Five Disputations of Church Government, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Ordination by such as the English Prelates, not Necessary to the Being of the Ministry.
Sect. 1. I Have made this work unnecessary by the two former Chapters: For if no Ordination be of Necessity to the Being of the Ministry, nor an uninterrupted Succession Necessary, then doubtless an Ordination by these Prelates in Specie is not Necessary at present, or as to succession. But yet ex abundati I add.
Sect. 2. Argument 1. Ad hominem, I may well argue from the Concession of the English Prelates themselves and their most zealous adherents; And their judgements were 1. That such a succession as aforesaid of right Ordination was not of Necessity; And for this they that write against, the Papists do commonly and confidently dispute.
Sect. 3. And 2. They maintained that the Protestant Churches that had no Bishops were true Churches, and their Ministers true Ministers, and so of their administrations. This was so common with them that I do not think a dissenting vote can be found, from the first Reformation, till about the preparations for the Spanish match or little before.
Sect. 4. I have in my Christian Concord cited at large the words of many, and the places of the writings of more, as 1. Dr. Field, 2. Bishop Downam, 3. Bishop Iewel, 4. Saravia, 5. Bishop Alley, 6. Bishop Pilkinton, 7. Bishop Bridges, 8. Bishop Bilson, 9. Alexander Nowel, 10. Grotius (their friend then) 11, Mr. Chysenhal, 12. The Lord Digby, 13. Bishop Davenant, 14. Bishop Prideaux, 15. Bishop Andrews, 16. Chillingworth, 17. (To which I now add) Bishop Brom…all ▪ (of Schism) 18. Dr. Fern, 19. Dr. Steward (in his answer to Fountains letter (these of the later, or present sort) 20. And Bishop Vsher (whose judgement of it is lately published by Dr. Bernard at his own desire) 21. And Mr. Mason (in a Book of of purpose for justification of the Reformed Churches) hath largely pleaded this cause. 22. And Dr. Bernard saith that Dr. Overall was judged not only to consent to that Book, but to have a hand in it. 23. And no wonder when even Bancroft himself (the violentest of all the enemies of them called Puritans in those times) is said by Spotswood (there recited by Dr. Bernard) to be of the same mind, and to give it as his judgement, that the Scotch Ministers (then to be Consecrated Bishops) were not to be reordained, because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid.
Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then, that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents, have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy, and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches. If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie, and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England ▪ & all other Churches of the Protestants, and adhere to a few new men of yesterday, that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions: we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them: But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail.
Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark: What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null? and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it? The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity, if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty, and backwardness to divulge their accusations, but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them, to have proved us, No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it. And till they do it; their whsperings are not to be credited
Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self, yea if it were sinfull, and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches; then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent. The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation. Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task, even for one man t… be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes, exercising it also by Lay men, and in the needful parts, not exercising it all all▪ a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern; yea suspending or degrading …he Presbyters of all those Churches, as to the governing part of the… office, and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned, is not only it self unnecessary, but sinful, and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure. And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry, then the bur…ing of a feaver, or swelling of a Tympany, is necessary to the body.
Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times: But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times: Therefore the English Bishop… are not necessary. He that denyeth the Major, must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture▪ then I find the Papists ordinarily to do: For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters, that is not to be found in Scripture, or that was not then in Being: Therefore so far we are secure.
Sect. 9. And for the Minor, I prove it thus. If the English Bishops were …either such as the unfixed General Ministers, nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches, then were they not such as were in Scripture times. But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers, nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches: therefore, &c.
Sect. 10. Bes…des these two sorts of Ministers, there are no more in the New Testament. (And these a…e diversified but by the exercise of their office, so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue.) The unfixed Ministers (whether Apostles▪ Evangel…sts or Prophets) were …uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess, but were to do their best for the Church in general, and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry. But its known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such. They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers: they went not about to plant Churches, and confirm and direct such as they had planted: but were fixed to a City, and had every one their Diocess, which was their proper charge (but Oh how they discharged their undertaking!)
