Writings are often ftyl'd. * Presbyters and Deacons. Since we are fure we find fuch a diftinct Power, as we contend for, exprefsly defcrib'd, we stand not fo much upon the Name, when we are fecure of the thing, it is but trifling to cavil about Words. Tho what is more ufual, what more commonly known, than that the fame Words may, in their first and general fignification, take in several very different things, till they are by a peculiar Appropriation reftrain'd to fomewhat special in the Kind, and Then they become in a manner New Words; and Things being always before Words, the Thing,which the reftrain'd ufe of the Word fignifies, must have been before That Word was reftrain'd to fuch a fignification. The Office therefore of that Chief Ecclefiaftical Overfeer, which the word Bifhop does import, was of Neceffity Sometime, and might have been a long time in Being, before that general Word was limited to fignify fo particularly. Which is a fufficient Answer to the lefs diftinct undetermin'd Ufe of this Name in Scripture, tho' we find it immediately after by Ecclefiaftical ufage Univerfally appropriated to the fignification it now bears, as by the most early Writers of the Church, St Clement, St Ignatius, and the Apoftolical Canons plainly appears. Whatever Name therefore the Apoftes call'd it by, we are Πρεσβύτερος, Διάκονοι. fure

fure they exercis'd This Authority, and finding fo foon after them, nay in the life time of fome of them, both the Name and Thing in Every One of the Churches which they founded, we have all the reason in the world to conclude, that it was by Their Inftitution. Which whofoever shall go about to contradict, let them give any tolerable Account, how Epifcopal Government fhould fo fpeedily and fo univerfally spread itself over the whole Chriftian World, as it is moft notorious that it did, that it was not accounted a Church, that was not Subject to a Bishop. How is it poffible to conceive, that all the several Churches, difpers'd far and wide, and diftant from each Other fhould have confpir'd fo unanimously, and confented in One and the Same form of Government, unless they deriv'd it from the fame Original, and receiv'd it at first together with the Faith itself from the Apoftles? St Auftin tells us, There are but two ways poffible of accounting for so general a Confent as this, in any matter, that is not plainly commanded in Scripture, Namely, That they must have been either deriv'd from Apoftolical Authority, or been Decreed by fome General Council. But as the learned Editor of the Synodicon obferves, there is not one Law, not one Canon, not the leaft Footstep of one Decree

now,

U 3

Decree of any Council extant, or hinted at by any Father or ancient Ecclefiaftical Writer, by which this Government is either Inftituted or Confirm'd. It remains therefore, according to that known general Rule of the fame Father, Whatsoever the Univerfal Church holds, and has always held, if not Ordain'd by any Council, muft be concluded to have been receiv'd from the Authority of the Apoftles; that of the Government of the Church by Bishops, the leaft that can be faid is, that it is of Apoftolical Inftitution.

And this very fame Argument will as ftrongly prove the Second Thing we laid down, which is, that The Power of Ordination has ever been in their Hands.

For that this Power of Ordaining did ever belong by peculiar Right to the Bishop, is (no less than Epifcopacy itself) conftantly prefuppos'd in the moft Ancient Canons of the Church, as much Elder than They.

There is not one Canon to be found, which Confers that Power on Bishops, but many that prescribe Rules and Measures to the Exercise of it. Thus the Apoftolical Canons, as they are call'd, determin what Number of Bishops fhall be requir'd to the conferring of each different Order, as Three to the Confecration of a Bishop, and One only to the Ordination of a Priest or a Deacon;

Deacon; and divers Other Canons afterwards there are, which reftrain Epifcopal Ordinations to ftricter Rules; all which confirm their Original Authority, and prove that they exercis d that Power before without those Restrictions; And that all other pretended Ordinations befide were void and null, feveral Decrees of Councils afterwards abundantly prove. Thus the second Oecumenical Council, That of Conftantinople, after it had declar'd Maximus to have been no Bishop, immediately adds, and all That by Him have been ordain'd into what Degree foever, are [vipo] in the fame condition as if they never had been Confecrated; and there is a famous and known Instance, which St Athanafius gives us in his › fecond Apology, of a Council at Alexandria, that decreed Ifchyras a meer Laick, because he was Ordain'd by Colluthus a meer Prefbyter. And Socrates in his Hiftory fays, that what Ifchyras did afterwards, * deferv'd to be punifo'd with many Deaths. But how do's he fet forth his Crime? not that he contemn'd and violated the Decree of the Sacred Council, but that never having been initiated into Holy Orders, he took upon him the name of a Presbyter, and exercis'd the Office of a Priest, as his words are, and yet he that Ordain'd him, Colluthus, was a True and Canonical Presbyter. It were endless * Πράμα πολλών θανάτων ἄξιον.

to

"

to reckon up all the Teftimonies of Antiquity in this fo clear a point; the whole ftream of Church Writing and Church Praetife is for us, and agree with that of Epiphanius, That Presbyters indeed have Power by Baptifm to beget Children, but Bishops only by Ordination to beget Fathers to the Church. So much even St Ferom himself, who of all the Fathers is the leaft favourable to the Order of Bishops, and the ftiffeft Affertor of the Rights of Presbytery, is forc'd to confefs, What is there, fays he, that a Bishop do's, except only Ordination, which a Presbyter may not do? But in abatement of the abfolute Neceffity of fuch an Ordination, we are often urg'd with this captious and invidious Queftion; What will ye deny that there is any Lawfull Miniftry in all the Reform'd Churches abroad, who have none but Prefbyterian Ordination? To which we may return, that their Case, and that of our Wilful Diffenters at home, is quite different. For most of thofe abroad in the begining of the Reformation have frequently own'd, that it was abfolute Neceffity that forc'd them at first very unwillingly to alter the Ecclefiaftical Government, and many of em have fince exprefs'd an earnest defire of fuch a one as we enjoy. But how great their Neceffities are, and how far Neceffity may go towards making that Lawful, which

otherwife

L