Plea for Scripture Ordination, Chapter 11
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.Rom. Conc. Can. 5. Carth. 2. Can. 2. 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 *Novellis & Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverine—Presbyterorum Consecratio, &c.. They add, that this was done to bear up the dignity of the Bishops†Vt per hoc & discretio graduum, & dignigatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur. Conc. Hisp. 2. Can. 7..
For the same reason the Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops, were restrained from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch ‖Quamvis ut Episcopi consecrati sunt, &c.—nec Presbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum. Concil. Antioch. Can. 10. A.D. 3…4..
For the same reason 'twas 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*Can. 2. Constantinople, do depose all Bishops that are chosen by the Civil Magistrate.
Can. 29.Can. 29. in Conc. Collect. Reg. Par. 1644. foreign. 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 *Can. 3., 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†Cypr. Ep. 68..
Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermeddle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion.Can. 6. foreign. 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,Can. 80 — foreign 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‖Laud against Fisher, p. 360. 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,Nic Concil. Can. 4 — foreign. 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. — foreignCan. 5. Requires Provincial Councils twice a year. This is not observed.
Can. 6. foreignCan. 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*Eccl. Hist. I. 29. 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,†Can. 16. foreign 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*Can. 20. foreign 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.†Can. 7. foreign 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‖Alia insuper dolo malo induxit, nam & in Cleri Ordin…m cooptatos, Senatorum munere, & Ministerio perversè fungi jassit. Niceph Eccl. Hist. XIII.. 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*Nazian. Orat. in Iul. Imp. 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. Can. 10. — foreignDeposeth 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 'tis 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, Sad. Oper. p. 594.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.Sad. de legit. vocat. Ministr. p. 545— 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;P. 551, 552 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.*Antiq. XV. 3, 6, 7, 8. 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, Fox's Acts and Mon. A.D. 1555.saith he, in all the Scripture, this your essential part of Succession of Bishops. In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit.
Dr. Fulk saith,Fulk on Eph. Sect. 4. 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, Perk. Vol. 2 p. 171—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†Cap. 59. p. 554, 557.. So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White ‖Orthod. Faith, p. 120-155..
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 rather Apostatical then Apostolical for fifty years together, as their own Baronius confesseth, what becomes of the pretended Line of Succession? If none of these things can infringe it, what can? We may as rationally affirm that a Dog may generate a Man, as that the Man of God may be the Off-spring of the Man of Sin. I doubt not but Christ had his Ministers in the darkest Ages of the Church, but not by virtue of this Succession in debate.
4. Nay, this Principle destroys all Churches in the World. For there's no Church this day can produce such a Testimonial of Succession, as hath met with no Canonical Interruption. They that bid fairest for it, are the Greek Churches,Vide Cathol. Trad. Q 4. the Latine, and the African Churches; and all of them derive the Succession from the same Source, making Peter the Head of it. The Greeks produce a large Catalogue of Patriarchs proceeding from Peter, until the time of Neophytus, who not many years ago held the See at Constantinople. The Christians of Affrica, especially the Habassines, who are the most considerable among them, derive their Succession from the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he from Mark and Peter. The Western Churches also derive the Succession from the same Spring. Thus we have the most considerable Sects of Christians in the World, deriving their Claim from one and the same Apostle. All would be reputed the Off-spring of the Chief Apostle, and glory in their Relation to him. It seems Paul, the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, who laboured more abundantly then all the rest, either left no Successour behind him, or no Body knows what is become of him? Sic vos non vobis, &c.
Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision, must be the Universal Head of all the Gentile-Churches; and Paul, with the rest of the Apostles, must be written Childless, or be the Progenitors of such an Off-spring that is long ago extinct, or so very obscure, that their Names are written in the Dust.
But how comes Peter to Canton his Bishoprick into three Parts, and to leave three Successors behind him? By the same Rule, every Bishop must have more Successors then one, three at least, and each of them as many, and so forward until Bishopricks be crumbled into Parochial Churches; and the Patrimony of Peter, by an Apostolical Gavel kind, be equally divided between his Parochial Successors.
But the unhappiness of it is, the three Patriarchal Successors cannot agree about the divided Inheritance. The eldest Brother (for so the Pope of Rome reckons himself) Condemns the two others as spurious, and Claims to himself the Universal Inheritance. His Advocate*De Not. Eccl. cap. 8. Bellarmine expresly affirms, Non posse ostendi in Ecclesiâ Graecâ Successionem. He adds, We see that the other Apostolick Sees are decay'd and fail'd; viz. those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, wherein after that those places were taken away from the Romans by the Persians and Saracens (since which time there are nine hundred years past) there hath been no Succession, and if there were any, the same was very obscure. *Stapl. Doctr. Princip. l.13 c.6.Stapleton also saith of the Greek Church. That she hath no Legitimate Succession.
The Greek Churches on the other hand condemn the Roman Succession. Primi qui seriò primatum Romanum Pontificis oppugnarunt videntur fuisse Graeci, saith°Praef. ad Lib. de Pontifice. Bellarmine.
Barlaam, the Monk, thus attacks the Roman Succession: What Law, Quaenam Lex solum jubet inter caeteros Romanum Episcopum hujus Successorem appellari..: De Princip. Cap. 3. in Bibl. Patr.saith he, obligeth us to reckon the Bishop of Rome Peter's only Successor, that must rule all the rest? and why may not the Bishop of Alexandria be accouted Peter's Successor, and so challenge the Supremacy; for as Clemens was made Bishop of Rome, so was Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria.