Sect. 11. Object. The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces, and did accordingly, James being Bishop of Jerusalem, Peter of Rome, &c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world, to disperse themselves, and not be preaching all in a place, to the disadvantage of their work: But 1. Its one thing to travail several ways, and so divide themselves as itinerants; and another thing to divide the Churches among them, as their several Diocesses to wh…ch they should be fixed▪ Which they never did, for ought is proved. 2. And its one thi…g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour, an… another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge, excluding a like charge and power of others. So far as any man, Apostle or other, was the Father of souls by their conversion, they owned him a special honour and love, which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim: But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province. For in the same City (a Ierusalem) some might be converted by one Apostle, and some by another. And if a Presbyter convert them, I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his D…ocess, not give him there an Episcopal Power, much less above Apostles in that place. Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by, as now they are taken.
Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops, but much to the contrary. 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge, and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to duplicate page duplicate page every creature: How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess?
Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice, going abroad and preaching and planting Churches, and sometimes visi…ing them in their passage, but not s…tling on them as their Diocesses; but going further, if they had opportunity, to do the like for other places. Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia, yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess: (And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place.) Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus, Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop, and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop: but its clear that it was no peculiar Diocess of Paul.
Sect. 14. And 3. We still find that there were more then one of these general itinerant Ministers in a Place, or at least that no one excluded others from having equal power with him in his Province, where ever he came. Barnabas, Silas, Titus, Timotheus, Epaphroditus, and many more were fellow-labourers with Paul in the same Diocess or Province, and not as fixed Bishops or Presbyters under him, but as General Ministers as well as he. We never read that he said to any of the false Apostles that sought his contempt [This is my Diocess, what have …ou to do to play the Bishop in another mans Diocess?] Much less did he ever plead su…h a Power, against Peter, Barnabas or any Apostolical Minister: Nor that Iames pleaded any such prerogative at Ierusalem.
Sect. 15. And therefore though we reverence Eusebius and other Ancients, that tell us of some Apostles Diocesses, we take them not as infallible reporters, and have reason in these points partly to deny them credit from the word of God. The Churches that were planted by any Apostle, or where an Apostle was longest resident, were like enough to reckon the series of their Pastors from him: For the founder of a Church is a Pastor of it, though not a fixed Pastor, taking it as his peculiar charge, but delivering it into the hands of such: And in this sence we have great reason to understand the Catalogues of the Antients and their affirmations that Apostles were Bishops of the Churches. For Pastors they were: but so that they had no peculiar Diocess, but still went on in planting and gathering and confirming Churches: Whereas the Bishops that were setled by them (and are said to succeed them had) their single Churches which were their peculiar charge; They had but one such charge or Church, when the Apostles that lead in the Catalogues had many; & yet none so as to be limited to them. And why have we not the Diocess of Paul and Iohn, and Mathew and Thomas, and the rest of the twelve, mentioned, as well of Peter and Iames? Or if Paul had any, it seems he was compartner with Peter in the same City (contrary to the Canons that requireth that there be but one Bishop in a City.)
Sect. 16. Its clear then that the English Bishops were not such Apostolical unfixed Bishops as the Itinerants of the first age were. And yet if they were, I shall shew in the next Argument that its nothing to their advantage; because Archbishops are nothing to our question. And that they were not such as the fixed Bishops of Scripture times, I am next to prove.
Sect. 17. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had but a single Congregation, or particular Church for their Pastoral Charge: But our English Bishops had many (if not many hundred) such Churches for their charge: therefore our English Bishope were not of the same sort with those in Scripture. The Major I have proved in the former Disputation. The Minor needs no proof, as being known to all that know England.
