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. V. (Book 5)

The Ordinations of the greater part of the Reformed Churches are by Presbyters. Their not ha∣ving superiour Bishops cannot unchurch them; nor is it a Case of Necessity, as is pretended by some: For, 1. They might have Bishops if they would. 2. Some of them refused them, when of∣fered. 3. Their Learned Wri∣ters assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain, and never use this Plea of Necessity. 4. Their Confessions make all Ministers equal.

THAT Ordination which is the same with the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches beyond Sea,* 1.1 is va∣lid, but such is Ordination by meer Presbyters, Therefore — If theirs be

null, and the Roman or Popish Ordina∣tions valid, then it's better be of the Roman Popish Church, then of the Re∣formed; but the Consequence is ab∣surd.

I know but two things can be replied to this Argument:

1. That the Reformed Churches have no true Ministers, for want of Episcopal [ 1] Ordination. Thus Mr. Dodwel and o∣thers, who would have us believe the Romish Church to be a true Church, and receive the Pope as the Patriarch of the West. These Gentlemen have cast off their Vizard, and give us to know what they would be at. They condemn the forreign Reformed Churches as no Churches, their Sacraments as no Sacra∣ments, and consequently no Salvation to be had in their Communion. Like the Donatists of old, they confine Sal∣vation to their own Party and Way. It's unaccountable that any who call themselves Protestants, should unchurch the greatest and purest part of Reform'd Christians in favour of a Despotick Pre∣lacy, which hath no foundation in Scrip∣ture, or the best Antiquity. The being of Ministry and Churches must depend

upon a few Men, who look more like State-Ministers, then Ministers of Christ, and are generally more busie in managing Intrigues of Government, then in preaching the word in season and out of season. Can any imagine that such Pastors as rarely preach the Go∣spel, as not above once in three years visit their Flock, that have many thou∣sands of Souls under their charge whose Faces they never saw, that assume to themselves a Grandeur more agreeable to the Princes of the World,* 1.2 then to the Simplicity and Humility required in the Ministers of the Gospel, that entan∣gle themselves with the Affairs of this Life,* 1.3 contrary to the Scriptures and the Old Canons: I say, can any imagine such Pastors to be so necessary to the Church, that there must be neither Mi∣nistry, nor Sacraments, nor Worship of God, nor Salvation without them? O happy Rome! O miserable Reformed Churches! if the Case be thus.

2. Others that are more moderate, say, The Case of the Reformed Chur∣ches is a Case of Necessity, they have no Bishops, nor can have them. Or∣dinations by meer Presbyters may be lawful, where Bishops cannot be had.

I answer, 1 The Case of the forreign [ 1] Churches is no Case of Necessity; for if they have a mind of Bishops, what hinders their having of them? Is it the Magistrates? It cannot be said of Hol∣land, Switzerland, Geneva, &c. where they have Magistrates of their own. Suppose France, and some other places, would not have admitted of it, that should have been no bar to the Order, if they had been desirous of it. The primitive Christians were under Heathen Magistrates for three hundred years, who were generally professed Enemies to the Ministry and Churches, yet they wanted no Ministerial Order of Christ's appointment. Christ never appointed an Order of Ministers in his Church, which may not be had in the most dif∣ficult times. It's true, if the Civil Ma∣gistrate be against Bishops, it may e∣clipse their Lordly greatness, but it need not prejudice their Ius Divinum, if they have any. Why cannot the Apostles Successors subsist with as little depen∣dance upon Authority, as the Apostles themselves did? Do Spiritual Men need Carnal Weapons to defend their Order? yet it cannot be denied, but that even

in France the Protestants had their Im∣munities, and a Polity of their own, by virtue of the Edict of Nants, which enabled them, had they pleas'd, to get Diocesan Bishops. They had their Sy∣nods for Church Government, and Mo∣derators to preside in them; and why not Bishops also, had they judged them necessary? Nor is it to be supposed that their French Masters would have liked them the worse, for conforming to their own Ecclesiastical Government. Thua∣nus, a moderate Papist, thinks it was an Errour in their Constitution, that they neglected the superiour Order of Bi∣shops in their first Reformation, for the supporting of their interest. The want of them did not prejudice their Constan∣cy to the Truth, as appears by their late Sufferings.

