty days that Christ continued with them, it appears not that there were any Church-Officers besides them; and therefore it cannot from any action of Christ be collected, that there ought to be an inequality among the Ministers of the Gospel.  
Doctor Hammond supposeth that Mathias was one of the seventy, who was by the Apostles and Disciples, or rather by God himself, designed and chosen to come into the room of Judas, and this he calls Exemplum Presbyterianorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pessi●●●●●●inans▪ page 153.  
But why he should so call it, I know not, for the Presbyterians do not say, that there are not divers Orders in the Church, but only that there are not divers orders of Ministers of the Gospel, and that Mathias his being chosen from a private Disciple, to be an Apostle, should prove, that there are divers orders of preaching Ministers, would be strange.  
Indeed, should Presbyterians grant the Bishops do succeed Apostles, and Presbyters do succeed the Seventy, than Mathias his being chosen to be an Apostle (supposing him to have been one of the Seventy) might with some colour be urged; but many Presbyterians there be, who grant no such thing, nor doth Dr. Hammond think, that the Seventy were Presbyters by virtue of their Mission: For he contends for the opinion of Epiphanius, who makes seven of the seventy to be the men that were chosen Deacons, and further adds, that the rest were made Evangelists, but that Evangelists and Deacons were much the same: In idem plane recidit quantum ad 70 Discipulos attinet sive ad Evangelistarum, sive ad Diaconatus gradum ascendisse eos dicamus, page 159.  
Yet he thinks not meet to quit Christ's making and Commissionating of the eleven Apostles, till it have afforded him an argument for his Episcopacy, which is briefly propounded in his answer to the London Ministers, page 4. The power derived, as from God the Father to Christ, so from Christ to the Apostles, was derived to them, not as to a Common Council of social Rulers, but as so many several Planters and Governors of the Church, each having all power committed to him, and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it. This is more largely deduced in his Latin book against blondel, Diss. 3. c. 1, 2, 3, 4.  
The Reverend Doctor hath no where put this argument into a syllogistical form, nor will I venture to do it, because I am not able to frame out of it any conclusion that will any way incommodate the Presbyterian platform of Government. Be it so, that a single Apostle had power over the Churches planted by him, what is that to a single Bishops having power, sole power of jurisdiction, not only over the Churches in his Diocese, but also over the Presbyters and Rectors of those Churches? 2. How doth it appear, that it was the mind of Christ, that any single Apostle should put forth his power of Ordination without the conjunction of some other or others, either Apostles, or Apostolical persons, or Presbyters, in all the New Testament, I cannot find they did so, but I find many Instances and examples, by which it appears, that either they might not do so, or at least did not think meet so to do. When Paul was Ordained, if Ordained, was it not by three? When Timothy, was it not by a Presbytery?  
But I will not go about further to fit a shoe to a foot I know not; only give me leave to tell you, that there is one Hypothesis which I perceive, the Doctor lays much stress upon in that and other Discourses, the which, unless it be granted to him, (and Adversaries are not now adays so kind, as to grant much) he can never be able to prove: I'll give you it in his own words, Disser. p. 147, 148. speaking of the words of Christ to his Disciples, Mat. 28.19. He thus expresseth himself; Illud sine dubio non universorum ad omnes, sed singulorum ad singulas mundi plagas, ut ad totidem Provincias, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, administrandas profectione praestandum erat, etc. Quod & factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Mathias in traditoris Judae, locum surrogandus & eligendus proponatur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 25. (Sic ut verba ista, non ad Judam defunctum, sed ad Successorem ejus superstitem pertineant adeoque in praecedente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conjungantur) ut ad locum, i. e. Provinciam propriam, aut peculiarem, aut singularem proficiscatur.  
You see to gain some countenance to his Opinion from Scripture, he is fain to make those words, from which Judas fell, to come in by way of Parenthesis, and to refer the last words, that he might go to his own place, not to Judas the Son of Perdition, but to Mathias or Barsabas, one of which was now to be, by the Lot falling on him, chosen to make up the number. But whom doth the Doctor follow in so doing? Our English Translation? No. His Friend Grotius? Neither. His words are, significatur eventus scelera ipsius justo Dei judicio consecutus. Proprium, i.e. qui ipsi melius conveniebat quam Apostolica Functio: And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuscript, a very ancient one, in which, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the place which he deserved, that is the Gallows, or Hell itself.  
I would fain know, whether Provinces were divided to several Apostles by Christ, or by agreement among the Apostles themselves. If Christ designed each Apostle his distinct Province, let it be shown where and when. If it be said, that such Division was agreed upon among themselves, I ask when? Before their Master's Ascension or after? 'Tis not like 'twas made before, the Disciples then not being out of their Golden Dream, of a temporal Kingdom, as appears, Acts 1.6. After the Ascension, we find them all waiting at Jerusalem for the Promise of the Father, and when they had received it, 
V●de hanc hypothesin  & proliae refutatam a doctissimo Stilling-fleet, Irenici, p. 233, 234, 235, 236.  they still at least for some time, continued at Jerusalem, Acts 8.1. When they removed, common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way, nor do I think they did, but they disposed of themselves as God in his Providence directed, and offered opportunity. But so far were they from parcelling out of the world among themselves, that sometime passed ere they were convinced, that it was their duty, or so much as lawful, to preach unto the Gentiles.  
By this time, I hope you see, that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Episcopacy, it must be Apostolical practice, and I shall easily grant that the Apostles being by their Commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God, whatever they did with an intent to oblige succeeding ages, may well be accounted to be established Jure Divino.  
But then I do with some confidence challenge all the Prelatists to show me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Bishop having Presbyters under him, and yet engrossing all power of Jurisdiction and Order to himself. Yea I do challenge them to show me any one Bishop that had under his Charge so many Souls as are in your Parishes of Stepney and Cripplegate.  
I take the Apostles to be unfixed Officers, and such were Timothy and Titus. Dr. Hammond himself (who hath deserved best of the Episcopal Cause) Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath these words, Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders, have been also extended to a 2d Order in the Church, and is now only in use for them, under the name of Presbyters, yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally▪ if not alone to Bishops, there being no evidence, that any of that second Order were then instituted; though soon after, before the writing of Ignatius his Epistles, there were such instituted in all Churches.  
Well then, if there be no evidence that any such were instituted, we shall think there were none such; for de non existentibus & non apparentibus, eadem est ratio. And if there were no Presbyters, than there were no Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters. And 'tis plain enough, that every worshipping Congregation had its Bishop in the Apostles times.  
But the Reverend Doctor in his Answer to the London Assemblers (as he calls them) p. 107. thus brings himself off; John I know was an Apostle, and John I believe, ordained Presbyters, and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical Institution, i. e. in effect, the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters.  
I also know that St. John was an Apostle; but what should induce me to believe, that he instituted a second sort of Presbyters, who were only to preach and administer Sacraments, but had no power either of Order or Jurisdiction? Must I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith? If with a divine Faith, show me some infallible Testimony for it. If an humane Faith be the greatest and highest Faith a man can attain unto, what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in, that can only have some probable persuasion that their Order is Jure Divino. Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter, that can have no greater assurance that it was the mind of Christ, that there should be any such Office in the Church? Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to institute this second Order of Presbyters, as well as St. John in his? If they had not, how was their power equal? If they had, why did they not put it forth? It will not I suppose, be said, they wanted care, but only that the number of Believers was not so increased, during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle, as to require such kind of Presbyters. Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted, to be governed by a Bishop and Deacons, how will it be clearly and evidently proved, that it was those Apostles intention, that the Bishop, who when they left him, had power over the Deacons and people only, should when the Church's necessity did require, constitute Presbyters, and have power over them. This Intention must be manifested and declared from some passages in Scripture, or else it will not by Protestants be looked on as a Law of Christ, or as a thing of perpetual concernment to his Church: For either the Scripture is a sufficient and full Record of Christ's universal Laws, or it hath not that Perfection, which the Reformed in their Controversies with Catholics, do ascribe unto it.  
But why do I stay so long about this? The place produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus, to prove that St. John in Asia instituted these secondary Presbyters, proveth no such thing. Read it, and you will agree with me: It is recorded in Eusebius, l. 3. c. 23. after the Greek division. (In Mr. Hanmers' English Translation, 'tis the 20 chap.)  
As for the place in Epiphanius, that so often occurs in Dr. Hammond, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 

1. 'Tis a place very obscure, and so unfit to build an Opinion on.  
2. It may seem to savour of the opinion of those who say, there is no particular Form of Church-Government by divine right.  
3. It hath nothing in it peculiar to St. John: It no more proves that St. John instituted second Presbyters, than that St. Peter instituted such.  
4. I might tell you that as Ancient and Reverend Ecclesiastical Writers as Epiphanius, when they have been engaged, have boasted of a false matter, and talked of Records and Traditions where there were no such things.    
You will now expect before I take my leave of the Arguments brought for Episcopacy, that I should answer that brought from Succession: For it is said, that in all places Bishops did succeed the Apostles. But this Argument I have always accounted but slight, such as will not weigh much with you, if you consider,  
1. That the Question is not whether Bishops did succeed, but whether Bishop's exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters?  
2. That the Catalogues that are brought of the Successors of the Apostles were made by conjecture, and delivered down to us by men that lived at a great distance from the Apostolical times. Read the ingenuous Confession of Eusebius, l. 3. c. 4. If he, so studious in searching into antiquity, that he is by a Learned man of our own called the Father and Fountain of Ecclesiastical History, was at such a loss in the matter of Succession, at what a loss must they needs be that lived after him? Lest this should seem a mere shift, I will take notice of one Authority produced, I think by almost every one, who hath engaged in the Episcopal Cause, but most magnified by Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Episcopacy asserted. These are his words, p. 79, 80. I shall transcribe no more testimomonies for this particular, but that of the General Council of Chalcedon, in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus: Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spoke it in full Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The splendid Name of the General Council of Chalcedon, made me curious to inquire into the very bottom of this Testimony. I have so done, and thus I find the matter to stand: The Calcedonian Council was called by the Emperor Martian, Anno 451. or 452. or 454. as some compute. In it, saith Dr. Prideaux, Matters were mostly transacted by favouring Parties between Leo the first of Rome, and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople; Let that pass: In the 11th. Action of this Synod, I find in Binius and Crabbe, that Leontius did use the words that are quoted from him: But what was this Leontius? A man, saith the L. Brooks, in his Discourse of Episcopacy, p. 66. whose Writings have not delivered him Famous to us, for Learning, nor his exemplary Holiness (mentioned by others) famous for Piety. Surely not of Credit enough to sway our Faith in this Point, because he is contradicted and convicted of falsehood, by Philip, a Reverend Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, and by Aetius, Archdeacon, who instance in divers others besides Basilius, that had been Ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople: So that the General Council of Chalcedon proves to be the Testimony but of one man, and of one who was either ignorant of the Truth, or else did love Falshood. In a word, what is it in antiquity, from whence out Episcopal Brethren will argue the Divine right of Episcopacy? From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? We will grant, that all along from the Apostles times, there have been those in the Church, who were called, and might not unfitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Bishops: But we deny that those whom the Ancients did call Episcopos, were Bishops in our sense, i.e. We deny, that they were looked on as having the sole power of Jurisdiction and Order. Let the Prelatists prove, that for 1500 years, or for 800 years, Presbyters have been looked upon as poor inferior Creatures, having only power to preach the Word, and not to administer Discipline, I for my part, promise faithfully to yield the Cause; and my heart would even leap for joy, that I were so conquered: For I do assure you, it goes more against the hair with me, to put forth one act of Discipline, then to study twenty Sermons. Are our Brethren offended with us, that we argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Scripture, and will they argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers? That is not fair play.  