Sect. 18. And 2. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had no Presbyters, at least, of other particular Churches under them, (They Governed not any Presbyters that had other associated Congregations for publick Worship.) But the English Bishops had the Presbyters of other Churches under them (perhaps of hundreds:) therefore they are not such as the Scripture Bishops were. There is much difference between a Governour of People and a Governour of Pastors; Episcopus gregis, & Episcopus Episcoporum, is not all one. None of us saith, Cyprian in Concil. Carthagin. calleth himself, or takes himself to be Episcopum Episcoporum. No fixed Bishops in Scripture times were the Pastors of Pastors, as least, of other Churches.
Sect. 19. This I suppose I may take as granted de facto from the Reverend Divine whom I have cited in the foregoing Disputation, that saith (Annotat. in Art. 11.) that [Although this Title of foreign Elders, have been also extended to a second order in the Church; and now i… only in use for them, under the name of Presbyters; yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally, if not alone to Bishops; there being no Evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted; though soon after, before the writing … …gnatius Epistles, there were such instituted in all Churches] So that he granteth that de facto there were then no Presbyters but Bishops, and that they were not instituted: and therefore Bishops had no such Presbyters to Govern; nor any Churches but a single Congregation: For one Bishop could guide but one Congation at once in publick worship; and there could be no Worshipping Congregations (in the sence that now we speak of) without some Presbyter to guide them in performance of the worship.
Sect. 20. So saith the same Learned man, Dissertat. 4. de Episcop. page 208, 209. [in quibus plures abs que dubio Episcopi …uere, nulli que adhuc quos hodie dicimus Presbyteri And therefore he also concludeth that the Churches we…e then Governed by Bishops assisted by Deacons without Presbyters, instancing in the case of the Church of Ierusalem, Act. 6. and alledging the words of Clem. Roman. foreign, &c. (How Grotius was confident that Clemens was against their Episcopacy, (shewed before) To the same purpose he citeth the words of Clemens Alexandrinus in Euseb. of Iohn the Apostle▪ concluding [Ex …is ratio constat quare sine Pres…yterorum mentione intervenient…, Episcopis Diaconi immediate adjiciantur, quia scilicet in singulis Macedoniae civitatibus, quam vis Episcopus esset, nondum Presbyteri constituti sunt; Diaconis tantum foreign ubi que Episcopis adjunctis] Dissertat. 4 cap. 10. Sect. 19, 20, 21. So also cap. 11. Sect. 2. & alibi passim.
Sect. 21. Object. But though de facto there were no Bishop… …uling Presbyters then, nor ruling any more then a single Worsh…p…ing Church, yet it was the Intention of the Apostles that they should afterwards enlarge their Diocess, and take the care of many Churches, and that they should ordain that so…t of subject Presbyters that were not instituted in Scripture-times. Answ. Do you prove the secret Intention of the Apostles to be for such a Mutation, and then we shall be satisfied in that. But till then it is enough to us that we have the same Government that de facto was set up by the Apostles, and exercised in Scripture times. And that its granted us that the office was not then instituted which we deny: For it is the office of such subject Presbyters having no Power of Ordination that we deny.
Sect. 22. Object. But though in Scripture times there were no Bishops over many Churches and Presbyters, yet there were Archbishops that were over many. Answ. Because this objection contains their strength, I shall answer it the more fully. And 1. If there were no subject Presbyters in those times, then Archbishops could rule none. But there were none such, as is granted: therefore, &c. And what proof is there of Archbishops then?
Sect. 23. Their first proof is from the Apostles: But they will never prove that they were fixed Bishops or Archbishops. I have proved the contrary before. But such an itinerant Episcopacy as the Apostles had (laying by their extraordinaries) for my part I think should be continued to the world and to the Church (of which after.)
