A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

CHAP. IX. (Book 9)

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 equal∣ly. Proved, 1. By the Anci∣ent Fathers. 2. By School∣men. Lombard, Bonaventure, &c. 3. By the Canonists, Gra∣tian, Joh. Semeca, &c. 4. By Councils, as that of Aquisgra∣num, Hispalis, Constance, Basil. Bishops not expresly de∣termined 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 Pro∣vincial

Synod of 1537. Cran∣mer, Juel, Morton, Bilson, &c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury, and by the Bishop of Wor∣cester. Ordination by Presby∣ters allowed in the Old Church of England. Instances of it.

ORders conferred by such as are in Orders,* 1.1 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 Pres∣byters 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 Presbyte∣ratum, may coeteris paribus confer Or∣ders, it being like Generation, or Uni∣vocal Causation. This Maxim is ac∣knowledged by Dr. H. Fern* 1.2, in his Compendious Discourse, p. 115, 116, 117.

If among the Papists Men of an in∣feriour 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 Phy∣sicians make Physicians? All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind, but the impotent Order of Pres∣byters must prove extinct, if the fa∣vourable Influences of a superiour Or∣der do not propagate it, by a sort of equivocal Generation. Must Presby∣ters be reckoned amongst those Mon∣sters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation?

The Minor, That Bishops and Pres∣byters have the power of Order equal∣ly, will be acknowledged by most Pro∣testants and Papists. The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Or∣der among ordinary Ministers. Nei∣ther 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 con∣ferred

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 ne∣cessary if they be distinct Characters. This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers, School-men, Canonists, Coun∣cils, and of the Old Church of Eng∣land.

(1.) As to the Fathers,* 1.3 Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion, quotes most that are considerable, who unani∣mously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Irenoeus, Clemens Alexandrin. Ierom, Austin, Hi∣larius, 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 School∣men is the same in this Point.

The Master of the Sentences saith,* 1.4Apud veteres iidem Episcopi & Presby∣teri fuerunt. He adds, Excellenter Ca∣nones duos tantum sacros Ordines appel∣lari

censent, Diaconatus sc. & Presbyte∣ratus, 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. in∣cludit 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 School∣men.

(3.) To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe.

Gratian,* 1.5 Sacros Ordines dicimus Di∣aconatu•• & Presbyteratum, hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dici∣tur.

Iohannes Se••eca in his Gloss on the Ca••on La•• ••••••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 secun∣da 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,* 1.6 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 Pres∣byters;* 1.7 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 Ba∣sil, after long debate, it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils, as well as Bi∣shops, because by the Law of God, Bi∣shops were no more then Presbyters, and it's expresly given them, Acts 15. 23.

In the Council of Trent,* 1.8 all the Spa∣niards, with some others, moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divi∣no

might be defined; next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs, six Arch-Bishops, and ele∣ven Bishops, with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon, that the Superiority is de jure Divino, be∣cause it savoured of Ambition, and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause; and be∣sides, the greater part would not have it put in. At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed, and was in∣serted into the Canon, though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party. The words of the Canon are these;* 1.9 Si quis dixerit, Epis∣copos non esse Presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi, & ordinandi, vel eam quam habent, illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem — ana∣thema sit. This Decision was made, 1.* 1.10 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 a∣fraid 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 Se∣govia; 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 di∣minished, the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also.

The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Su∣periour 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 bles∣sed Man of God, Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick,* 1.11 and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt. One of the Articles for which he was condemned, was this, Confirmatio juve∣num, Clericorum Ordinatio, locorum con∣secratio reservantur Papae & Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis, & honoris.

(5.) This Doctrine hath been main∣tain'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 E∣pisc.* 1.12 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 inspi∣ciendum, curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent, quod nimiae crederetur multi∣tudini, si omnis Presbyter hoc idem fa∣ceret. Ambo siquidem unum tenent eun∣dem 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,* 1.13 that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Diaconos.

