into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said That this touch'd him and therefore he ask'd me if I thought it wrong that One Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him Unto whom I answered That I could no further go than to St. Paul's Text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked he me whether I thought it unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered that I knew no Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but St. Paul's Saying only Nevertheless I did see a contrary Custom and Practice in the World but I know not the original thereof Then said He There were divers Cities some seven Miles some six Miles long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbs also so likewise now a Bishop has also but one City to his Cathedral Church and the Country about it as Suburbs to it Methought this was far fetch'd but I durst not deny it because it was so great Authority and of so Holy a Father and so great a Divine But this I dare say that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any Authority of Drs. nor yet by any Practice of the Apostles and yet it must be true because a Pillar of the Church has spoken it But let us see what the Drs. say to mine Article Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde but he did injoyn that every City should have his Proper Pastor supposing that by this means they should more diligently Oversee the People Also Chrysostom on that same Text He would not that a whole Country should be permitted unto One man but He enjoyned to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his Labour should be more easie and the Subjects should be with more Diligence Govern'd if the Teachers were not distract with the Governing of many Churches but had Cure and Charge of one Church only c. Methinks these be plain words and able to move a man to speak as much as I did But I poor Man must be an Heretick there is no Remedy you will have it so and who is able to say nay Not all Scripture nor yet God Himself So far these three Worthies About this time the Notion of these blessed Martyrs found respect amongst those that bore a great Figure in the Church The Author of the True Difference between the Regal Power and the Ecclesiastical gives countenance unto it and at last Cranmer with many others fell in with it and it became a Point establish'd by Authority as may be seen in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man where after the Description given of the Office of Priests and Deacons it 's affirmed That of these Two Orders only Scripture makes express mention and that we may not mistake 'em it 's added of these two Orders only that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture makes express mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands Besides The Description they give of the Office of a Bishop or Priest for when they speak of the Divine Institution they make no distinction between 'em it 's thus The Office consists in true Preaching and Teaching the Word of God unto the People in Dispensing and Ministring the Sacraments in Consecrating and Offering the blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar in loosing and assoyling from Sin such Persons as be sorry and truly penitent for the same and Excommunicating such as be guilty in manifest Crimes and will not be reformed otherwise and finally in Praying for the whole Church of Christ and especially for the Flock committed to them Thus there are but two Orders only that is to say Priests and Deacons no third Order Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests and their Office the same and the Superiority of one above the other only by Humane Ordinance and Appointment And whereas say they we have thus summarily declared what is the Office and Ministration which in Holy Scriptures has been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is afore rehearsed we think it expedient and necessary that all men should be advertis'd and taught that all such Lawful Power and Authority of any one Bishop or Priest for they are in the sense of these Great Divines the same over another were and be given them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture So far the Necessary Erudition Thus in Henry the Eighth's days the Bishop and Priest of the same Order according to the Scriptures and their Office the same the Difference therefore between 'em and the Government that is grounded thereupon by Prelatick Bishops Archbishops c. is only by the Positive Laws of Men. In a Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests subscrib'd by Thomas Cromwell the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and divers other Bishops Consult the Addenda in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation p. 321 c. Civilians and Learned Men it is thus Resolved As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders We will That all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our People committed by us unto their Spiritual Charge First How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament that beside the Civil Powers and Governance of Kings and Princes which is called in Scripture Potestas gladii the Power of the Sword there should be also continually in the Church Militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have Spiritual Power Authority and Commission under Christ to Preach and Teach the Word of God unto his People and to Dispense and Administer the Sacraments of God unto them and by the same to confer and give the Grace of the Holy Ghost to consecrate the blessed Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar to loose and absoile from Sin all Persons which be duly penitent and sorry for the same to bind and Excommunicate such as be Guilty in manifest Crimes and Sins and will not amend their defaults to order and consecrate others in the same room Order and Office whereunto they recalled admitted themselves and finally to feed Christ's People like good Pastors and Rectors as the Apostle calleth them with their wholesom Doctrin and by their continual Exhortations and Monitions to reduce them from Sin and Iniquity so much as in them lieth and to bring them unto perfect Knowledge the perfect Love and Dread of God and unto the perfect Charity of their Neighbours That this Office this Power and Authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain Persons only that is to say unto