But I shall now give you my Arguments to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right, and they shall be two: The first, I shall cast into the Form of a disjunctive Syllogism, thus; If Episcopacy be of Divine Right, then either the Romish or the English Episcopacy: But neither the Romish nor the English: Ergo, none at all. As for the Major, it contains a sufficient enumeration: For though there be Episcopacy of a different mode exercised in other places, yet that Episcopacy which is established in the Roman Churches, and the Reformed English Church, doth most pretend to Divine Right. You dodbtless will deny my Minor, and say, that our English Episcopacy is of Divine Right. But I prove it is not: thus, If our English Episcopacy be of divine Right, then either all the Circumstances and Appendages are of Divine Right, or only the substance of it: But neither: Ergo. All the Circumstances or Appendages of it, to be sure, are not Jure Divine.  
1. their way of Election is not jure divino; there's no Command of Christ for a Congee d'eslire, I would not be thought to say, that the Magistrates interposing in making of Church-governors, is against the Law of Christ; I only say, that there's no Law of Christ requiring, that the Civil Magistrate should either make Bishops, or require others to choose. I add, that we have no Primitive Example of such a thing as a Congee d'eslire. Rather we find, that all Bishops were made and chosen, not without the consent and suffrage of the Clergy, and all the people over whom he was to praeside and govern. I confess, I had thought as to the people, this had been plain from the Epistle of Clemens ad Corinthios: The words are these, Pag. 57 Edit. Junianae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But Dr. Hammond hath rendered the last words applaudante aut congratulante Ecclesiatota; and saith upon the Phrase by way of Parenthesis, Disser. 5. p. 278. Nihil hic de acceptatione totius Ecclesiae, sine qua Episcopos & Diacones ab Apostolis & Apostolicis viris constitutos non esse, concludit D. Blondellus, quasi qui ex Dei jussu & approbatione constituebantur, populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi essent. The Grammatical sense and meaning of this Parenthesis, I think I understand, but the Purport and Drift of it, I cannot guests at. The blessed Clemens saith, that Church-Officers were made, the whole Church applauding or consenting. Is there nothing in this Phrase from whence Blondel might conclude, that Bishops and Deacons were not then made without the Acceptation of the whole Church?  
It may be I shall be able to find out the meaning of the Learned Doctor; by his Reply to Dr. Owen: In that thus he expresseth himself, p. 86. Blondel made the people's acceptation a sine qua non, a necessary condition; affirming that Bishops, etc. were never constituted by the Apostles and Apostolical men, nisi unless they had this; which I suppose, makes the people's acceptation praevious to the Apostles Act: For, if it followed after, it can be of no moment; the Act of the Apostles was complete without it, and stood valid without it: and though it was most happy when it followed, yet still this, as any other consequent, must be accidental to the Constitution of Bishops, as that which advenit enti in actu existenti, comes to it, when it is, is no way required to, or constitutive of its Being.  
'Twas no doubt, the Opinion of Blondel, that the People's consent was praevions; but I do much question, whether any such thing can be inferred from the word nisi, used by him, p. 11. of his Apology; and I see not but that so much may be fairly inferred from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I do not say, the phrase doth necessarily import so much; for I might properly say, that the King was Crowned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though the Consent of the City be not Conditio sine qua non, of his Coronation: But if either Law or Custom did require that the King should not be Crowned except the City of London did consent, then if I should say that he was Crowned consentiente amni Civitate, all would say and think my Meaning was, that the Consent of the City was first asked, and obtained, before he was Crowned. Now this is our Case, we are sure from the 6. of the Acts, the Apostles would not ordain any to the Office of Deacons, till the Disciples had chosen them; nor do we find, that ever they did otherwise, except happily where God himself made the Choice; therefore Clemens his Genitive put absolutely, may well be thought to imply so much.  
But I need not much contend about Clemens his Meaning: Cyprian a very ancient Father and pious Martyr, is plainer than that he can be eluded. I'll not transcribe all that he hath said to this purpose, but yet enough to prove the Point, out of that 68 Epistle sent to the Clergy and people of Spain, in answer to a Question propounded to the African Churches. Plebs obsequens Praeceptis Dominicis, & Deum metuens, a peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia miscere, quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; quod & ipsum de Divina auctoritate descendere videmus, ut Sacerdos, plebe present, sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus publico judicio atque testimonio comprobetur, sicut in Numeris, Dominus Moisi praecipit, dicens, Apprehend Aaron fratrem tuum, & Eleazarum filium ejus, & impones eos in montem, coram omni Synagoga, & exue Aaron stolam ejus, & endue Eleazarum filium ejus, & Aaron appositus moriatur illic. And not long after, Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina & Apostolica observatione observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & fere per Provincias universas tenetur, ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam Plebem, cui praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur, Plebe praesente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, & uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit; quod ut apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostri Ordinatione, ut de universae fraternitatis suffragio, & de Episcoporum, qui in praesentia convenerant, quiq, de eo ad vos Literas fecerant, judicio, episcopatus ei deferretur, & manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur. How horribly Pamelius is put to it to reconcile the Papal Ordinations to the several expressions of St. Cyprian in this Epistle, you may see in his Annotations, and in the Replies of Simon Golartius, to them, which also will sufficiently fortify you against the (in this case I hope I may say it without offence) trifling and weak Objections of the Author of Episcopacy asserted, p. 273, 274.  
2. I suppose it will not be said, that there is any Divine Law requiring that our Bishops should be Lords, have Votes in the Upper House of Parliament, and exercise Temporal Dominion and Jurisdiction in their Dioceses. Rather it may be questioned, whether any of these be so much as lawful. The Work of an ordinary Presbyter, much more of an English Bishop, requires the whole man. Who is sufficient for these things? 2 Cor. 2.16. The Apostles put off from themselves the very burden of distributing to the necessities of the poor, Acts 6.4. And Paul lays it down as a general Rule, 2 Tim. 2.4. No man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this Life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a Soldier. Shall I plant two or three of the Canons called Apostolical, against our Prelates meddling with secular affairs? Can. 6. vel 7. Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, nequaquam seculares cur as assumat, sin aliter dejiciatur. And the 82. vel 83. Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, qui militiae vacaverit, & simul utrumque retinere voluerit, tam officium Romanum, quam functionem sacerdotalem, deponitor: Quae enim Caesaris sunt, Caesari, quae Dei, Deo. Read also the 7th. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, but especially the 66 Epistle of St. Cyprian, in which you shall find the Holy Father puritanizing to purpose. Hugo Grotius is but of yesterday, yet because he is much magnified by our Prelatists, I shall account it no lost labour, to transcribe something out of him upon the 12 of Luke & 14. These are his words, Si quis expendat quantum sit negotii sermonem divinum, recte dispensare, quod ut facerent ipsi Apostoli tanto instructi spiritu curam Pauperum aliis delegavere, facile intelliget quosvis alios potius adhibendos componendis privatorum controversiis, quam eos quos docendi munus occupat. Est quidem horum imo horum praecipue discordias praecidere, sed si in brevi admonitione fieri possit, quomodo Onesimum Philemoni reconciliat Paulus, non si causae ambages discutiendae, & magno temporis dispendio constabit res paucorum.  
3. Nor can it be thought that it is of divine right that Bishops should delegate their power of Jurisdiction to Chancellors, Commissaries, and other Lay-Officers. Rather again, 'tis questionable, whether this be not flatly against the Law of Christ. To be sure, 'tis contrary to the practice Primitive, as is acknowledged even by B. Downam, one of the greatest sticklers for Episcopacy. See his Defence of his Sermon, L. 1.  
I believe therefore it will be said, that only the substance of our Episcopacy is of Divine Right. Well, what is that? One W. C. at the end of that Discourse Printed at Oxom, called Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines, that Episco. etc. hath these words; If we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals, we shall find it no more but this, an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency, to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocese. Then belike if one be not of eminent sanctity and sufficiency, he is no Bishop, cui non convenit definitio, etc. But to let this pass, one man, 'tis said, must have the care of all the Churches, within a certain Precinct or Diocese: Well, but how big must this Precinct or Diocese be? Must it be the whole Christian world, as the Pope saith, or will it suffice that it consist of 2 or 3 Parish-Churches?  
For this I am told by Mr. Sandcroft, p. 21. That the Apostles preached the Gospel not only in Cities, but in the Country's adjoining, yet planted Churches in Cities still, and settled single persons their Successors there, to govern both the cities & Regions round about (from whence a City & a Church come to be equipollent terms, even in the Apostolical Writings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 14.23. the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Tit. 1.5. And yet further, that they left the Churches of inferior Cities, and their Bishops in dependence upon the Metropolis, which were the chief according to the civil division (and that the only true ground of the Superiority of one Church above another) hath been rendered as manifest as any thing almost in Ecclesiastical Antiquity, against all Adversaries (both those of the hills, and those of the Lake too) by the Learned and well placed Labours of those excellent persons in both pages of the diptychs, whom I shall not need to name, since their own works praise them in the gate. And p. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the standing Rule and sails nor, a City and a Bishop, generally adequate one to another: For as on the one side, an Universal Bishop, with the whole world for his Jurisdiction, is a proud pretence, & too vast for Humanity to grasp; so on the other side, Rural Bishops too is a poor and mean design, and not only retrives the Italian Episcopelli, so scorned at Trent, but worse, & p. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non in vicis, aut villis, aut modica Civitate. No Bishops there, lest they grow contemptible, so run the Canons of the Ancient Church, both Greek and Latin, and therefore the Twelfth Council of Toledo unmitred one Convildus, formerly an Abbot in a little Village, and dissolved the Bishopric which Bamba the Gothick King had violently procured to be erected there, and that by this Rule of the Church; and the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my Text, which they actually plead in the Front of their Decree, to justify their Proceed.  
But (with reverence to so Learned a man be it spoken) much of this seems to be delivered with more Confidence than Truth. And indeed before we can gather the Divine Right of any particular Form of Government from Apostolical Practice, we must first prove the Universality of that Practice. We must evince, that not some few, but all the Apostles did so practise. Now I think it huge difficult, if not impossible, from any credible Records, to make out what Order and Method was observed by all the Apostles in their planting of Churches, it being but very little, if any thing, that is said by Historians, concerning some of them.  
2. If we could prove universality of Practice, we must also prove, that such universal practice was not upon some grounds, proper and peculiar to those Times in which the Apostles lived.  
Well, I for my part, will take no advantage from either of these two Considerations, but yet will give you my Reasons, why I cannot look upon the Platform by him laid down, as Apostolical.  
1. It savours strongly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both which were undoubtedly far from any one of Apostolical Spirit. For seeing the Gospel was preached in Towns, as well as Cities, let us imagine, that by preaching of the Gospel, five hundred were converted in a Town, but one hundred in a City, would it not be a sinful accepting of persons, to appoint the hundred Citizens a Bishop, and to leave the five hundred without a Bishop? It matters not whether this case did ever actually happen, 'tis plain it might have happened, and we may argue a possibili. And let any rational man say, whether it be probable, that this is an Apostolical Institution, that Peterborough and Ely should have a Bishop resident in them, Northampton, Leicester, Cambridge none.  
2. This model is destructive to Episcopacy itself, for if this be an Apostolical Institution, that there should be no Bishops but in Cities, then if it should seem meet to any Christian Magistrate to have no Cities in all his Territories, we must have no Bishops; if he should see meet to make all Cities equal, we must have no Archbishops or metropolitans: We know, that lately a certain thing, that called itself the Supreme Authority of England, did uncity Chester; suppose this had been done by a lawful Authority, so as that it could not have been recalled, the Church of England would have been loath to have lost a Bishop, yet she must, if this be true, that no City, no Bishop: Or what if our King, by the advice of his Council, should make every market Town in England and Wales a City, must our Bishops presently be multiplied according to that proportion.  
