der, which would leffen the Peoples Part too much in making Bishops for themselves, and overturn the whole Scheme of his next Chapter; which is to prove, that the Orders of Bishop and Presbyter in the Church are plainly one and the fame. This fhall be confider'd farther in its own Place: In the mean time, let any impartial Man seriously confider what Probability there is, that fuch Representations of Antiquity as these should answer the pious Ends of our ingenious Enquirer, and contribute to heal the unhappy Divifions of the Church in the Cafe and Controverfy now before us; fince (as far as I am able to obferve) these, and fuchlike Misunderstandings of the Primitive Pra&tice, are the fad Occafions of their being fo many, and fo unhappy as they are.

O

CHA P. IV.

To heal Divifions in a Church, and displease

none that make them, are two fuch Works of Charity as can scarce confift together. Yet, to carry this as far as it would go, the good Enquirer feems to aim at both; the former he folemnly profeffes in his Preface, the latter as visibly appears in the Performance itself: But with what Succefs, and by what Means he has done it, in a great measure appears by what has gone before, and in this fourth Chapter will be much clearer ftill.

There are three or four Parties (as he * tells us himself) which he aim'd to reconcile: He began with the Independents Cause, and in order to make them and the rest agree, he has ftrain'd Antiquity (you fee) to make it speak their Sense in the Points of Congregational Diocefes, and the Popular Right of choofing their own Bishops, (the main Matters they contend for) which no doubt of it, will offend none of them; but as to clearing up the Truth in their Cafe, and bringing them to a peaceful Difpofition for compromising Matters, with fuch as differ from them; we may justly fear, by the palpable Violence he has done to the holy Fathers Writings for their fake, he has done little or nothing that can tend to that happy End.

He now proceeds, to bring the Presbyterian Party to a Temper, by much the fame Way; that is, by allowing them fairly, as fast as he can, without regard to fuch as differ from them, the chief and fundamental Point they infift upon, the Equality of Order in the Bishop, and the Presbyter, and to clear his Way for that, he defines his Presbyter thus: A Perfon in Holy Orders, having thereby an inherent Right to perform the whole Office of a Bishop; but being poffefs'd of no Place or Parish, not actually difcharging it without the Permiffion and Confent of the Bishop of a Place or Pa rish.

The main Difference, in the Argument before us, lies in the former Part of this Definition; but our learned Author chofe to prove the latter

Eng. Pref. P. 54-57.

latter Claufe first, viz. that without the BiShop's Leave, a Presbyter could discharge no fingle Part of his Function; and for plainer Evidence in that Cafe, he reckon'd up most of the particular Acts relating to it, and beyond exception prov'd, that in every Point it was fo: Yet after all, he had fo wonderful and fingular a Notion of this evident Subjection of the Presbyters to their Bishops, in every Ministerial Act of theirs within their Bishops Jurifdiction, that he could affirm without Scruple, in another Place, that Presbyters rul'd in thofe Churches they belong'd to, and plac'd this Ruling Power of theirs amongst the several other Premiffes,from whence an Equality of Order in Bifhop and Presbyter was to be inferr'd at laft; notwithstanding the palpable Inequality he had fo plainly own'd (you fee in this Particular before; which, to speak the most of it, might ferve as well to prove, that Kings and Viceroys, or any deputed Offi cers of theirs, are one and the fame Order of Men in any Civil State, because in fome Capacity, and in Subordination to one another, they are all Rulers within the fame Jurifdiction, tho' 'tis fufficiently known how vastly different their Order and Authority are, confider'd in themselves. But to come closer to the Point.

'Tis in the former Part of our learned Author's Definition, that the Question in Debate is stated all at once, and with great Affurance determin'd by him too. A Presbyter (fays he) is a Perfon in holy Orders, having thereby an inhe rent Right to perform the whole Office of a Bishop. Now, two Things, directly contrary to the declar'd Sense, as well as Language, and Practice M 4

of

of the Primitive Church, are manifeftly included in this fingle Propofition.

Firft, That the folemneft Rites or Holy Offices which the Primitive Church ever used for promoting any Presbyter into the Station of a Bishop, added nothing more to his former Character and Order, than a Right and Title only to exercise those Powers (to the full) which were inherent in him before. And,

Secondly, That all the Clerical Offices which any Bishop of the Church could perform, a Presbyter alfo, by vertue of his Orders alone, had a Right and Power invested in him (by the Bishops Leave only) to perform the fame.

Let this great Controverfy be try'd then by the clear Evidence of Antiquity in these material Points; and if in both, or either of them, the Primitive Church be found notoriously to declare a contrary Judgment in the Cafe, and their Practice as direct a Contradiction to them too, it muft follow of courfe, that a Presbyter in their Times, and in their Opinion of him, had not an inherent Right by his Orders to perform the whole Office of a Bishop, as this learned Author affirms.

To begin with the first of these, the Sense and Judgment of Antiquity, concerning that Holy Rite, or Solemn Office of promoting a Presbyter to the Station of a Bishop; wherein I obferve, (after the Example, and by Encouragement from the Enquirer himself)

*

Firft, That the fame Word, which all Antiquity ufes for expreffing the Promotion of a Lay

* Sec p. 10.

Man

Man to a Deacon, or a Deacon to a Presbyter, they used alfo for the Promotion of Presbyters into the Station of a Bishop: 'Tis Ordination of Bishops, as well as of Priefts and Deacons, in the familiar Language of the Fathers: This our Enquirer owns, for he has quoted an Authority from S. Cyprian for it, [Pag. 49.] and 'tis too obvious a Matter to need any Proofs. Hence I argue then, (in his own Words) If the same Appellation of a thing be a good Proof for the Identity of its Nature, then the Rite of confecrating a Bishop must confer a new Order upon him, because the fame Name is familiarly used for it, as for the Rite of ordaining a Presbyter, who undoubtedly had a new Order conferr'd upon him by it: In this Manner, our Enquirer proves his Bishops and Presbyters to be of one and the fame Order, from the Identity of their Names, [Eng. Pag. 67.] and those Names fufficiently liable to diftinct Constructions of them, [as we fhall fee in due Time and Place ;] and tho' the Argument would have had confiderable Weight in it, if he had prov'd the main Thing neceffary there; namely, that a Presbyter was ordinarily, or indeed ever call'd a Bishop, after the Apoftolical Age was a little over; yet for want of that, (which he did not,and I am free to fay he cannot prove) his Argument, I think, cannot come up to the Application I make of it here; fince the Word Ordination, for making of Bishops, has been authentick in all Ages of the Church, without any Mark of Diftinction put upon it; and for Fathers, Councils, and Historians generally to make use of it, where no Order is given at all,

*See Eng. p. 67.

not