into Swords and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency of all the Divisions of Ministers those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification But that which administers just cause of Sorrow is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers if they are but meer Lay-men their Baptism is no Baptism and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism On the other hand some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls the Lord Jesus and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest if not the best part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid but they look upon them as Schismatical where Bishops may be had We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters but about the Charge of Schism which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches who have no Bishops but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities where Bishops may be had as in England Our present Controversie is with these For the stating of the Point in difference we 'l consider 1. Wherein we are agreed 2. Wherein the real difference lies Our Agreement We agree 1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane but of Divine Original It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House 2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time Matth. 28.19 20. 3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word without a lawful Calling or Mission Rom. 10.14 15. Ier. 14.14 Heb. 5.4 4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.21 22. 5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office 6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands and Prayer with Fasting Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22 7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities according to the Rules of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6 7 8 9. In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry whatever more we are fully agreed The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining We say Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is That they are no true Ministers of Christ but Intruders and false Prophets And why so Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities exemplary Conversations and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard who seek not their own things but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers Where lies the defect then why in this they are not Ordained by Bishops They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that have not the Ordaining Power and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself Our Case then in short is this Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's without Diocesan Bishops be valid The Question needs but little Explanation By Ordination I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry By Presbyters I understand Gospel Ministers who are called to the Oversight of Souls and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church By valid I mean not what the Old Canons make so but what the Scriptures determine to be so Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising are the Foundation of our Faith and the infallible Standard by which Truth and Errour must be tried The Question being thus explained I affirm That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters are regularly Ordained and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments CHAP. II Presbyters have power to Ordain because they are Scripture Bishops The Syriac Translation useth not different Names If there be a difference the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians as he doth in other Epistles 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor though he were present 6. He did not reside at Ephesus 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church but a Parochial or Congregational The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches from
the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said Do the work of a Bishop would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power Who could do the Work of a Bishop but a Bishop In like manner we say None can do the work of an Evangelist but an Evangelist Evangelists were extraordinary Officers above Pastors and Teachers The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Eusebius They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word of Faith they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures or dain'd Pastors committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church and they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass over unto other Countries and Nations With whom agrees Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Learned Prelate of the Church of England conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists and if so the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it whose Successors they are If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him Lâ—y hands on no man suddenly Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him It may as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word If it be said Preaching is common to Presbyters but so is not Ordination it 's gratis dictum and a begging of the Question Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands but takes the Presbytery with him He joyned Barnabas with him if not others in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there but besought him to abide there till he came which he intended shortly to do The Apostle sent him to Corinth Philippi Thessalonica furnished without doubt with the same powers which he had at Ephesus otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches and was he Bishop of these places also Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation c. which Dr. Whittaker Divinity Professor in Cambridge undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters his words are these Ex Apostoli mente According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Which not only Superiors but Equals yea and Inferiors also may do The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop are they therefore Superior to him Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the People of Assura not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols III. When Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus where we find several Presbyter-Bishops before what became of them were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters that they must no more Ordain or Govern but be subject to Timothy 'T was thought no small punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form and 't was for some notorious Crime What Crime were these guilty of IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor and so not subject to him any more how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself What had Paul to do in Ephesus now if he had settled a Successor there and had no power over him or his Church He forbids others to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 busie bodies in other mens matters and would he himself be such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are condemned and shall we make Paul of this number It 's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians long after the first Epistle to Timothy and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches except that to the Galatians It 's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there nor Resident there We find him long after this at Rome and invited by the Apostle thither that he might be helpful to him in the Ministry from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also The truth is he was no fixed Officer in any one place but went up and down sometimes as Paul's Companion sometimes as his Messenger to settle the Churches as other Evangelists did If Non-residency hath such a Patron and Timothy hath taught Men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him he was none at all for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there He commits to them the oversight of the Church as the proper Bishops of it without the least mention of Timothy though he was then present The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters befor their supposed Bishop's face or if he had not been there at that time how comes Paul to be so regardless when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more as not to name his Successor was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy If he had not been qualified for this Office now he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus How then comes the Apostle to over-look him and to fix the Government in the Presbyters of that Church He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus that he had not spar'd to declare unto them
the Church of England the Ceremonies iâ— seems being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity That Charity which â— King of the Roman Communion impower'd them to receive though of another Religion was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion â—â— they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them as being Natives of another Kingdom and no way subject to our Constitution See the first Brief for the French Protestants Besides that the French Ministers hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times â—â— there be occasion and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle 4. We may judge of the forreigâ— Churches by their Confessions which are the most Authentick Testimony oâ— their sense about Episcopacy The French Confession asserts an equality of Power â—n all Pastors Credimus omnes Pastores â—bicunque collocati sint eâdem aequali â—otestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno â—llo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable because no Man is â—o be Ordained a Minister or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches â—ut he must subscribe the Publick Conâ—ession of their Faith and also the Constitutions agreed on at Paris commonly known by the name of their Discipline See Durel p. 52. La Rocque's Conformity of the French Discipline cap. 1. art â— cap. 3. art 1. The Dutch Confession speaks the â—ame thing Caeterum ubicunque locoâ—um sint Verbi Dei Ministri eandem atâ—ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem â—um authoritatem qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri By readâ—ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort I â—nd that Session 144. notice was given â—hat it was the will of the States that â—he Belgick Confession of Faith should â—e read and examined by the Synod the Exteri being also present Upon the reading of this 31 Article that asserts the parity of Ministers the Bishop of Landaff in his Name and the Name of his Brethren made open Protestation That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point No dislike was shewn to this Article asserting the parity of Ministers by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops nor desire them for they make all Ministers equal CHAP. V. Our Ordination better then that of Rome which is accounted valid in the Church of England because in Roman Ordinations 1. Their Ordainers are incapable as wanting Scriptural and Canonical Qualifications 2. The manner of Ordaining grosly Superstitious and Vnscriptural 3. The Ordained not Elected by the People Sworn to the Pope 4. Their Office Idolatrous Their Ordinations are by Bishops ours without answered THAT Ordination which is better then that of the Church of Rome is valid but Ordination by meer Presbyters is much better then that of the Church of Rome Therefore 't is valid The Major will not be denied by the Church of England because she owns the Ordination of the Church of Rome and doth not re-ordain their Priests The Minor I prove Ordination by Presbyters is better then the Ordinations of Rome because in the Church of Rome I. The Ordainers are incapable and that upon these Accounts 1. They have not Scriptural Qualifications Paul's Bishop must be found in the Faith Popish ordaining Bishops are studious Maintainers of corrupt Doctrine and Enemies to the Faith as is acknowledg'd by all Orthodox Protestants Paul's Bishop must be apt to teach Popish Bishops are for the most part illiterate unpreaching Prelates and justified herein by their own Writers Paul's Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife Popish Bishops forbid to marry and yet allow Fornication Paul's Bishop must be a lover of good men Popish Prelates are not such for they mortally hate the sincere Professors of the Gospel and are all sworn to contribute their Endeavours for their Extirpation under the Notion of Hereticks The words of the Oath are these Haereticos Schismaticos Rebelles eidem Domino nostro Papae vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar impugnabo i.e. I A. B. do swear that I will to the utmost of my endeavour prosecute and destroy all Hereticks Schismaticks and all other Opposers of our Soveraign Lord the Pope and his Successors Shall the sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Ministers of Christ and the Ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no Ministers Tell it not in Gath publish it not in the streets of Askelon lest the uncircumcised triumph But I proceed A Bishop indeed must be a Pattern of Humility and Self-denial to the Flock Romish Bishops are Lords over God's Heritage have Dominion over their Faith and bind them to blind Obedience Now if the Ordinations of such usurping Monsters as these that have nothing but the empty name of Bishops be valid as the Church of England saith they are how much more are the Ordinations of Orthodox faithful Gospel Ministers or Bishops to be judg'd lawful Can any thing be more absurd then that the Ministers of Antichrist should make true Ministers and the Ministers of Christ make false Prophets by one and the same Ordaining Act. It 's the received Doctrine of the Church of England that the Pope is Antichrist See Homily against Idolatry part 3. p. 69. and the sixth part of the Sermon against Rebellion p. 316. 2. They derive their Power from the Pope who hath no right to the Universal Headship either from Scripture or true Antiquity The very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Christ and consequently is a most Treasonable Usurpation II. The manner of their Ordaining is Unscriptural and Superstitious They ascend to the Priesthood by several Steps or Degrees which have no footsteps in the Sacred Writings They make them 1. Ostiarij or Door-keepers whose Office is to ring the Bell to open the Church-Vestry and the Priest's Book Espencaeus a Popish Writer sheweth out of Chrysostom that it belong'd to the Office of a Deacon to admit into the Church and shut out Then 2. they make them Lectores Readers whose work is to read and sing the Lessons and to bless the Bread and all the first Fruits In the primitive Church this was not a distinct Office for in some places 't was the Office of a Deacon in some of the Minister and in some it belonged to the Bishops to read the Scriptures especially on Festivals 3. The next step is that of Exorcists whose pretended Office is to cast out Devils in a feigned imitation of the miraculous Operations