Iohn Lambert, a holy Martyr, saith, In the primitive Church,* 1.14 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 Tin∣dal 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 Pro∣vincial 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 Te∣stamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum, aut distinctionum in Ordinibus, sed Diaconorum, vel Ministrorum, & Presbyterorum, sive Episcorum.

To which agrees the MS.* 1.15 mention'd ••y the now Bishop of Worcester, setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer, That Bishops and Priests were ••ne Office in the beginning of Christs Re∣••igion. The Bishop of St. Asaph, Thirlby,* 1.16Redman, Cox, all imployed in that Con∣••ention were of the same Opinion, ••hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were ••he same. Redman and Cox expresly ••ite the Judgment of Ierom with appro∣••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,* 1.17 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 cal∣led, The Bishops Book, to be seen in Fox's Martyrology) that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a De∣vice of the ancient Fathers, and not men∣tioned in Scripture.

Our Learned Writers against the Pa∣pists are of the same mind.

Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology,* 1.18 proves against Harding, that Aerius could not be accounted a Here∣tick for holding that Bishops and Pres∣byters are all one Iure Divino: and ••∣ting Ieróm, &c. concludes in thes•• 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 Mor∣ton in his Cath. Appeal.* 1.19 by Bishop Bil∣son against Seminaries. Dr.* 1.20 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 Vin∣dication 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 pub∣lish 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 Presby∣ters are equal sharers, p. 331.

The truth is, this Notion of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy, as a superiour Order, was first promoted in the Church of England by Arch-Bishop Laud. Dr. Holland, the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxon, was much offended with Dr. Laud, for asserting it in a Disputation for his Degrees, he checked him pub∣lickly, and told him, He was a Schis∣matick, and went about to make a divi∣sion between the English and other Re∣formed

Churches. This Prelate had in∣ured his Tongue to say, Ecclesia Roma∣na, and Turba Genevensis.

Cressy, who apostatized to the Romish Church,* 1.21 conceives that the reason why Episcopacy took no firm rooting in the Consciences of English Subjects before Archbishop Lauds time, was because the Succession and Authority of Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Orders received from the Roman Church, was never confidently and generally taught in England to be of Divine Right. His Disciples since have rectified that Errour, by obliging all the Conforming Ministers to subscribe, That Episcopacy is a distinct Order,* 1.22 and that it is manifest in God's Word, that it is so: This goes beyond the deter∣mination of the Council of Trent. And to make the Fabrick lasting, which was built upon this new Foundation, all Mi∣nisters must be sworn to support it, and that they will not remove one Stone out of the Building by any endeavours to alter the Government, as established in Church and State. The Substance of this Oath, as it relates to Ecclesiastical Go∣vernment, is the same with the &c. Oath, which was imposed in the year 1640. only

it includes also the Civil Government, and requires Passive Obedience and Non-resistance in all Cases whatever, which rendred it acceptable to the Pow∣ers then in being, and gave them in∣couragement to trample upon Funda∣mental Laws and Constitutions, as pre∣suming upon the security of an Oath, that neither they, nor any commissioned by them, must be resisted upon any pre∣tence whatsoever.

The Proofs brought for this distin∣ction and superiority of Order are so very weak, that scarce two of the As∣serters of Episcopacy agree in any one of them. No Scripture, no primitive General Council, no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers, no not one Father of note in the first Ages, speak particularly and home to this pur∣pose.

The Point of Re-ordination began to be urged here in Arch-Bishop Laud's time, his Influence was such, and the Cause then in hand did work so power∣fully upon good Bishop Hall himself, that he adventured, as Mr. Prin tells us, to Re-ordain Mr. Iohn Dury, though he had been before Ordained in some

Reformed Church. But from the be∣ginning it was not so. The old Church of England did not require Re-ordinati∣on, as is now done.

In King Edward the Sixth his time, Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and P. Fa∣gius had Ecclesiastical Preferments in the Church of England, but Cranmer, whose Judgment of Episcopacy we have seen before, never required Re-ordina∣tion of them. He was most familiar with Martyr,* 1.23 nether did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might Ordain.