3. 'Tis plain, that in one City there was more Bishops than one, plain from Scripture, for S. Paul writes, Phil. 1.1. To all the Saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons.  
To this I know it is replied, that Philippi was a Metropolis, and so in writing to the Bishops in the plural, he would be understood of all the Bishops in inferior Cities, subject to that Metropolis: But I affirm, there is no ground for such a reply, Philippi was not a Metropolis, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we learn from Theophilact. But it is said, this description belonged to it as anciently it was, not as it was when the Apostle did write to them: If once it were no Metropolis, how can it be proved, that it was such at the writing of this Apostolical Epistle; forsooth, from Acts 16.12. the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this is too obscure and ambiguous a place to build an opinion upon, the best Critics not agreeing concerning the Syntax here used: If any thing can hence be gathered, that may prove Philippi a Metropolis, it will be either its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: As for its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that will not prove any thing of that nature, for there is no necessity of rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief City, it may as well signify the first for situation; this way very learned men go, particularly Zanchius in his Commentaries on the Philip.  
Against this it may be objected, that not Philippi, but Neapolis, was the first City of Macedomia; but perhaps Neapolis was not urbs but pagus, perhaps it belonged rather to Thracia then Macedonia: These two answers are hinted by Causabon, but a more satisfactory answer is suggested by Zanchius, I'll transcribe his words, though somewhat large, that the doubt may be wholly removed: Neapolis civitas est ad mare, ex adverso Thraciae. Ind venitur ad flumen quod Strymon vocatur: ultra quod flumen est urbs Philippi. Fluvius autem Strymon (ut ait Plinius) terminus est Macedoniae, hoc est, ejus partis, quae Thraciam versus spectat, ex quo fit, ut prima, cis Strymonem fluvium in continenti, urbs Macedoniae, sit ipsa urbs Philippi; atque huc spectavit Lucas in Acts: consentanee cum Plinio, & aliis Prophanis Scriptoribus loquens. Coeterum licet terminus dividens Macedoniam a Thracia esset, & sit ille flavius Strymon, tamen Neapolis quoque quae erat ultra fluvium ad Mare, pertinebat ad Macedoniam & confinium quoddam erat Macedoniae & Thraciae; & hoc sibi voluerunt Prolomaeus & Plinius & alii, cum inter urbes Macedoniae primo loco posuerunt Neapolim. Philippi, prima urbs est Macedoniae, si verum terminum spectes, fluvium sc. Strymonem, dividentem Macedoniam a Thracia; non fuit autem simpliciter prima, sed ipsa Neapolis fuit prima si quae etimm ultra Strymonem ad Macedoniam pertinentia complectaris. But seeing it is called a Colony, it must needs be a Metropolis. I answer, if it had been the only Colony in Macedonia, we might have thought it probable, that it was a Metropolis in the civil sense, but it was not the only Colony, as is evident from History. Further, the officers before whom Paul was brought, ver. 19, 20. of this Chap. make it somewhat more than probable, that the Proconsul of Macedonia had not his residence at Philippi; and 'tis evident, that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia, in the civil sense: Thessalonica Metropolis est, utnorunt omnes Macedoniae; so we find it was in the Ecclesiastical sense also; some hundred of years passed ere Philippi had the honorary title of a Metropolitan Church. Indeed, I think, I might have spared myself and you all this trouble, for I believe it never came into your head to think, that when the Apostle writes to the Church of Philippi, he intended to write to any more than the Christians and Officers of that City of Philippi, for had he intended it to all the other Churches that were in Macedonia, then must the Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians be intended to all the Churches of Macedonia; and so the learned Annotator fears not to assert, that he may make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of, 1 Thes. 5.12. be Bishops, and yet not grant a plurality of Bishops in one City. But do you try to carry on this notion throughout the whole Epistle, and you will make strange work: The Apostle, 1 Chap. 1. salutes the Church of the Thessalonians, commends their faith and charity, and receiving the Word in much affliction, so as that they were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia, ver. 7. and he meant in ver. 1. by the Church of Thess. all the Churches of Macedonia, than he must in ver. 7. say, that the Christians of Macedonia were ensamples to the Christians of Macedonia.  
If I would descend to Ecclesiastical History, I would not thank any man to grant me: 

1. That there have been Bishops in Villages and Towns, or at least in Cities not so populous, not so wealthy, as many Market Towns among us are; Basilius Caesareae Cappadociae fuit Episcopus; Gregorius autem Nazianzenae civitatis omnino vilissimae, quae est posita vicina Caesareae Histo. Tripar. lib. 7. cap. 22. libro 9 cap. 3. we find one Maris made Bishop of Dolicha, which was but a little City: Of what a poor place Spiridion was Bishop, may be seen lib. 1. cap. 10. and lib. 6. cap. 4. there's a most famous history of Maioma continuing to have a Bishop, even when it ceased to have any longer the privileges of a City. In Ireland, S. Patrick is said to have settled 365 Bishoprics at the first plantation, I scarce think there were then so many Cities.  
2. That there have been two Bishops in one City. Vid. Possid. in vita Aug.  
3. That sometime there was but one Bishop to many Cities, examples are too obvious and common to be produced: We in England are not without some Precedents of this nature: If Counsels be produced against this, you will remember, that Counsels, mostly consisting of Bishops, they may be looked on as parties forward enough to establish any thing that might make for their own pomp and grandeur.    
last; whereas it is so confidently affirmed, that the Apostles did leave the Churches of inferior Cities, and their Bishops, in dependence upon the Metropolis: I do with some confidence reply, that there is no sufficient proof for such an assertion: I do not, in my poor reading find, that the proof of it from Scripture, hath been much attempted, only he, whose diligence nothing is wont to escape, argues, by comparing Acts 16.1.4. with Acts 15.2. I shall give you his words, as he himself hath Englished them to us. Ans. to D. Owen; p. 195. According to the Image of the Civil Government among the Jews, and the like again in their Temple, the Apostles appear to have disposed of Churches every where, and in all their plantations, to have constituted a subordination and dependence of the Churches in the inferior Cities, to those in the chief or Metropolis: An example of this we have in the story of the Acts, concerning Syria and Cilicia, and the several Cities thereof, in relation to Antioch the Metropolis; for when the question Acts 15.2. was referred, and brought to Jerusalem from the Church (peculiarly) of Antioch, Chap. 14.26. and 15.3. and the Decree of the Council returned to them by whom the question was proposed, i. e. to the Church of Antioch, ver. 22. yet in the Epistle in which that Decree was contained, we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia, i. e. all the Christians of that Province, to be expressed and joined with those of Antioch, v. 23. and after, when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch, v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia, v. 41, 42. and as they went, they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Council, cap. 16.4. which is an evidence, that the Churches of those Cities, related either immediately to Antioch, or as Antioch itself did to Jerusalem, and were in subordination to it, as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Province, etc.  
I hearty wish this argumentation had been put into a Syllogistical form, than it would have been easy enough to find out a Proposition that might safely be denied: But seeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his discourse into that dress, I shall not do it for him, lest I should be thought not to do it according to his mind: Taking it as we find it, I say:  
1. That which he supposeth, may well admit some dispute, viz. Whether the question referred to Jerusalem, was referred to it by the single Church of Antioch (but that as Metropolis of all Syria) for if it can be proved, that this reference was made only by the Church of Antioch, and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria, it will still be unproved, that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis; for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church, which are not done by it as such.  
2. There's no evidence, that the ground of the reference to Jerusalem was, because that it was the principal Metropolis, more probable it is, that the reasons of referring this controversy to a determination at Jerusalem, were because of the authority of those Apostles that were at Jerusalem, in which it was supposed those who contended with Paul would acquiesce, and because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commission of the Apostles for their doctrine.  
Against these, let us examine what is objected; 'tis said, page 204, 205. That the first taken alone could not be the reason, because there being but two Apostles there at that time, Peter and John: 

1. There might be so many in some other City.  
2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated, by God's Commands, to the Apostolic Office, were in this respect of equal authority with them, and so in this sense the words of S. Paul have truth, Gal. 2.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. The reference is made not to the Apostles alone, but to the Apostles and Elders, Acts 15.2.  
4. The cause of the reference, was not only the contention of those who came out of Judea, but the Antiochean Christians being taught, i. e. being seduced by them, Acts 15.1. and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly; and so this first reason is of no force.    
Answ. 

1. 'Tis certain, that the reference was made not only to the Apostles, but also to the Elders (from which perhaps something might be deduced, no way advantageous to the cause of the Episcoparians.)  
2. We'll grant it probable, that these Judaizers did not only teach, but also had persuaded some of the Antiochean Christians to embrace their error: But then  
3. We deny that there were at Jerusalem but two Apostles, viz. Peter and John, James undoubtedly was there, and it is by very learned men thought, that when the other James had run his course, he was taken into the Apostolical rank, office, and employment. Now it will never be proved, either from Scripture, or any other credible testimony, that there were in any one City three persons so fit to be appealed to as these three: As for Paul and Barnabas, granting them to be separated by God's command to the Apostolic Office, and so of equal authority with Peter, etc. yet their Apostleship might be more questioned by these Judaizing Teachers, to stop their mouths, and let the Antiochean Christians know, that they did not go about to abolish any thing which Peter, James, and John (who did mostly converse with those of the Circumcision) did reckon obligatory, this reference is made, this journey undertaken.    
The learned Doctor seems not to deny, but that those who came from Jerusalem might pretend Commission and Commandment from the Apostles to teach what they taught, but thinks this is useful, not disadvantageous to him: For hence he thinks it follows, That if these certain men had been truly sent and commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem, than this would have been of some force at Antioch, which it could not be, if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jerusalem, page 205. But who can swallow this? what Christian doth not think, that if these men had come at that time into England, with a Commission to preach, that except we be circumcised, we cannot be saved, it should be of no force, because we are a Church independent on Jerusalem?  
3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, because Antioch or Jerusalem was their Metropolis, but because the Decrees were made by Apostles, men acted by an infallible spirit, who could not but know the mind of Christ their Lord and Master: Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Christians that had any certain knowledge of them, whether they were under the Metropolis of Jerusalem or no.  
My second argument, to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right, shall be taken from the testimonies of those Authors who do clearly, and plainly make it to be but of humane institution. I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus, made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores. In his Epistle to Evagrius, Quod autem unus posteà electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in Schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. If you say that Hierom was a Presbyter, and provoked, and so may be thought to write all this in a fit of spleen and malice, I shall (without retorting the argument, which you know is obvious) refer you to Isidore, who was a Bishop himself; he saith in his second book, De Divinis Officiis, cap. 7. that Presbyters have most things in common with Bishops, Sed sola, propter authoritatem, summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio & Consecratio reservata est. And the Council of Sevill saith, that the Consecration of Presbyters, Deacons, etc. is forbidden, Novellis & Ecclesiasticis regulis.  
To answer that, the Council follows Isidore, and Isidore follows Hierome, and so all three make but one single testimony, is too easy a way of answering, not worth taking notice of, therefore we are further told: 

1. That Ignatius is a more considerable Author than Hierome, and that Ignatius, all along his Epistles, bears witness to Episcopacy: I acknowledge more reverence is due to Ignatius then to Hierome, because he lived nearer the age of the Apostles: But then 1. We are not so sure that Ignatius his writings are incorrupt, as we are that Hieromes are.  
