A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 33
CHAP. XXXIII.
Detect. 24. ANother of their deſigns, Conjunct with the laſt mentioned is, to perſwade the world that they only have a true Miniſtry or Prieſthood, and an Apoſtolical Epiſcopacy, and true Ordination: and that we and all other Churches have no true Miniſters, but meer Lay men under the name of Miniſters, becauſe we have no juſt Ordination. And how prove they all this? Why, they ſay, that they have a Pope that is a true Succeſſor of Saint Peter, but we have no Succeſſion from the Apoſtles, and therefore no juſt Ordination, becauſe no man can give that Power which he hath not. And we are Schiſmaticks ſeparated from the Church, and therefore our Ordinations are invalid: And ſome of our Churches have no Biſhops, and therefore ſay they, we have no true Miniſtry there, nor are they true Churches. Theſe are their Reaſons.
In anſwer to which I ſhall firſt refer the Reader to my Second ſ…eet for the Miniſtry in Juſtification of their Call; Where theſe Reaſons are confuted, and our calling vindicated: and I ſhall forbear here to repeat the ſame things again: Alſo I refer you for a fuller Anſwer to the London Miniſters Jus Divinum Miniſterii, and to Mr. Tho. Balls Book for the Miniſtry; and Mr. Maſons Book in vindication of the Miniſtry of thoſe Reformed Churches that have not Prelates, and to Voetius Deſper. Cauſ.
2. Though we need not fetch our Ordination from Rome, yet, as to them, we may truly ſay, that if they have any true Ordination and Miniſtry, then ſo have we: For our firſt Reformers were Ordained by their Biſhops, which is enough to ſtop their mouths. If they ſay that our Schiſm hath cut off our power of Ordination, I anſwer ad hominem, that (though it is they that are indeed the Notorious Schiſmaticks, yet) if we were what they falſly ſay we are, it would not null our Ordination, Confirmation, or ſuch other acts. And this is the Judgement of their own writers. I ſhall at this time only cite the words of one of them, and of many in that one: and that is Thom. à Jeſis de Converſione Gentium, lib. 6. cap. 9. Where he affirms it to be one of the Certainties agreed on [that Schiſmaticks loſe not, nor can loſe any ſpiritual power conſiſting in the ſpiritual Caracter of Baptiſm, or Confirmation of Orders: For this is indelible, as Dr. Thomas teacheth here, Art. 3. and Turrecremata confirmeth, lib. 4. ſum. part. 1. c. 7. and Silveſter verb. Schiſmatici: and it appeareth by Pope Urbans Can. Ordinationes, 9. q. 1. Who judgeth thoſe to be truly ordained, that were ordained by Schiſmaticall Biſhops: And from Auſtin lib. 6. de Bapt. Cont. Donatiſt. cap. 5. where he ſaith that [A Separatiſt may deliver the Sacrament as well as have it.] He next addeth that yet ſuch are deprived of the faculty of Lawfull uſing the Power which they have, ſo that it will be their ſin to uſe it, though it be not a nullity if they do uſe it: and that thus thoſe are to be underſtood that ſpeak againſt the Ordination, Confirmation, &c. of Schiſmaticks; viz. that it is unlawfull, becauſe their power is ſuſpended by the Church, but not a Nullity, becauſe they have the Power, pag. 316. He puts the Queſtion [Whether Schiſmatical Preſbyters and Biſhops do want the Power of Order, or only want Juriſdiction?] And he anſwereth out of D. Thom. 22. q. 39. art. 3. that [they want Juriſdiction, and cannot Abſolve, Excommunicate, or grant indulgences, and ſo they cannot elect and give Benefices, and make Laws—But yet they have the holy Power of Orders; and therefore a ſchiſmaticall Biſhop doth truly make and conſecrate the Euchariſt, truly Confirm, truly Ordain; and when he Electeth and promoteth any to Eccleſiaſtical Orders, they truly receive the Character of Order, but not the Uſe, becauſe they are ſuſpended, if knowingly they are ordained by a Schiſmatical Biſhop.] He next asketh, [Whether this puniſhment depriving them of Juriſdiction, take place with all Schiſmaticks] And anſwers that [ſome ſay that before the Council of Conſtance this puniſhment belonged to all notorious Schiſmaticks, but not to the unknown ones: but ſince that Councill, it takes place only on thoſe that are expreſly and by name denounced, or manifeſt ſtrikers of the Clergy] Others ſay otherwiſe: But he himſelf anſwers, that [If a ſchiſmatick be toleraeted, and by the common error of the people be taken for lawfull, there's no doubt but all his acts of Juriſdiction are valid, which we ſhall affirm alſo of Hereticks: But if a Presbyter or Biſhop be a manifeſt Schiſmatick, then ſome ſay that thoſe acts that require Juriſdiction are invalid; but others ſay that they are all valid in caſe the Schiſmatick be not by name excommunicated, or a manifeſt ſtriker of the Clergy] Thus far Thom. à Jeſu opening the judgement of the Papiſts Doctors themſelves in the point.
