Plea for Scripture Ordination, Chapter 6
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.
Arg. V.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. 'Tis required by the Old Canons*Conc. Carth. 4. Can. 3. Vid. Can. Presb. dist. 23. — Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius †Ordinandi Presbyteri.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: foreign foreign. Phot. Biblioth. v foreign. 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*Pont…f. de Ord. Presb..
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. 'Tis 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 *Heyl. Hist. of Ep. p. 162.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 †Vide his Episc. asserted.. 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‖Cypr. Ep. 68.; who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop. The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of Deacons*Act. 6.3., yet did they not lay Hands on them†v. 5, 6.. 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 ‖Pont…f. de Ord. D…ac.. 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*So Forbes in his Iren. l. 2. c. 11. p. 163.: 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 †Spalat. de Rep. Eccl. II. 2. p. 187.. Dr. Fulk speaks to the same purpose in his Anti-Rhemish Annotations ‖Fulk in Tit. 1. §. 2..
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*Conc. Carth. 4. c. 22.; 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†Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Clarkson.. 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.