2. Ignatius doth no where, that I can find, assert the Divine Right of Episcopacy; and yet I have read over all Ignatius his Epistles, and read them over with an impartial desire to find out any thing from which I might collect what was the ancient form of Discipline: I am confirmed, that I was not mistaken, by reading the dissertations of the very learned Dr. H. Hammond: The second of those four dissertations, is concerning Ignatius, and his testimonies, the whole 25th Chap. of that dissertation, is taken up in producing testimonies out of that holy Martyr, and blessed Father in favour of Hierarchy: In the 26 Chap. he gives us the opinion of Ignatius in six conclusions. The second is, Episcopos singulares, per omnes mundi plagas ubicunque Christiana fides viguit, Christo si non praecipiente, saltem approbante, institutos fuisse: But wots you how he proves this conclusion? why, he proves it but by one testimony out of Ignatius his Epistle to the Ephesians, the words, as by him quoted, are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    
But 1. These words are not to be found in the old Greek Editions of Ignatius: Now seeing this Doctor doth himself, in some particulars, prefer other Editions to the Edition of Isaac Vossius, what if I should so do in this matter, what would become of the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy?  
2. The Laurentian Copy doth not exhibit the words, as they are by the Doctor represented to us, for in it I find not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The old Latin Version reads thus: Etenim Jesus Christus, incomparabile nostrum vivere patris sententia, ut & ipsi secundum terrae fines determinati Jesu Christi sententia sunt; not mentioning the word Episcopi.  
3. I can give the Doctor his own reading, and yet the place will not make for him, for a sense different from that which he affixeth to them, may be given of them, and is given by Master Stilling fleet, page 309. And all this, you know, by a friend of ours, was asserted in a Latin supposition at a public act in Oxford, four or five years ago. Indeed, there is in the Epistle to the Magnesians, a place which might with good colour and probability be urged for the Divine Right of Presbytery.  
But if this first answer succeed not, we are further told, that Hierome is not against the Divine Right of Episcopacy, but rather for it; or else, if one while he be against it, at another time he is for it. We have proved plainly enough, that he was against it, let's therefore hear whether any thing can be produced out of him that makes for it; two places are most insisted on, the one in the Epistle to Evagrius, Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas 01 sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron, & filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, & Presbyteri, & Diaconi vindicent in Ecclesia. Here the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, is placed among Apostolical Traditions, that the learned Dissertator, page 123. Disser. 2. breaks out into these words, Quid ad hoc responderi possit; aut quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio, fateor ego me divinando assequi non posse, sed e contra ex iis, quae D. Blondellus, quae Walo, quae Ludovicus Capellus, hac in re praestiterunt, mihi persuasissimum esse, nihil uspiam contratam apertam lucem obtendi posse. But this Reverend Doctor need not make use of, or puzzle his divining faculty, to find out how this place may be answered, it was answered, and satisfactorily answered by Gersom Bucer, De gubernation Ecclesiastica, almost forty years before the coming out of these Anti-Blondellian Dissertations; the sum of the answer is: 1. That traditio Apostolica need not signify that which was instituted by the Apostles, it may denote no more than an Ecclesiastical custom.  
But can there be any reason to imagine that Hierom or any man should set down that for an Instance of Apostolical Tradition, which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles, but to be of a later Date? Answ. to Lond. Minist. 176. Why sure a reason may well be imagined, as well as there may be a reason imagined, why Dr. Hammond calls those ancient Constitutions and Canons, Canons and Constitutions Apostolical; though he do not think, that they were either of them made by the Apostles, but by persons far inferior to them, for Authority, and born long after they were fallen asleep. It was not unusual to call that an Apostolical Tradition, which had been long practised. To this end, let Dr. Jer. Taylor be read in his Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 5. p. 88, 89.2. He answers, that Hier. intended not here a particular and disjoined Comparison, first of Bishops with the High Priest Aaron, then of Presbyters with the Sons of Aaron, and Lastly of Deacons with Levites: but his meaning is, that as Aaron and his sons the Priests were above the Levites; So under the New Testament, the Bishop and Presbyter are above Deacons: And therefore it was intolerable Pride in the Deacon of his age, to set himself above the Presbyters. Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris, i. e. Episcopis anteferret. So he gins his Epistle; and in the Process of it, he doth magno conatu, labour to prove, that Presbyters are the same with Bishops: and at last concludes with these words, ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas, etc.  
The second place urged out of Hierom, to prove the Divine Right of Episcopacy, is in his Comment on Titus; Idem est ergo Presbyter qui & Episcopus, & antequam Diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur, postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse, non Christi, in toto Orbe decretum est: ut unus de Presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tolerentur.  
Before this can any way advantage the pretensions of those who ascribe a Jus Divinum to Episcopacy, it must be proved, that the in toto orbe decretum est doth refer to some Decree made by the Apostles, and that the time of the Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth, I am of Paul, etc. Now that neither of these will ever be proved, you will soon see, if you read the Annotations of Blondel on the Text of Hierom.  
I pass now, having only begged your pardon for my prolixity in this Second, unto a Third Argument for proof of the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters; it shall be drawn from the practice among the Jews; and thus I form it:  
If among the Jews any one that was ordained himself, might ordain another, then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters: But, among the Jews, any one that was himself ordained, might Ordain others: Ergo.  
The Consequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledged by most Learned men, that the Government of the Church-Christian was form after the Jewish Pattern; Christ all along accommodating and lightly changing the Jewish Customs into Christian Institutions.  
The Minor I prove, there was among Jews, as Dr. Lightfoot hath observed, Harm. p. 97. an Ordination with laying on of hands, and without laying on of hands. Maym. in Sanhed. 4. How is Ordination to be for perpetuity? Not that they lay on their hands on the head of the Elder, but call him Rabbi, and say, behold thou art Ordained, etc. But there was also Ordination by the laying on of hands. Take Ordination which way you will, 'twill never be proved, that he who was himself in Office, might not ordain another to the same Office. For though we are told of a Constitution, that none should ordain, but those to whom leave was granted by Rabbi Hillel, yet a principio non fuit sic. To which purpose, I shall only need to transcribe the words of P. Cunaeus, one as well skilled in the Hebrew Rites and Customs, as any that ever did write concerning them, l. 1. de Rep. Heb. c. 12. Senatoria Dignitas, quoniam amplissima erat, nemini data sine legitimo actu est, manuum enim impositione opus fuit, quam Judaei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant, at Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixerunt. Ita Moses Josuae & 70 Senatoribus manum imposuit; qua solennitate peracta, statim delapsus aetheriis sedibus Spiritus pectora eorum implevit, & high porro, in hunc modum initiati cum essent, alios eadem lege auctoraverunt; non tamen potuit is ritus extraterraem sanctam peragi quia vis ejus omnis conclusa Palestinae finibus erat. Perinsigne est quod R. Maimonides tradidit in Halacha Sanh. c. 4. Cum enimosim solennem hunc actum pro arbitrio suo omnes celebrarent, quibus imposita semel manus fuerat coarctatum esse, id jus a sapientibus esse ait, constitutumque uti deinceps nemo illud usurparet nisi cui id concessisset divinus Senex R. Hillel, is autem magni concilii princeps erat, & alterum sub se Praesidem habuit Sameam hominem truculentum, ambitiosumque, etc. Tandem haec manuum impositio quae usitata diu fuerat recessavit recitatum tantum enim carmen quoddam conceptis verbis est. The Learned Selden in his first Book de Synedr. c. 14. takes notice of this, and saith, that St. Paul's creating of Presbyters, was according to the Jewish custom of creating Elders; that Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, as his disciple: This Gamaliel was the Nephew of Hillel, and Prince of the Sanhedrim at that time, and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul a Jewish Elder, before he was a Christian; and that afterwards, when Paul became an Apostle, knowing that the true Judaisme was by the appointment of God, to be communicated to Gentiles, as well as Jews, and thinking that it was lawful to create Elders out of the Holy Land, and that he and other Apostles were free from that new super-induced Law of not making Elders without the Licence of the Prince of the Sanhedrim, and so the custom prevailed in creating Christian Elders, that every one that was duly created himself, might also duly create his own Disciples; he did upon this account, create or appoint Elders in every Church, Acts 14.23. Dr. Hammond in his six Queries, p. 344, 345, 346, 347. mustereth up many Inconveniences, which seemed to him, necessarily to follow this Conjecture or Observation. I cannot think myself obliged to defend Mr. Selden. The Reverend Doctor granteth as much as I would wish, viz. p. 349. That the Government of the Church was form after the Jewish Pattern: And p. 324. That Imposition of hands in Ordination, so often mentioned in the New Testament, is answerable to the laying on of hands used by the Jews, when they did create Successors in any Power, or communicate any part of their Power to others as assistants. If all this be true, why may not a Christian Presbyter ordain a Presbyter, as well as a Jewish Elder ordain an Elder?  
My Fourth Argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, shall be taken from the many Examples that do occur in Antiquity of such Ordinations, which were never reputed null and void.  
I begin with that known place of Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius: Alexandria Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de se, quem industrium noverint, & Archidiaconum vocent. To this Testimony it is wont to be answered, that only the Election is ascribed to Presbyters, the Ordination might notwithstanding be performed by Bishops.  
But the Question is not, what might be done, but was done?  
And Eutychius published by Mr. Selden most plainly and expressly affirms, that from the time of Mark the Founder of the Church of Alexandria, unto Demetrius Bish. of the same Church, the several Patriarches of the Church of Alexandria were chosen and ordained with Imposition of hands, by the 12 Presbyters, and that by special command from St. Mark himself. To this the Learned Dissertator saith, p. 177. Facilis est Responsio, nullam hac in re Eutychio fidem deberi, ut qui assertioni huic aperta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam muniverit. This is indeed an easy answer, but a little too easy to be received by one who is awake, to which nothing need be confronted save only this, that some Credit is due in this matter to Eutychius.  
And from him, we shall go, to those who speak concerning the Church of Scotland, in her first Conversion. Jo. Major, in the Second Book of his History, c. 2. writes that the Scots were instructed in the Faith by Priests & Monks without bishops, until the year of our L. 429. So as that that Church must needs be without Bishops above two hundred years; as is acknowledged by the Learned Forbes, in his Irenicum, p. 159. To this, the Doctor answereth without book, not having John Mayor by him to consult, he saith, that John Maior's affirmation hath very little appearance o● ruth in it, Answ. to Lond. Minist. p. 160, & 161. that neither Bede nor any other affirmeth, that before the coming of Palladius, they were ruled by a Presbytery, or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them. But this is too great confidence. Blondel, who he chose for his Antagonist, had produced Johan. Fordonus, who in his Scotischron. l. 3. c. 8. hath these words, Ante Palladii adventum, habebant Scoti fidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodo, vel Monachos, ritum sequentes Primitivae Ecclesiae. And if it should be said, that these Presbyters and Monks were commissionated by some Bishop, thus to preach and administer Sacraments, the same Blondel, Apol. Sec. 3. p. 315. quoteth Hector Boethius Scotor. His. l. 6. fol. 92. in these words, Caepere nostri eo temporis ●●circa annum 263.) Christi dogma accuratissime amplexari; Monachorum quorundam ductu & adhortatione (qui quod sedulo praedicationi vacarent, essentque frequentes in oratione) ab incolis cultores dei sunt appellati. Invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum ut sacerdotes omnes ad nostra pene tempora vulgo Culdaei, i. e. cultores Dei sine discrimine vocitarentur. Pontificem inter se communi suffragio deligebant, penes quem divinarum rerum esset potestas; is multos deinceps annos Scotorum Episcopus (ut nostris traditur Annalibus) est appellatus. & lib. 7. f. 128. Palladius primus omnium qui sacrum inter Scotos egere Magistratum, a summo Pontifice, A. D. 430. Pontifex creatus; cum antea populi suffragiis ex Monachis & Culdaeis Pontifices assumerentur.  