he shutteth up the Gate of the Kingdom of Heaven against Unbelieving and Stubborn Persons denouncing unto them God's Vengeance and everlasting Punishment or else when he doth quite shut them out from the bosom of the Church by open Excommunication Out of doubt what Sentence soever the Minister of God shall give in this sort God himself doth so well allow it that whatsoever here in Earth by their means is loosed and bound God himself will loose and bind and confirm the same in Heaven And seeing one word is given to all and one only Key belongeth to all we say there is but one only Power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting At this time so much was given the Priest that no room was left to make the Bishop of an Order distinct from him The Keys belong'd to all Ministers to the Priest as well as Bishop In the Defence of the Apology of the Church of England Part. 2. Ch. 3. Divis 5. this Learned Bishop is more full and particular in his Assertions In St. Jerom's time saith he there were Metropolitans Archbishops Archdeacons and others but Christ appointed not these Distinctions of Orders from the beginning These names are not found in all the Scriptures This is the thing which we defend St. Jerom saith Sciant Episcopi c. Let Bishops understand that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custom than by Order of God's Truth Erasmus speaking of the times of Jerom saith that Id temporis idem erat Episcopus Sacerdos Presbyter These three names Bishop Priest Presbyter at that time were all one To the Testimony of Jerom the Bishop adds that of St. Austin Epist 19. saying That the Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest not by Authority of the Scriptures but after the names of Honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained The Bishop in Defence of the Church of England Part 2. Ch. 9. Divis 1. had affirm'd That against the Sacred Scripture neither Law nor Ordinance nor any Custom ought to be heard no tho' Paul himself or an Angel from Heaven should come and teach the contrary To this Harding replies If all things necessary to Salvation be contain'd in the Scriptures then whatever is not in them contained the same is not necessary if not necessary why should we be laden with unnecessary Burdens Then away with all Traditions at a Clap be they never so Apostolick Remember you not what the most Renowned Fathers have said of the Necessity of Traditions If we go about to reject the Customs that be not set forth in Writing we shall bring the Preaching of the Faith but to a bare name For so they were taken for Hereticks who denied the Distinction of a Bishop and a Priest c. Jewel rejoyns This in the Margin in an Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerom and other good men are condemn'd of Heresie But what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests and Bishops thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition or is it so horrible a Heresie as he makes it to say That by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all One or knoweth he how far and to whom he reacheth the name of an Heretick Verily Chrysostom saith Between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerom saith somewhat in a rougher sort I hear say There is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops are all one St. Austin saith what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the Highest Priest so saith Saint Ambrose There is but One Ordination of Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first All these and other Holy Fathers together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Harding's Advice must be held for Hereticks Besides as the Bishop is very express in his asserting a Bishop and Presbyter to be according to Christ's Institution all one Part 6. Chap. 9. Divis 1 2. He is no less so in granting that the Bishop has receiv'd from the Prince the several Privileges he has above a Presbyter I grant there be many special Privileges granted upon great and just Considerations of the meer favour of the Prince that a Priest being found negligent or otherwise offending in his Ministry should be convinced and punished not by the Temporal and Civil Magistrate but by the Discretion of the Bishop Mr. Harding must remember that all these and other like Privileges passed unto the Clergy from the Prince and not from God and proceed only of special Favour and not of Right Archbishop Whitgift in opposing Cartwright's Platform about the Government of the Church asserted to be de Jure divino distinguisheth between Spiritual and External Government and saith That the External Government hath both a Substance and Matter about which it is occupied and also a Form to attain the same consisting in certain Offices and Functions and in the Names and Titles of them The Substance and Matter of Government must indeed be taken out of the Word of God and consisteth in these points That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in