CHAP. XXXIII. Their cavils against our Ministry, Ordination and Succession, confuted
CHAP. XXXIII. Their cavils against our Ministry, Ordination and Succession, confuted.
D etect. 24. Another of their designs, Conjunct with the last mentioned is, to persuade the world that they only have a true Ministry or Priesthood, and an Apostolical Episcopacy, and true Ordination: and that we and all other Churches have no true Ministers, but mere Lay men under the name of Ministers, because we have no just Ordination. And how prove they all this? Why, they say, that they have a Pope that is a true Successor of Saint Peter, but we have no Succession from the Apostles, and therefore no just Ordination, because no man can give that Power which he hath not.
And we are Schismatics separated from the Church, and therefore our Ordinations are invalid: And some of our Churches have no Bishops, and therefore say they, we have no true Ministry there, nor are they true
Churches. These are their Reasons.
In answer to which I shall first refer the Reader to my Second sheet for the Ministry in Justification of their Call; Where these Reasons are confuted, and our calling vindicated: and I shall forbear here to repeat the same things again: Also I refer you for a fuller Answer to the London
Ministers Jus Divinum Ministerii, and to Mr. Tho. Balls Book for the Ministry; and Mr. Masons Book in vindication of the Ministry of those
Reformed Churches that have not Prelates, and to Voetius Desper. Caus.
2. Though we need not fetch our Ordination from Rome, yet, as to them, we may truly say, that if they have any true Ordination and Ministry, then so have we: For our first Reformers were Ordained by their Bishops, which is enough to stop their mouths. If they say that our Schism hath cut off our power of Ordination, I answer ad hominem, that (though it is they that are indeed the Notorious Schismatics, yet) if we were what they falsely say we are, it would not null our Ordination, Confirmation, or such other acts. And this is the Judgment of their own writers. I shall at this time only cite the words of one of them, and of many in that one: and that is Thom. à Jesis de
Conversione Gentium, lib. 6, c. 9. Where he affirms it to be one of the Certainties agreed on [that Schismatics lose not, nor can lose any spiritual power consisting in the spiritual Caracter of Baptism, or Confirmation of Orders: For this is indelible, as Dr. Thomas teacheth here, Art. 3, and Turrecremata confirmeth, lib. 4, sum. part. 1, c. 7, and Silvester verb.
Schismatici: and it appeareth by Pope Urbans Can. Ordinationes, 9, q. 1.
Who judgeth those to be truly ordained, that were ordained by Schismatical Bishops: And from Austin lib. 6, de Bapt. Cont. Donatist. c. 5, where he saith that [A Separatist may deliver the Sacrament as well as have it.] He next addeth that yet such are deprived of the faculty of Lawful using the Power which they have, so that it will be their sin to use it, though it be not a nullity if they do use it: and that thus those are to be understood that speak against the Ordination, Confirmation, &c. of Schismatics; viz. that it is unlawful, because their power is suspended by the Church, but not a Nullity, because they have the Power, p. 316. He puts the Question
[Whether Schismatical Presbyters and Bishops do want the Power of Order, or only want Jurisdiction?] And he answereth out of D. Thom. 22, q. 39, art.
3, that [they want Jurisdiction, and cannot Absolve, Excommunicate, or grant indulgences, and so they cannot elect and give Benefices, and make
Laws—But yet they have the holy Power of Orders; and therefore a schismatical Bishop doth truly make and consecrate the Eucharist, truly
Confirm, truly Ordain; and when he Electeth and promoteth any to Ecclesiastical Orders, they truly receive the Character of Order, but not the Use, because they are suspended, if knowingly they are ordained by a Schismatical Bishop.] He next asketh, [Whether this punishment depriving them of Jurisdiction, take place with all Schismatics] And answers that [some say that before the Council of Constance this punishment belonged to all notorious Schismatics, but not to the unknown ones: but since that Council, it takes place only on those that are expressly and by name denounced, or manifest strikers of the Clergy] Others say otherwise: But he himself answers, that [If a schismatic be tolerated, and by the common error of the people be taken for lawful, there's no doubt but all his acts of Jurisdiction are valid, which we shall affirm also of Heretics: But if a Presbyter or Bishop be a manifest Schismatic, then some say that those acts that require Jurisdiction are invalid; but others say that they are all valid in case the Schismatic be not by name excommunicated, or a manifest striker of the Clergy] Thus far Thom. à Jesu opening the judgment of the Papists
Doctors themselves in the point.