Now that I am upon the Isle of Great Britain, it will not be amiss, to take notice what Walsingham the Monk relates concerning the Lollards, A. D. 1389. Winning very many to their Sect, they grew so audacious, that their Presbyters, like Bishops, created & ordained new Presbyters; affirming that every Priest had received as much power to bind & lose, & to minister other Ecclesiastical things, as the Pope himself giveth, or could give. This Power of Ordination they exercised in the Diocese of Salisbury, and those who were ordained by them, thinking all things to be lawful to them, presumed to celebrate Masses, and feared not to handle divine things, and administer the Sacraments.  
I might also reckon up the Ordinations made by the Chorepiscopi, among Ordinations by Presbyters: For I am not yet convinced by all that is written, that they were Bishops. See what is said in this matter by Forbes Irenicum, lib. 2. c. 11. Nor do I yet believe that the Say of those two Ancient Authors, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus. In Alexandria & per totum Aegyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter: are impertinently alleged to prove Ordination by Presbyters. For I judge it more probable that consignare and consecrare do signify ordinare, then that they should signify only conficere Sacramentum Eucharistiae, But let these pass.  
Cassianus as you may find in Blondel, p. 357. reports, that Paphanutius a Presbyter, did make Daniel his Disciple first Deacon, than Presbyter, the Bishops that at that time governed the Ch●●ch, not censuring him for it. More Examples you may find in Blondel; If you have him not by you, you may find some of them transcribed out of him, as I suppose, by Mr. Stillingfl. towards the latter end of the second Book of his Irenicum.  
And for Examples of latter times, Mr. Prynne will furnish you in his Unbishopping of Timothy and Titus.  
Lastly, I thus prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters, If the Ministry of those who have been Ordained by Presbyters, hath been ordinarily blessed to the Confirmation and Conversion of souls, then is Ordination by Presbyters valid: But the Ministry of those, etc. Ergo.  
The Consequence of the Major is proved, because God cannot any way more eminently attest and own the Ministry of any person, then by making him instrumental to the Conversion and Confirmation of the souls of his Hearers and Followers. When the Apostleship of Paul was called in question, how did he prove it? 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? You see he doth not lay more stress upon his having seen Jesus Christ the Lord, than he doth upon their being his Workmanship in the Lord. More plainly in the second verse: If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the Seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. The Learned Grotius would have us after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you are the Seal of my Apostleship, eo ipso quod estis in Christo, quod estis Christiani. Because this Author is so much admired by those against whose oppositions I am now fortifying you, I shall transcribe his whole Annotation on this second Verse. Si Alii dubitarent, an Apostolus essem, vos certe dubitare non deberetis, propter ingentia signa apostolatus quae apud vos edidi: Sicut per signa apposita constat instrumentum aliquod esse sincerum, ita per vestram conversionem constat me esse Apostolum.  
As for the Minor, if any one should be so monstrously uncharitable and impudent, as to deny it, he need only inquire in Germany, Holland, France, Scotland, and he will hear of hundreds of Thousands of Examples to convince him. As for England, it hath been the sad complaint of many, that God hath of late much withdrawn his converting presence from his Ordinances. But hath he more withdrawn it from his Ordinances administered by those that were Presbyterianly ordained, then from the same Ordinances administered by such as were Episcopally Ordained? Nay, hath not the success of Presbyterians been greater, if their Adversaries should be Judges? Were it convenient to boast, many of us could say invenimus Ecclesiam Christi lateritiam, reliquimus marmoream. We had profane, rude ignorant people left us by our Episcopal Predecessors; but our Successors will find them civil, knowing, praying Christians. Might we but find so much Favour in the eyes of our Sovereign, as to be permitted to exercise our Ministry, if at the years end it did not appear, that we and our People were as good Subjects to God and his Vicegerent, as any that favour the Hierarchy, we would not then refuse to suffer the punishments due to men really as bad as we are falsely reported to be: But if we must, because we cannot embrace an opinion which was never till of late maintained by any that called himself a Protestant, be accountted Heretics and Schismatics, nothing remains, but that we commit our cause to God, and till he see meet to plead it, possess our souls in Patience.  
There are some Objections against the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination, to be removed, and then I shall exercise your Patience no longer.  
1. The first is grounded upon the Authority of two Fathers, Hierom and Chrysostom: Hieroms words are in his Epistle to Evagrius, Quid enim facit Episcopus, excepta Ordinatione, quod non faciat Presbyter? To answer this Testimony, I might observe, that they who produce it, will not stick to it, but are verily persuaded that there are many things besides Ordination, which a Bishop may do, that yet a Presbyter cannot do. But I need not flee to so indirect an Answer: For, 

1. Marsilius Patavinus, in his Book which he calls Defensor Pacis, takes the word Ordinatio to signify quite another thing then the conferring of Holy Orders. His words are these; Ordinatio ibi non significat potestatem conferendi, seu collationem sacrorum Ordinum, sed Oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus, atque personas, quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in Templo; unde ab antiquis Legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi.  
2. 'Tis certain that sometimes the word Ordinatio doth signify the external Rite or Ceremony used in Ordination, viz. Imposition of hands; if so it be taken here, as why may it not? I can grant that Ordination in many places was so managed; it is freely confessed by Calvin: Unum puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vices sustinentem ut plurimum omnium nomine manus imposuisse.  
3. Grotius saith, nothing hinders, but that we may so interpret the place, as that it shall mean no more than that Presbyters can ordain none in contempt of the Bishops.  
4. I finally answer, that Hierom speaks not here of any Divine Law appropriating Ordination to Bishops, but only of the Ecclesiastical custom that obtained in his age; 'tis as if he had said, what is there now adays done by a Bishop, that a Presbyter may not do without Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons, except only the business of Ordination? He had before said, that a principio non fuit sic, originally the Presbyters might and did make the very Bishop himself.    
The place of Chrys. is in his 11 Hom. on 1 Tim. the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here again I might tell you, that if this Saying of Chrysostom's must determine the Controversy, our Prelatists must throw open that which they account the best part of their Enclosure, they must acknowledge that the Presbyters have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they exceed the Presbyter in the Power of Order only not in the power of Jurisdiction. 2. I could much weaken the Authority of chrysostom as to the point of Ordination by acquainting you that it was one of the accusations made against that Father, that he did engross Ordination to himself, not taking in the assistance of his Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the words of his Charge in the Synod ad Quercum, An. 403. But if these two Answers seem to you but shifts, (though why they should seem no more than shifts, I wots not) I reply thirdly, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word used by Chrysostom is ambiguous, used by good authors in very different, if not quite contrary significations; as is noted (among others) by Suidas, his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case signifies to exceed or excel; but with an Accusative, to injure or do wrong.) Now if we should so render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, seeing it hath an Accusative case after it, Bishops must from hence be concluded not lawful possessors, but usurpers of the power of sole Ordination.  
If yet you are not satisfied, I turn you over fourthly to Gersom Bucer, who page 357, 358. takes notice of this authority, as placed by Bishop Downham in the margin of that Sermon which he took upon him to confute; one of his answers is, that Bishops are here made Superior to Presbyters, only by the voluntary election of their Sym-Presbyters, or Colleagues, not by any Divine Right, he renders the words thus, Sola-enim horum (subaudi Presbyterorum) electione ascenderunt, atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri videntur habere; then the plain meaning is, that the Presbyters, for order sake, do choose some one to be their Precedent; and this is all that the Bishop hath above the Presbyters.  
The second objection against the validity of Ordinations by Presbyters, is taken also from Ecclesiastical Writers, among whom we do find Ordinations by Presbyters pronounced null and void: Of this nature there are three principally insisted upon, the which before we particularly examine, I shall crave leave to premise this one thing, viz. that it is very manifest, that Counsels have pronounced some Ordinations null and void, which yet could not be null in natura rei. I instance only in the Counsels of Chalcedon and Antioch, pronouncing Ordinations, though made by a Bishop to be void, if the person ordained, were ordained either without a title, or in another Bishop's Diocese, yet such Ordinations are not nullities, many examples of this nature are brought by the learned blondel, page 168, 169. Now so it might be in the case of Ordinations by Presbyters, and so it is by many averred that it was; but let us hear the examples.  
One Colythus, a Presbyter, took upon him, being but a Presbyter, to ordain Ischiras, this Ischiras, notwithstanding this Ordination, was looked upon but as a Laic.  
I answer, there are so many dissimilitudes betwixt the Ordinations of Colythus, and those Ordinations made by Presbyters, which we contend for, that from the condemning of his Ordinations, no argument can be drawn to prove, that ours ought to be condemned. 

1. Colythus acted not as a Presbyter, but pretended himself to be a Bishop, so do not our Presbyters.  
2. He acted alone, whereas our Ordinations are not by one single person.  
3. He was an open declared Heretic.  
4. He that was ordained had no title, he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He was not chosen by any Church, but our Ordinations are not of sine-titular persons.    
A second example is the case of Maximus, who being no Bishop, yet ordained Presbyters, but all his Ordinations were by the Fathers assembled in Council at Constantinople pronounced null.  
Answ. The story of Maximus is too large to be here recited, see it in blondel: I say briefly, that what was by the Synod determined against his Ordinations, is not prejudicial to Ordinations made by Presbyters, for (as blondel well) if Presbyters had never so full power of Ordination, yet had the Synod good reason to depose those who were ordained by Maximus, because he was a Presbyter, as well as a Bishop in the air, never had he been ordained Presbyter, either by Gregory, or any other.  
A third example, is that of the blind Bishop, who did lay hands on one Presbyter, and two Deacons, but his Ordinations were pronounced invalid, because not he, but his Presbyters read the words of Ordination.  
This was decreed, saith Dr. J. Tay. Episcopacy asserted, 182. by the first Council of Sevill, too hastily, for it was done not by the first, but second Council of Sevill, about the year 619. He that reads the Decree of those Fathers, would think they were blinder than the deceased Bishop, whom they condemned; for what if the Presbyter did at the command of his Bishop read the words which the Bishop could not read, doth this make the Ordination void? by what Law, either of God, or man; shall we say, that the Judge with us doth not condemn the malefactor, because he appoints the Clerk to read the sentence? Be it as it will, the Decree itself saith, that the Presbyter in reading the words, did only sin contra ecclesiasticum ordinem; and we cannot think that an Ordination is presently void, because all Ecclesiastical Rites are not observed in it.  
Against these examples I might, if it were needful, bring the judgement of Leo, Anno 452. in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis, but in this Master Stilling fleet hath prevented me, page 380.  
The third objection against the validity of an Ordination by Presbyters, is taken from the words of the Apostle, Heb. 7.7. without contradiction, the less is blessed of the better.  
Answ. This is so poor and pitiful an objection, that I should never have named it, had I not found it in the writings of some famous for learning. When it is said, that the less is blessed of the greater, would they infer, that he who ordains, must be greater than he who is ordained, is before or after Ordination; if he must be greater than he is after Ordination, than a Bishop may not ordain a Bishop, if they say he must be greater than the party is before his Ordination; why so, I hope, a Presbyter ordaining a Presbyter, is greater than the Presbyter ordained by him, till he be actually ordained, and so brought into the same order with him.  
But I must come to that argument in which Dr. H. Ham. doth so triumph, that he confesseth he was not acute enough to see what could be replied to it, you will find it in his praemonition to the Reader, before his Latin Dissertations, he frames it into a Dilemna, either Hierome had power to Ordain, or he had not, if he had, why then doth he say, Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter; if he had not, how come our Presbyters to have that power, which he the Hyperaspistes of Presbyters had not.  
I answer, Hierome had power to Ordain, taking in other Presbyters to his assistance; what he meant by his Quid facit excepta Ordinatione, I told you before.  
But the same learned Doctor proceeds, It shall suffice us to remember thee of one thing, viz. that no Presbyter Ordained by Bishops here in the English Church, had any power of Ordaining others bestowed on him, and therefore can no more take any such power to himself, then can a Deacon, or a mere Laic.  