quietness and order The Officers in the Church whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in the Scriptures but in some points left to the Discretion and Liberty of the Church to be disposed according to the state of Times Places and Persons Thus much in his Preface conform to those who went before The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments and Reprehensions c. which belong to the Priest is of God the other Offices and Functions which as he elsewhere has it belong to the external Order and Policy of the Church and consequently the Distinction between Bishop and Priest Defence Tract c. 3. Div. 38 39 40 41. and Superiority of a Bishop above a Priest are only of humane Institution More particularly Cartwright contending for a sort of Discipline which is a Matter of Faith and necessary to Salvation the Archbishop distinguisheth between such things as are so necessary that without them we cannot be saved and such things as are so necessary that without 'em we cannot so well and conveniently be saved and then adds To be short I confess that in a Church collected together in one Place and at Liberty Government is necessary with the second kind of Necessity but that any one kind of Government is so necessary that without it the Church cannot be saved or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more Expedient I utterly deny and the reasons that move me so to do be these The first is because I find no one certain and
perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ which no doubt should have been done if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church Secondly Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only The true Preaching of the Word and the right Administration of Sacraments So that notwithstanding Government or some kind of Government may be a part of the Church touching the outward Form and Perfection of it yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government and therefore the kind of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation There is no certain kind of Government or Discipline prescribed to the Churches but that the same may be altered as the Profit of the Churches requires and out of Gualters he saith Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form. I do deny that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form and kind of Government of the Church to be Perpetual for all Times Persons and Places without Alteration It is well known Tract 17. Chap. 2. Divis 29. that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time and expressed in the Scriptures neither is now nor can or ought to be observed either touching the Persons How then can the Government of the Church by Bîshops Archbishops c. be Apostolical or the Functions We see manifestly that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times is and hath been of necessity altered and that it neither may nor can be revoked whereby 't is plain that any one kind of External Government perpetually to be observed is no where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof is left to the Magistrate so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers This was it's like Universally received by all the English Clergy in Whitgifts time Neither do I know saith the Archbishop any Learned Man of a contrary Judgment Either we must admit another Form now of Governing the Church than was in the Apostles time or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters I am perswaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Common-wealth else how can you make the Prince Supream Governour of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical If you therefore will have the Queen of England Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all and every part of the same and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as she doth the Common-wealth in Civil Dr. Cosins Chancellor to this Archbishop in his Answer to the Abstract Pag. 58. asserts That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline neither is it necessary that they should seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God. Dr. Low speaks to the same purpose Complaint of the Church No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word P. 64 66. only general Rules laid down for it Bishop Bridges God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government at least not so as to bind us What is here mention'd of Cosins Low and Bishop Bridges I have out of Dean Stillingfleet's Weapon Salve and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about Whitaker who making his Remarques on St. Hierom's teling us Whitaker De Ecles Regimin Contr. 4. q. 1. §. 29. p. 540. Col. 2. That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men long after the Apostles as a Remedy against Schism assures us That it 's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church and this other of Bishop Morton telling the Papists That Power of Order and of Jurisdiction which they ascribe to Bishops doth de jure divino belong to all other Presbyters and particularly Morton 's Apol. Cath. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 55. That to Ordain is the jus antiquum the Ancient Right of Presbyters in fine That Dr. Laurence Humfrey and Dr. Holland Humf. against Campian Jesuit Part 2. p. 273. both of them Doctors of the Chair in Oxford did teach and maintain the same Doctrine Holland in the Act July 9. 