learned Enquirer himself, any fuch Popular Claim or Title could be imply'd in it.

From these Particulars, I conceive the first Part, or Member, of the general Distinction I propos'd, to be made good, viz. that the Holy Scriptures fet forth to us a Divine Right, Authority, and Power, of ordaining Elders in the Church, abfolutely and entirely convey'd (from the Fountain of all Power in it) to the fingle Perfons of the first Spiritual Rulers of it, without any previous or concurrent Election of the People in the Cafe; and that it was so executed and convey'd down to others alfo.

To proceed to the other Part of that Diftinction then: What Account do we find of this Matter in the Records of Primitive Antiquity nearest approaching to the first Age of the Church? And here I might produce Va riety of Inftances, wherein neither Election, nor fo much as a Convention of the People, was to be found, or heard of, at the Confecration of many of those Primitive Bishops within that Period of Time. Clemens Romanus constitutes Enariftus his Succeffor by his own Alignment, and a kind of Surrender (as it were) before his Death; for fo* Eufebius's Words (here noted in the Margin) do plainly imply: Phadimus, Bishop of Amafea, had no other Hand but that of Heaven and his own, in making the renown'd Gregory Bishop of Neocafarea, as the whole Circumftances of that Affair (related by the learned

K 4

* Κλήμης Ευαίς βραδὲς των λειτεργίαν αναλύ Biov. Euleb. Eccl. Hut. l. 3. C. 34.

learned † Dr. Cave) from Greg. Nyffen, do fufficiently fhew. But, not to amufe ourselves with enquiring after particular Cafes, what Senfe can we make of that very Primitive Canon of the Church, which taxes the People of a Diocese with great Iniquity, who would not receive a Bishop ordain'd for them, and sent to prefide over them? Nay, fufpended the Clergy of that City, for not inftructing fuch an infolent People any infolent People any better; which are the exprefs Words of the 36th Apoftolical

་

Canon? What Senfe, I fay, can we make of fo ancient a Canon as this, if it were not familiarly in Ufe in those Primitive, Times, to ordain a Bishop for a vacant See without the People having any Concern in it? And they who can believe that Canon to be of later Date than the Third Century, (at the most) after all the Evidence which learned Antiquaries have given to the contrary, will hardly be brought to Reafon I'm afraid. And yet we need not infift on this neither; for the conftant and settled Cuftom of the Church of Alexandria is so pregnant an Inftance in this Cafe, as fuperfedes all farther Enquiry in the Matter.

That the twelve Presbyters alone chose their Bishop there to the middle of the Third Century, (at least) is evident enough from S.Jerome's Account of it, (tho', in other refpects, the fame

21

~

Passage

See Dr. Cave's Life of Greg. Thaumat. 66. p. 271. Η Εἰ χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπίσκοπο – μὴ δεχθή, τα & * ἑαυτό γνώμων, ἀλλὰ α τω το λαι μοχθηρίαν, αυτός μουεζω επίσκοπΘ, ὁ ἢ κλῆρ ε πόλεως αφο ειζέπω ὅτι τοιέτε λακ ἀνυπο]άκ]ο παιδα]αὶ ἐκ ἐλύοντα Can. Apoftol. 36.

Paffage is too often mifapply'd.) But his Account is this: * At Alexandria, (fays he) from Mark the Evangelift to Heraclas and Dionyfius's Time, (who were the 13th and 14th Bifhops in Succeffion there) the Presbyters always nominated one their Bishop, chofen from among themselves, and placed in a higher Station. Add to this Evidence the fame Account given us (only more fully and particularly ftill) by Severus, who wrote the Lives of the Alexandrian Patriarchs, and by the Arabian and Egyptian Annalifts of that Church, as Abraham Ecchellenfis has recorded them for us; and we shall find it was not only a stated Custom in that Primitive Church for the Presbyters alone thus to choose their Bishop, but that it was a Fundamental Conftitution there, and of S. Mark's own Appointment. What must we think then? Could the People have a general Right, or Charter of Election granted them, either from Christ or his Apostles, and this Holy Evangelist know nothing of it? Or, if he had known it, would he have establish'd a standing Rule, in that eminent Church of his own Founding, fo direly contrary to it?