He strikes at the Head of the Succession, and denies Peter to have been Bishop of Rome †Barl. ib., as many of our Protestant Writers have done‖Func. Com. in Chron. ad An. 44.. If therefore a Man would know the true Church by Personal Succession, 'tis difficult to know what part to take, especially considering that of all the pretended Successions, the Roman (from which the English Prelacy derives it self) is most suspicious, as being often interrupted by Simony, Heresie, and Schism. Pope Eugenius the Fourth was deposed by the General Council of Basil, and pronounced Heretick and Schismatick, with all his Adherents; yet he retains the Papal Authority against the Judgment of that Council; Cardinals and Bishops were Instituted by him.
5. By this Principle no Man can know himself to be a Minister of Christ. Can any Man know that all the Predecessors of that Bishop that Ordained him were Canonical Bishops? that none of them came in by Simony, or err'd in the Fundamentals, so as to be guilty of Heresie? that none of them lost their Authority by involving themselves in Secular and Publick Administrations*Can. Ap. 80., or by neglecting to instruct their Flocks†Can. 57., or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction‖Can. 36. Const. 1. Can. 3.? These things make Canonical Nullities. Can any Man know, who was the Bishop that was the Root of his Succession? A great part of the Christian World is uncertain what Apostles did first Convert their particular Countries, which were it known, would not yet resolve the Point. Conscience will not be satisfied, with saying, Let others disprove my Succession. It must have positive Grounds of Satisfaction, that I am a true Minister of Christ. So that this Notion serves only to perplex Ministers and People, with insuperable difficulties about their acceptance with God, and to leave Christianity it self upon such precarious Foundations, as will be, in the power of every Critick in Church-History to shake, if not to overturn.
How is it possible, That plain illiterate People should know this Succession, which is learnt only by reading of the Greek and Latine Fathers, the length and obscurity of which wearieth the wisest Men, and which oftentimes contradict themselves. Ought not the Consciences of the meanest to be satisfied in the Call of their Ministers? Must they act in a Matter of so great importance by an Implicit Faith? What Rule shall they judge by? not by the Line of Succession; that will but lead them into an inextricable Labyrinth. Our Saviour hath left us a better Rule, By their Fruits ye shall know them.
6. Let it be further considered, That the Catalogues that are brought by some of the Ancients, of the Successors of the Apostles, were made by Conjecture*Euseb. Ec. Hist. l.3.c.4. Nor is this Succession so evident and convincing in all places, as it ought to be, to demonstrate the thing intended. A List would be expected of Apostolical Successors, not only in the Great Patriarchal Churches, but in all others planted by the Apostles,Vide Dr. Still. Iren. as Philippi, Corinth, Caesarea, and in all the Seven Churches of Asia, (and not only at Ephesus) which has not been yet produced. Though in the Patriarchal Churches the beginning of the Line is as obscure as the Head of Nilus. At Rome, 'tis not certain whether Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, or Clemens are to be reckon'd first. And as for Antioch, 'tis far from being agreed, whether Peter, Euodius, or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul, or the one and the other Paul. At Alexandria, where the Succession seems to run clearest, the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters, and to no Divine Institution, as we observed already.
7. If there were any certainty in this Succession, the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters, as much as to Bishops.*Ad Magn. p. 33. Voss. Edit. Ignatius saith concerning them, foreign—That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles.
Irenaeus affirms the same—Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni; dicent se non solum Presbyteris, Advers. haer.l.3.c.2sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, &c. Though the truth is, when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters, they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons, but principally of the Succession of Doctrine, which the first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable, as received from the Apostles. Otherwise, the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine, is no note of a true Church, as among the Arians, where they had a Succession of Bishops, and yet no true Church.Nazianz. in laud. Athan. Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est, namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est; qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur, adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet: Atque haec quidem nomen, illa vero rem ipsam & veritatem habet successionis. Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church, the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple.
Object. 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria. Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy, p. 91, 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government, cap. 13.
Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop, constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais, Athanas. Apol. 2.and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter, as he had been formerly. Ischyras's Ordination was declared void, as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors; himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks, and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons; it was sine titulo, extra fines, and nulli vicinorum nota; all which Circumstances make it uncanonical.
Dr. Field saith, Dr. Field. de Eccles. III.39.That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void, it's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age; which appears (saith he) by this, that Ordinations, sine Titulo, were null. Conc. Chalc. Can. 6.
The Reverend Author of the Naked Naked Truth, p. 45Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras.
I am sorry, saith he, so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose. It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Ni…e made a Canon, wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent, their Ordination should be null. You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop, is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter: therefore the irregular Bishop, and the irregular Presbyter, are of the same Order, of the same Authority, neither able to Ordain.
Object. 4. It is objected out of Ierom, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter, exceptâ Ordinatione?
Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints, and not of Scriptural: for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it, he confirms it, by asking this Question, What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter, except Ordination? plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour Order, the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same. As if he would say, The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion, they are Ambassadors for Christ, to preach the Gospel, they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and what doth a Bishop more then these, except Ordination▪ which being no Sacrament, is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts, and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree. A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power.
FINIS.
Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil.
PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica, England, Sicily, Malta, Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those, and divers other Earthquakes, by Iohn Shower.
Earthquakes explained and Practically improved, occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London, and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea, by Tho. Doolittle M.A.
The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated, and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God, and the Prosperity of their Souls, by T. Cruso.
The Christian Laver; or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with, and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ, by T. Cruso.
Four Sermons on several Occasions, by T. Cruso.
Barbarian Cruelty; being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco, &c. by Francis Brooks.
The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, by Robert Flemming V. D. M.
End of the text · James Owen, Plea for Scripture Ordination (1694)