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures the Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England the Schoolmen Lombard Aquinas Bonaventure c. CHAP. IV. Dr. Willet 's Sentiments much the same with the foremention'd Bishops The Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter as of Divine Right declur'd to be Popish and oppos'd as such The special Consecration of Bishops was Ordained not by a Divine Law but by the Church for the Dignity of their Calling Saravia for no other Difference between a Presbyter and Bishop but in Degree Bancroft for a Priority in degree only holding with Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fulk whose Authorities he insists on to Confirm his Opinion about a Gradual Difference between Bishop and Presbyter TO these I will add another namely In his Life of Willet Dr. Andrew Willet who as Dr. Smith observes is by Bishop Hall numbred amongst those Worthies of the Church of England Hall in his Noah 's Dove to whom he gives this Elogy Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus This Dr. in his Synopsis Papismi is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted The grand Question under Debate is Willet 's Synops Papism Contr. 5. Quest 3. Concerning the Clergy Append. Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers be grounded upon the Law of God and Institution of the Apostles The Papists Bellarmine saith the Dr. affirmeth Lib. 1. De Clericis c. 14. That the Jurisdiction of Bishops as now it standeth in their Church and the Difference between them and other Presbyters is Jure Divino grounded upon the Law of God and of such necessity that he holdeth the contrary to be Heresie and those to be Hereticks that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politick Constitution of the Church to avoid Schism than of the Institution of the Apostles yea they hold them to be no Churches at all which are not under the Government of Bishops but of other Overseers and Superintendents Surely I see not
saith one How there can be any Church where there is no Bishop Espenc in 1 Tim. 194. h. The Protestants Of the Difference between Bishops and Priests there are three Opinions The first of Aerius who did hold that all Ministers should be Equal and that a Bishop was not neither ought to be Superiour to a Priest neither that there was any Difference at all between them August de Haeres c. 53. Epiphan Haeres 75. which Opinion of his was counted amongst other Heresies The second Opinion in the other Extream is of the Papists as we have seen that would have not only a Difference but a Princely Pre-eminence of their Bishops over the Clergy and that by the Word of God. The third Opinion is between both that altho' this Distinction of Bishops and Priests as it is now received cannot be directly proved out of Scripture yet it is very good for the Policy of the Church to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity Of this Judgment Bishop Jewel against Harding sheweth both Chrysostom Bish Whitgift Ambrose and Hierom to have been And another most Reverend Prelate of our Church in these words I know these Names be confounded in the Scriptures but I speak according to the manner and Custom of the Church ever since the Apostles times which saying is agreeable to that of St. Augustine Epist 19. ad Hieron Secundum c. according to the Names of Honour which the Vse or Custom of the Church hath obtain'd a Bishop is greater than a Priest so that Augustine himself who was no Aerian doth ground this Distinction rather upon Ancient Custom than the Scripture The Difference between the Opinion of P. 275. Aerius on the one part and of Hierom Ambrose Austin Chrysostom on the other lyeth here Aerius would have no difference at all between a Bishop and a Priest the Fathers above allowed a difference holding it to be profitable for the Peace of the Church They only affirm'd That this Distinction was rather Authorized by the Ancient Practice of the Church than by any direct place of Scripture For the proof that a Bishop and Priest were all one in the Apostles time St. Hierom alledgeth divers places of Scripture The second Argument is thus Archbishops and Primates have the same Right of Jurisdiction over other Bishops which Bishops have over simple Priests But their Authority and Jurisdiction is rather grounded upon the Ancient Custom of the Church than any Apostolical Injunction or Institution in Scripture A fourth Argument If the Distinction of Bishops and Priests were by the Commandment and Institution of Christ and his Apostles it should necessarily be enjoyned unto all Churches But this cannot without prejudice of many Reformed Churches be affirmed which have no Bishops tho' they have other Overseers in their stead Wherefore I cannot conclude that this special Form of Ecclesiastical Government is absolutely prescribed in the Word for then all those Churches which have not that Prescript Form whether of Bishops or other should be condemned as Erroneous Churches So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists and us They say it is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope and to Bishops and Archbishops under him as necessarily prescribed in the Word but so do not our Bishops and Archbishops which is a not able difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church and of the Reformed Churches Let every Church use that Form which best fitteth their state In External Matters every Church is Free not one bound to the Prescription of another so they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word Now to conclude this whole Matter and to speak distinctly of every Point that it may appear how far this Difference in Ecclesiastical Functions is Divine and wherein Humane This I judge may safely without any Contradiction be affirmed that in this Distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is some what Apostolical somewhat also