facit And whereas 't is objected That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery he answereth out of Chrysostom that by the word Presbytery in that place of Scripture must be understood Bishops not Presbyters because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop All that we can say for the Power of Bishops above Presbyters out of the Scriptures P. 299. is this That the Holy Ghost by the mouth of St. Paul hath given the Bishop of each Place Authority to Ordain such as be worthy to examine such as be faulty and Reprove and Discharge such as be guilty either of Unsound Teaching and Offensive Living Thus much he saith to Timothy and to Tite and in them to their Successors and to all other Bishops of Christ's Church for ever The Power of Ruling the People is not solely but chiefly in the Bishop P. 304. My meaning says he is soon understood You establish one Chief in your Presbyteries by God's Essential and Perpetual Ordinance to execute that which you decree whom you call a President How far I joyn with you you shall quickly perceive To avoid Tumults and Dissentions God hath Authorized One in each Place and Church Able to have and maintain a Presbytery who with Pastoral and Fatherly Moderation should Guide as well the Presbyters that assist him as the People that are Subject to him according to the Laws of God and Man the Execution whereof is Chiefly committed to his Charge that is the Leader and Overseer of the rest whom we call a Bishop His Power I call a Moderation and not a Domination because the Wisdom of God hath likewise allowed and provided Christian means as well to Bridle him from wrongs as to Direct him in Doubts And whereas the Nonconformist tells him that this is right the Power which they give to their Presbyteries his Answer is Did you not put Lay-Men instead of Pastors to be Presbyters and make them Controulers where they should be but Advisers your Presbyteries might have some use in the Church of God tho' far less now than when they first began And amongst the many uses of Presbyteries P. 307. the Bishop is Positive That at first lest the Bishops only will should be the Rule of all things in the Church the Government of the Church was so proportioned that neither the Presbyters should do any thing without their Bishop nor the Bishop dispose Matters of Importance without his Presbytery He distinguisheth between the Private use of the Keys in Refusing to give the Lord's Supper unto the Impeninent and the Publick use of the Keys whereby the obstinate Person is excluded from all Fellowship of the Faithful as well Sacred as Civil The first belongs to the Presbyter the last was by the Church of God allowed always and only to Bishops So in another place P. 320. For our parts tho' we take the Power of the Keys to be Common to all that have Pastoral Charge of Souls in their Degree yet to avoid the infinite Showers of Excommunication which would overflow all Churches and Parishes and the intolerable Quarrels and Brabbles that would ensue if every Presbyter might Excommunicate without the Bishops consent and Licence we praise the Wisdom of God's Church in suffering no Inferiour to Excommunicate without the Bishop's consent and Licence Thus far this Learned Bishop who urgeth the singularity of Succession and Superiority in Ordination to be the Essential Marks of a Bishop as he differs from a Presbyter yet not divesting the Presbyter of all Governing Power in the Church of Christ His Pleading for a Superiority of Power in the Bishop carries in it the grant of a lesser degree of the same Power as belonging to the Presbyter and the denying Presbyters the Exercise of this Power without the consent of the Bishop is but by an Ecclesiastical Constitution such as that which makes the Reconciling Penitents and Confirmation to be rather Peculiar to the Bishop for the Honour of his Calling than for any Necessity of God's Word Thus I have gone through the Principal Writers about Church Government that were in Queen Elizabeths Reign namely Alley Bishop of Exeter Pilkington Bishop of Duresme Jewel Bishop of Salisbury and Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury who held that according to the Scriptures there was no Difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop that in Scripture account their Office and Powers were the same and that the Apostles did not leave behind them any one kind of Church Government to be observed throughout all the Churches at all times These were followed by Dr. Cosins Dr. Low and Bishop Bridges The Learned Willet in his Synopsis Papismi a Book Published at least three or four times in Queen Elizabeths Days and afterwards by King James his Special Command doth in most things agree with the Bishops but now mention'd and being more particular than they affirming out of Jerom That Confirmation and Ordination were appropriated to the Bishop rather for the Honour of their Priesthood and the Peace of the Church than by necessity of any Law the same he saith of the Jurisdiction of the Church adding That anciently there were no distinct Consecrations of Bishops The thing wherein he may be supposed to differ from them is that an Inequality amongst the Presbyters and the Presidency of some one above the other for Orders sake he holds to be Apostolical but herein differs not from the Old Nonconformists After these I have given the