Another of their proofs is from Timothy and Titus … who, thy say, were Archbishops. But there is full evidence that Timothy and Titus were not fixed Bishops or Archbishops, but Itinerant Evangelists, that did as the Apostles did, even plant and settle Churches, and then go further, and do the like. See and consider but the proofs of this in Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus. Such Planters and Itinerants were pro tempore the Bishops of every Church where they came, (yet so as another might the next week be Bishop of the same Church, and another the next week after him, yea three or four or more at once, as they should come into the place) And therefore many Churches as well as Ephesus and Creet its like might have begun their Catalogue with Timothy and Titus: and many a one besides Rome might have begun their Catalogue with Peter and Paul.
Sect. 24. Another of their proofs is of the Angels of the seven Churches which they say were Archbishops. But how do they prove it? Because those Churches or some of them were planted in chief Cities, and therefore the Bishops were Metropolitans. But how prove they the consequence? By their strong imagination and affirmation. The Orders of the Empire had not then such connection and proportion, and correspondency with the Orders of the Church. Let them give us any Valid proof that the Bishop of a Metropolis had then (in Scripture times) the Bishops of other Cities under him, as the Governor of them, and we shall thank them for such unexpected light. But presumption must not go for proofs. They were much later times that afforded occasion for such contentions as that of Basil and Anthymius, (Whether the bounds of their Episcopal Jurisdiction should change as the Emperours changed the State of the Provinces?) Let them prove that these Asian Angels had the Bishops of other Churches, and the Churches themselves under their jurisdiction, and then they have done something.
Sect. 25. But if there were any preheminence of Metropolilitans neer these times, it cannot be proved to be any more then an honorary Primacy: to be Episcopus primae sedis, but not a Governour of the rest. How else could Cyprian truly say (even so long after) as is before alledged, that none of them was a Bishop of Bishops, nor imposed on others, but all were left free to their own consciences, as being accountable only to God?
Sect. 26. Yea the Reverend Author above mentioned shews (D…ssertat. de Episcop. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9, 10, & alibi) that there were in those times more Bishops then one in a City, though not in una Ecclesia aut Coe…u. And the like hath Grotius oft. So that a City had oft then more Churches then one, and those Churches had their several Bishops: and neither of these Bishops was the Governour of the other, or his Congregation: much less of the remoter Churches and Bishops of other Cities. And this they think to have been the case of Peter and Paul at Rome, yea and of their immediate successors there. And so in other places (Lege Dissert. 5 c, 1.)
Sect. 27. When the great Gregory Thaumaturgus was made Bishop of Neocaesarea, he had but seventeen Christians in his City; and when he had increased them by extraordinary successes, yet we find not that he had so much as a Presbyter under him. And if he had, its not likely that Musonius, his first and chief entertainer, would have been made but his Deacon, and be the only man to accompany him and comfort him in his retirement in the persecution, and that no Presbyter should be mentioned: which shews that Bishops then were such as they were in Scripture-times (at least in most places) and had not many Churches with their Presbyters subject to them, as D…oc…san Bishops have. And when Comana, a small place not far off him, received the faith, Gregory Ordained Alexander the Colliar) their Bishop, over another single Congreg…tion, and did not keep them under his own Pastoral charge and Government: Vid. Greg. Nys…n in vita Thaumat.)
Sect. 28. But because that our D…ocesan Bishops are such as the Archbishops that first assumed the Government of many Churches, and because we shall hardly drive many from their presumption, that Timothy and Titus were Archbishops (besides the Apostles,) I shall now let that supposition stand; and make it my next Argument that,
(Argument 3.) Ordination by Archbishops is not necessary to the Being of Ministers or Churches.Arg. 3. Our English Bishops were indeed Archbishops: therefore Ordination by them is not Necessary —] It is not the Name, but the office that is pleaded Necessary.
Sect. 29. And for the Major, I think it will not be denyed. All that I have to do with, Protestants and Papists, do grant the Validity of Ordination by Bishops. And for the Minor, it is easily proved. The Bishops that are the Governours of many Churches and their Bishops, are Archbishops. The Bishops of England were the Governours of many Churches with their Bishops: therefore they were Archbishops. The Major will be granted. And for the Minor I prove it by parts: 1. That they were (by undertaking) the Governours of many Churches. 2. And of many B…shops.