And by the way, our new ſuperprelatical Brethren that degrade others that want their Ordination, yea or commands, and nullifie their Acts, ſhould learn not to go beyond the Papiſts themſelves, if they will go with them.
And obſerve, that it is but their own Canons, that is, their own wills, that the Papiſts here plead when the Council of Conſtance hath ſo altered the buſineſs.
2. Though this that is ſaid is enough as to the Papiſts, yet I add for fuller ſatisfaction, that their ſucceſſion is interrupted; and therefore they are moſt unfit to be our Judges in this. They have had ſo long ſchiſms in which no man knew who was the right Pope, nor knoweth to this day; and ſo long removes and vacancies, and ſuch interpoſitions of various wayes of chooſing their Pope, and interruptions by Hereticall Popes, condemned by General Councils; beſides Murderers, Adulterers, Symoniſts, and ſuch as their own Writers (as Genebrard) expreſly ſay, Were not Apoſtolical, but Apoſtatical; yea Popes that by General Councils have been judged or charged with infidelity it ſelf (as I have formerly proved,) that there's nothing more certain then that their ſucceſſion hath been interrupted.
3. They cannot be certain but its every age interrupted, and that theres no true Pope or Biſhops among them, becauſe the intention of the Ordainer or Conſecrator is with them of neceſſity to the thing: and no man can be certain of the Intention of the Ordainers. And therefore Bellarmine is fain to take up with this, that though we cannot be ſure that he is a true Pope, Biſhop, or Presbyter that is ordained, yet we are bound to obey him. But where then is the Certainty of ſucceſſion?
4. What ſucceſſion of Epiſcopal Conſecration was there in the Church of Alexandria, when Hierom (Epiſt. ad Evagrium) tells us that [At Alexandria from Mark the Evangeliſt even till Heraclus and Dionyſius their Biſhops, the Presbyters did alwayes name one man that Biſhop whom they choſe from among themſelves, and placed in a higher degree. Even as if an Army make an Emperour, or the Deacons chooſe one of themſelves, whom they know to be induſtrious, and call him the chief Deacon.] Thus Hierom ſhews that Biſhops were then made by meer Presbyters. And in the ſame Epiſtle he proves from Scripture, that Presbyters and Biſhops were then all one. And if ſo, there were no Prelatical Ordinations then at all. And your Medina accuſing Hierom of error in this, ſaith, that Ambroſe, Auſtin, Sedulius, Primaſius, Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were in the ſame hereſie, as Bellarmine himſelf reporteth him. So that Presbyters now may either ordain, or make themſelves Biſhops as thoſe of Alexandria did, to do it. And as Hierom there ſaith, [All are the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles,] and our Biſhops or Presbyters are ſuch, as much, at leaſt, as yours: yet Apoſtles as Apoſtles have no Succeſſors at all, as Bellarmine well teacheth, lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 25. ſaying, [Biſhops do not properly ſucceed the Apoſtles, becauſe the Apoſtles were not ordinary, but extraordinary, and as it were, delegate Paſtors, who have no Succeſſors. Biſhops have no part of the true Apoſtolick Authority. Apoſtles could preach in the whole world, and found Churches, but ſo cannot Biſhops. The Apoſtles could write Canonical Books, but ſo cannot Biſhops. Apoſtles