Answ. This profound Objection was, as you know, brought at a public Act in Oxon. some years since, and urged by a learned Doctor, against one who maintained the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination, it was then, in the judgement of the hearers, satisfactorily answered, and so, I doubt not, but it will be now in your judgement: I say, those Bishops who Ordained Presbyters here in England, did give them a power of Ordaining others, whether they had any intention so to do, I know not, but this I say, that he who maketh any one a Priest, giveth him a Power of Ordaining, and if when he is made a Priest, he should through fear or ignorance promise not to Ordain, if he should afterwards be convinced, that as Priest he hath a power of Ordaining, he ought to repent of his promise, and it notwithstanding, to join with his brethren in laying on of hands, if either there be no Bishops, or none that will ordain, without imposing such subscriptions, as contain in them matters very doubtful, if not unlawful.  
2. The form of words used in ordaining a Presbyter in the Church of England is this, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou remittest, etc. did these words, when used by our Lord Christ to his Disciples, confer a power of Ordaining? If they did not, I then demand when, and by what form of words was that power conferred on the Apostles? If they did, how come they not to convey a power of ordaining others unto the Presbyter, in whose Ordination they are used? If a man, when he is made a Priest in the Church of England, receive not a power of Ordaining others, nor doth he receive it when he is consecrated Bishop, for having read over the Form appointed for the consecrating of a Bishop, I cannot find any words that give the Bishop a power of Ordaining, except any one be so hypercritical, as to imagine, that Take the Holy Ghost empowers a person to Ordain, and Receive the Holy Ghost doth not: But why then do Presbyterians complain, that the Bishops reserve the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves, indulging to Presbyters only some inferior Acts (ab omni excusatione eos procul esse concludimus, qui, quas sibi neutiquam concessas conquerantur, potestates, sibi sic sacrilege arripiunt.) A. Presbyterians do not complain, that they had such an Ordination as did not confer on them a power of Ordaining, but they complain, that they are not permitted the exercise of that power; nor do they say, that they have no power to suspend and excommunicate, but that they are not suffered to put forth that power, but only (which the simplest Churchwarden may do) to present scandalous offenders.  
But it is further objected, That when one is by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop, advanced to the degree of a Presbyter, an indeterminate and indefinite power is not by the Fathers of the Church committed to him, but a power, suis finibus fiquido dispuncta, suis cancellis & limitibus distincta, & dilucida actuum specialium ad quos admittitur enumeratione definita & conclusa; there is a particular enumeration of all the Acts unto which the power of a Presbyter doth extend, among which there is no mention of creating of Presbyters and Deacons. D. H.H. in his preface to his Dissertations.  
Answ. I answer, that when one is made Presbyter, an indefinite and indeterminate power is not given to him, and that there is an enumeration of the particular acts about which a Presbyter is most conversant, but deny, that that enumeration was ever by the Church intended for a perfect enumeration; 'tis not said, this thou hast power to do, but nothing else; if it were, how comes a Presbyter to have power of voting in an Assembly, or Convocation, when he is called to it. There is an enumeration of the Acts of a Bishop, among which there is no mention of ordaining Priests and Deacons, may we thence conclude, that the Bishop hath no power of conferring orders.  
Obj. In our English Church, before and after the Reformation, it was always held as an undoubted truth, that Presbyters neither single, nor in conjunction, had any power of ordaining Deacons and Priests. Id. ibid.  
Answ. Strange confidence! Was this ever held as an undoubted truth, and that both before and after our Reformation? What Confession of the Church of England saith so? What one man eminent in our Reformation, or before our Reformation, said so? Do not Usher, Davenant, Mason, Field, etc. say, Ordination by Presbyters is valid, which it could not be, if they had no power of ordaining? For my part, I shall as soon be brought to think there were no such men as Cran●●er, Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Jewel, as to think, that they judged that Presbyters had not power to make either Deacons or Presbyters; I may now at last, I hope, conclude with the learned and industrious Gerhard, Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidem proferri potest, quo demonstretur, immutabili quadam necessitate, ac ipsius Dei institutione potestatem ordinandi eo modo competere Episcopo, ut si minister ab Episcopo ordinetur, ejus vocatio & ordinatio censeatur rata, sin a Presbytero, quod tunc irrita coran● Deo, & frustranea sit habenda. Loc. Com. de Minis. Eccles.  
But methinks after all this, I hear you say, you are not satisfied, because that when you talk with Episcopal men, they constantly tell you, that in receiving Ordination from Presbyters, you go against the judgement of the Catholic Church for 1600 years and upward. Let me ask you who are those Episcopal men that tell you so? are they such as you can suppose to have read the most considerable books that were written in all ages of the Church? For my part I have usually observed that those who thus boast of all Antiquity, are very strangers to all Antiquity, and never so much as saw the Fathers and Counsels they so prate of. If you are resolved to close with every one that saith he hath all the Fathers on his side, you must presently turn Papist, for who more pretends Antiquity for his opinions than doth the Papist? But if you will not believe every one that pretends to have all Antiquity on his side, than I hope you may think it reasonable to examine the Episcoparians pretences to Antiquity; which if you will do, you will find that prime Antiquity is no friend to such an Hierarchy as they now would obtrude upon us. My advice to you is, 

1. That if it be possible, and as much as in you lieth, you would avoid all Disputations of this nature, which I have but rarely observed to have any good success.  
2. If you cannot avoid Disputation, then if it be possible confine your dispute to Scripture times: Put him that contends for Episcopacy as earnestly as if the very being of the Church did depend upon it, to prove the Divine Institution of it; and assure yourself, that which cannot be proved out of the Scriptures, is not necessary to the being of the Church;  
3. If you must needs enter into the lists about the Antiquity of your Opinion, than my counsel is, 

1. Do not take every thing to be the saying of a Father, which is quoted as such, but forbear answering, till you have time to examine whether that be indeed in the Fathers, which is brought out of them: For nothing is more common than for men in the heat of Disputation, to lay the brats of their own brain at the Father's doors.  
2. If you find that which is produced out of any Father, to be indeed in him, then inquire whether it were the intent of the Father to deliver his mind in that place concerning that matter, for which his authority is urged. For if we will gather the opinion of Fathers from passages let fall on the by, we may easily make one Father contradict another, yea every Father contradict himself.  
3. You must also inquire, whether what a Father delivers, be delivered by him as his own private opinion, or as the opinion of the Church; and if as the opinion of the Church, whether only as the opinion of that part of the Church in which he lived, or of the Universal Church: If it be but his own private opinion and judgement, you cannot think yourself obliged to believe it, except confirmed by strength of reason and evidence of Scripture. If it be delivered as the opinion of the whole Church, more reverence is to be given to it; but than it is certain that the Fathers did humanum aliquid pati, and sometimes affirm that to be Doctrine of the Church Universal, which was far enough from being such. These and many other directions are given to you by the Incomparable D'aillee in his learned Treatise of the Right use of the Fathers, which Book is most hearty recommended to your reading, as you are to the grace of God and guidance of his Spirit, by, Sir,      
Your most affectionate friend and servant, R. A.  
For his much respected Friend H. A. Minister as—  
Postscript.   

An Appendix.  
Whilst I was waiting for a fit Messenger to send you these Papers, something fell out which is like to multiply your trouble, viz. Mr. Humf. Book of Re-ordination came to my hands, wherein he disputes, Whether a Minister ordained by the Presbytery may take Ordination also by the Bishop? and determines the question affir. I was the more desirous to read over his Book, because I find him in the very 2d Pag. intimating, That since he had suffered himself to be reordained, it hath pleased God to exercise his Spirit with many perplexities, and that he doth not see what end the Lord had with him in his thoughts and workings of that nature, unless it be that these throws, as it were, of his be for the delivery of something for one or other of his brethren's satisfaction. M. Humf. being a Scholar, and having sought God often upon his knees for direction, it would be somewhat unchristian to adhere to my former determination without so much as considering what he had written and printed against it. And if I know any thing of myself, I am able to say, that I come to the examination of his Papers without the least prejudice against his Person or against his Tenent. Nay I can safely say, that I am hugely desirous to be his Proselyte. But the eminent Mirandula hath taught me that which I also experimentally find, nemo credit aliquid verum praecise quiavult credere illud esse verum, non est enim in potentia hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum, quando ipse voluerit. Though I would fain think it lawful to be reordained, yet unless my Arguments to prove it unlawful, be answered, I shall never be able to change my mind.  
This Learned Presbyter, p. 3. plainly tells us, that repeating or doubling of Ordination is odd and uncouth in its first and naked consideration. And p. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he affirms, that he dare not justify our Church-Rulers in the imposing of it. (by the way he may do well to consider, whether his overhasty submitting to re-ordination be not a virtual, at least interpretative justification of those that require it.) But he faith also, that he puts it in the number of such things as the necessity of convenience renders tolerable for the time, p. 5. Notionally he suspects it is not good, but morally he judgeth it an indifferent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good or bad, though unequally, as it is used. I will not now enter into the dispute about things indifferent, but will rather than quarrel, grant this reverend Author, and Dr. Sanderson, that as there are indifferentia ad utrumlibet, so there are indifferentia ad unum too, that is, things which though they be neither universally good, nor absolutely evil, yet being barely considered, sway more or less rather the one way then the other. There are some things which of themselves do notably and eminently incline unto evil rather then unto good; so that if the Question were barely propounded to me, whether they be evil, I could not be blamed if I did indefinitely answer, they are evil, which things yet in some cases and circumstances may be lawful. But for the present I must deny to this judicious Brother, that the Re-ordination he persuades us to is such a thing; as yet I think there is a moral evil in it, and not only a notional, fantastical or imaginary evil.  
Here we might close and join issue, but because he tells us that in his first Paper he only made scattered efferts, and that he would more roundly and freely lay down his Opinion with a larger compass in the whole matter, sect. 2. we will attend his motion thither. His four first Propositions I assent unto. In his fifth, p. 18. he distinguisheth between what Ordination is required to the setting apart a man to the Office of a Minister in the sight of God, and what is requisite to the making him received as a Minister among men, and give him Authority or full repute to exercise that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called.  
He believes that Ordination by Presbyters sufficing but a little while ago to both, sufficeth still to the former, but seeing Ordination by a Bishop is necessary to the latter, he thinks his being ordained by the Presbytery hinders not, but he may be again ordained by the Bishop, because he seeks not to be ordained by him to make him a Minister again, but to have authority to use his Ministry, and be received as such in Foro Ecclesiae Anglicanae.  
For my part, I readily acknowledge, that he who is already a Minister, may betake himself to a Bishop, or to any one else whom the Magistrate shall appoint, to procure a Licence to exercise his Ministry quietly; but the question is, Whether when I am made a Minister, I may go and take another Ordination, and that the very Ordination which the Church useth, when those who before were no Ministers are made Ministers. I incline to the Negative this Learned Casuist to the Affirmative.  
In which Opinion he saith, p. 19 he is a little justified, because when he was ordained by the Presbytery, the very words used at the point were, Whom by the laying on of hands, we set apart to the Office of the Ministry; and in the Ordination by the Bishop, they are, Take Authority to preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed, that is, in thy place. Sure this can but a little justify him in his Opinion; for the words by him mentioned, are not all the words that were used in his Ordination by the Bishop: 'Twas then also said, Receive thou the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou remittest, they shall be remitted, and whose thou retainest, they shall be retained: and several Prayers were used, that did evidently imply him to be no Minister before.  
