XIV. 67 the father of one of those sects, that Epiphanius writes CHAP. against. But Epiphanius says expressly, that he had bishops, that embraced his opinion, and propagated his sect by ordination". Tertullian became the father of a sect, which continued at Carthage till St. Augustin's time; by whom they were reduced to the Church. And truly it is to be presumed, that the father of the sect did propagate it by ordinations made of his own head. For what should he stick at, that takes upon him to divide the Church and to "set up altar against altar "?" But I have not found it said, that he did do it. Nor have I found, that any presbyter did ever undertake to do it but Coluthus". At the council of Nicæa, to unite the Meletians to the Church, the bishops ordained by him were allowed to succeed when the present bishops should die; yet so, as to be then lawfully ordained, though they had been schismatically ordained aforex. But when the Coluthians pretended the same privilege, Athanasius pleads for himself, that all Coluthus his ordinations were made void y: which is thought to have been done by that synod at Alex68 andria, which Hosius was present at with commission from Constantine'. This is the only example of presbyters ordained by a presbyter without and against his bishop. All the resta are mere conjectures; which cannot stand, unless we suppose the canons of the Church were not observed, because it is not recorded how they were observed: whereas all reason requires us to suppose, that they were observed, because they might be observed, and because there followed no dissension upon their not being observed. Such ordinations, then, being mere nullities, as presumed to be done by them that never received authority from the Church to ordain, do further induce irregularity", by the canons of the Church. And who can deny, that all reason and conscience requires it? For who can believe his creed, professing "one catholic S. Epiph., Adv. Hær., lib. iii. tom.i. Hær.70. Audiani; Op. tom. i. pp.811, sq. • “Οἱ ὑπ' αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοποι.” Id., ibid., p. 812. D: and again at some length, ibid., § 15, pp. 827. D, 828. C. See Epilogue, Bk. I. Of the Pr. of ▾ See Epilogue, Bk. III. Of the Laws of the Ch., c. xx. § 51. See ibid., note x, and references there. See ibid., note t See ibid. The synod was the third See Epilogue, Bk. III. Of the CHAP. Church," and not think the Church more disobliged by capable to be promoted to orders? Certainly, if rebellion See e. g. the authorities in Bingham, Orig. Eccl., IV. vii. 8; which is a fairer statement than that contained in the same writer's Schol. Hist. of Lay Bapt., Pt. ii. c. 3.-For schismatics, see S. Augustin, of the Donatists, as quoted in the Due Way of Composing Differences, § 5, note h, and § 17, note g, and Just Weights and Measures, c. ii. § 9, c. xxv. § 11: and so also of the Meletians, for whom see Just Weights XIV. his act with; that thereby "the world was snatched out of CHAP. Satan's jaws." But I read, that the Tertullianists were received into the Church: not that they were "received in their orders." I find difficulty made by foreign Churches of "receiving the Donatists in their orders;" notwithstanding the complaints of the African bishops, that without them they had not clergy enough to serve the Church. Hereby it is to be judged, how severe this Church was with them, that had received ordination by presbyters. The canon of the whole Church makes all irregular, ordainers and ordained'. Because they had concurred to bring back his majesty (which was the restoring of the laws, and so of the Church), the 71 forfeiture was wholly passed by, and nothing required of ordainers more than of the clergy; which is an utter oblivion of the attempt made by those ordinations. And is not that a very great degree of "forbearance" in our case? St. Paul, when he enjoins "forbearance;" doth he enjoin, that those, [Rom. xv. 1.] who did not understand, how men were saved by "faith alone, that were saved under the Law, should be promoted to orders indifferently with those that did profess it? That were indeed something like that which hath been demanded; that "weakness" should entitle to the clergy, which orderly supposes strength. But does he enjoin farther, that they should minister without orders? that, continuing laymen, they should commit the sacrilege of usurping to celebrate the eucharist? that, if their ordination be void by the law of the land, there should be a new law made to make their ordination good and valid, which was void when it was made? Then must he enjoin, that it be lawful for every layman to celebrate the