those holy men who lived both in the times of the apostles and some years after them, and conversed with them as their blessed fellow-labourers, a clear and received distinction both of the names and offices of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as three distinct subordinate callings in God's church, with an evident specification of the duty and charge belonging to each of them; let this claimed hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the church"."

The bishop admits that, in the language of Scripture, bishops and presbyters are the same; that there is a plain identity in their denomination, and that we never find these three orders mentioned together, bishops, presbyters, and deacons; but though there be no distinction of names, his lordship apprehends there is a real distinction and specification of which powers; 1. The sole right of ordination. 2. The sole right of spiritual jurisdiction.

are,

1. The sole right of ordination his lordship proves from the words of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 6; "Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands;" and that this power was never communicated to presbyters, from the words of St. Jerome, by whom ordination is excepted from the office of a presbyter: quid facit episcopus, quod non facit presbyter ordinatione." And yet (says his lordship) our English bishops do not appropriate this power to themselves: "Say, brethren, I beseech you after all this noise, what bishop ever undertook to ordain a presbyter alone or without the concurrent imposition of many hands? This is perpetually and infallibly done by us."

The Smectymnuan divines contend, on the other hand, that bishops and presbyters were originally the same; that ordination to the office of a bishop does not differ from the ordination of a presbyter; that there are no powers conveyed to a bishop from which presbyters are excluded; nor any qualification required in one more than in the other; that admitting Timothy was a proper bishop, which they deny, yet that he was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery as well as of St. Paul's, 1 Tim. iv. 14. That the original of the order of bishops, was from the presbyters choosing one from among themselves to be stated president in their assemblies, in the second or third century; that St. Jerome declares once and again, that in the days of the apostles, bishops and presbyters were the same; that as low as his time they had gained nothing but ordination; and that St. Chrysostom and Theophylact affirm, that while the apostles lived, and for some ages after, the names of bishops and presbyters were not distinguished. This, say they, is the voice of the most primitive antiquity . But the Smectymnuans are amazed at his

+ Defence, p. 47.

* Remonstrance, p. 21. In the debate of the house on this head, the authority of that very ancient parchment copy of the Bible in St. James's library, sent by Cyrillus patriarch of Alexandria to king Charles I. being all written in great capital Greek letters, was vouched and asserted by Sir Simon D'Ewes, a great antiquary, wherein the post

lordship's assertion, that the bishops of the church of England never ordained without presbyters; and that this was so constant a practice, that no instance can be produced of its being done without them. "Strange! (say they) when some of us have been eye-witnesses of many scores who have been ordained by a bishop in his private chapel, without the presence of any presbyter, except his domestic chaplain, who only read prayers. Besides, the bishop's letters of orders make no mention of the assistance of presbyters, but challenge the whole power to themselves, as his lordship had done in his book entitled, Episcopacy of Divine Right, the fifteenth section of which has this title, 'The power of ordination is only in bishops.""

But the main point upon which the bishop lays the whole stress of the cause is, whether presbyters may ordain without a bishop? For the proof of this, the Smectymnuans produce the author of the comment on the Ephesians, which goes under the name of St. Ambrose, who says, that in Egypt the presbyters ordain if the bishop be not present; so also St. Augustine in the same words; and the chorepiscopus, who was only a presbyter, had power to impose hands, and to ordain within his precincts with the bishop's licence; nay farther, the presbyter of the city of Alexandria, with the bishop's leave, might ordain, as appears from Con. Ancyr. Carit. 3, where it is said, "it is not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons; nor for the presbyters of the city without the bishop's letter, in another parish;" which implies they might do it with the bishop's letter, or perhaps without it, in their own; and Firmilianus says of them who rule in the church, whom he calls "seniores et præpositi;" that is, presbyters as well as bishops, that they had the power of baptizing and of laying on of hands in ordaining *.

scripts to the epistles to Timothy and Titus are only this, "This first to Timothy, written from Laodicea; to Titus, written from Nicopolis;" whence he inferred, that the styling of Timothy and Titus first bishops of Ephesus and Crete, were the spurious additions of some eastern bishop or monk, at least five hundred years after Christ. Rushworth, vol. 4. p. 284.