A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination OR TEN ARGUMENTS FROM Scripture and Antiquity PROVING Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid By I. O. Minister of the Gospel To which is prefixt an Epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores Hieron in Ep. ad Tit. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for I. Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil over-against the Royal Exchange 1694. THE PREFACE THE Cause which these Papers Vindicate is not that of a Party as some unthinking People may imagine but of the Reformation in General which has been propagated and supported in its most flourishing Branches by the Ministry here pleaded for The Ancient Vaudois or Waldenses those eminent and faithful Witnesses against Antichristian Usurpations have had no other for near 500 years past The first guides of the People from Mystical Egypt were Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters These are they that gathered the first Fruits unto God under the Conduct of these the persecuted WOMAN FLED thâ—ough a Sea of Blood into the Wilderness by their Ministry she hath been fed and nourished these make the first Figure among the Witnesses that prophecy in Sackcloth they have gone in mourning from one Generation to another When others have assumed Beauty for Ashes the Oyl of Ioy for mourning the Garment of Praise for the Spirit of heaviness these have been fed with the Bread of Tears have been filled with bitterness and made drunk with Wormwood They have been Men of Sorrows and acquainted with grief They have been sore broken in the place of Dragons and covered with the Shadow of Death yet have they not forgotten the Name of their God or stretched out their hand to a strange God It 's by the Ministry of these that the Truth prevailed the Eyes of Nations were opened and vast Multitudes reduced to the Obedience of the Gospel They seal'd their Ministry with their Blood and Heaven sealed it with the most glorious success Rainerius one of their Tormentors complains of them that they had spread through all Countries and crept into every Corner Walsingham our Country-man tells us how the Lolards as they were here called had fill'd our Land and had their Ministers Ordain'd by Presbyters without Bishops that they justified these Ordinations and asserted an inherent Power in Presbyters to put forth all Ecclesiastical Acts without distinction We may rationally presume that their practice was uniform in other Countries and had we exact Records of their Church Administrations we should find innumerable Instances of Ordination by Presbyters among them but the account they give of themselves is so very imperfect that had not their Enemies transmitted to Posterity a Narrative of their Actions and Sufferings though very partially we should have known little of them We have no reason to think that those blessed Worthies did either alter their Judgments or supersede their Practice concerning Ordination by Presbyters and therefore I take it for granted that the same Ministry continued among them until the begining of the Reformation Here in England several of the Bishops were eminently instrumental in promoting the Reformation which gave them a deserved esteem in the thoughts of all good men especially of the poor Lolards to whom that great Change was a Resurrection from the dead By this means the Bishops continued their stations in the Church and were entrusted with the principal management of Ordination which their Popish Predecessors had ingrossed into their hands long before But though Matters were thus settled they were far from Claiming to themselves a superiour Power over Presbyters or stamping a Ius Divinum upon their Office They acknowledged the identity of Bishops and Presbyters that Ordination by Presbyters was valid and that Episcopacy was a bare Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better governing of the Church All this will be fully proved in the following Discourse Thus it was in England but in the forreign Churches it was quite otherwise there the Bishops were implacable Enemies to the Reformation which gave the Presbyters an Opportunity of re-assuming their inherent Power of Ordination and of laying aside the pretended superiour Order of Bishops as those who had appropriated to themselves the just Rights of Presbyters and divested them of the inseparable Priviledges of their Order and had been so far from answering the first design of their Constitution of being a Remedy against Schism that partly by their Arbitrary Impositions and partly by their boundless Ambition they had miserably torn and divided the Christian Church for several Ages before and contributed to the establishment of the usurping Bishop of Rome For these and other Reasons they rejected Bishops from having any part in their Church-Government This they committed to the Presbyters as their ancient Right If a Popish Bishop happened to be Converted to the Protestant Religion he was not capable of Exercising his Ministry among them no not as a Presbyter until he submitted to a new Ordination This Establishment enraged the Roman Prelates and drew forth their strongest Efforts to assert their tottering Hierarchy and to overthrow the Reformed Ordinations Therefore the principal and leading Antagonists we have to do with in the present Controversie are the Papists especially the Iesuits who with one Mouth condemn Ordinations by Presbyters With us it 's a very small thing that we should be judg'd of Man's day we acquiesce in that Judgment which will dispense Rewards and Punishments not according to the disputable Modes of Mens entrance into the Office but as they have faithfully or otherwise discharged the Duties of the Sacred Ministry Happy they whose Record is on high whose Witness is in Heaven whose Testimony is in their own Bosoms and in the Consciences of those that hear them I leave the following Discourse to recommend it self unto thee Read with observation weigh every thing in an even Ballance and let the Impressions of Truth form an Impartial Judgment I. O. TO THE READER THE indispensible use of a Gospel Ministry must appear to such as at all consider the ignorance of Mankind in the way of Eternal Life the innate aversion to the terms of Reconciliation with God the Mystery of Gospel Revelations the subtle and unwearied Attempts of Seducers against the Truth the backwardness to improvement in Grace and a Life according to the Rules of Christianity which even they discern who are not utter Strangers to the Impresses of a Divine Power by the Word in the illumination of their Minds and renovation of their Wills Yea further who would sustain the Labour and Hazards of this holy Calling or attend thereto with an assiduity requisite to the ends thereof if not by Office obliged Nay how would it enervate our Pleadings with Sinners and abate that Assurance given to Believers by the Word and Sacraments if we did not transact
between God and them as cloathed with the Authority of Ambassadors delegated by Christ thereto and supportted by his Presence and Power in our Administrations The Lord Iesus as Head of the Church promiseth and dispenseth Gifts suitable to the Ministerial Office and renders them so essential thereto as that none can be duly admitted to this Trust who are not in some good degree fit to teach divide the Word aright convince Gain-sayers yea credibly appearing devoted to God and concerned for the Salvation of Men. No Ordainers can dispense with the want of these nor is the Ministerial Office conveighed by the greatest Solemnities to any Man void of these Qualifications though the best accomplished may awfully say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. The same holy Instituter of this Office â—ath wisely provided against Intruders and also for the encouragement of such as are capable by subjecting Probationers ordinarily to the Enquiry and Iudgment of Men fit and authorized to determine of their Call and Endowments and to invest them in the Office of a Presbyter by Fasting and Prayer with imposition of Hands the Authority and Obligations of which Office are in the Scriptures adjusted by Christ and can admit of no Change at the Will of the Ordainers Reason directs that the Ordainers should be fit to judge of the necessary Qualifications of such as are proposed to this Charge The Scriptures determine that the Ordainers be such as are invested and exercised in the same holy Office And who so capable to judge or likely to be careful and faithful in their Admissions These are appointed to make a Minister though Churches are to elect who so approved shall be their Minister Pastors invest in the Office though the People do appropriate the more stated and usual Employment of the Officer Confusion and a degenerate Ministry must ensue Mens attempting the Ministry if they get but a good conceit of themselves or that particular Churches assume the sending forth Preachers or making Ministers for themselves unless in Cases very extraordinary The Reverend Author in the following Treatise hath no design to reflect on Episcopal Ordination nor to raise any unseasonable Debates among Protestants But being in a peculiar manner assaulted as an Vsurper of the Ministerial Office because separated thereto by the imposition of no Hands besides those of Presbyters He herein affirms and I think with great Iudgment and Evidence proveth That Presbyters though no Prelates are authorized by the Lord Iesus to Ordain fit Persons to the Office of Presbyters and that the Ordination of such is valid Many have successfully engaged in this Debate heretofore yet thou wilt find some very considerable Addition to what occurs in most other Authors It 's not unworthy the Animadversion of all concerned for the meer being of Religion that there is a general Attempt this day not only against the Exercise of the Ministry in an aptitude to its end but against the very Office of the Ministry many that widely differ in other things do yet center herein The fordwardness of some to nullifie the Mission of their Brethren conduceth as much thereto as any thing except the Personal Faults of Ministers Such decisions of the Subject in debate yields no small Advantage to the Romish Hierarchy whiles most Protestants are unchurched and their Holy Administrations arraigned as Nulâ—ities A Notion that never obtained in the English Church till the Grotian design received Patronage here and that to subserve purposes as little propitious to our Civil Rights as to Religion it self The Increase of Purity Self-denial Light and Love would soon decide Cases more important and render the Vitals of Christianity more secure which are now so variously exposed Octob. 14. 