And by the way, our new super-prelatical Brethren that degrade others that want their Ordination, yea or commands, and nullify their Acts, should learn not to go beyond the Papists themselves, if they will go with them.
And observe, that it is but their own Canons, that is, their own wills, that the Papists here plead when the Council of Constance hath so altered the business.
2. Though this that is said is enough as to the Papists, yet I add for fuller satisfaction, that their succession is interrupted; and therefore they are most unfit to be our Judges in this. They have had so long schisms in which no man knew who was the right Pope, nor knoweth to this day; and so long removes and vacancies, and such interpositions of various ways of choosing their Pope, and interruptions by Heretical Popes, condemned by General
Councils; besides Murderers, Adulterers, Simonists, and such as their own Writers (as Genebrard) expressly say, Were not Apostolical, but Apostatical; yea Popes that by General Councils have been judged or charged with infidelity itself (as I have formerly proved,) that there's nothing more certain then that their succession hath been interrupted.
3. They cannot be certain but its every age interrupted, and that theres no true Pope or Bishops among them, because the intention of the Ordainer or Consecrator is with them of necessity to the thing: and no man can be certain of the Intention of the Ordainers. And therefore Bellarmine is fain to take up with this, that though we cannot be sure that he is a true Pope,
Bishop, or Presbyter that is ordained, yet we are bound to obey him. But where then is the Certainty of succession?
4. What succession of Episcopal Consecration was there in the Church of Alexandria, when Jerome (Epist. ad Evagrium) tells us that [At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even till Heraclus and Dionysius their Bishops, the Presbyters did always name one man that Bishop whom they chose from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. Even as if an Army make an Emperor, or the Deacons choose one of themselves, whom they
know to be industrious, and call him the chief Deacon.] Thus Jerome shows that Bishops were then made by mere Presbyters. And in the same Epistle he proves from Scripture, that Presbyters and Bishops were then all one.
And if so, there were no Prelatical Ordinations then at all. And your Medina accusing Jerome of error in this, saith, that Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius,
Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were in the same heresy, as Bellarmine himself reporteth him. So that Presbyters now may either ordain, or make themselves Bishops as those of Alexandria did, to do it. And as Jerome there saith, [All are the successors of the Apostles,] and our Bishops or Presbyters are such, as much, at least, as yours: yet Apostles as Apostles have no Successors at all, as Bellarmine well teacheth, lib. 4, de Pontif. c. 25, saying, [Bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles, because the Apostles were not ordinary, but extraordinary, and as it were, delegate Pastors, who have no Successors. Bishops have no part of the true Apostolic Authority. Apostles could preach in the whole world, and found Churches, but so cannot Bishops. The Apostles could write Canonical
Books, but so cannot Bishops. Apostles had the gifts of tongues and miracles, but so have not Bishops. The Apostles had Jurisdiction over the whole Church, but so have not Bishops. And there is no Succession, but to a Predecessor: but Apostles and Bishops were in the Church both at once, as appeareth by Timothy, Titus, Evodius, and many more. If therefore Bishops succeed Apostles, to what Apostle did Titus succeed? And whom did
Timothy succeed? To conclude, Bishops succeed Apostles, but in the same manner as Presbyters succeed the seventy-two Disciples—But its manifest that Presbyters do not properly succeed the seventy-two Disciples, but only by similitude. For those seventy-two Disciples were not Presbyters, nor did they receive any Order of Jurisdiction from Christ. Philip, Stephen and
others that were of the seventy-two had never been after Ordained Deacons, if they had been Presbyters before] Thus Bellarmine.
See now what's become of the Popish Apostolical Successors among their Bishops? And the scope of all this is to prove, that all Bishops receive their
Power from the Pope; and so their succession is confined to him alone: and therefore as oft as there have been interruptions in the Papal Succession, so oft the Succession of all their Church was interrupted.
But if Bishops succeed not Apostles, and have not any of the Apostolic Power, who then doth the Bishop of Rome succeed? Why, Bellarmine hath a shift for this: but how sorry a one it is, you shall bear, c. 25, he saith that [The Pope of Rome properly succeedeth Peter, not as an Apostle, but as an Ordinary Pastor of the whole Church.] Let us then have no more talk of the Apostolic seat, or at least no more Arguing from that name. You see then that Peter was not the Universal Vicar as an Apostle, nor doth the Pope so succeed him. And do you think this doth not give away the Vicarship?