Sect. 30. He that is the Governour over many Congregations of Christians associated for the publick Worship of God and holy communion and Edification, under their Proper Pastors, is the Governour of many Churches. But such were our English Bishops: therefore, &c. That such Societies as are here defined are true Churches, is a truth so clear, that no enemy of the Churches is is able to gainsay with any shew of Scripture or reason, they being such Churches as are described in the Scriptures. And 2. That our Ministers were true Pastors, if any will deny, (as the Papists and Separatists do) I shall have occasion to say more to them anon.
Sect. 31. Argument 4. If Ordination by such as the English Bishops be of Necessity to the Ministry and Churches, then was there no true Ministry and Churches in the Scripture times, nor in many years after: But the consequent is false; therefore so is the Antecedent. The reason of the Consequence is because there were no such Bishops in those times; and this is already proved, they being neither the Itinerant Apostolical sort of Bishops▪ nor the fixed Pastors of particular Churches; besides which there were no other.
Sect. 32. Argument 5. If Ordination by such as the English Prelates be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry and Churches, then none of the Protestants that have not such Prelates (which is almost all) are true Churches or have true Ministers: But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent. Of this I shall say more anon.
Sect. 33. If none of the Protestants Churches that have not such Bishops are true Churches, and have not a true Ministry, then neither Roman, Greek, Armenian, Aethiopian, &c. or almost any through the world are true Churches: For they are defective in some greater matters, and chargeable with greater errors then these. But the Consequent is false; therefore so is the Antecedent. He that denyeth all these to be true Churches, denyeth the Catholick Church: And he that denyeth the Catholick Church, is next to the denying of Christ.
Sect. 34. Having thus proved that there is no necessity of Ordination by such as the English Prelates, I have withall proved that men are not therefore ever the less Ministers, because they have not their Ordination, nor our Churches or Ordinances ever the more to be disowned.
Sect. 35. Yet where there is no other Ordination to be had, it may be a duty to submit to theirs: Not as they are Episcopi exortes (as even Grotius calls them) or of this species; but as they are Pastors of the Church, notwithstanding such superfluities and usurpations.
Sect. 36. It is not the duty therefore, but the sin, of any man that was Ordained by such Prelates to a lawful office, to disclaim and renounce that Ordination (as some do.) For it is not every irregularity that nullifieth it: There may be many modal circumstantials, or accidental miscarriages that may not Null the the substance of the Ordination it self.
Sect. 37. Yet it must be concluded, that we may not be wilfully guilty of any sin in the modes or accidents: But that may be a sin in the Ordainer, which the Ordained may not be guilty of, as doing nothing that signifieth an approbation of it, but perhaps disowning it.
Sect. 38. If we have been guilty of submitting to a corrupt ordination, as to the accidents, we must disown and repent of the sinfull mode and accidents, though not of the Ordination it self in substance. As we must bewail the errours and infirmities of our preaching, prayer, and other holy duties, without renouncing the duty it self, which is of God, and to be owned.
Sect. 39. As to the Question of some, Whether a man may be twice Ordained, in case he suspect his first Ordination: I answer, 1. You must distinguish between a General Ordination to the office of the Ministry, and a special Ordination to a particular Church. (As the licensing of a Physitian; and the setling him over a City or Hospital) The first may be done but once, in case it be truely done: but the second may be done as oft as we remove to particular Churches: Though yet both may be done at once, at our first Ordination; they are still two things; Even as Baptizing a man into Member-ship of the universal Church, and taking him into a particular Church. Its not like that the separation and Imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13.2, 3. was to their first Apostleship.
Sect. 40. If a man have weighty reasons to doubt of his first Ordination, his safest way is to renew it, as is usuall in Baptim, with a [Si non Baptizatus es Baptizo te] If thou be not Ordained I Ordain thee. This can have no danger in such a case.