He saith in the same place, that the words used in Episcopal Ordination, do confer the Ministerial power to the un-ordained, but that hinders not, but rather argues, if they confer that, & the other too, they may doubtless, (and actually do) confer one (and can but the one only) to such as are in his case. All this sure makes much against him; for if the Presbyterial Ordination leave him not capable of having any thing conferred upon him but only the free use of his Ministry in the English Church, why will he submit to such a Form of Ordination, as was purposely instituted to confer the very Ministry itself? Why is the Right Reverend troubled to do that which is already done? Why are such Prayers put up to God as manifestly suppose me to be no Minister, when as I all the while suppose myself to be a Minister? Let Mr. Humphrey but procure us to be ordained in such away, as shall only licence us to exercise that Ministerial Authority we already have, and to be prayed for with such a Form of Prayer, whose tendency shall only be to implore a Blessing upon us in the use of that Sacerdotal Function we have already received, and then he need not doubt, but we shall most readily and thankfully accept of it. But till this be done, let him not blame us, if we keep our ground, and choose rather to lose the exercise of our Ministry for a season (which yet is an affliction heavier than the Sands of the Sea) then to take gradum Simeonis (that I may allude to the Form of the Oath by which we are sworn when we are made Masters of Arts in the University.) Either I am mistaken, or I have already suggested that which will help you to solve all Mr. Humfreys Arguments by which he laboureth to justified his submission to a Second Ordination.  
Let's try: p. 21. He querieth: What evil is there more in re-ordination, then in second Marrying? If it be required of me, why may I not be ordained twice as well as once, and thrice as well as twice, if there be still reason sufficient? Answ. No Question if there be reason sufficient, a man may be ordained every hour of the day; but there cannot be reason sufficient for ordaining either a third or a second time to the same Office, because the end of Ordination is attained by one Administration of it, and the Church of Christ may do nothing in vain. As for the Instance of second marrying, by it is either understood marrying of a second wife, when the first is dead, and if so, 'tis strangely impertinent: Or else a second solemnisation of the former Marriage; and then I say that no wise man that hath already been married in a lawful way, will, or aught to submit to such a Form of Marriage as supposeth him all the time before, to have had no right to his wife: 'Tis one thing to go to a Justice or to a Bishop, and to get an Instrument under his hand, to secure a man's self, Wife and Children from molestation, another thing to go to the Congregation and be married with all the Prayers and religious solemnities appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book. I do not think, that Mr. Humphrey can produce any one instance of a person forced to a second Marriage, that had been before validly married, though not according to the Canons in force. I desire Mr. H. whom I look upon as a serious person, that he would one time in his Study read over the Form of Marriage, and try whether it would not go much against the hair to use it to two persons, who for many years had lived in Matrimony, and begotten Children.  
He proceeds in his Queries: May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated, and yet Gods Name not taken in vain? Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful, because we have in one Service the Lord's Prayer twice over?  
Answ. Some would say that the English Liturgy is never a whit the better for appointing the Lords Prayer to be twice used in one Service; they think it looks somewhat too like that vain Battology condemned by our Saviour. But I for my part think not that it is simply unlawful to use the Lords Prayers twice in one Service; but how it will be hence inferred, that therefore it is not unlawful to repeat Ordination, I am not so quicksighted as to perceive: The things we pray for in the Lord's Prayer are things which some of the congregation have not at all, which every one had need to have renewed, hence it is we use it often and if we use it with faith and affection we have hope our using of it will not be in vain, but as he that is in the state of Justification & is persuaded that he is in it, should sin if he should pray to be put into it: so I think that he who is already by ordination made a Minister, should sin if he should again pray to be made a Minister, or submit to any other Divine Ordinance, the end whereof is to make a man a Minister.  
[I read of one Baptism in Scripture and a stress is laid upon it, but I read not so of one Ordination: where there is no Law to the contrary, where I pray lies the Transgression?] Just thus I have heard that one who is lately sent into another world, argued in the Pulpit, that he read of Unity, but never of Uniformity, Ergo, etc. But doth it indeed follow, that Ordination may be repeated, because we do not find those words, one Ordination in Scripture: Why, if we had read of one Ordination, Ordination might have been repeated notwithstanding: For it is not therefore unlawful. To repeat Baptism (though upon other accounts the repetition of it be sinful) because it is said one Baptism; for the unity there spoken of is not numerical, but specifical. One is as much as common to all; non respicitur (saith Vossius, in his Thesis de Anabaptis.) unitas usurpationis, sed unitas partium substantialium, aquae●sc. & verbi. But as I say, that Ordination might have been iterable, though we had read of one Ordination, so I say, that though we read no such words as one Ordination, it may be uniterable, and that it is so, will appear, by the Arguments used in the Letter, and others suggested to Mr. H. if his Answers to them, or to any one of them prove unsatisfactory.  
The first Argument he brings against himself, is that of scandal, which he thus propounds, p. 24, 25. Many Brethren do think it unlawful to be ordained again, and by seeing such an one as Mr. H. reordained, will be emboldened to do so likewise; which if they do, whilst they believe (or doubt) it to be unlawful, they perish; and when we sin against the Brethren, and wound their weak Conscience, we sin against Christ. To this he answereth, That if a man who is satisfied of a thing as indifferent and lawful, must yet forbear, upon the account that by his example, others may be emboldened to the same, who having not that knowledge, do judge it unlawful, and so sin if they do it; then is the way of poor Christians (the Lord knows) very strait; and that he is through Grace something enlightened to judge, that a man may sometimes do much good in leading an example to the doubtful, when a thing is becoming necessary, p. 26.  
This Argument is none of mine, & therefore it need not much trouble me what becomes of it; nevertheless I think not meet to pass it over without acquainting you a little with my thoughts concerning it.  
1. Methinks that of Mr. Rutherford, in his Treatise of Scandal, p. 53, 54. hath a great deal in it, viz. We read not of scandals culpable in God's Word, but there be some moral Reasons in them. If there were no probable reason to imagine there were sin in re-ordination, I could not be under obligation to abstain from it, for fear of offending my Brother: therefore do I not forbear to turn up the hourglass, or to wear a Gown when I preach, because there is not any apparent moral reason why either the one or the other should scandalise, both the Glass and the Gown being of mere civil use, and having no moral influence in my preaching: For I use and may use my Glass and my Gown in reading an humanity or Philosophy-Lecture to Fresh men.  
2. I do also judge that of Gregory de Valentia, to have truth and favour in it; that the Law for the avoiding of the scandal of a weak brother, doth not oblige us to forbear any thing, which cannot be forborn sine maxima aliqua & pene intolerabili difficultate; wherefore if it should come to pass, that I can neither preach nor have a livelihood unless I be reordained, I should not stick to say that I were to submit to re-ordination (supposing it be lawful) though thereby some through their ignorance or weakness, should be scandalised. I would become any thing to any one, rather than lose the opportunity of gaining souls. But than first Mr. Humf. might do well to consider, whether this necessity be not a necessity which he hath brought on himself and others. Possibly an humble and peaceable, but yet earnest Perition to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, might have prevented all this necessity of re-ordination. 2. He may do well to weigh this, whether he did before he took Orders a second time, endeavour to satisfy those Brethren about him that were like to be scandalised by that his practice: For many things may be lawfully done after we have given a reason, and laboured to prevent stumbling, which could not else be done without sin.  
He proceeds p. 28. to that which is indeed the main Argument against re-ordination; which he thus propounds: Ordination is that which according to Divines, does give a man the Office of the Ministry, this is the end they account of Ordination: now when a man is Minister already, there is not this end. If there be not its end, it is to no purpose, an Ordinance of God taken in vain, which is against the Third Commandment. To this he answers, p. 29. There are more ends than one in Ordination, as in Baptism and other Institutions; it is not necessary to the taking or using an Ordinance, that a man be capable of all its ends (I might add if need were, nor the grand end) so long as there is some right and sufficient end of the same. To this, the Reply is not difficult: We easily grant, one may take or use an Ordinance, who is not capable of all its ends; but then he must take it in such a Form of words as is expressive only of those ends of which he is capable. I will illustrate myself by the Instance of Marriage; one end of it is procreation, I question not but he may marry, who in a natural way is not capable of begeting children, else must I condemn all the Marriages of aged persons (which I have no warrant to do.) But then this persons dead body must be so far considered, as that no Prayer be put up of this nature, that God would bless him with Issue; else I tempt God, and pray unto him to work a Miracle: This, the Composers of the English Liturgy thought upon, and therefore appoint the Prayer for Children to be omitted, in case there be no natural hopes of Children. In like manner one that is ordained already, and so a Minister, he may be again ordained in order to the free exercise of his Ministry, but not ordained with that Ordination, whose chief end is to give the very Ministerial Commission and Authority: He proceeds, p. 30.  
The common and general end of Baptism was for Remission of sins, yet was Jesus Christ baptised, who was not capable of that end, but some others. True, our Lord Christ was baptised by John, but some say, that he was not baptised for himself; others say for himself; and these latter I judge have the Truth on their side: Why might he not use the Sacraments as a Profession of the true Religion? as parts and acts of the Instituted Worship appointed by God? Yea, why might he not use them as Seals of the Divine Promises made to him as Mediator? Yea, why might he not use the Sacraments for the Confirmation of his Faith in these Promises? But let M. Humf. if he can prove that in the Baptism of Christ any words were used by John expressive of such an end as Christ was not capable of. Bellarmine saith, John used no Form of words. Some Fathers, and most Schoolmen think that he made use of this Form, I baptise thee in the Name of the Messiah to come. If that were his Form, no sober man I trow, will think that he kept that Form when he baptised the Messiah himself.  
Ibid. Paul is made a Minister by Christ himself, Acts 26.16, 17, 18. yet was he ordained after by the hands of men, Acts 13.3. 'Tis plain then, that a man who is a Minister already, may be ordained, or that it is not necessary to be ordained only to this end, to have the Office conferred on him.  
Answ. Here is something supposed, which cannot be proved: Either, 

1. That Paul was before a Minister, and not only a Probationer and Candidate to that Office. Now this is denied by very Learned men, and the place Gal. 1.1. reconciled to their Opinion.  
2. Or else it is supposed that Paul was now in the 13th. of the Acts made a Minister: But this also is denied by others.   The circumstances of the Story make it more probable, that the laying on of hands mentioned, was rather Optative then Ordinative.  
Where as therefore we are bid p. 31. tell the Bishop, if he should ask, wherefore wilt thou be Ordained? that we desire to be ordained to that end, that very end St. Paul was here ordained to. I say, this is very good wholesome Counsel and Advice: But if the Bishop will not use Means proper to that end, if he will, instead of giving me the Canonical stamp of Allowance, break in pieces my old Seal, and give me another, what must I do then? Why this Ingenuous Author hath found out a Salvo for that, pag. 51, 52. If a man do both clearly and unfaignedly before and after this re-ordination declare himself, renouncing of his former Ordination, will not by the Lord, ought not by man, to be laid to his charge, and that upon this evident reason, because Expression in this case doth give Construction to the action; the denomination must be a fortiori, and there can be no doubt to the , whether a manifest Declaration by mouth, or a dumb show or act is the clearer, and so the stronger signification. But poor dull I was wont to think, Protestatio non valet contra factum. If I should take the Engagement, and plainly declare both before and after, that I intended not to renounce or to go against either Covenant, or Oath of Allegiance, would this justify me in the sight of God or men? If it would, Monarches have not so fast hold of their Subjects, as I have always deemed them to have.  
Pag. 42, 43. The Question being only this at the highest, whether an Authority or Commission to an Office or Work, in the Nature of the thing may be renewed or refreshed? There is one Instance alone may, I think, pluck the superstitious doubt up by the root from the heart: The Apostles beyond question, had Mission and Commission, and so the Gift, whatsoever it is, from Christ, when he made them Ministers in his Life, and yet we find their Commission or Authority Ministerial renewed expressly again after Christ's Resurrection, John 20.21, 22, 23. Which herein hath the more support in it, that it is the same Form which is used to us, without repetition.  