But, not to infift on these approv'd Records of the Church neither, (tho' the Teftimony they bear

* Nam & Alexandriæ à Marco Evangeliftà ufq; ad Heraclam & Dionyfium epifcopos, presbyteri femper unum ex fe electum, in excelfiori gradu collocatum, epifcopum nominabant. Hieron. Ep. ad Euagr. Edit. Erafm. Bafil. 1516. Tom. 3. Fol. 150.

+ See Abrah. Ecchellenf. de Eccl. Alex. originib. Romæ, 1661. (4to.) cap. 6. p. 82, 83, 84. & p. 103

to 107.

bear is ftrong and plain enough) I fhall willingly go along with the Enquiry before me, as far as Fact and Truth will give me Leave.

I difpute not, therefore, that very early Cuftom of Provincial Bishops repairing to a vacant See, and in the Prefence of the People fettling the Election of the intended Bishop, and ordaining him there, in moft Provinces I mean, tho' not in all; which is as far as his * Quotations require.

But, to bring the Question to a fhort Iffue, What was the Part or Office of the People in thofe publick Ordinations? The Enquiry, treating of the Presbyter's Examination for his holy Orders, (which, in his Senfe, is the making of him Bishop too, as to the Orders that he takes) allows of Teftimony and Atteftation only of the People in the Cafe; but when he comes to be made a Bishop indeed, in the true and universal Senfe of the Catholick Church, then the Peoples Teftimony improves itself into a Claim of Power fufficient to elect him Bishop, if they pleafe, or to depofe him afterwards, if they think he proves unfit for it.

Now, there are two fhort Questions to be obferv'd in this Cafe.

First, Whether the Primitive Church itself, who fo commonly ordain'd in the Presence of the People, acknowledg'd any fuch Power in them,

or no?

Secondly, From whence was this Power given, (if fuch an one there was) and by what Authori ty was it claim'd?

* Fere provincias univerfas. Eng. p. 48. + See Eng. p. 88.

Το

To prove that the Primitive Church did acknowledge fuch a Power, the Enquiry produces two Articles. 1ft, That of an * African Synod, related by S. Cyprian, [Ep. 68. § 6. or in the Oxon Edit. Ep. 67.] and tranflates it thus: The Neighbouring Bishops of the Province (fays he) met together at the Church of a vacant See, and chofe a Bishop in the Prefence of the People, who knew his Life and Converfation before; which Custom was obferv'd in the Election of Sabinus, Bishop of Emerita in Spain, who was ordain'd to that Dignity by the Suffrage of all the Brethren, and of all the Bifhops there prefent. [See Enquiry Pag. 48.]

In this Account of the Cafe, here are two Parts; ft, What the general Custom was; and 2dly, That the particular Ordination of Sabinus was in all Points conformable to it. Of the general Custom, 'tis affirm'd, (in our Author's own Translation) that the Neighbouring Bishops met together at the Church of a vacant See, and chofe a Bifhop. Here is as plain a Proof (I think) of the Neighbouring Bishops choofing the Perfon, as Words can make it: What then is faid of the People? Only this, That 'twas in their Prefence, who knew his Life and Con

Apud nos & fere per provincias univerfas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem, cui præpofitus ordinatur, epifcopi ejufdem provinciæ proximi quiq; conveniant, & epifcopus deligatur, plebe præfente, quæ fingulorum vitam pleniffimè novit, & uniufcujufq; actum de ejus converfatione perfpexit: Quod factum videmus in Sabini ordinatione, ut de univerfæ fraternitatis fuffragio, & de epifcoporum judicio epifcopatus ei deferretur. Cypr. Ep. 68. aut Edit. Oxon.