Iohn à Lasco, with his Congregation of Germans, was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's Patent, he to be Su∣per-intendent, and four other Ministers with him; and though he wrote against some Orders of our Church,* 1.24 was with others called to Reform our Ecclesiasti∣cal Laws.

In Queen Elizabeth's time, Ordina∣tion by Presbyters was allowed, as ap∣pears by the Statute of Reformation, &c. 13 Eliz. cap. 12. It cannot refer to Popish Ordinations only, if at all: For, 1. the words are general, Be it en∣acted—that every person—which doth

or shall pretend to be a Priest, or Mini∣ster of God's holy Word. The Title of Minister of God's holy Word is rarely u∣sed among the Papists, and in common use among the Reformed Churches. The Ministry with the Papists is a real Priesthood,* 1.25 and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests. And it's an old Maxim, Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit. 2. The Subscripti∣on seems to intend those that scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies, which the Papists do not. For the assent and sub∣scription required is, to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the Con∣fession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. By this they gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to Subscribe all the Articles absolutely, because the Approbation of the Homilies, and Book of Consecrati∣on were included in them, which are no Articles of the Catholick Church, but private Articles of the Church of England; as Mr. T. Rogers observes.* 1.26 Therefore the Statute requires Subscrip∣tion only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments.

By the way, I cannot but take no∣tice of the following Clause in that Sta∣tute—If any Person Ecclesiastical—shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine directly contrary, or repugnant to any of the said Articles, and being convented before the Bishop of the Dio∣cess, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen's Commissioners in Causes Eccle∣siastical, shall persist therein, and not re∣voke his Errour, or after such Revoca∣tion eftsoons affirm such untrue Doctrine; such maintaining, or affirming, or persist∣ing—shall be just cause to deprive such Person of his Ecclesiastical Promo∣tions: And it shall be lawful to the Bi∣shop of the Diocess, or the said Commis∣sioners to deprive such a Person so per∣sisting—and upon such Sentence of De∣privation pronounced, he shall be indeed deprived. Quaere, Whether the Pro∣fession of Arminianism be not direct∣ly contrary to the Seventeenth Article of Predestination and Election, to the Tenth Article of Free-will, and to the Thirteenth of Works preparatory to Grace? and if so, Whether the Guilty do not deserve Deprivation by this Sta∣tute? The best of it is, they are like to

meet with favourable Judges, who will not be over-strict to mark the Errours of those, who do but write after the Copy they have set before them. Sure∣ly the Case is altered from what it was formerly: It was Baro's unhappiness that he lived in a peevish Age, for when he delivered himself unwarily in favour of those Opinions, the Heads of the University of Cambridge sent up Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Tindal to Arch-Bishop Whitguift, that by the interposition of his Authority those Errours might be crushed in the Egg. Hereupon Baro, being obnoxious to this Statute, was ex∣pelled the University, and the Lambeth-Articles were made, which come no∣thing short of the Determinations of Dort. But tempora mutantur, nos & mutamur in illis. But to return from this short digression; some that were Ordained by Presbyters were admitted to the Publick Exercise of their Mini∣stry, and had Preferment in the Church of England without Re-ordination in Queen Elizabeth's time.

Mr. William Whittingham was made Dean of Durham about 1563. though Ordained by Presbyters only.

Mr. Travers, Ordained by a Presby∣tery beyond Sea, was Seven years Lectu∣rer in the Temple, and had the Bishop of London's Letter for it. In his Sup∣plication to the Council printed at the end of Mr. Hooker's Eccl. Polit. he saith, One reason why he was Suspended by Arch-Bishop Whitgift was because not lawfully called (in Whitgift's Opinion) to the Ministry, nor allowed to preach accord∣ing to the Laws of this Church. But Mr. Hooker in his Answer wholly waves that, and Replies only to the Contests between them.