Political First In the calling of Bishops as they are now Ordain'd in some Reformed Church there is somewhat Divine and Apostolical for it cannot be denied but that to have Order in the Church and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations to avoid confusion proceedeth from the Institution of Christ This then we say is agreeable to the Institution of Christ that there should be not a Popular Equality but a convenient Superiority and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel as St. Paul also sheweth First Apostles Secondly Prophets c. Secondly there is somewhat Political and that of two sorts as touching the Politie Ecclesiastical and Civil To the Ecclesiastical Politie in the advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things do appertain First of all St. Hierom saith of Confirmation committed only to Bishops Disce hanc c. Know that this Observation is rather for the Honour of their Priesthood than by necessity of any Law. Hierom. adver Luciferian Secondly The Council of Aquisgrane cap. 8. saith That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the Chief Minister Solum propter Authoritatem only for Authority sake lest that the Discipline of the Church being challenged by many should break the Peace of the Church Thirdly The Author of the Book under Hierom's Name De 7. Ordinib saith That the Consecration of Virgins which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches was reserved to the Bishop for Concord sake Fourthly The Jurisdiction of the Church which in time past Hierome saith was committed to the Senate or College of Presbyters was afterward to avoid Schism devolv'd to the Bishop Fifthly S. Ambrose saith 1 Tim. 3. Episcopi Presbyteri c. A Bishop and a Presbyter have but one Ordination for they are both in the Priesthood Whereby it may appear that the Special Consecration of Bishops was since Ordain'd for the Dignity of that Calling And S. Hierom saith That in the Church of Alexandria the Presbyters did make Choice of one Hier. ad Evagr whom they placed in a Higher Degree and called him their Bishop like as if an Army should choose a General or the Deacons should choose an Industrious man whom they make their Archdeacon So it should seem that the very Election of a Bishop in those Days without any other circumstances was his Ordination Sixthly In Hierom's time it was lawful for Priests and Ministers to Preach without further Licence obtain'd from the Bishop as it may appear Distinct 95. c. 6. Qui non vult Presbyteros c. He that will not have a Minister to do that which is commanded him of God that is to Preach would be greater than Christ c. But since to stay the Humour of Contentious and Schismatical Preachers it hath seemed good to the Church to refer the Allowance of Preachers to the Ordinary according to the Decree of the Lateran Council Sub Innocent 3. c. 3. Praeter Autoritatem He that Preacheth privately or publickly without
the Word Administring the Sacraments Imposing of Hands and guiding the Keys to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first two must be general to all Pastors and Presbyters of Christ's Church but so do not the other two I have largely debated and made it plain as well by the Scriptures as by other Ancient Writers past all Exception there have always been selected some of greater Gifts than the Residue to succeed in the Apostles Places to whom it belonged both to moderate the Presbyters of each Church and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands and this their Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining have been observed from the Apostles times as the Peculiar and Substantial marks of Episcopal Power and Calling The Power of the Keys and Right to Impose Hands by which he always means the Power to Ordain Ministers and Excommunicate Sinners belong unto the Bishop distinguishing him from a Presbyter What the things are Chap. 12. p. 208. which must abide for ever in the Church I shewed before it shall suffice now to rehearse them namely Power to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments the Right use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands These four parts for Brevities sake I often reduce to two Branches which are Doctrine and Discipline comprizing in Doctrine the Dividing of the Word and Dispensing of the Sacraments and referring the rest I mean the Publick use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands to the Discipline or Regiment of the Church The Discipline and Government of the Church I mean the Power of the Keys Ch. 12. p. 213. and Imposing of Hands are two parts of Apostolick Authority which must remain in the Church for ever These Keys are double the Key of Knowledge annexed to the Word the Key of Power referred to the Sacraments Some late Writers by urging the one abolish the other howbeit I see no sufficient Reason to countervail the Scriptures and Fathers that Defend and Retain both The Key of Knowledge must not be doubted of our Saviour in express words nameth it Wo be to you Interpreters of the Law for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge The Key of Power standeth in these words of Christ to Peter I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. And likewise to all his Apostles Whatsoever ye bind on Earth P. 218. c. It resteth in this place to be considered to whom those Keys were committed whether Equally to all Presbyters or Chiefly to Pastors and Bishops The like must be done for Imposition of Hands whether that also pertain'd indifferently to all or specially to Bishops This is the State of the Point in Controversie namely Whether the Power of the Keys and that of Imposition of Hands belong