Which way hereafter will they prove it?
But an Objection falls in Bellarmine's way, that [If this be so, then none of the Bishops of Africa, Asia, &c. were true Bishops, that were not made by the Pope: To which he answers (as well as he can) that its enough that the Pope do Consecrate them Mediately, by making Patriarchs and Archbishops to do it: and so Peter did Constitute the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who thus receiving authority from the Pope, did Rule almost all Asia and Africa] But 1. That [almost] marreth the whole Cause. For where now is the universal Headship? 2. Did Bellarmine think in good sadness that Alexandria and Antioch were made at first the seats of Patriarchs, having as large Jurisdiction as afterward they attained? 3. How will he prove that Peter made these two Patriarchates, and that not as an
Apostle, but as an Ordinary Vicar General? 4. Who made the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and gave them that vast Jurisdiction? Did Peter many hundred years after his death? Or did the Pope of Rome, that tooth and nail resisted, and still sought to diminish his Power? Or rather did not the General Councils do it by the Emperors Commands, the Pope excepting and repining at it. 5. Who made the Patriarch of Jerusalem? And who made
James Bishop of Jerusalem? Did Peter? And who made Timothy and Titus Bishops? Did Peter or Paul? And who gave Paul that Power? Not Peter certainly. Reader, do not these men jest with holy things? Or is it like that they believe themselves?
6. Bellarmine confesseth that the Potestas Ordinis, & interioris jurisdictionis are both as immediately from God to every Bishop as to the Pope, c. 22. And why then should it be denied of the power of exterior
Jurisdiction? 1. Is one part of the Essence of the Office given by the Pope, and the rest without him? 2. And what if it be proved that exterior and interior Jurisdiction of a Pastor is all one? Though the matter of obedience be exterior, yet the Jurisdiction is exercised only on the soul directly, in one case as well as another; it being the mind on which the obligation lieth, and the Pastoral Rule is powerful and effectual: and further then you procure consent, you are despised: For its the Magistrates work to use violence:
Bishops as Bishops can but persuade and deal by words with the inner man.
And thus you see what is become of the Papists Succession.
5. Most of the Ministers in England, till within these few years were ordained by Bishops If that were of Necessity, they have it.
6. He that is ordained according to the Apostles directions, or prescript in Scripture, hath the true Apostolical Ordination; but so are we Ordained; therefore,—The Apostles never Confined Ordination to Prelates, much less
to those Prelates that depend on the Pope of Rome: The Bishops to whom the Apostles committed this Power, are the same that are called Presbyters by them, and they were the Overseers or Pastors but of one single Church, and not of many Churches. And such are those that Ordain among us now.
Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 18, saith thus [I would there were no Presidency, nor Prerogative of Place, and Tyrannical Privileges; that so we might be known only by virtue, (or mere desert:) But now this Right side, and Left side, and Middle, and Lower Degree, and Presidency, and Concomitancy, have begot us many Contritions to no purpose, and have driven many into the Ditch, and have led them away to the region of the Goats.]
What Jerome saith, both in his Epistle to Evagrius, and on Tit. c. 2, is commonly known. The many plain Testimonies of Anselmn are commonly
Cited, as plain as Jerome's Alphons. à Castro adverse. Haeres. lib. 6, in nom. Episcop. had more ingenuity than to join with them that would wrest
Jerome's words to a sense so contrary to their most plain importance.
Tertullian c. 17, de Bapt. thought Lay-men in Necessity might Baptize, (and so doth the Church of Rome now.) Why then may not Presbyters in such a case at least Ordain? When, as he there saith, [Quod ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest] And ibid. he saith, that it is but propter Ecclesiae honorem, that Bishops Rule in such matters, and that peace may be kept, and Schism avoided. But that probati quique seniores did exercise
Discipline in the Assembly, he testifieth in Apologet.
Mr. Prin hath cited you abundance of Fathers that were for the parity of the Ministry, or against Prelacy jure Divino.