1693. I am thy Servant in our common Lord Daniel Williams ERRATA PAge 65. l. 4. r. Writers ibid. l. 18. r. occasionally p. 91. l. 2. r. excluduntur p. 100. l. 7. r. 100. Through a Mistake of the Printer Chap. VI. Is made Chap. V. and Chap. VII is made Chap. VI. and so unto the end of the Book So Arg. V. is made Arg. IV. and Arg. VI. is made Arg. V. and so forward unto the last A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination c. CHAP. I. The Vse and Efficacy of the Ministry It 's opposed by open Violence false Teachers Divisions the last of which occasioned the present Vndertaking The Case of Ordination by Presbyters stated THE Ministry of Reconciliation is that powerful Engine by which the strong Holds of Satan are demolished the Gates of Hell broken down Sin 's Captives reduced and Trophies erected in honour of the victorious Prince of Peace The Dispensation of the Gospel is the Glory of Nations the Support of Christianity the Shield of Truth and the Triumph of the Cross. By this despised means Christ divides him a portion with the great and shares the spoil with the strong by the foolishness of Preaching he confounds the Wise and by weak earthen Vessels he breaks the Iron-Scepter of the Prince of the Power of the Air. For this reason it is that Gospel Ministers are so much opposed in the world while the Prince of Darkness hath a Kingdom in it he 'l bend all his Forces against them as Invaders of his Dominions and irreconcilable Enemies to his usurped Regiment Many and various are his Serpentine Devices and repeated Stratagems to render their Endeavours of winning Souls ineffectual Sometimes he assaults them by open Violence he pours upon them the strength of Battel to the disgracing of their Persons the spoiling of their Goods the infringing of their Liberties and the sacrificing of their very Lives to the insatiable Rage of unreasonable Men. They are killed all the day long and accounted as sheep for the slaughter and yet in all these things are more then Conquerors through him that loved them and hath promised his Presence with them to the end of Time He holds the Stars in his right Hand guides their Motions and restores a declining World by their powerful Influences Their restless Adversary failing in his former method transforms himself into an Angel of Light that he may more insensibly destroy the Angels of the Churches What he cannot effect by Power he will attempt by Craft He 'l send forth his daring Emissaries to undermine Preaching by Preaching Thus the Adversaries of Iudah offered to build the Temple that they might hinder the building of it St. Paul's Enemies preached Christ of envy and strife that they might obstruct his sincere Preaching The Devil himself turns Preacher in the Pythonic Woman to scandalize the Apostle's Ministry He emits Wolves in Sheeps cloathing to tear and devour the unwary Flock If he be defeated in this Attempt he 'l make trial of skill in as pernicious a way as either of the former to wit by alienating their Affections and imbittering their Spirits towards one another He arms them with Weapons that are forreign to the nature of their warfare he turns their Plow-shares
all the Counsel of God How can this be when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Successor If Ministry and Churches depend upon this Succession 't was no small part of the Counsel of God to be declar'd unto them He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more Whether he did see them again or no is not material to the point 'T is certain he thought he should not how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd to defend them against those Wolves that should enter after his departure The reason is obvious he thought the Presbyters of Ephesus fit for this undertaking without a superior Bishop Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Successor but the first Epistle to Timothy upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built was written before this time therefore no power given him in that Epistle can prove him to be a Bishop That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome when he went to Macedonia is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall though he was a zealous Defender of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy Of this Opinion is Athanasius Theodoret Baronius Ludov. Capellus Grotius Hammond Lightfoot Cary c. VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him how comes he to be absent from Ephesus when Paul writ the second Epistle to him was Timothy a Non-resident Bishop Paul sends Tychicus to Ephesus with an Epistle to the Church there but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord Eph. 6. 21 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him when he is supposed to be Bishop there even when the second Epistle was written to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say it was to receive his dying words must prove it The Apostle gives another reason 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. that he had only Luke with him of all his Companions and therefore desires him to come to him and to bring Mark with him as being profitable to him for the Ministry He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. from his supposed Bishoprick of Creet and was he to receive his dying words there also about fourteen years before his death for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf harm Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay how comes the Apostle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also I question whether Non-residency was allowed of much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be It is true some of the Fathers say they were Bishops of those places But it 's considerable that Eusebius saith no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus He doth not affirm it Theodoret calls him ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet few will take them for real Apostles They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome yet many of our Protestant Writers deny it so doth Reynolds against Hart and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy The Fathers and Councils speak of the Officers of former times according to the style of their own To conclude If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species then there were no such in the Apostles times That Timothy was not such we have proved and if Timothy was not no more was Titus whose power and work was the same with Timothy's If the power of Ordination invested in Timothy at Ephesus doth not prove him Bishop there no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there VII But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet it will be no Argument for Diocesan Bishops except the Church of Ephesus and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches which can never be proved Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes or particular Congregations under the conduct of their proper Presbyters which were all subject to Timothy as their Bishop This must be proved or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be impertinent to the present Case Nay there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place That Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily received the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time which was many years after Timothy's death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God and for praise for when you often come into one place the powers of Satan are destroyed c. I render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place as our English Translators do Acts 2. 1. He saith also ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that cometh not to the same place is proud and condemneth himself In his Epistle to the Magnesians he mentions one Altar which further explains his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all of you come together as into the Temple of God as unto one Altar The meaning of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare To be intra Altare is to be in Church Communion to be extra Altare is to be without The Bishop of Salisbury doth acknowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church his words are these By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles especially that to Smyrna it would appear that there was but one Church at least but one place where there was but one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes which was the Bishops whole Charge And if so then the Church of Ephesus to whom he directed one of his Epistles was of no larger extent except we imagine it was decreased in Ignatius's time from what it was in Timothy's days which is absurd The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age then they were in the Apostles time And yet we find in the beginning of the fourth Century the Believers in greater Cities then Ephesus were no more then could meet in one place or in two at the most For Constantine the Great thought two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople the one he called the Temple of the Apostles Vt doceret Scripturas Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum in Templis praedicandas esse the other he called the Temple of Peace
this sense were admitted and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken for the Office of Presbytery it will not prejudice our Argument for it will follow that Timothy was but a meer Presbyter by Office and that it belongs to the Office of a Presbyter to impose Hands for Ordination because Timothy a Presbyter did so 1 Tim. 5. 22. So that whether we understand the place of a Bench of Presbyters Ordaining Timothy or of the Office of a Presbyter into which Timothy was Ordained and by virtue of which he had power to Ordain others it equally proves our assertion that meer Presbyters did Ordain Object 2. Timothy was Ordained by Paul with the concurrence of the Presbyters Non excluduntur Presbyteri ab impositione manus approbante sed ab impositione manus ordinante saith the Jesuit who is followed by some of our own they say The efficacy of Timothy's Presbyteratus was in Paul as in a Bishop and therefore he saith in 2 Tim. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Presbyters by a bare concurrence and therefore it 's said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes Authority and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer Instrumentality Answ. It cannot be denied but Paul laid hands upon Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 but how doth it appear that it was for Ordination it might be for any thing appears to the contrary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost which was given by the Laying on of the Apostles Hands Acts 8. â—17 18. But if he laid Hands for Ordination it 's certain he joyned the Presbyters with him which he had not done if there had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as such The Apostles did not assume to themselves the sole Power of Ordination but took the Presbyters for their Associates in this Action Paul joyns Barnabas with him Acts 14.23 who if he were one of the Seventy Disciples as Dorotheus affirms with whom agrees Eusebius then was he of the Order of Presbyters according to that Hypothesis that makes Bishops to succeed the twelve Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples and so we have another Example of a Presbyter ordaining The like must be said of Timothy who laid on Hands in Ephesus not without the Presbyters joyning with him who were made Bishops there by the Holy Ghost Acts 20.17 28. He would not assume a greater Power to himself then Paul did but Paul joyned the Presbyters with him in the Act of Ordination therefore Timothy did the like Nothing can be gathered from the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to Paul's Act and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to the Presbyters Act for they are used promiscuously in the New Testament and the signification of them must be determined by the subject matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Tim. 4.14 respects the moving Cause that encouraged Paul with the Presbyters to lay Hands on Timothy see 1 Tim. 1.18 But usually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive Case signifies an instrumental working or efficiency See Matth. 8.17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Esaias the Prophet We are said to be justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.30 It signifies also a way or medium that respects a certain end See Matth. 2.12 7.13 12.43 I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously in Acts 15.4 12. 14.