eucharist; forasmuch as every layman hath as much to do to celebrate the eucharist, as he whose ordination is void. Surely St. Paul, that commands 72 Christians to be "without offence to the Jews and Gentiles, [1 Cor. as well as to the Church," commands them also to be with- x. 32.] out offence to papists. And will not we have those, that would be enabled to consecrate the eucharist by such a law, to shew us how to satisfy the papists, that such orders are h See Aug., Hær. lxxxvi.; Op. tom. viii. p. 24. G. See Dupin's Hist. Donatist., prefixed to his edition of Optatus, p. xvii. * See Dupin, ibid. and the Acts of : the 3rd Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, See canons quoted above in Rt. of XIV. CHAP. good? At least those, that by their sufferings have preserved ordination by bishops; let them at least be satisfied of the validity of ordination without bishops. At least, let no man impose upon them, that they cannot yield the "forbearance," which St. Paul requires for "tender consciences," unless they receive the sacrament consecrated by laymen; that is, by those, whose ordination they believe to be utterly void. [Rom. xv. 1.] CHAPTER XV. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES ARE NOT VOID, Now I am to look an objection in the face, which at a dis- m So e. g. Hickman, Apolog. pro Ejectis in Anglia Ministris &c., p. 19. 8vo. Lond. 1665: and it was a common topic on that side at the time. Hickman adds (ibid.), that the "more moderate" Churchmen, in reply, "disparem esse clamant nostrúm et transmarinorum conditionem." On the other side of the question, Durell, in his Vindic. Eccl. Anglic., c. vii. pp. 51, sq., urges the difference between the cases of the "Ecclesiarum extra Angliam ministri" and the "schismatici sacri ministerii usurpatores." And see Bramhall, Replic. to Bp. of Chalcedon, c. i. sect. 2 (Works, Pt. i. Disc. iii. vol. ii. pp. 68 -70); Serpent Salve, sect. xxv. (ibid., Pt. ii. Disc. ii. vol. iii. pp. 475, 476); Vindic. of Grotius &c., c. iii. (ibid, Disc iii. pp. 517, 518). Jeremy Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted, § xxxii. (Works, vol. x. pp. 119, 120) quotes some statements of foreign reformers endeavouring to shew, but not very successfully, that they were not under a necessity of reforming without and against their bishops. XV. minister their office according to the laws; that is, under CHAP. their bishops. And can any man imagine, that hereby they give them power to ordain others to minister their office, by what laws they please themselves? And had the French de74 manded of their bishops to ordain them presbyters, that should minister their office according to the Reformation, does any man think they would have done it? So the necessity of reforming, which we all agree in, made the ordinations of the reformed Churches; the pride and presumption, which causeth all heresy and schism, usurping authority never received, made the ordinations of our presbyters. And shall they be as valid as those? All that can be questioned is, how it may appear, that it was not of choice, but of necessity, that they embraced that way of settling and propagating their reformation, which they embraced. And for that we have sufficient presumption from the Albigenses; who, secretly reforming themselves under the see of Rome, did certainly do it by the authority of bishops, who propagated their order by ordinations". This may be proved by other testimonies, if need be; but it is sufficient, that the case of the Bohemians is so well known°. They, having resolved exactly to reform themselves, and having chosen the persons whom they would have for their n Thorndike confounds Albigenses with Waldenses, an error not removed until very lately. That he means the latter, see above, Due Way of Composing Differences &c., § 46, where he traces the episcopacy of the Moravian Brethren to them and not to the Albigenses. And that the Waldenses had officers whom they termed bishops, may be seen in Allix's Churches of Piedmont, c. xxiv. pp. 238, sq., where he proves also the existence of bishops, priests, and deacons, among the reformed communion in Piedmont. The real distinction between the sects here mentioned may be found in Maitland's Facts and Documents respecting the Albigenses and Waldenses, and in the other authorities quoted in Soames's Mosheim, Bk. iii. Cent. xi. Pt. ii. c. v. § 2, and Cent. xiii. Pt. ii. c. v. 7: and notes in both places; or in Hardwick's Hist. of Medieval Church, c. xi. pp. 305-314. c. xv. p. 398: whence it appears, that the Albigenses, when spoken of as a heretical sect, were strictly speaking an offshoot from cer- • See Due Way of Composing Dif |