Equally and Indifferently to all Presbyters and Bishops or whether they do not belong chiefly and specially to Bishops But whether the one or the other be affirm'd 't will unavoidably follow that these Powers in a sense belong to both Thus much is supposed in the very state of the Question which is not whether these Powers do not at all belong to Presbyters but whether they do belong so much to Presbyters as unto Bishops so that the holding them to belong chiefly and specially unto the Bishop implies that they do tho' in a lesser Degree belong unto Presbyters They appertain both to the Presbyter and Bishop but not Equally to the Bishop chiefly and specially Now Conform hereunto the Learned Bilson saith The Bishop then or President of the Presbyters for I stand not on Names Ch. 14. p. 293. while I discuss their Powers is by Christ's own Mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church that is the Chief Steward over God's Houshold and Overseer of his Flock And touching the Presbyter's Power P. 319. He adds That at first the Presbyters sate with the Bishop as Assessors and Consenters before Synods undertook such Causes But after when once Councils began to have the Hearing of Grievances then sate the Presbyters with the Bishop only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgment The Private use of the Keys in appointing Offenders upon the Acknowledging their Sins P. 317. for a time to forbear the Lord's Table we deny not to Presbyters However the Ambiguity of the Name of Bishop and Community of many things incident and appertinent both to Bishops and Presbyters urged him to lay down certain Peculiar Marks and Parts of the Bishop's Office whereby they are always Distinguished from Presbyters and never Confounded with them either in Scriptures Councils or Fathers There were many Prerogatives says he appropriate unto the Bishop Ch. 13. p. 244. by the Authority of the Canons and Custom of the Church such as Reconciling of Penitents Confirmation of Infants and others that were Baptized by Laying on their Hands Dedication of Churches c. But the things Proper to Bishops which might not be Common to Presbyters were Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining These two the Scriptures and Fathers reserve only to Bishops they never Communicate them to Presbyters The Singularity of one Pastor in every place preserveth the Peace and Unity of the Churches and stoppeth Schisms and Dissentions for which Cause they were first Ordained by the Apostles 246. This is a certain Rule to Distinguish Bishops from Presbyters the Presbyters were many in every City of whom the Presbytery consisted Bishops were always Singular that is one in a City and no more except another intruded which the Church of Christ counted a Schism or else an Helper were given in respect of extream and feeble age in which case the Power of the latter ceased in the presence of the former And this Singularity of one Pastor in each place descended from the Apostles and their Scholars in all the famous Churches of the World by a Perpetual Chair of Succession and doth to this day continue but where Abomination or Desolation I mean Heresie or Violence interrupt it The second assured sign of Episcopal Power is Imposition of Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops for as Pastors were to have some to assist them in their Charge which were Presbyters P. 248. so were they to have others to succeed them in their Places which were Bishops And this Right by Imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops in the Church of Christ was at first derived from the Apostles unto Bishops and not unto Presbyters and hath for these fifteen Hundred Years without Example or Instance to the contrary till this our Age remained in Bishops and not in Presbyters Jerom where he retcheth the Presbyters Office to the uttermost of purpose to shew that he may do by the Word of God as much as the Bishop he excepteth this One Point as unlawful for Presbyters by the Scriptures Quid facit Exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non
Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was always one Principal to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which room Titus exercised in Creta Timothy in Ephesus and others in other Places Therefore altho' in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments as Hierom doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech He is only called a Bishop which is in the Scriptures called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.17 that is Chief in Government to whom the Ordination or Consecration by Imposition of hands was always Principally committed and which most ancient Form of Government when Aerius would take away it was noted amongst his other Errors Hitherto Dr. Fulke so as hereby I trust it may appear to Master Cart-wright's Reproach and to all their Shames that shall pretend any Authority from the ancient Fathers to impugn the Right Honourable and Lawful calling of Bishops not Parsons in every Parish but Bishops in their Diocesses and Provinces appointed in the Apostles times for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ So far Rancroft who introduceth these three great Men's Authority to countenance the Presidency or Chiefty of the Bishop over Presbyters in Government as Apostolical tho' Fulke goes no higher than the Custom of the Church agreeing with Jewel and Whit gift and it must be observed that they make not the Bishop to be a distinct Order from that of Presbyters nor deny the Presbyters to be Pastors nor affirm the Invalidity of the Presbyterial Ordination only that the Ordination by Imposition of hands was Principally committed