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by them is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 12. and yet the same thing is intended viz. what God did by them as Instruments Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do equally imply an instrumental efficiency For all Ordainers are Ministerial Deliverers of Possession and none of them principal efficient Donors Christ is the Authoritative Giver of the Ministerial Power by his Law which is the Fundamentum Iuris As the King's Charter to a Corporation determines who shall be capable of being Mayor how he shall be chosen and how invested here the Mayor's Power is immediately from the King's Charter as the efficient constitutive Instrument and all that others do is but to determine of the Recipient and Invest him so the Lord Jesus Christ hath hath in his Law determined the Office of the Ministry the qualifications of the Persons and how they are to be separated for the Work all that belongs to the Ordainers is but ministerialty to Invest a capable Recipient They are no Efficients of the Power that is immediately from Christ's Law which is the Fountain and Measure of their Power Thus the Presbyters in the purest and first Age of the Church had the Ordaining Power which they kept for a considerable time as we shall see â—â—non though as the Church degenerated from the first Purity and the number of Presbyters increased one was chosen as President of the rest who â—hould Impose Hands in the Name of â—is Collegues Hence the Superior Dignity of Bishops who at length â—ubjected not only to their Hands but â—o their Feet also not Presbyters alone â—ut Sovereign Princes and Emperours that we may not forget the Bishop â—f Rome so that at length the poor â—resbyters were no more then the Bishops Curates as our Liturgy distinguisheth them in the Prayer for Bishops and Curates The easiest and more honourable Parts of the Ministerial Work as they were reckon'd they reserved in their own hands and committed the rest to their Presbyters CHAP. IV. Presbyters have power of Ordination because they have power to Preach Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper These are not inferior to Ordination proved from the Nature of these Acts from Christ's Commission from the Sense of the Ancients Object The Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves and Successors Answ. 1. They joyned the Presbyters with them 2. The Apostles as such had no Successors prov'd from the Peculiars of their Office from the the Testimonies of Sadeel Barrow Lightfoot Another Objection answered THey who have power to Preach the Gospel to Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper have power of Ordination but meer Presbyters have power to Preach Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper therefore they have power of Ordination The Major only requires proof which I thus prove Preaching Baptizing and Administring the Lord's Supper are Ministerial Acts not of an inferiour Nature to Ordination parium par est ratio That they are not inferiour to Ordination appears both from the nature of the thing and from Scripture It appears 1. From the nature of the thing it self Let us consider each apart As to Preaching the Gospel Authoritatively in the Name of Christ it 's a most glorious Ordinance the Publishers of it are called Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 And is an Ordainer any thing more In the Act of Preaching they represent the Lord Jesus Christ the great Prophet of the Church Matth. 10. 40. and can any thing be more honourable They are said to be
workers together with God 2 Cor. 6. 1. and is an Ordainer more then this As to Baptism It 's a solemn dedication of a Person to God Ordination is no more only the former is to Christianity as such the latter to a particular work In this Baptism hath the preference for it is a Sacramental Dedication which Ordination is not In the Lord's Supper the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ who is exhibited with all his Benefits to worthy Receivers Ierom saith of Presbyters Ad quorum preces Corpus Sanguis Christi conficitur Now which is greater to impose Hands or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ If they have power to consecrate holy Things why not holy Persons also 2. It will appear from Scripture that the Ministerial Acts now mentioned are not inferiour to Ordination When St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 1. 17. That Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel surely he means one of the highest Ministerial Acts else he would have said Christ sent me neither to baptize nor to preach but to ordain Ministers I would fain know whether Christ did not mention the chiefest parts of a Ministers work in the Commission given in Matth. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part he would have said Go ordain Ministers preach and baptize Christ's not mentioning it is an Argument that it is not the principal part of a Minister's Office but rather subordinate to preaching and baptizing and therefore included here as the lesser in the greater though not expressed A Commission usually specifies the Principal Acts which a Person is impower'd to do when others of an inferiour Nature may be implied Commissions do dot run à minori ad majus a superiour Office may include the Duties of an Inferiour but not on the contrary It is the rather to be presumed Christ would have mentioned the Ordaining Power in the Ministers Commission if it had been superiour to Preaching and Baptizing because the Commission was immediately directed to the Apostles whose Successors Diocesan Bishops pretend to be and from whom they derive the Ordaining Power as proper to themselves It may be it will be said That administring the Lord's Supper is not mentioned in their Commission though it be not inferiour to Preaching and Baptizing True but the not mentioning of it is an Argument it is not a greater Ministerial Act then those that are mentioned and that it is not to be Administred by Officers superiour to those that Preach and Baptize but that the same Persons may Preach Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper The same I say of Ordination it 's not being expressed here is a sign it is not greater then those Ministerial Acts that are mentioned and that they that have power to Preach and Baptize have also to Ordain Though this Objection be grounded on a Mistake of the Text for the Lord's Supper is mentioned in the following words of the Commission Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you among which the Lord's Supper is one Matth. 26. 26 27. 3. The Ancients argued from Baptism to Ordination as is observed by the Master of the Sentences Object Some may say The Power of Ordination is denied to Presbyters not because Ordination is greater then other Ministerial Acts but because the Apostles thought fit to reserve it to themselves and proper Successors who are Diocesan Bishops Answ. This is to beg the Question We have proved already that the Apostles reserved not the Power of Ordination to themselves but joyned the Presbyters with them Nor are the Bishops the Apostles Successors as such for the Apostles had their Call immediately from Heaven Gal. 1. 1. had extraordinary qualifications could confer the Holy Ghost were infallibly assisted in their Ministerial Conduct and were Universal Officers none of which can belong to Diocesan Bishops The Apostles were not tied to any one Nation Province or City they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations but they ordained Presbyters or Bishops in every Church Acts 14. 23. or City Tit. 1. 5. to whom they committed the ordinary Government of the Church These were not sent to preach the Gospel to all NaNations but to feed the particular Flock over which the Holy Ghost made them Bishops Acts 20. 28. Now these stated particular and fixed Church-Officers vastly differ from universal unlimited and unfixed Officers You may as well say that a petty Constable whose power is confined to the narrow limits of a little Village succeeds the King who governs a whole Kingdom When I see Bishops immediately sent of God infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost travelling to the remotest Kingdoms to preach the Gospel in their own Language to the Infidel Nations and confirming their Doctrine by undoubted Miracles I shall believe them to be the Apostles true Successors in the Apostolical Office Our Learned Writers against the Papists do unanimously deny the Apostles as such to have any Successors Nemo sanè nisi planè sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolatum cum Episcopatu confuderit saith the Noble and Learned Sadeel Dr. Barrow of Supremacy p. 120 121. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the instruction and government of the whole World Episcopacy is an ordinary standing Charge affixed to one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well to so general a Charge A disparagement to the Apostolical Ministry for him Peter to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras He saith a little before St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastors and Teachers wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon To the same purpose-speaks Dr. Lightfoot who proves by several Arguments That Apostles were an Order unimitable in the Church Object The Ordainers gave not the Ordaining Power to Presbyters therefore it belongs not to them Answ. They are Ordained to the Offfice of the Ministry of which the Ordaining Power is a Branch It 's not the intention of the Ordainer but the Office as constituted by Christ that â—s the measure of the Power The Ordaining Power is not mentioned in the Apostles Commission Matth. 28. 20. yet it is included in it If Presbyters are sent to Preach and Baptize in the words of Christ's Commission to them they are sent also to Ordain as opportunities are offered to
perform that Ministerial Act in a regular manner for it 's included in their Commission Popish Ordainers did not intentionally give the Reforming Power to the first Reformers yet no Protestant will question but it was annext to their Office as Ministers Now the Office of the Ministry being from Christ and not from Man we must not go to the words of the Ordainer but to the instituting Law of Christ to know what the Office is As if the City and Recorder should chuse and invest a Lord Mayor and tell him you shall not have all the Power given by the King's Charter it 's a Nullity he shall have all the Power that the Charter giveth him by virtue of his Office CHAP. V. The Ordinations of the greater part of the Reformed Churches are by Presbyters Their not having superiour Bishops cannot unchurch them nor is it a Case of Necessity as is pretended by some For 1. They might have Bishops if they would 2. Some of them refused them when offered 3. Their Learned Writers assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain and never use this Plea of Necessity 4. Their Confessions make all Ministers equal THAT Ordination which is the same with the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches beyond Sea is valid but such is Ordination by meer Presbyters Therefore If theirs be null and the Roman or Popish Ordinations valid then it 's better be of the Roman Popish Church then of the Reformed but the Consequence is absurd I know but two things can be replied to this Argument 1. That the Reformed Churches have no true Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination Thus Mr. Dodwel and others who would have us believe the Romish Church to be a true Church and receive the Pope as the Patriarch of the West These Gentlemen have cast off their Vizard and give us to know what they would be at They condemn the forreign Reformed Churches as no Churches their Sacraments as no Sacraments and consequently no Salvation to be had in their Communion Like the Donatists of old they confine Salvation to their own Party and Way It 's unaccountable that any who call themselves Protestants should unchurch the greatest and purest part of Reform'd Christians in favour of a Despotick Prelacy which hath no foundation in Scripture or the best Antiquity The being of Ministry and Churches must depend upon a few Men who look more like State-Ministers then Ministers of Christ and are generally more busie in managing Intrigues of Government then in preaching the word in season and out of season Can any imagine that such Pastors as rarely preach the Gospel as not above once in three years visit their Flock that have many thousands of Souls under their charge whose Faces they never saw that assume to themselves a Grandeur more agreeable to the Princes of the World then to the Simplicity and Humility required in the Ministers of the Gospel that entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life contrary to the Scriptures and the Old Canons I say can any imagine such Pastors to be so necessary to the Church that there must be neither Ministry nor Sacraments nor Worship of God nor Salvation without them O happy Rome O miserable Reformed Churches if the Case be thus 2. Others that are more moderate say The Case of the Reformed Churches is a Case of Necessity they have no Bishops nor can have them Ordinations by meer Presbyters may be lawful where Bishops cannot be had I answer 1 The Case of the forreign Churches is no Case of Necessity for if they have a mind of Bishops what hinders their having of them Is it the Magistrates It cannot be said of Holland Switzerland Geneva c. where they have Magistrates of their own Suppose France and some other places would not have admitted of it that should have been no bar to the Order if they had been desirous of it The primitive Christians were under Heathen Magistrates for three hundred years who were generally professed Enemies to the Ministry and Churches yet they wanted no Ministerial Order of Christ's appointment Christ never appointed an Order of Ministers in his Church which may not be had in the most difficult times It 's true if the Civil Magistrate be against Bishops it may eclipse their Lordly greatness but it need not prejudice their Ius Divinum if they have any Why cannot the Apostles Successors subsist with as little dependance upon Authority as the Apostles themselves did Do Spiritual Men need Carnal Weapons to defend their Order yet it cannot be denied but that even in France the Protestants had their Immunities and a Polity of their own by virtue of the Edict of Nants which enabled them had they pleas'd to get Diocesan Bishops They had their Synods for Church Government and Moderators to preside in them and why not Bishops also had they judged them necessary Nor is it to be supposed that their French Masters