How different are the apprehensions of men? That which to him seemeth strong enough to pull the superstitious doubt up by the root, to me seems not to shake, or so much as touch the root: For it is judged by some, that the Commission Mat. 10. was but temporary, and so expired upon the return of the Disciples: But I do not think, that the Presbyters ordained Mr. Humf. to be a Minister only till the Restitution of the Bishops. 2. However all grant the Commission then granted, was but partial, such as did not authorise to all Ministerial Acts, not to administer the Eucharist, not to absolve Penitents, not to confirm the Baptised, etc. But the Ordination by Presbyters was full and complete, 'twas so thought by the Ordainers, 'twas so thought by the Ordained, and the people upon this Ordination received men as Ministers, as complete Ministers, receiving all Ordinances from them, as occasion offered itself, and giving them the double honour, etc. so that all that can hence be inferred, is but this, that they who have only been made Deacons, may be made Presbyters, and of that there is no scruple made; but hence it follows not, that they who have been made Priests, and acted for some years as such, may now be made Deacons again, and afterwards be made Priests, Quod crat Demonstrandum.  
There's but one thing more in all Mr. Humf. book that can trouble you, and that is about the Argument taken from Baptism, which may be put into this Enthymem, Baptism may not be repeated, therefore Ordination may not. The consequent I have proved in my letter, and so proved it, as that what Mr. Hum. saith against it, will not much stagger you: he propounds something therefore as to the antecedent, page 85, 86. Not accounting it any absurdity, that Baptism itself should be repeated, which he proves from Acts 19 where some seem to be baptised, that had been before baptised with John's Baptism, whereas John's Baptism was one with Christ's, as to Author, matter, form, end.  
Now this deserves to be well thought on, and sound chewed, before we swallow it, lest while we plead for Re-ordination, we also open a wide gap to Anabaptism; you must therefore know, that the Church of God, the Orthodox part of it, hath always reputed rebaptisation, not only superfluous, but also impious: If Cyprian and some others, be produced to the contrary, 'tis upon a mistake; they pressed that which others thought would be a second baptism, not what they thought so; for baptism by Heretics, was by them thought no baptism; the constant judgement of the Fathers, the not repeating of Circumcision, the no example, the no precept for rebaptisation, is sufficient argument, that it is not the will of God, that baptism should be iterated; this will of God is not irrational, nay, it is grounded, saith Vossius, upon reason, not unknown to us: Proprius enim baptismi finis est ut signet & obsignet spiritualem Nativitatem nostram sive insitionem in Christum, & receptionem in familiamejus; hoc in altero sacramento quod est S. Caenalocum non habet, quiahaec est signum & sigillum non regenerationis sed nutritionis & alimoniae spiritualis, non faederis initi sed continuati. Nempeut carnalis generatio semel fit, sed cibum saepe necesse habemus sumere ad corpus untriendum, ita semel per baptismum renascimur sed saepe per caenam nutrimur. Of the strength of this reason, Sotus it seems was so confident, that he thought God could not will or institute, that baptism should be twice administered; but in this he goeth a note above Ela. God might have appointed us to be often baptised, but he hath not thought meet to make any such appointment, nor doth the nature of the Sacrament require any iteration: As to the place in the Acts, there are as Vossius, and before him Chemnitius have observed to my hand, no fewere then three opinions about it: i.e. Some building on the particles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say, that those words v. 5. When they heard this, etc. are not the words of Luke, but of Paul, of Paul telling what john's hearers did, not of Luke telling what was the effect of Paul's speech upon the Disciples that heard him; if this sense be accepted (and Grotius seems to have nothing against it, save this only, that Marnixius was the first Author of it) than there's not here the least appearance of rebaptisation: But let us suppose Marnixius, Beza, Drusius, etc. to be mistaken in their conjecture; Optatus, whose fifth book is wholly against repetion of baptism, hath given us another account, viz. that before Christ had given a Law and Precept about Baptism, John's baptism had place, and those who were admitted into the Church by it, never received any other baptism, but that these Ephesian Disciples were baptised with John's baptism, after the precept given, and so the baptism was null. I'll transcribe the whole place as I find it, page 88, 89. of the Paris Edition, Ubivenit tempus plenitudinis, certo tempore dedit leges baptismatis filius Dei, & dedit viam qua iretur ad regna coelorum dum praecepit dicens, Ite docete omnes gentes baptizantes eas in nomine patris, & filii, & spiritus sancti, ex ea die oportuit fieri quod mandatum est, ante tempus noluit emendare quod operatum est, ne licentiam rebaptizandi daret quamvis alterum fuerit baptisma Joannis alterum Christi, baptisma Joannis ante leges plenum esse voluit, quod non erat plenum & tamen supra memorata milia hominum quia in Deo crediderant, quamvis ignorarent filium Dei & spiritum sanctum, regnum coelorum eis denegari non potuit, inde est vox filii dicentis a diebus Joannis usque in hodierum, regnum Dei vim patitur, & qui vim faciunt, diripiunt illud: ideo dixit, vim patitur, quia adhuc baptizabat Joannes, denique quia alterum tempus erat ante praecepta, alterum post praecepta. Qui post praecepta in nominc salvatoris baptizati sunt, in regnum legibus intraverunt; qui ante praecepta sine lege vim fecerunt. sed exclusi non sunt ergo ante praecepta baptisma foannis, cum esset imperfectum pro perfecto judicatum est ab●eo cui nem● judicat & quia quasi limes quidam fixus esset jussionis inter tempora antecedentia & sequentia cum apud Ephesum baptizarentur aliqui in baptismate Joannis post praecepta, hos videns B. Paulus interrogavit an acceptissont spiritum sanctum, dixerunt illi se nescire, an esset spiritus sanctus, & dixit illis ut post baptisma Joannis acciperent spiritum sanctum: Sic enim baptizatierant quemadmodum multi a Joanne fuer ant baptizati. Sed qui ante leges baptizati sunt, ad indulgentiam pertinuerunt, quia praesens fuerat, quia indulgentiam daret, & non erant ex toto rei, qui legibus non fuerant occupati. Hi vero, qui apud Ephesium post leges, Joannis baptismate baptizati fuisse leguntur, post leges in Sacramento erraverant; quia jam introductum fuerat baptisma Domini & exclusum fuerat servi, & ideo, quia post divina mandata, legibus debuerant ire in regnum, non per violentiam, post hodiernum jam non licebat quod Heri licuebat, quare nolite vobis blandiri de dicto Apostoli Pauli, qui non post personam operarii interrogavit, sed post rem cui res non persona displicuit.  
But what need all this. I'll grant these Disciples were before baptised, and now rebaptised, yet hence will not be proved rebaptisation, not that rebaptisation against which I dispute: I say, that a man must not be baptised again with the same baptism; now John's Baptism was not the same with Christ's, not the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so much the same, but that there was as much ground to administer Christ's Baptism after Johns, as there was to administer John's baptism after Circumcision, a Sacrament not specifically different from baptism: Of this the learned Vossius speaks succinctly and clearly, Pro diversa fidelium aetate potuit sacramentum initiationis variare, fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Christum venturum, alii in eum qui veniret, & quasi in via esset, alii in eum qui jam venisset. Primis instituta fuit circumcisio, alteris baptisma Johannis, tertiis baptismus Christi.  
I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe, and must now consider of two or three straggling arguments, which may seem to some not altogether to want weight.  
Page 56, 57 He propounds a query, Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any after the Resurrection of Christ, to prove, that an Ordinance of God may be used, without breach of the third Commandment, or other sin, even then, when it cannot be directed to its principal, no, not its proper end, so long as it will but attain one higher than all, viz. the promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus.  
Answ. Certainly no, for Circumcision after the Resurrection was no Ordinance, being blotted out by the death of Christ, and nailed to his Cross, 'twas become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Had Timothy been circumcised in such a way as were the Jews before the passion of the Messiah, Christ had profited him nothing; Mr. Humf. should have thus propounded his question, Whether from Paul's circumcising of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn, to prove, that in order to the propagation of the Gospel, it is lawful to use the outward rite or ceremony of an abolished Jewish Ordinance? had he so proposed it, I should not have counted myself obliged to return any other answer but this, that the question is no way pertinent to the matter in hand: For 

1. Ordination is not an abolished Ordinance.  
2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance; the question is not, whether it be lawful to let the Bishop lay his hand on my head, but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head, with this form of words, Receive thou the Holy Ghost; or with any other form of words, the purport whereof is to confer the Ministerial power, which I already have.    
2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin, the Professor of Witten. who putting the case, whether one ordained by the Papists, may be again ordained by us, though he maintains there's no necessity why he should so be reordained, yet thus determines, Quod si quis existimat se tranquillius suo in nostris Ecclesiis officio perfungi posse, si etiam nostris ritibus ad sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur, nihil obstat, quin ordinationem a nostris accipere possit, non enim eadem est ratio Ordinationis quae baptismi, qui iterari non potest. Hoc enim Sacramentum est Ecclesiae, illa autem externus tantum ritus. Lib. 4. c. 6. cas. 6.  
1. Supposing, but not granting, that Baldwin is fully for him, yet Gregory, a more Venerable Author, is against him: Sicut Baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non debet, ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari, Epist. lib. 2. Epist. 32.  
There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian, entitled, De operibus Cardinalibus Christi. Pamelius saith it is his, or some others as ancient as he: Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library, thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacensis, who lived almost twelve hundred years after Christ, if so, however his authority and testimony is to be preferred before Baldwins, these are his words, De ablutione pedum: Baptismum repeti Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae, & semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere: Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat, nemo sacro oleo lita iterum linit aut consecrat, nemo impositioni manuum vel Ministerio derogat sacerdotum; quia contumelia esset spiritus sancti, fi evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat, vel aliena sanctificatio emendaret, quod ille semel statuit & confirmat. Edit. Goular. p. 513.  
The Council also of Capua is against him, as I find in Spondanus, the Epitomator of Baronius, ad annum 389. If Mr. Humphrey have a man for him, he hath an Army against him. But  
2. I do not see that Baldwin is for him, for he determines not, that a man who is ordained, and judgeth himself to be so, may take a second Ordination, but only that he who is ordained, and is not satisfied in his own mind and conscience about the validity of his ordination, may be reordained, which case is heavenly wide from the case of Mr. Humphrey, for he thinks that he is ordained, and saith, he will tell the Bishop so, yea, and dreadeth not to affirm, that his Diocesan doth amiss in calling him to these second orders.  
Now truly, though I would not altogether balk a way, because no man did ever walk in it before me, yet I must take leave to suspect such a way, and consider well before I venture into it: The Poet saith, Illi robur & aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem, etc. He was a bold man, that did first expose himself to the Sea in a ship; and King James would say, that he had a good stomach, who first eat an oyster: May not we also think, that they, who ever they are, were too hardy, who were the first that submitted to re-ordination, which if it be no more, is Ordination redundant, a mishap in our apprehension, page 4.  
Page 94. He suggests, That if he should not be reordained, many of his people will not own him, but clamour, they will not receive the Sacraments from him, and perhaps they will make him Constable or Churchwarden?  
Constable or Churchwarden! that were pity indeed; but yet better be either one or the other, then do that which is so destructive to communion of Churches, as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be: 'Tis not unlike some peevish people before this turn, might say, that Mr. Humf. was no Minister, because not ordained by a Bishop; but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be reordained, that he might stop their mouths, how comes he now to be so tender of them: And I doubt some of the better sort of our hearers, should they understand that we are so light, as to take a non-significant ordination in so solemn a way as we must do, if we come under the Bishop's hands, would be so scandalised, as scarce to account our Ministry worth attending on. Upon the whole I see not but that they who refuse Re-ordination, may be reckoned among men of a tender frame, and serious spirit, and not among such as are of a scanty soul, and too scrupulously superstitious conscience: The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth, and after you have suffered for a while make you perfect.  
FINIS.