had the gifts of tongues and miracles, but ſo have not Biſhops. The Apoſtles had Juriſdiction over the whole Church, but ſo have not Biſhops. And there is no Succeſſion, but to a Predeceſſor: but Apoſtles and Biſhops were in the Church both at once, as appeareth by Timothy, Titus, Evodius, and many more. If therefore Biſhops ſucceed Apoſtles, to what Apoſtle did Titus ſucceed? and whom did Timothy ſucceed? To conclude, Biſhops ſucced Apoſtles, but in the ſame manner as Presbyters ſucceed the ſeventy two Diſciples—But its manifeſt that Presbyters do not properly ſucceed the ſeventy two Diſciples, but only by ſimilitude. For thoſe ſeventy two Diſciples were not Presbyters, nor did they receive any Order of Juriſdiction from Chriſt. Philip, Stephen and others that were of the ſeventy two had never been after Ordained Deacons, if they had been Preſbyters before] Thus Bellarmine.
See now what's become of the Popiſh Apoſtolical Succeſſors among their Biſhops? And the ſcope of all this is to prove, that all Biſhops receive their Power from the Pope; and ſo their ſucceſsion is confined to him alone: and therefore as oft as there have been interruptions in the Papal Succeſsion, ſo oft the Succeſsion of all their Church was interrupted.
But if Biſhops ſucceed not Apoſtles, and have not any of the Apoſtolick Power, who then doth the Biſhop of Rome ſucceed? Why, Bellarmine hath a ſhift for this: but how ſorry an one it is, you ſhall bear, cap. 25. he ſaith that [The Pope of Rome properly ſucceedeth Peter, not as an Apoſtle, but as an Ordinary Paſtor of the whole Church.] Let us then have no more talk of the Apoſtolick ſeat, or at leaſt no more Arguing from that name. You ſee then that Peter was not the Univerſal Vicar as an Apoſtle, nor doth the Pope ſo ſucceed him. And do you think this doth not give away the Vicarſhip? Which way hereafter will they prove it?
But an Objection falls in Bellarmines way, that [If this be ſo, then none of the Biſhops of Africk, Aſia, &c. were true Biſhops, that were not made by the Pope: To which he anſwers (as well as he can) that its enough that the Pope do Conſecrate them Mediately, by making Patriarchs and Arch-biſhops to do it: and ſo Peter did Conſtitute the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who thus receiving authority from the Pope, did Rule almoſt all Aſia and Africk] But 1. That [almoſt] marreth the whole Cauſe. For where now is the univerſal Headſhip? 2. Did Bellarmine think in good ſadneſs that Alexandria and Antioch were made at firſt the ſeats of Patriarchs, having as large Juriſdiction as afterward they attained? 3. How will he prove that Peter made theſe two Patriarchates, and that not as an Apoſtle, but as an Ordinary Vicar General? 4. Who made the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople, and gave them that vaſt Juriſdiction? Did Peter many hundred years after his death? Or did the Pope of Rome, that tooth and nail reſiſted, and ſtill ſought to diminiſh his Power? Or rather did not the General Councils do it by the Emperors Commands, the Pope excepting and repining at it. 5. Who made the Patriarch of Jeruſalem? and who made James Biſhop of Jeruſalem? did Peter? And who made Timothy and Titus Biſhops? did Peter or Paul? And who gave Paul that Power? not Peter certainly. Reader, do not theſe men jeſt with holy things? Or is it like that they believe themſelves?