would have liked them the worse for conforming to their own Ecclesiastical Government Thuanus a moderate Papist thinks it was an Errour in their Constitution that they neglected the superiour Order of Bishops in their first Reformation for the supporting of their interest The want of them did not prejudice their Constancy to the Truth as appears by their late Sufferings 2. Time hath been when the French Churches were earnestly sollicited particularly by Bishop Morton to receive a Clergy by the Ordination of the English Bishops which they refused Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bp. of Winchester excusing himself for not making the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment he pleads That if he had laid the difference on that foundation the French Churches would have silenced him 3. How come the Learned Wriâ—te of the forreign Churches that vindicate their Ordinations against the Papists to forget this Plea of Necessity They never say They would have Bishops but cannot have them but they justifie their Ordinations as according to Scripture and assert an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to Ordain This is undeniable to any body that reads their Dicourses upon this Subject See Daillé Moulin Bucer Voetius Sadeel c. that professedly write of Ordination against the Papists besides the vast numbers that treat occasionly of this Subject in their Common Places and other Writings such as Melancthon Musculus Zanchy Ravanel the Leyden Professors c. who all insist upon the Right of Presbyters to Ordain It 's true of late years some Arts have been used to proâ—ure Letters from some eminent forâ—eign Divines to condemn the Nonconâ—ormists here without an impartial hearâ—ng of our Case That we have been misrepresented to them is evident by Dr. Morley's Letter to the famous Bochart who vindicates us from the Doctor 's Calumny Some also have oâ— late submitted to Re-ordination who are more to be pitied then censured foâ— they wanted Bread and could have noâ— Relief without Conforming to
a Bishop and the other a meer Usurper and all his Administrations must be null and void for want of this Ceremony Let the Spirit of God indue a Man with never such excellent Gifts for the Ministry it shall be in the power of a Prelate to exclude him that he shall be no Minister of Christ though he devote himself to the Work and be solemnly set apart for it nay more it will be in his power to make a Minister of another Person whom the Holy Ghost never designed for that Office by any real work of Sanctification upon his heart or conferring upon him any tolerable degree of Ministâ—rial Abilities They that can believe such Fancies may please themselves therewith Christ gave us another Rule to discern between false and true Pastors Matth. 7. 15 16 20. Ye shall know them by their fruits that is by their Doctrine and Conversation The Reformers vindicate their Ministry against the Papists by this Argument Christus hanc nobis regulam praefâ—â—verit quâ possimus falsos à veris Doctoribus discernere nempe eos à suis fructibus esse dignoscendos cur eq non contenti alias praeterea temerè pro arbitrio confingamus Itaque judicetur tum de pontificiis tum etiam de nostris Pastoribus ex Doctrinâ quae verus est fructus atque etiam si placet utrorumque vita in disquisitionem vocetur Quod si fiat certò speramus Deo favente nos facilè in hâc causâ fore superiores We are very willing to put our Case to the same Issue to be judged according to this Rule of Christ by our Doctrine and Conversation CHAP. VI. Presbyters Power of Ordination prov'd from their Imposition of Hands in Ordination not as bare Approvers Turrianus Heylin J. Taylor c. confuted Two other Objections answered THose that have power to impose Hands in Ordination have power to Ordain but Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination therefore to Ordain The Minor viz. that Presbyters may impose Hands will not be denied 'T is required by the Old Canons Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant Chrysostom was charged in a Libel put in by Isaacius how justly is not certain that he Ordained Ministers without the Concurrence of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Biblioth v 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 27. Edit Aug. Vindelic 1601. However the Presbyters continued to lay Hands with the Bishops even in the darkest Ages of the Church as might be proved by several Instances if necessity required But this is so undeniable that to this day the Presbyters are admitted to joyn with the Bishop in imposition of Hands in the Church of England And in the present Church of Rome also all the Presbyters that are present are required to lay Hands with the Bishop The Major will be deny'd that though they impose Hands they have not the Ordaining Power I thus prove it That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power but imposition of Hands in Ordination is an Ordaining Act therefore \h The Major is evident for Actus praesupponit potentiam As to the Minor If imposing of Hands in Ordination be not Actus ordinans what is it I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles times of Persons laying on Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If imposition of Hands in Ordination be no evidence of an Ordaining Power how come the Bishops to urge that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer he was Bishop of Ephesus Timothy might lay Hands for Ordination and yet have no Ordaining Power and so be no Bishop of Ephesus Thus they unwarily undermine their own Foundations It 's a meer Subterfuge and indeed such as betrays the Cause to acknowledge that Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination but not as Ordainers 'T is as if one should say a Presbyter hath Power to apply Water to a Child in Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost but he hath no power to Baptize He may set apart Bread and Wine and distribute it to the People according to Christ's Institution but he hath no power to Administer the Lord's Supper If Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie no Ordaining Power what doth it signifie Turrianus the Jesuit saith it signifies their Approbation of the Bishops act non Excludantur Presbyteri ab impositione manûs approbante sed ab ordinante He is followed herein by many of our own Dr. Heylin saith The Presbyters Hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the Party ordained but only testifie their consent unto the business and approbation of the man To the same purpose speaks Dr. I. Taylor But that cannot be the meaning of it for they could signifie their approbation some other way without imposition of Hands their saying Amen to the Ordination Prayer would be a sufficient expression of their Consent The Peoples approbation was required in primitive Ordinations who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of Deacons yet did they not lay Hands on them If no more be intended by it then a bare approbation how come the Bishops alone to lay Hands upon Deacons without their Presbyters Hi cum ordinantur solus Episcopus eis manum imponit But this signification is deserted by a Learned Bishop who saith I think rather they dedicate him to God for the Ministry which is conferred on him by the Bishop This specious Evasion is equally disserviceable to the present Point with the former Where in all the New Testament have we any ground for this distinction How can it be said that the Ministry is conferred by the Bishop first and afterwards the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God when both Bishops and Presbyters do lay Hands together Can he be ordained and dedicated to God as two distinct Acts the one inferiour to the other and that in the same moment of time by the same Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and by the same words How comes the Bishops Hand to confer the Ministry more then the Presbyters not by any inherent virtue in the one more then in the other not from any Institution of Christ or his Apostles appropriating an Ordaining or Minisher making Power to the Bishops Hand and a bare dedication to the Ministry actually conferred to the Presbyters Hands The Scriptures of the New Testament make no mention of such distinct significations of that Ceremony and therefore they cannot be ex instituto and it 's plain they are not ex naturâ rei Might not the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God without the laying on of Hands Can there be no dedication to God without laying Hands on the Persons so
dedicated The whole Church dedicates him to God by Prayer and yet don't lay on Hands so that meer dedication to God in the Learned Bishop's sense as distinct from Ordination cannot be the meaning of this Ceremony But I pray what is Ordination it self but a dedication of the Person to God for the Ministry what more doth the Bishop do in conferring the Ministry He cannot confer it by a meer Physical Contact if so every touch of his Hand on the Head of a Man Woman or Child would make them Ministers It must be therefore by a Moral Act that he doth it i. e. by laying on Hands on a fit Person according to the appointment of God to dedicate him to God for the Ministry The power is immediately from Christ and not from the Bishop Men do but open the door or determine the Person that from Christ shall receive the power and then put him solemnly into possession Acts 20.28 The moderate asserters of Episcopacy do acknowledge that the Presbyters lay on Hands as Ordainers Imponunt manus Presbyteri ... tanquam Ordinantes seu ordinem Conferentes ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes With whom agrees the Arch-bishop of Spalato Dr. Fulk speaks to the same purpose in his Anti-Rhemish Annotations Object Where do you read that Presbyters did ordain without a Bishop Answ. This Objection grants my Argument that Presbyters have power of Ordination but not to be put forth without the Bishop Admit they have an inherent Power and it 's all I plead for I am sure no Law of God restrains the Exercise of it while it is managed regularly for the Edification of the Church We oppose not any Rules of Order while the main End is promoted The old Canons restrain the Bishop that he must not Ordain without his Presbyters we may say as well then that Bishops have no power to Ordain because they were not ordinarily to do it without their Presbyters All the Ordinations of Presbyters in the Apostles time and in the three first Centuries were done by Presbyters without Bishops of the present Species i. e. the sole Governours of 100 or 200 Churches for there were no such Bishops in the Primitive Church as hath been proved by several hands The very Office is humane and new The primitive Bishop was but the chief Presbyter who was President for orders sake but pretended not to be of a superior Order Bishop Vsher answered this Objection from the Example of the Church of Alexandria as Mr. B. affirms which shall be consider'd anon when we come to Instances of Ordaining Presbyters in Antiquity CHAP. VII Among the Iews any one that was Ordained himself might Ordain another prov'd from Dr. Lightfoot Mr. Selden P. Cuneus IF among the Jews any one that was Ordain'd himself might Ordain another then may Presbyters Ordain Presbyters But the former is true Therefore c. The Consequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledg'd by most Learned Men that the Government of the Christian Church was formed after the Jewish Pattern The Minor I prove from Dr. Lightfoot Thus he Before they had restrained themselves of their own Liberties then the general Rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Ben Maimon affirms Mr. Selden gives many Instances to this purpose out of Gemar Babylon de Synedr lib. 2. c. 7. § 1. But in the time of Hiâ—lel they were restâ—ain'd from 〈◊〉 former Liberty whether out of Vâ—â—â—â—ration to his House or whether from the inconveniency of such common Ordinations is not certain and so it was resolved that none might Ordain without the presence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a License from him Per insigne est saith P. Cunoeus quod R. Maimonides tradidit in Salach Sanhed c. 4. Cum enim olim solennem hunc actum pro arbitrio suo omnes celebrarent quibus imposita semel manus fuerat coarctatum esse id jus à sapientibus constitutúmque ut deinceps nemo illud usurparet nisi cui id concessisset divinus senex R. Hillel Selden saith that St. Paul's creating of Presbyters was according to the Custom of creating Elders Paul being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel as his Disciple This Gamaliel was Nephew or Grandchild of Hillel and Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul a Jewish Elder before he was a Christian by virtue of which Ordination in all likelyhood the Jews admitted him to preach in their Synagogues Acts 9. 20. Now when Paul became an Apostle he knew himself and other Apostles to be free from the new Law of not makeing Elders without the licence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin which was not to be expected in their Case for this R. Gamaliel though otherwise a fair Man had an inveterate prejudice against the Christians and authorized a Prayer against them under the notion of Hereticks commanding its constant use in the Synagogues as Lightfoot observes out of Maimonides which Prayer is used among the Jews to this day containing bitter Curses and Execrations against the Christians as Buxtorf notes Dr. Hammond himself granteth that the Government of the Church was formed after the Jewish manner though he reckoneth up many Inconveniencies which would follow promiscuous Ordinations The Analogy between the Government of the Jewish Synagogues and the Christian Church seems very evident in the Case of Deacons who succeed the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parnasâ—n of which there were two or three in every Synagogue to take care of the Poor Vide Lightf Harm on Act. 6. 7. To sum up this Argument the Case of Presbyters in point of Ordination is the same with that of Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Elders Every one that was Ordained himself had originally the Power of Ordaining others the Exercise of which Power was afterwards restrained by a Canon of that Church So in the Christian Church at first in Scripture times Presbyters had a common power of Ordination but afterwards ut schismatum semina evellerentur the power was by degrees devolved upon a few chief Presbyters whom we call Bishops and the ordinary Presbyters were restrained by common consent as Ierom observes in Tit. 1. and Panormitan after him How well the new Order of superiour Bishops hath cured the World of Schism the Distractions and Confusions of the Church occasioned by the Pride and Grandeur of that Order for above a thousand years together are Instances to palpable to be deny'd CHAP. VIII Ordination an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys acknowledged by Cornelius à Lapide Chamier Camero c. The Keys of Iurisdiction and Order given to Presbyters and consequently Power of Ordination THAT Ordination which is performed