to the Bishops and as Archbishop Spotiswood reports Bancroft held the Ordination only by Presbyters to be valid and lawful Histor Church of Scotland lit 7. p. 514. Spotiswood has it in these words A Question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops who as he said must first be Ordained Presbyters as having received no Ordination from a Bishop The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by maintained That thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed Lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any Lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated CHAP. V. The Learned Hooker and Bishop Bilson's Opinion impartially stated differing but little from Saravia and Bancroft THE Learned and Judicious Hooker seems also to be of the same mind with Saravia and Bancroft for in his Third Book it 's only Polity in the general that in his Opinion is necessary to the several particular Churches For Lib. 3. Sect. 1. p. 66. Edit 61. saith he even the several Societies of Christian Men unto every of which the name of a Church is given with addition betokening severally as the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus England and so the rest must be endued with correspondent general Properties belonging unto them as they are Publick Christian Societies And of such Properties common unto all Societies Christian it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity Which word I therefore the rather choose because the name of Government as commonly Men understand it in ordinary speech doth not comprize the largeness of that whereunto in this Question it is applied For when we speak of Government what doth the greater part conceive thereby but only the exercise of Superiority peculiar unto Rulers and Guides of others To our purpose therefore the name of Church-Polity will better serve because it containeth both Government and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the Ordering of the Church in Publick Neither is any thing in this degree more necessary than Church Polity which is a form of Ordering Publick Spiritual Affairs of the Church of God. Thus Hooker looks on Polity to be necessary to the Church and why necessary but because God himself is the Author of it It is not possible that any Form of Polity much less of Polity Ecclesiastical should be good Lib. 3. §. 2. unless God himself be Author of it Those things which are not of God saith Tentullian they can have no other than God's Adversary for their Author Be it whatsoever in the Church of God if it be not of God we hate it But then he distinguished between what is of God by the Law of Nature and the Revelation made of the Divine Will in Scripture Of God it must be either as those things sometimes were which God supernaturally revealed and so delivered them unto Moses for Government of the Commonwealth of Israel or else as those things which Men find out by help of that Light which God hath given them unto that end The very Law of Nature it self which no man can deny but God hath instituted is not of God unless that be of God whereof God is the Author as well this latter way as the former The Controversie between Hooker and the Old Nonconformists was Whether any particular Form of Polity be so of God that it be set down in Scripture and the Noncons asserted That no Form of Church Polity was lawful Ubi supra or of God unless God be so the Author of it that it be also set down in Scripture Hooker on the contrary That he which affirmeth Speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the World doth not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak one kind of Language Even so the necessity of Polity and Regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all so far He who doth moreover thus reason with the Noncons You should tell us plainly whether your meaning be that it must be there set down in whole or in Parts For if wholly shew what one form of Policy ever was so your own to be so taken out of Scripture you 'l not affirm neither do you deny that in part even this which you so much oppugn is also from thence taken Again you should tell us whether only that be taken out of Scripture which is actually and particularly there set down or else that also which the general Principles and Rules of Scripture Potentially contain The one way you cannot so much as pretend that all the Parties of your own Discipline are in Scripture and the other way your mouths are stop'd when you would plead against all other Forms besides your own seeing the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general Axioms of the Scripture After the most impartial Enquiry this Learned Man's Judgment about
Cowell affirms That in our Common Law Rector Ecclesioe Parochialis is he that hath the Charge or Cure of a Parish-Church qui tantum Jus in Ecclesia Parochiali habet quantum Proelatus in Ecclesiâ Collegiatâ That a Parson and Rector were anciently the same So †Lib. 4. Tract 5. ca. pri Bracton Sciendum quod Rectoribus Ecclesiarum Parochialium competit Assisa qui institui sunt per Episcopos Ordinarios ut Personae Lindwood holds the same For De Praesump c. ne Lepra Sect. quod si ver Personatus as he avers That in aliquibus locis Rectores Ecclesiarum vocantur Personae so he is as express that haec dictio Personae est vulgare Anglicorum ponitur pro Rectore Wats in his Glossary observing the Word Personatus in Otho's Constitutions delivered by Matthew Paris in Henry the Third's days In quibus locis omnibus accipitur pro Rectoria quam a Parsonage vocamus and in Pope Innocent's Letter to the Abbot of St. Albans assures us that it signifies a Rectory and the Persona or Parson is the Rector De Confes Personar