[ 2] 2. Time hath been when the French Churches were earnestly sollicited, par∣ticularly by Bishop Morton, to receive a Clergy by the Ordination of the Eng∣lish Bishops, which they refused.

Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bp. of Winchester, excusing himself for not ma∣king the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment;

he pleads, That if he had laid the diffe∣rence on that foundation, the French Churches would have silenced him.

3. How come the Learned Wri••te of the forreign Churches, that vindicate their Ordinations against the Papists to forget this Plea of Necessity? They ne∣ver say, They would have Bishops, but cannot have them; but they justifie their Ordinations as according to Scripture, and assert an inherent Power in Presby∣ters as such to Ordain. This is undeni∣able to any body that reads their Di∣courses upon this Subject. See Daillé,* 1.4 Moulin, Bucer, Voetius, Sadeel, &c. that professedly write of Ordination against the Papists, besides the vast numbers that treat occasionly of this Subject in their Common Places, and other Wri∣tings, such as Melancthon, Musculus, Zanchy, Ravanel, the Leyden Professors, &c. who all insist upon the Right of Presbyters to Ordain. It's true, of late years some Arts have been used to pro∣••ure Letters from some eminent for∣••eign Divines to condemn the Noncon∣••ormists here, without an impartial hear∣••ng of our Case. That we have been misrepresented to them, is evident by

Dr. Morley's Letter to the famous Bo∣chart,* 1.5 who vindicates us from the Do∣ctor's Calumny. Some also have o•• late submitted to Re-ordination, who are more to be pitied then censured, fo•• they wanted Bread, and could have no•• Relief without Conforming to the Church of England; the Ceremonies, i•• seems, being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity. That Charity which •• King of the Roman Communion im∣power'd them to receive, though of a∣nother Religion, was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion, •••• they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them, as being Natives of another Kingdom, and no way subject to our Constitution. See the first Brief for the French Prote∣stants. Besides, that the French Mini∣sters hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times •••• there be occasion; and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle.

4. We may judge of the forreig•• Churches by their Confessions, which are the most Authentick Testimony o••

their sense about Episcopacy. The French Confession asserts an equality of Power ••n all Pastors.* 1.6 Credimus omnes Pastores ••bicunque collocati sint, eâdem & aequali ••otestate inter se esse praeditos, sub uno ••llo capite, summoque & solo universali Episcopo, Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable, because no Man is ••o be Ordained a Minister, or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches, ••ut he must subscribe the Publick Con∣••ession of their Faith, and also the Con∣stitutions agreed on at Paris, commonly known by the name of their Discipline. See Durel. p. 52. & La Rocque's Confor∣mity of the French Discipline, cap. 1. art. ••. & cap. 3. art. 1.

The Dutch Confession speaks the ••ame thing.* 1.7 Caeterum ubicunque loco∣••um sint Verbi Dei Ministri, eandem at∣••ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem ••um authoritatem, qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi, & Capitis Ecclesiae, Ministri. By read∣••ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort, I ••nd that, Session 144. notice was given ••hat it was the will of the States, that ••he Belgick Confession of Faith should ••e read and examined by the Synod,

the Exteri being also present. Upon the reading of this 31 Article, that as∣serts the parity of Ministers, the Bishop of Landaff in his Name, and the Name of his Brethren, made open Protestation, That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ, he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point. No dislike was shewn to this Article, asserting the pa∣rity of Ministers, by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English, by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point. So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops, nor desire them, for they make all Ministers equal.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg.IV.
• * 1.2

  Matth. 20. 25, 26.
• * 1.3

  2 T••m. 2.4. Can. Ap.7. & 80.
• * 1.4

  Melancth. loc. com. p. 234.

  Musc. loc. com.p.199

  Zanch. Tom 7. p.537.

  Ravan. in verb. Epis∣cop. Synop. pur Theolog. p.614.
• * 1.5

  Boch. Phal. & Cap. ad∣dend. p.66.
• * 1.6

  Art. 30.
• * 1.7

  Conf. Belg. Art. 31.