by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them is valid but Ordination by Presbyters is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them Therefore it is valid The Major I prove Either Ordination is an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys or of some other Power but of no other If any other it 's either of a Secular Power or of an Ecclesiastical but neither of these Not an Ecclesiastical for there is no Ecclesiastical Power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the Power of the Keys not of a Secular Power for that belongs not to Ministers That the Keys do contain in them the Power of Ordination is acknowledged by Papists and Protestants particularly by Cornelius à Lapide Chemnitius Bucer Chamier Nomine clavium significatur omnis potestas Ecclesiastica Suppl Cham. lib. 4. c. 4. Traditio Clavium saith Camero Symbolum est potestatis atque auctoritatis collatoe Isa. 22.22 Rev. 3.7 Clavium traditione Doctorum apud Iudoeos inauguratio veteri instituto peragebatur The Keys delivered to the Jewish Teachers included the power of Ordination for as we observed before Every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples Maimon The Minor is in part granted by all to wit That Presbyters have the Key of Doctrine that they have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order also as some distinguish them I thus prove They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order but Presbyters have the former therefore they have the latter The Major I thus prove Christ gave the Keys together and did not divide them therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order To thee I give the Keys saith our Lord Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23 He did not give one Key to one and both to another he gives no single Key to any Person but Keys and so whatever these Keys serve for We know no distribution of the Keys but what is grounded upon Scripture He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him hath power to admit or exclude Persons as he seeth cause Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission his power extends to all Persons without exception Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination CHAP. IX All that have the Power of Order may confer it acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally Proved 1. By the Ancient Fathers 2. By Schoolmen Lombard Bonaventure c. 3. By the Canonists Gratian Joh. Semeca c. 4. By Councils as that of Aquisgranum Hispalis Constance Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England in the Canons of Elfrick and by J. Wicklef Lambert the Martyr the Provincial Synod of 1537. Cranmer Juel Morton Bilson c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury and by the Bishop of Worcester Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England Instances of it ORders conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equal with the highest Bishop are valid but Orders conferred by Presbyters are conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equally with the highest Bishop Therefore Orders conferred by Presbyters are valid As to the Major it 's founded on that Maxim frequently used by Arch-Bishop Vsher Ordinis est conferre Ordines a Man that is in Orders quoad Presbyteratum may coeteris paribus confer Orders it being like Generation or Univocal Causation This Maxim is acknowledged by Dr. H. Fern in his Compendious Discourse p. 115 116 117. If among the Papists Men of an inferiour Order do make the Pope and among our selves Bishops do make Arch-Bishops how much more may Men of the same Order give what they have that is Ordinem Sacerdotii as the School-men call it Why may not Presbyters make Presbyters as Physicians make Physicians All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind but the impotent Order of Presbyters must prove extinct if the favourable Influences of a superiour Order do not propagate it by a sort of equivocal Generation Must Presbyters be reckoned amongst those Monsters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation The Minor That Bishops and Presbyters have the power of Order equally will be acknowledged by most Protestants and Papists The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Order among ordinary Ministers Neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination then certainly there can be but one Order of Presbyters or Gospel-Ministers properly so called for two distinct Orders cannot be conferred in the same Instant by the same words and by the same actions Let a Man shew me from Scripture that Timothy or Titus or any other were Ordained twice made first Presbyters then Bishops which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct Characters This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers School-men Canonists Councils and of the Old Church of England 1. As to the Fathers Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion quotes most that are considerable who unanimously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Polycarp Irenoeus Clemens Alexandrin Ierom Austin Hilarius Isidore c. may be seen at large in the said Learned Author To which I could add several more if it were needful 2. The Judgment of the Schoolmen is the same in this Point The Master of the Sentences saith Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt He adds Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sc. Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis proeceptum Apostoli habemus Bonaventure in 4 sent dist 24. q. 1. A. 1. Episcopatus deficit ab Ordine c. includit necessariò Ordinem perfectissimum sc. Sacerdotium With whom agree Durand Dominic Soto Aureolus c. who all Comment upon Lombard's Text. See Aquinas's Supplem quaest 37. Art 2. Mr. Fran. Mason in his Defence of the Ordinations of Ministers beyond the Seas hath more Quotations of Schoolmen 3. To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe Gratian Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatuâ— Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur Iohannes Seâ—eca in his Gloss on the Caâ—on Laâ— â—â—â—unt quidem quod in Ecclesia primâ primitivâ Commune erat Officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant Communia Dist. 95. c. olim Et Officium erat Commune sed in secunda primitivâ caeperunt distingui Nomina Officia c. Gloss. in Dist.
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando Here is a full proof of Presbyters choosing and creating their Bishop whom Eutychius speaking in the language of his Age calls Patriarch and that by Imposition of Hands and Benediction or Prayer without any other Consecration which Custom continued several Ages until at last the neighbouring Bishops usurped the power of Consecration and left the Presbyters neither the Choice nor the Creation of their Bishop Here we have also an Instance of Presbyters making Presbyters for Eutychius tells us That the same Presbyters that made their Bishop chose and ordained another person Presbyter in his room and so constituted both Presbyters and Bishops for several Ages together II. The Bishop of Worcester tells us out of Iohannes Cassianus that about the Year 390. one Abbot Daniel inferiour to none in the Desert of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paphnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero in tantum enim virtutibus ejus adgaudebat ut quem vitae merits sibi grâ—tiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum Ministerio diutiùs immorari optánsque sibimet successionem dignissimam providere superstes eum Presbyterij honore provexit Here is a Presbyter Ordained by a Presbyter which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any other of that time Had it been either irregular or unusual doubtless it had been censured Possibly the Concession in the Canon Law is grounded upon this Example Abbas si est Presbyter conferre potest ordinem Clericalem Decret Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 14. c. 11. Innocent 3. III. Leo Mag. being consulted by Rusticus Narbonensis about some Presbyters that took upon them to Ordain as Bishops resolves the Case thus Nulla ratio sinit nt inter Episcopos habeantur qui nec in Clericis sunt electi nec à plebibus expetiti nec à provincialibus Episcopis cum Metropolitani judicio consecrati Vnde cùm saepe quaestio de malè accepto honore nascatur quis ambigat NEQUAQUAM ISTIS TRIBVENDVM quod non docetur fuisse collatum si qui autem Clerici ab istis Pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant Ordinatio ecrum cum consensu judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Two things are remarkable in this Decision of Leo the Great 1. They that want the Election of the Clergy and are not desired by the People nor Consecrated by the Bishops of the Province c. are Pseudo-episcopi false Bishops in Leo's Opinion which is agreeable to the old Canons as we observed before Our English Bishops want the Election of the Clergy and People and therefore their Ordinations have a Canonical nullity in them They would have been reckon'd but Pseudoepiscopi in Leo's time 2. The Consent ex post facto of the true Bishops made the Ordinations of meer Presbyters lawful which could not be unless they had an intrinsick power of Ordination which was only restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any by their Ordination The bare consent of the true Bishops could not have made them Ministers if they had not been such before IV. The power of Ordination and Government was in the Hands of the Captive Presbyters under the Seythians beyond 1ster for about Seventy years from the Year 260 to the Year 327 the former being the Year of their Captivity under Galienus the latter of the Change of the Government under Constantine when Vrphilas was created Bishop by Eusebius and others V. The Presbyters of Bavaria Ordained Ministers time out of mind until at last Pope Zachary sent one Vivilo to them for their Bishop It is certain that when Bonifacius Mogunt alià s Winifrid visited them he found no Bishops in the whole Province but this Vivilo of the Pope's sending not long before though the Province be so large that one third part of it now viz. the district of Saltsburg hath an Archâ—bishop who is the most powerful Prelate for Revenue and Iurisdiction of any in Germany The Boiarians who were the ancient Inhabitants of this Province were govern'd by their Presbyters without Bishops and in all probability had been so from their first Conversion which was about 200 years before For they were converted to the Christian Faith about the Year 540 and Vivilo was imposed upon them about the Year 740 by Pope Zachary who thus writes to Winifrid or Wilfred as some write his Name Quia indicasti perrexisse te ad gentem Boiariorum invenisse eos extra Ordinem Ecclesiasticum viventes dum Episcopos non habebant in Provincia nisi unum nomine Vivilo quem nos ante tempus Ordinavimus Presbyteros verò quos ibidem reperisti si incogniti fuerint Viri illi à quibus sunt Ordinati dubium est eos Episcopos fuisse an non qui eos ordinaverunt ab Episcopo suo benedictiones Presbyteratus suscipiant consecrentur sic Ministerio suo fungantur It is no wonder that this Pope requires Re-ordination for now Rome had usurped the Universal Headship and assumed a power of Deposing and Setting up of Princes as this Man did in the Case of Childerik and Pipin They that brought Kings and Princes under them would much more make Presbyters to depend upon them VI. The Council of Nice decreed thus concerning the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius at Alexandria c. Hi autem qui Dei gratiâ nostris precibus adjuti ad nullum Schisma deflexisse comperti sint sed se intra Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae fines ab erroris labe vacuos continuerint authoritatem habeant TVM MINISTROS ORDINANDI tum eos qui Clero digni fuerint nominandi tum denique omnia ex lege instituto Ecclesiastico liberè exequendi If any say that the meaning is that these Presbyters shall Ordain and Govern with the Bishops but not without them it is granted for the Decree refers to instituta Ecclesiastica But this sheweth that Ordination belongeth to the Presbyters Office and consequently it is no nullity though an irregularity as to the Canons when it 's done by them alone If it be said this Condemns Schismatical Ordinations I answer Schism as such cannot make Ordination null though it implies an irregularity else the Ordinations of the Schismatical Church of Rome were null which are counted valid in England VII Hilary or whoever was the Author in Q ex utroque Test. mixtim affirms That in Alexandriâ per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter It cannot be said that Consecrare here signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist for this might be done by the Presbyter proesente Episcopo If it be taken for Confirmation it