The French Church in Thred-needle-street was allowed by the Queen, as al∣so the Dutch Church. In the Year 1684. a Quo Warranto was brought against them.

In King Iames the First his time, the like allowance was made unto Ministers Ordained by Presbyters.

The famous Mr. Iohn Camero, who was Ordained in France,* 1.27 came hither in the Year 1621. and set up a Divi∣nity-Lecture in a private House in Lon∣don •••• the Permission of King Iames the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and a License from the then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of London.

Before the Consecration of the three Scottish Bishops at London, Andrews Bishop of Ely said, They must be first Or∣dained, as having received no Ordination by a Bishop. Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Can∣terbury maintain'd, That thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the Ordination•• given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful,* 1.28 otherwise it might be doubted, if there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches. This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and the three Bishops were consecra∣ted.

Thus we see the Judgment and Pra∣ctise of the Old Church of England in King Edward the Sixth's time, in Queen Elizabeth's, and in King Iames the First his time, they required not Re-ordina∣tion, as the New Conformity doth since the Year 1660. They acted from Ca∣tholick Principles that comprehended the Forreign Ordinations, asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters.

Object. Aerius is branded for an He∣retick by Austin and Epiphanius, for af∣firming Bishops and Presbyters to be the same. So Bishop Hall in his Divine

Right of Episcopacy, Part I. pag. 64.

Answ. The great mannagers of this Objection are the Papists (as we obser∣ved before) from whom some Defenders of Episcopacy have borrowed it. That Aerius was a Heretick is past doubt; but he is so called by the Fathers, be∣cause he was an Arian: Epiphanius saith,* 1.29 he did Arium ipsum dogmatum no∣vitate superare. Austin saith, in Aria∣norum haeresin lapsus, which is more then a favouring of it, as some interpret their words. Several of our Learned Writers against Popery have justified him against the Charge of Heresie, for holding the equality of Bishops and Presbyters. Chemnit. exam. Conc. Trid. part. 4.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg. VIII.
• * 1.2

  Fern's Comp. Disc. p. 115—
• * 1.3

  Blond. A∣pol. pro Senten. Hieron.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 4. dist. 24. J.
• * 1.5

  Dist. 60. c••uli ex verb. Papa.
• * 1.6

  De Succ. & Stat. Eccl. cap. 1. p. 19.
• * 1.7

  Conc. A∣quisgr. Can. 8.
• * 1.8

  Hist. of the Council of Trent. l. 7. p. 619.
• * 1.9

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 7.
• * 1.10

  Hist. of the C. of Trent. ibid. p. 604, 606, 607, & 619.
• * 1.11

  Error. Wickleff. 28 in Conc. Const. Sess. 8
• * 1.12

  In Spelm. p. 576.
• * 1.13

  Catal. Test. Tom. 2.
• * 1.14

  Fox's Acts and Mon.
• * 1.15

  In Dr. Stil∣lingfl. Ire∣nic.
• * 1.16

  See Dr. Burnet's Collect. part. 1. p. 228.
• * 1.17

  Iren. p.393.
• * 1.18

  See part.2. c.3. divis.5. &c. 9. divis.1.
• * 1.19

  Vid. Hook∣er,l.1. s.10, 16.l.7.s.11.
• * 1.20

  Hall's A∣pol. & Def. s. 14.
• * 1.21

  Exomolog. c.7. p.37.
• * 1.22

  Vid. Pref. to the Book of Ordin.
• * 1.23

  Vid. Buc. script. An∣gl. p.154.
• * 1.24

  Burn. Hisl. p.154, 197.
• * 1.25

  Conc. Trid. S••ss.23. C••n. 1.
• * 1.26

  Rogers in Art.35, 36.
• * 1.27

  Ioh. Cam. 〈…〉〈…〉 Evang.
• * 1.28

  Spotsw. Hist.lib.7. p.514.
• * 1.29

  Epiph. Hae∣res. 75. Aust. de Haer. 53.