Isidore Pelusiat. lib. 3. Epist. 223, ad Hieracem Episcopatum fugientem saith [And when I have shown what difference there is between the ancient
Ministry, and the present Tyranny, why do you not Crown and Praise the Lovers of equality?] If you would see more of the Ancients making Presbyters to be Bishops, and Consenting with Jerome, read Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm. Cantuar in Enarrat. in Phil. 1:1. Beda on Act. 20. Alcuinus de Divinis officiis, c. 35,36, and on John lib. 5. Col 547. &c. and Epist. 108. And that Presbyters may
Ordain Presbyters, see Anselmn on 1 Tim. 4:14. And Institut. in Council.
Colon. de sacr. Ordin. fol. 196, see also what's said by our Mart. Bucer script. Anglic. p. 254,255,259,291, and sequ. and Pet. Martyr. Loc. Commu.
Clas. 4. Loc. 1, sect. 23 p. 849. And Wycliffe's Arguments in Waldensis Passim. And your own Cassander Consult. Artic. 14, saith [It is agreed among all, that of old in the Apostles days, there was no difference between Bishops and Presbyters, but afterwards for Orders sake, and the avoiding of Schism, the Bishop was set before the Presbyters.] And Ockam determineth, that by Christ's Institution all Priests of what degree soever are of equal
Authority, Power and Jurisdiction.] Reynold Peacock, Bishop of Chichester wrote a Book de Ministrorum aequalitate, which your party caused to be burnt.
And Richardus Armachanus, lib. 9, c. 5, ad Quest. Armen. saith [There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scriptures any difference between Bishops and simple Priests, called Presbyters; whence it follows, that there is one Power in all, and equal from their Order.] and c. 7, answering the Question, Whether any Priest may Consecrate Churches, &c. he saith [Priests may do it as well as Bishops, seeing a Bishop hath no more in such matters then any simple Priest: though the Church for reverence to them appoint that those only do it, whom we call Bishops—It seems
therefore that the restriction of the Priests Power was not in the Primitive Church, according to the Scripture.] I refer you to three Books of Mr. Prynne's, viz. his Catalogue; his
Antipathy of Lordly Prelates, &c. and his unbishoping of Timothy and Titus; where you have the Judgments of many writers of these matters. And also to what I have said in my Second Disputation of the Episcopal
Controversies, of purpose on this point.
7. The chief error of the Papists in this cause is expressed in their reason, [No man can give the Power that he hath not:] wherein they intimate, that it is Man that giveth the Ministerial Power: whereas it is the gift of Christ alone: Man doth but design the person that shall receive it, and then Christ giveth it by his Law to the person so designed: and then man doth invest him and solemnize his introduction. As a woman may choose her a husband, but it is not she that giveth him the Power over her, but God who determineth of that Power by his Law, affixing it to the person chosen by her, and her action is but a condition fine qua non, or cause of the capacity of the matter to receive the form. And so is it here. When do but obey God in a right choice and designation of the person, his Law doth presently give him the Power, which for orders sake he must be in a solemn manner invested with. But matters of Order may possibly vary; and though they are to be observed as far as may be, yet they always give place to the Ends and substance of the work, for the ordering whereof they are appointed.
8. Temporal power is as truly and necessarily of God, as Ecclesiastical, and it was at first given immediately by him, and he chose the person: And yet there is no Necessity that Kings must prove an uninterrupted
Succession. God useth means now in designing the persons that shall be Governors of the Nations of the earth: But not always the same means: nor
hath he tied himself to a successive Anointing or Election: else few Kings on earth would hold their Scepters. And no man (from any diversity in the cases) is able to prove that a man may not as truly be a lawful Churchgovernor, as a lawful Governor of the Commonwealth, without an uninterrupted succession of Ministerial Collation.
9. If Bellarmine be forced to maintain that with them it is enough that a Pastor have the place, and seem lawful to the people, and that they are bound to obey him, though it should prove otherwise. Then we may as well stand on the same terms as they.
10. In a word, our Ordination being according to the Law of Christ, and the Popes so contrary to it, we are ready at any time, more fully to compare them, and demonstrate to any impartial man, that Christ doth much more disown their Ordination then ours, and that we enter in God's appointed way. Mr. Eliot in New England may better Ordain a Pastor over the Indians converted by him, then leave them without, or send to Rome, or England for a Bishop, or for Orders. But again I must refer you of this subject to the Books before mentioned, and the Sheet which I have written, lest I be overtedious.