doth not prejudice our Cause for the Canon limits the power of Confirmation as well as Ordination to the Bishop as was also the power of Consecrating Churches if any should take the word in that sense We may understand the meaning by a parallel place of Hilary in Ambrose who thus speaks Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta nam Timotheum 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet Denique apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum nè indignus temerè usurparet esset multis scandalum The same Author saith also in Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi Ordinem subjicit Quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est Here note 1. That the Ordination in Hilary's time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apostle That he speaks of the Ordination of Ministers is evident by the following words Presbyterum à se creatum c. 2. At first Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and Office and had but one Odination Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est which shews the meaning of Ordinatio in the former Paragraph The Bishop in Hilary's time which was about the Year 380 under Damasus was but primus Sacerdos and not of a superiour Order Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Apostolus Matth. 10. 2. and yet Protestants hold all the Apostles to be equal 3. Spalatensis infers from this quotation That at the beginning when a Bishop died there was not so much as an Election of him that was to succeed much less any new Ordination but the eldest Presbyter came into the room of the deceased Bishop See the Preface to Blondel's Apology p. 11. 31. 4. There was a Change in the way of choosing their Bishop ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum and this was prospiciente Concilio whether that Council was the Council of Nice Can. 4. as Blondel thinks for it should seem that before that time neither the Consent of the Bishops of the Province nor the Concurrence of three Bishops in Ordination were accounted necessary for the making of a Bishop though it might be the Custom for the keeping up of Unity in some places Or whether it signifies no more then that which Ierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum the Bench of Presbyters who might make this Change by general Consent Multorum Sacerdotum judicio as Hilarius speaks Or whether it were some Council of which we have no further account in Antiquity most of the Records of the three first Centuries being lost is not very material It might be some Provincial Synod of which there were several before that of Nice It is presumption in us that live at this distance to say there was no such Council when an Ancient Writer so positively affirmeth it Such a Change there was and that by the advice of some Council they that say there was no such Council must disprove it by some positive Authentick Testimony 5. After this Change the Presbyters chose and made their Bishop For so Hilarius affirms him to be multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum 6. He adds that in Egypt Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus He speaks in the foregoing words of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and he brings this as a Confirmation of it that in the absence of the Bishop they might do those things which Custom had appropriated to the Bishops Consignare is some Act of Prerogative that the Bishops challenged to themselves which yet in their absence the Presbyters might perform Whether we understand it of Ordination or Confirmation in which they did Chrysmate consignare it 's not material for both were reserved to the Bishop by the Canons Though by comparing this with the scope of Hilary's Discoarse and with the quotation out of the Questions under Austin's Name Si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter it should seem evidently meant of Ordination especially when we find consignare to be taken for consecrare in several Authors Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr. Ep. 2. Tu tantum quem jà m Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signavit VIII Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Either then Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination with a Bishop but it 's only restrained by Ecclesiastical Laws This Instance is quoted in Dr. Stillingfl Iren. IX The Chorepiscopi or Country-Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by a Canon in the Council of Antioch A. D. 344. Now these Chorepiscopi were either of the Order of Bishops or not If they were then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country Villages which were but thinly peopled with Christians when the Majority were Heathens or at least were great numbers By which we may guess at the bigness of primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Such Bishops in the Exercise of that power which Christ gave them without Canonical Restraints we plead for and earnestly desire Nay the Chorepiscopi are an Instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters they were but Parish-Bishops under the City-Bishop Sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere But if they were not Bishops then it 's undeniable that Presbyters did Ordain then without Bishops and their Ordination was valid until they were limited by the Canons The second Council of Hispalis makes the Chorepiscopi and Presbyters to be the same As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops some meer Presbyters others veri nominis Episcopi he is answered at large by Forbes in his Irenic c. 11. X. The Histories of Scotland do tell us that their Churches were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for above two hundred years and therefore had no Ordination but by Presbyters Hector Boetius saith Ante Palladium populi Suffragiis ex Monachis Culdaeis pontifices assumerentur Hist. Scot. lib. 7. fol. 28. Iohn Major is more express Prioribus illis temporibus per Sacerdotes
Hierarchy in the Churches of that Empire had its Pattern from the Heathen The Heathen had their Sacerdotes and over them their Pontifices maximos In every Province one chief Priest had the Supream Power to whom all the other Priests were subject And these were chosen ex hominibus qui in negotiis Civilibus rebus publicis erant illustrissimi See the Epistle of Iulian to Arsacius Chief-Priest of Galatia in Sozom. V. 16. Here is a President for Bishops intermedling in State Affairs The Office of these Chief-Priests was to Ordain and Govern the inferiour Priests The Master of the Sentences ingenuously confesseth that the distinction of Bishops Metropolitans Arch-Bishops was borrowed of the Gentiles Thus he Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est scil in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis horum autem discretio à Gentilibus introducta videtur qui suos Flamines alios simpliciter flamines alios Archi-flamines alios Protoflamines appellabant That the Ecclesiastical Government of Britain was built upon the Ruins of the Pagan Hierarchy is expresly affirmed by Ponticus Virunnius He tells us That there were in Britain before Christianity 28 Flamens and three Arch-Flamens In the room of the Flamens were set up Bishops and in the room of the Arch-Flamens Arch-Bishops The Seat of the Arch-Flamens were London York and Caerleon upon Vsk. To these three Metropolitans were subject 28 Bishops Fuerunt in Britanniâ octo viginti Flamines nec non tres Archi flamines quorum potestati coeteri judices morum atque phanatici submittebantur .... ubi erant Flamines Eiscopos ubi autem Archi-flamines Archi-episcopos posuerunt mirâ sanctitate incredibili devotione Sedes autem Archi-flaminum quae fuit antiquissima religio in tribus nobilioribus Civitatibus fuerant Lundoniis viz. atque Eboraci in Vrbe Legionum super Oscam fluvium His igitur tribus Metropolitanis evacuata superstitione 28. Episcopi subduntur The description that Caesar gives of the Government of the ancient Druids something agrees with this of Ponticus Virunnius Câ—â—â—r saith concerning the Druids of France That they managed all the Pagan Devotions under the Conduct of one Chief President whose Authority was Supream when he died another was chosen to succeed him Illi rebus divinis intersunt Sacrificia publica ac privata procurant religiones interpretantur His autem omnibus Druidibus praeest unus qui summam inter eos habet auctoritatem Hoc mortuo si quis ex reliquis excellit dignitate succedit at si sunt plures pares suffragio Druidum adlegitur He adds That this Discipline was found in Britain Disciplina in Britannia reperta atque in Galliam translata esse existimatur nunc qui diligentiùs eam rem cognoscere volunt plerumque illo discendi causâ proficiscuntur Having prov'd that Christianity was in the North part of Britain before Palladius's time and vindicated Boethius and Fordon I proceed to give an Instance of Presbyters Ordaining in Scotland Segenius a Presbyter and Abbot of Hy together with the other Presbyters of the Monastery Ordained Bishop Aidan The Presbyters of Hy also Ordain'd Finan as Successor to Aidan To this Quotation 't is said by some that Aidan was ordain'd by Bishops which they would ' thus prove There was always one Bishop in Hy Monastery as Bishop Usher tells us out of the Ulster Annals and another person Ordained perhaps only by the Bishop of Hy who was returned back from Northumbria Then at least there were present two Bishops for Aidan's Ordination Answ. 1. We have no Author near that time that saith there was a Bishop constantly resident at Hy which our Adversaries think a good Argument against the Scottish Historians As to the Annals of Vlster we leave them for Apocryphal as not being attested by any Author of that Age. 2. But suppose there were a Bishop resident at Hy he was subject to the Abbot who was the only Church-Governour of the Island and the Provinces about The Monastery was not only exempted from the Government of the Bishops which is usual but the Bishops of the Province were subject to the Abbot and therefore the parallel Instance of Oxford being under the Jurisdiction of the Chancellor and not of the Bishop of the place which is urged by some is not to the point for the Bishop is not subject to the Vice-Chancellor as the Bishops were to the Abbot of Hy. The Bishop of Oxford hath a Jurisdiction over all that have a Parochial Cure in the University versity who swear Canonical Obedience to him which cannot be said of the Bishops under the Jurisdiction at Hy 3. The second Bishop said to be at Hy when Aidan was Ordained cannot be produced out of Bede It doth not appear that he was Ordained Bishop Bede calls him only Sacerdotem a Priest Or if he was how will it appear that he was Ordain'd by the Bishop of Hy Ordain'd perhaps only by the Bishop of Hy saith the Learned Historian Here is a plain begging of the Question It is taken for granted that this Man was Ordained by the Bishop of Hy which we deny and which Bede no where affirms Finan's Ordination was by the Seniores and their Abbot as Bede saith and therefore his Predecessor had no other 'T is objected further That Finan must needs be Ordain'd by Bishops because there were three Bishops at the Ordination of Cedd This deserves to be taken notice of by our Aversaries and consider'd in other places where Bede speaks of Scottish Ordinations I answer we have taken notice of it and find it doth not at all concern the thing in question For Cedd's Ordination was at Lindis-farn in England out of the Liberties of the Abbots of Hy. Let one Example be produced of Ordination by Bishops within the district of Hy and 't will be something to the purpose which I have not yet met with Bede speaking of the British Bishops calls them Presbyters or Teachers so that 't is uncertain what sort of Bishops the old Brittains had 'T was many years after Cedd's time before the British Churches would submit to the Roman Yoke of Discipline when they had throughly imbib'd the Romish Modes and Customs then at a Synod held at Celichyth A. D. 816. 't was decreed That none of the Scottish Nation should be permitted to use the sacred Ministry among us It 's argued further against the Scotch Ordinations that they must needs be Episcopal because the Romans did not dislike the Orders that they found in the British Church If by the British Church be meant the Church of South Britain 't is not to the purpose as we observed before but if the Orders conferred in the Monastery of Hy be intended the Romans were not so ignorant of the Priviledges of Abbots as to dislike their Ordinations which to this day are allow'd by the Canons of that Church XI The ancient Waldenses had