6. Bellarmine confeſſeth that the Poteſtas Ordinis, & interioris juriſdictionis are both as immediately from God to every Biſhop as to the Pope, cap. 22. And why then ſhould it be denyed of the power of exterior Juriſdiction? 1. Is one part of the Eſſence of the Office given by the Pope, and the reſt without him? 2. And what if it be proved that exterior and interior Juriſdiction of a Paſtor is all one? Though the matter of obedience be exterior, yet the Juriſdiction is exerciſed only on the ſoul directly, in one caſe as well as another; it being the mind on which the obiglation lyeth, and the Paſtoral Rule is powerful and effectual: and further then you procure conſent, you are deſpiſed: For its the Magiſtrates work to uſe violence: Biſhops as Biſhops can but perſwade and deal by words with the inner man.
And thus you ſee what is become of the Papiſts Succeſſion.
5. Moſt of the Miniſters in England, till within theſe few years were ordained by Biſhops If that were of Neceſſity, they have it.
6. He that is ordained according to the Apoſtles directions, or preſcript in Scripture, hath the true Apoſtolical Ordination; but ſo are we Ordained; therefore,—The Apoſtles never Confined Ordination to Prelates, much leſs to thoſe Prelates that depend on the Pope of Rome: The Biſhops to whom the Apoſtles committed this Power, are the ſame that are called Presbyters by them, and they were the Overſeers or Paſtors but of one ſingle Church, and not of many Churches. And ſuch are thoſe that Ordain among us now. Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 18. ſaith thus [I would there were no Preſidency, nor Prerogative of Place, and Tyrannical Priviledges; that ſo we might be known only by vertue, (or meer deſert:) But now this Right ſide, and Left ſide, and Middle, and Lower Degree, and Preſidency, and Concomitancy, have begot us many Contritions to no purpoſe, and have driven many into the Ditch, and have led them away to the region of the Goats.]
What Hierom ſaith, both in his Epiſtle to Evagrius, and on Tit. cap. 2. is commonly known. The many plain Teſtimonies of Anſelmn are commonly Cited, as plain as Hieroms Alphonſ. à Caſtro adverſ. Haereſ. lib. 6. in nom. Epiſcop. had more ingenuity then to joyn with them that would wreſt Hieroms words to a ſence ſo contrary to their moſt plain importance. Tertullian cap. 17. de Bapt. thought Lay-men in Neceſſity might Baptize, (and ſo doth the Church of Rome now.) Why then may not Presbyters in ſuch a caſe at leaſt Ordain? when, as he there ſaith, [Quod ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari poteſt] And ibid. he ſaith, that it is but propter Eccleſiae honorem, that Biſhops Rule in ſuch matters, and that peace may be kept, and Schiſm avoided. But that probati quique ſeniores did exerciſe Diſcipline in the Aſſembly, he teſtifieth in Apologet.
Mr. Prin hath cited you abundance of Fathers that were for the parity of the Miniſtry, or againſt Prelacy jure Divino.
Iſidore Peluſiat. lib. 3. Epiſt. 223. ad Hieracem Epiſcopatum fugientem ſaith [And when I have ſhewed what difference there is between the ancient Miniſtry, and the preſent Tyranny, why do you not Crown and Praiſe the Lovers of equality?]
If you would ſee more of the Antients making Presbyters to be Biſhops, and Conſenting with Hierom, read Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anſelm. Cantuar in Enarrat. in Phil. 1. 1. Beda on Act. 20. Alcuinus de Divinis officiis, c. 35, 36. and on John lib. 5. Col 547. &c. & Epiſt. 108. And that Presbyters may Ordain Preſbyters, ſee Anſelmn on 1 Tim. 4. 14. And Inſtitut. in Concil. Colon. de ſacr. Ordin. fol. 196. ſee alſo what's ſaid by our Mart. Bucer ſcript. Anglic. pag. 254, 255, 259, 291. & ſequ. & Pet. Martyr. Loc. Commu. Claſ. 4. Loc. 1. ſect. 23 pag. 849. And Wickliffes Arguments in Waldenſis Paſſim. And your own Caſſander Conſult. Artic. 14. ſaith [It is agreed among all, that of old in the Apoſtles dayes, there was no difference between Biſhops and Presbyters, but afterwards for Orders ſake, and the avoiding of Schiſm, the Biſhop was ſet before the Presbyters.] And Ockam determineth, that by Chriſts Inſtitution all Prieſts of what degree ſoever are of equal Authority, Power and Juriſdiction.]