It may be some satisfaction to the reader, to see the judgment of other learned men upon this argument, which has broken the bands of brotherly love and charity, between the church of England and all the foreign Protestants that have no bishops.

The learned primate of Ireland, archbishop Usher, in his letter to Dr. Bernard, says, "I have ever declared my opinion to be, that episcopus et presbyter gradu tantum differunt, non ordine,' and consequently, that in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters stands valid; but the ordination made by such presbyters as have severed themselves from those bishops to whom they have sworn canonical obedience, I cannot excuse from being schismatical. I think that churches that have no bishops are defective in their government, yet, for the justifying my communion with them (which I do love and honour as true members of the church universal), I do profess, if I were in Holland I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Dutch, with the like affection as I should from the hands of the French ministers were I at Charenton." The same most reverend prelate, in his answer to Mr. Baxter, says, "that the king having asked him at the Isle of White, whether he found in antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any? he replied yes, and that he could shew his majesty more, even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops, and instanced in Jerome's words,

2. The other branch of power. annexed to the episcopal office, is the sole right of spiritual jurisdiction; this the bishop seems in some sort to disclaim: "Whoever (says he) challenged a sole jurisdiction? We willingly grant that presbyters have, and ought to have, jurisdiction within their own charge; and that in all great affairs of the church they ought to be consulted. We admit, that bishops of old had their ecclesiastical council of presbyters; and we still have the same in our deans and chapters; but we say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the bishop, that presbyters may not exercise it without him, and that the exercise of external jurisdiction is derived from, by, and under him, to those who exercise it within his diocess." This his lordship proves from several testimonies out of the fathers.

The Smectymnuans agree with his lordship, that in the ancient church, bishops could do nothing without the consent of the clergy; nor in cases of excommunication and absolution without the allowance of the whole body of the church to which the delinquent belonged, as appears from the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian; but they aver, upon their certain knowledge, that our English bishops have exercised several parts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction without their presbyters. And farther (say they), where, in all antiquity, do we meet with such delegates, as lay-chancellors, commissaries, and others as never received imposition of hands? These offices were not known in those times; nor can any instance be produced of laity or clergy who had them for above four hundred years after Christ.

Upon the whole, allowing that, in the third or fourth century, bishops were a distinct order from presbyters, yet, say these divines, our modern bishops of the church of England differ very widely from them; the primitive bishops were elected by a free suffrage of the presbyters, but ours by a congé d'elire from the king. They did not proceed against criminals but with the consent of their presbyters, and upon the testimony of several witnesses; whereas ours proceed by an oath ex officio, by which men (epist. ad Evagrium) of the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops from the days of Mark, till Heraclus and Dionysius. Baxter's Life, p. 206.

This was the constant sense of our first reformers, Cranmer, Pilkington, Jewel, Grindal, Whitgift, &c. and even of Bancroft himself; for when Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, moved that the Scots bishops elect might first be ordained presby. ters in the year 1610, Bancroft replied there was no need of it, since ordination by presbyters was valid; upon which the said bishop concurred in their consecration. And yet lower, when the archbishop of Spalato was in England, he desired bishop Moreton to re-ordain a person that had been ordained beyond sea, that he might be more capable of preferment; to which the bishop replied, that it could not be done, but to the scandal of the reformed churches, wherein he would have no hand. The same reverend prelate adds, in his Apol. Cathol. that to ordain was the jus antiquum of presbyters. To these may be added the testimony of bishop Burnet, whose words are these: "As for the notion of distinct offices of bishop and presbyter, I confess it is not so clear to me, and therefore, since I look upon the sacramental actions as the highest of sacred performances, I cannot but acknowledge those who are empowered for them must be of the highest office in the church." Vindication of the Church of Scotland, p. 336.

are obliged to accuse themselves; the primitive bishops had no lordly titles and dignities, no lay-chancellors, commissaries, and other officials, nor did they engage in secular affairs, &c. After several comparisons of this kind, they recapitulate the late severities of the bishops in their ecclesiastical courts; and conclude with an humble petition to the high court of parliament, " that if episcopacy be retained in the church it may be reduced to its primitive simplicity; and if they must have a liturgy, that there may be a consultation of divines to alter and reform the present; and that even then it may not be imposed upon the clergy, but left to the discretion of the minister, how much of it to read when there is a sermon."