Cleric Quod in quodan ver Persona John de Athon in his Commentary on Otho's Constitutions on the Word Personae saith i.e. Rectores loquitur enim secundum vulgare Anglicorum Lindwood It is also clear from anciently acknowledged rish-Church and therefore that Vicars Perpetual were to be Rectors or Governours of the Paon the Constitution of Simon Langham where it 's Ordain'd That Nullus Rector presume to sell those Tithes of his Church not yet received Nullus Rector supple vel Vicarius ubi est Perpetuus De Consuet c. Nullus Rector ver Nullus Rector before the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary it must be understood also of Vicars Perpetual And John de Athon is very large in discussing and positive in determining it Credo respectu Rectorum Vicarium dici Intitulatum respectu vero aliorum nominare debet Rectorem Constit Otho de Instit Vicarior verb. ad Vicar For saith he out of Innocent's Extrav though if you consider a Vicar Perpetual with respect to his Rector whose Vicar he is he is not called a Rector yet if compared with others he is a Rector It 's then very plain That anciently every Parson and Vicar Perpetual were called Rectors or Governours and why but because they were vested with a Right to Govern their Churches notwithstanding which it cannot now be inferr'd that those who still bear the Name of Rector are Governours of the Church For the ancient Constitution of the Church is not only altered whereby Parish Presbytens Parsons Rectors and Vicars Perpetual have lost all their ancient Power of Ruling but by reason of Impropriations mere Laicks ever since the Statute of Dissolution that took away Appropriations from the Church have been Parsons and Rectors but not Rulers of the Church Sir Henry Spelman very Learnedly doth prove Of Tithes c. 29. That after the Appropriations the Parsonage still continues Spiritual as well in the Eye of the Common Law as of the Canon Law for if it became Temporal by Appropriation then were it within the Statute of Mortmaine and forfeited by that Act and as it continues Spiritual it must be made to a Spiritual Person and not Temporal Spiritual Things and Spiritual Men being Co-Relatives that cannot in Reason be divorced However we see that de facto Lay-men are possess'd of these Spiritual Impropriations and thereby are become the Parsons and Rectors and the Ecclesiastical Incumbent who hath the Cure of Souls is his Vicar who although according to the Ancient Dialect might be called Rector when compared with others yet not with respect to the Lay-man the Parson or Rector of the Parish He that hath the Parsonage or Rectory is the Parson or Rector and that is the Lay-Impropriator Besides according to what hath been offer'd in the first Note it 's plain that now no Governing Power is left with the Parish-Presbyter He is not only denied the Exercise of such a Power but diversted of the Power it self and if any of 'em have the Name of Rector left'em it 's vox praeterea nihil If in this I am mistaken the Fathers of the Church are humbly desired to tell the World so but whether I am mistaken or no the restoring the Parish-Presbyters to the ancient Power of Rectors and the Exercise of it will be a great step towards the healing our Breaches especially if what the ancient Chorepiscopi whom I must again mention who were but Presbyters enjoyed may be allowed them Of whom more in my Notes under the next Proposition II. Whereas by a Statute in the Six and Twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth revived in the First Year of Queen Elizabeth Ch. 14. Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty Six several places of this Kingdom the Number of them might very well be conformed unto the Number of the several Rural Deanries into which every Dioces is sub-divided which being done the Suffragan supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi might every Month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors or incumbent Pastors within the Precinct and according to the major part of their Voices conclude all Matters that shall be brought into Debate before them Notes The Suffragans appointed to be erected in the Twenty Sixth Year of Henry the Eighth were to be consecrated by the Archbishop and Two other Bishops or Suffragans and by them admitted to the Episcopal Dighity but yet were not to use have or execute any Jurisdiction or Episcopal Power or Authority within their said Sees nor within any Diocess or place of this Realm or elsewhere within the King's Dominions but only such Jurisdiction Power and Authority as shall be Licensed and Limited to them to take do and execute by a Commission from the Bishop of the See in which he is a Suffragan nor were they to use any Jurisdiction Ordinary or Episcopal Power otherwise nor longer time than limited by such Commission These were the Suffragans appointed to be erected by Henry the Eighth who though Consecrated and Ordained to the Episcopal Dignity yet must exercise no other Episcopal Power than was delegated to 'em by the Diocesan's Commission which was a very precarious and uncertain thing This Learned Archbishop doth therefore move that instead of this sort of Suffragan we might have men to supply the place of the ancient Chorepiscopi who were not at first under such Limitations tho without Episcopal Consecrations they were vested with the Powers and Authorities of City Bishops and that they might be conform'd to the Number of Rural Deanries A motion which if closed with by the Church of England would no doubt touching this part of the Controversie about the Government of the Church heal the Division and the Church in her Condescention herein would conform unto an ancient Practice of the