Reynold Peacock, Biſhop of Chicheſter wrote a Book de Miniſtrorum aequalitate, which your party cauſed to be burnt.
And Richardus Armachanus, lib. 9. cap. 5. ad Queſt. Armen. ſaith [There is not found in the Evangelical or Apoſtolical Scriptures any difference between Biſhops and ſimple Prieſts, called Presbyters; whence it follows, that there is one Power in all, and equall from their Order.] & cap. 7. anſwering the Queſtion, Whether any Prieſt may Conſecrate Churches, &c. he ſaith [Prieſts may do it as well as Biſhops, ſeeing a Biſhop hath no more in ſuch matters then any ſimple Prieſt: though the Church for reverence to them appoint that thoſe only do it, whom we call Biſhops—It ſeems therefore that the reſtriction of the Prieſts Power was not in the Primitive Church, according to the Scripture.]
I refer you to three Books of Mr. Prins, viz. his Catalogue; his Antipathy of Lordly Prelates, &c. and his unbiſhoping of Timothy and Titus; where you have the Judgements of many writers of theſe matters. And alſo to what I have ſaid in my Second Diſputation of the Epiſcopal Controverſiès, of purpoſe on this point.
7. The chief error of the Papiſts in this cauſe is expreſſed in their reaſon, [No man can give the Power that he hath not:] wherein they intimate, that it is Man that giveth the Miniſterial Power: whereas it is the gift of Chriſt alone: Man doth but deſign the perſon that ſhall receive it, and then Chriſt giveth it by his Law to the perſon ſo deſigned: and then man doth in veſt him and ſolemnize his introduction. As a woman may chooſe her an husband, but it is not ſhe that giveth him the Power over her, but God who determineth of that Power by his Law, affixing it to the perſon choſen by her, and her action is but a condition fine qua non, or cauſe of the capacity of the matter to receive the form. And ſo is it here. When do but obey God in a right choice and deſignation of the perſon, his Law doth preſently give him the Power, which for orders ſake he muſt be in a ſolemn manner inveſted with. But matters of Order may poſſibly vary; and though they are to be obſerved as far as may be, yet they alwayes give place to the Ends and ſubſtance of the work, for the ordering whereof they are appoineed.
8. Temporal power is as truly and neceſſarily of God, as Eccleſiaſtical, and it was at firſt given immediately by him, and he choſe the perſon: And yet there is no Neceſſity that Kings muſt prove an uninterrupted Succeſſion. God uſeth means now in deſigning the perſons that ſhall be Governors of the Nations of the earth: But not alway the ſame means: nor hath he tyed himſelf to a ſucceſſive Anointing or Election: elſe few Kings on earth would hold their Scepters. And no man (from any diverſity in the caſes) is able to prove that a man may not as truly be a lawful Church-governor, as a lawful Governor of the Commonwealth, without an uninterrupted ſucceſſion of Miniſterial Collation.
9. If Bellarmine be forced to maintain that with them it is enough that a Paſtor have the place, and ſeem lawfull to the people, and that they are bound to obey him, though it ſhould prove otherwiſe. Then we may as well ſtand on the ſame terms as they.
10. In a word, our Ordination being according to the Law of Chriſt, and the Popes ſo contrary to it, we are ready at any time, more fully to compare them, and demonſtrate to any impartial man, that Chriſt doth much more diſown their Ordination then ours, and that we enter in Gods appointed way. Mr. Eliot in New England may better Ordain a Paſtor over the Indians converted by him, then leave them without, or ſend to Rome, or England for a Biſhop, or for Orders. But again I muſt refer you of this ſubject to the Books before mentioned, and the Sheet which I have written, leſt I be overtedious.