By this representation it appears, that the controversy between these divines might have been compromised, if the rest of the clergy had been of the same spirit and temper with bishop Hall; but the court-bishops would abate nothing as long as the crown could support them; and as the parliament increased in power, the Puritan divines stiffened in their demands, till methods of accommodation were impracticable.

While this controversy was debating at home, letters were sent from both sides to obtain the judgment of foreign divines, but most of them were so wise as to be silent. Dr. Plume, in the life of bishop Hacket, writes that Blondel, Vossius, Hornbeck, and Salmasius, were sent to by the king's friends in vain; Blondel published a very learned treatise on the Puritan side; but Deodate from Geneva, and Amyraldus from France, wished an accommodation, and, as Plume says, were for episcopal government. The Papists triumphed, and had raised expectations from these differences, as appears by a letter of T. White, a Roman Catholic, to the lord-viscount Gage at Dublin, dated February 12, 1639, in which are these words: "We are in a fair way to assuage heresy and her episcopacy; for Exeter's book has done more for the Catholics, than they could have done themselves, he having written, that episcopacy in office and jurisdiction is absolutely jure divino (which was the old quarrel between our bishops and king Henry VIII. during his heresy), which book does not a little trouble our adversaries, who declare this tenet of Exeter's to be contrary to the laws of this land-All is like to prosper here, so I hope with you there *." However, it is certain, the body of foreign Protestants were against the bishops, for this reason among others, because they had disowned their ordinations; and could it be supposed they should compliment away the validity of their administrations, to a set of men that had disowned their communion, and turned the French and Dutch congregations out of the land? No, they wished they might be humbled by the parliament. Lord Clarendon adds, "They were glad of an occasion to publish their resentments against the church, and to

* Foxes and Firebrands, part 2. p. 81.

enter into the same conspiracy against the crown, without which they could have done little hurt."

But the cause of the hierarchy being to be decided at another tribunal, no applications were wanting on either side to make friends in the parliament-house, and to get hands to petitions. The industry of the several parties on this occasion is almost incredible; and it being the fashion of the time to judge of the sense of the nation this way, messengers were sent all over England to promote the work. Lord Clarendon, and after him Dr. Nalson and others of that party, complain of great disingenuity on the side of the Puritans: his lordship says, " that the paper which contained the ministers' petition was filled with very few hands, but that many other sheets were annexed, for the reception of numbers that gave credit to the undertaking; but that when their names were subscribed, the petition itself was cut off, and a new one of a very different nature annexed to the long list of names; and when some of the ministers complained to the reverend Mr. Marshall, with whom the petition was lodged, that they never saw the petition to which their hands were annexed, but had signed another against the canons, Mr. Marshall is said to reply, that it was thought fit by those that understood business better than they, that the latter petition should be rather preferred than the former." This is a charge of a very high nature †, and ought to be well supported: if it had been true, why did they not complain to the committee which the house of commons appointed to inquire into the irregular methods of procuring hands to petitions? His lordship answers, that they were prevailed with to sit still and pass it by; for which we have only his lordship's word, nothing of this kind being to be found in Rushworth, Whitelocke, or any disinterested writer of those times.

However, it cannot be denied that there was a great deal of art and persuasion used to get hands to petitions on both sides, and many subscribed their names who were not capable to judge of the merits of the cause. The petitions against the hierarchy were of two sorts; some desiring that the whole fabric might be destroyed; of these the chief was the root and branch petition, signed by the hands of about fifteen thousand citizens and inhabitants of London; others aiming only at a reformation of the hierarchy; of these the chief was the ministers' petition, signed with the names of seven hundred beneficed clergymen, and followed by others with an incredible number of hands, from Kent, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Nottingham, and other counties. The petitions

Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 204.

t This charge we have seen brought forward by Dr. Grey, to discredit what Mr. Neal had reported, concerning the number of petitions sent up from all parts of the country, against the clergy. When, as he proceeded in his review of Mr. Neal's history, he saw that our author had himself laid before his readers this charge of lord Clarendon's, it would have been candid in him to have cancelled his own strictures on this point, or to have exposed the futility of Mr. Neal's reply to his lordship.-ED.