their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops They maintain all Ministers to be in a state of parity and their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination These were the Fathers and famous Predecessors of the Protestants who bore the heat of the day They had the honour to be first Witnesses against Antichrist and are to this day as the Bishop of Salisbury calls them The purest Remains of primitive Christianity From them the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers for they sent Michael Zambergius and two more for Ordination to the poor Waldenses who never had a Bishop among them but in Title only In compliance with their desires two of their Titular Bishops with some Presbyters that had not so much as the Titles of Bishops made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops giving them power of Ordination We dislike not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be ordinarily restrained to the graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to themselves by a Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions XII Wickliffs followers here in England held and practised Ordination by meer Presbyters and least any should think they did so of necessity for want of Bishops it 's to be noted that they did it upon this Principle that all Ministers of Christ have equal power as the Popish Historian saith who complains how all parts of England were full of those People and that the Prelates knew of these things but none were forward to prosecute the Guilty except the Bishop of Norwich XIII In the Island of Taprobane or Zeilan as 't is now call'd there was a Church of Christians govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon without any Superiour Bishop to which he or his Flock was subject This Island is above two thousand Miles in compass a Province big enough for a Bishop yet had none in Iustin the Emperour's time which was about the Year 520 but was under the Jurisdiction of a Presbyter Ordain'd in Persia who in all likelyhood Ordain'd his Successor and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries By this Passage it appears that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches no not in the sixth Age and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction and consequently of Ordination The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage A. D. 428. did observe that until that time some Dioceses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Iure Divino CHAP. XI Objections against Ordinations by Presbyters answered 1. That it is against the Canons So is Episcopal Ordination 2. It destroys the Line of Succession answered in Seven Particulars 3. The Case of Ischyras consider'd A Passage in Jerom explained I Will briefly reflect upon the most material Objections that are made against the Ordination I plead for Object 1. Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is condemned by the Old Canons Answ. 1. Many things are reserv'd to the Bishops by the Old Canons meerly to support their Grandeur For this reason the Consecration of Churches the Erecting of Altars the making of Chrysm the Reconciling of Penitents the Vailing of Nuns c. were appropriated to the Bishops All this is ingeniously acknowledged by the Council of Hispalis Let the Presbyters know that the power of Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See by virtue of novel Ecclesiastical Constitutions They add that this was done to bear up the dignity of the Bishops For the same reason the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops were restrained from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch For the same reason 't was decreed in the Council of Sardis A. D. 347. That no Village or lesser Town must have a Bishop nè vilescat nomen Episcopi 2. Episcopal Ordinations also as they are now managed will prove Nullities by the Old Canons The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at Constantinople do depose all Bishops that are chosen by the Civil Magistrate Can. 29. If any Bishop obtains a Church by means of the Secular Powers let him be deposed and separated from Communion with all his Adherents This Canon is revived by the second Council of Nice which the Greeks call the Seventh General Council All our English Bishops are chosen by the Magistrate and not by other Bishops or the Presbyters and People of their Diocess The King 's Writ of Conge d'Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to choose their Bishop is only matter of form for the King chooseth properly and the Dean and Chapter cannot reject the Person whom he recommends nor are they the just Representatives of the Clergy and People of the Diocess whose Suffrages were required of old in the designation of a Bishop Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermeddle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion Let not a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon assume worldly Cares and if he doth let him be deposed Bishops at this time were not Judges in Civil Matters nor Ministers of State as being a thing inconsistent with their Office 2 Tim. 2.4 Can. 80. adds A Bishop must not engage in Publick Administrations that he may give himself to the Work of the Ministry Let him resolvedly decline these or be Deposed for no Man can serve two Masters The Church of England doth not observe the Canons of the first General Councils which some would have us believe are the measures of her Reformation next the Scripture The fourth Canon of the Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Bishop to be by all the Bishops of the Province at least by three with the Consent of the absent Bishops expressed in writing I never knew the Consent of all the Bishops of the Province required much less expressed in Writing before the Consecration of English Bishops Can. 5. Requires Provincial Councils twice a year This is not observed Can. 6. and 7th establish the Rights and Priviledges of Metropolitans Quaere Whether Austin the Monk whom the Pope made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did not wrongfully invade the Rights of the Brittish Bishops over whom Pope Gregory could give him no just Power notwithstanding his pretended Grant mentioned by Bede which are not restored to this day and if so whether this doth not make a Canonical Nullity in the whole Succession of English Bishops who derive their Line from that usurping Prelate Can. 15 and 16th forbids Ministers to remove from the Church in which they were Ordained I might mention several other Canons in this Council which are not observed as the third the eleventh the fourteenth which in the Greek is the eighteenth the nineteenth and twentieth which forbids kneeling upon the Lord's days No more are the Canons of the Great
Council of Chalcedon observed Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships and to intermeddle with Secular Affairs Can. 7. is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs or receiving Secular Honours upon pain of Excommunication Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age. One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of them That Politick Enemy of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and Dominion would be with that humble Mortification and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires He that had been a READER in the Church before he came to the Empire could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Saviour to his Apostles Matth. 20. 25 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them but it shall not be so among you Can. 10. Deposeth all obstinate Pluralists This Canon if executed would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists that heap Pelion upon Ossa Steeple upon Steeple as if they would mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions I only produce these Canons ad hominem to shew how unreasonable 't is to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations We judge it more ingenuous to disown their Authority over us as being made by such as had no power to give Universal Laws to the Church then pretend Submission to them as they do who act in open Contradiction to them If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone Object 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Argument of the Papists against the first Reformers They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations because they wanted this Succession It is urged by Bellarmine De Sacram. Ordinis cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther Ep. Dedic praefix Operibus ejus The same Argument is used by Parsons the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler p. 274 275. Turrian the Jesuite writ a great Book de Ordinationibus Ministrorum Ecclesiae against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches The Sum of all his Arguments is this of the Succession which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordinary Succession of Bishops under the Roman Pontiff the visible Head of the whole Church but no Protestant Ordinations are such therefore no Protestant Ordinations are lawful but they are void null and meerly Laic This Argument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations but with this Addition That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession which adds no great Reputation to it 2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers Sadeel calls it praecipuum adversariorum Argumentum he challenges them to produce some Scripture to confirm it by Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him that the Succession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine and not of Persons which Succession of Doctrine failing in the Romish Church the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Generation of immortal Successors He further proves that the Ordinary Succession of Ministers may be interrupted by Scripture-Examples as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine Nay Christ himself coming to reform his Church chose unto himself Apostles not from the Priests but from other Families He did not observe the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church To which I may add That the Roman Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church without regard to Lineal Succession Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church it must be in the Jewish Priesthood which was entailed upon one Family but the Church remained a true Church though the regular Succession was destroyed To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford the Martyr to Dr. Harpsfield You shall not find saith he in all the Scripture this your essential part of Succession of Bishops In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit Dr. Fulk saith If the Truth of Doctrine be necessary to prove a true Church the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point Field of the Church II. 6. III. 39. Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a threefold Succession The first of Persons and Doctrines in the primitive Church The second of Persons alone among Infidels and Hereticks The third of Doctrine alone And thus our Ministers saith he succeed the Apostles and this is sufficient For this Rule must be remembred that the power of the Keys that of Order and Iurisdiction is tied by God and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine Dr. White largely confutes this pretended Succession in his defence of the way to the true Church So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Thus we see the vanity of this pretended Succession who they be that maintain it and who are the Opposers of it It 's one of the Pillars of the Popish Church which supports that tottering Fabrick The Arguments against our Ordination must needs be very defective when no other can be found but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations It 's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads 3. The violent Assertors and Defendants of this Opinion little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England for it 's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for hath been broken again and again One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain All our Bishops as such derive their Succession from Rome Now if we can find any Interruption in the Succession of Bishops there it Nullifies all the Administrations of those that depend upon them If the Pope succeeds Peter as Darkness doth Light if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar proves to be the Antichrist if many Popes were Hereticks Sodomites Idolaters Conjurers Whoremongers Murderers c. as some of their own Authors affirm if there were two or three Popes at a time and if they were