Judgments of Saravia Archbishop Bancroft the Judicious Hooker and Bishop Bilson who affirm the Government of the Church to be Apostolical Tho' formerly 't was esteemed dangerous to the Civil Government to hold that Church Government must now be the same 't was in the Apostles days yet it 's look'd on by these as what ought to be The Government of the Church with them is a Divine and Apostolical Institution but not Vnalterable Bilson I confess says it is Perpetual and yet Bishop * Downame Defence of his Sermon p. 26. who most willingly and gladly professeth to consent in Judgment with Him P. 2. doth solemnly Declare in these words That although he holds the Calling of Bishops in respect of their first Institution to be an Apostolical and so a Divine Ordinance yet that he doth not maintain it to be Divini Juris as intending thereby that it is Generally Perpetually and Immutably necessary as though there could not be a True Church without it And within a few Pages after this He declares his Opinion to be the same with King James's who doth say That it is granted to every Christian King Prince and Commonwealth to prescribe to their Subjects that Outward Form of Ecclesiastical Regiment which may seem best to agree with the Form of their Civill Government but so as they swerve not at all from the Grounds of Faith and True Religion This saith Downame maketh not against the Government of Bishops as I maintain it Tho'
I hold the Government-Episcopal to be of Apostolical and Divine Institution yet not as Generally Perpetually and Immutably necessary He doth not hold it necessary in all Places nor in all Ages but to be changeable by Man and if herein He and Bilson accord the Perpetuity Bilson is for will admit of a Change. But whether Downame gives us Bilson's Notion when he states his own I will not contend nor is it needful I should It 's enough to my purpose that the difference he placeth between a Bishop and Presbyter is only in Degree that Confirmation and Excommunication belong unto Presbyters and that Bilson's Bishop differs more from the Bishops by Law Established than from the Nonconformist Parish Presbyters Bancroft professes to agree with Robinson Reynolds and Fulk who differed not from the Old Nonconformists and Hooker never thought the Government of the Church to be in all Places and Ages necessarily the same nor did he look on Bishops to be of a Different Order from Presbyters but to be of the same Order differing only in Degree the Bishop having only a Chiefty of Power in the Church nor did any Great Men of the Church of England in Queen Elizabeths time null the Ministry or Church State of the Reformed either in Scotland or beyond the Seas They held their Churches to be true Churches and their Government to be such as agreed with the General Rules of God's Word and tho' some esteemed the Ordination only by Presbyters to be defective yet did not judge it to be Invalid but admitted those who had their Ordination only from Presbyters abroad to Ecclesiastical Promotions on no other terms than their Subscribing the Articles of Religion which concern the Faith and Doctrines of the Sacraments only These Sentiments which our first Reformers entertain'd about Episcopacy are such as would if the Government of the Church be at this time Fram'd accordingly contribute much to the Peace of the Church and Healing our Divisions and seeing they are most admirably copied out unto us in the Learned Archbishop Vsher's Reduction of Episcopacy I will with some Notes present it to the Reader 's more Deliberate Consideration CHAP. VI. Archbishop Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy with some Notes on it The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the Ancient Church proposed in the year 1641. as an Expedient for the prevention of those Troubles which afterwards did arise about the matter of Church-Government Episcopal and Presbyterial Government Conjoyned BY Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments The Book of Ordination and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same And that they might the better understand what the Lord had commanded therein Ibid. ex Act. 20.27 28. the Exhortation to St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Rule the Congregation of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken in Mat. 2.6 Revel 12.5 19.15 which he hath purchased with his Blood. Notes Thus it was in the Old Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons but on the Restauration of Charles II. there were such Alterations made in the Books of Common Prayer and Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons as do plainly shew that tho' heretofore the Presbyters had Power to Rule yet now they have none In the Act of Vniformity 14 Car. 2. it is Declared That the King's Majesty according to his Declaration of 25. October 1660. granted his Commission under the Great Seal of England to several Bishops and other Divines to Review the Book of Common Prayer and to prepare such Alterations and Additions as they thought fit to offer And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces of Canterbury and York being by his Majesty called and Assembled and now sitting his Majesty hath been pleased to Authorize and require the Presidents of the said Convocations and other the Bishops and Clergy of the same to Review the said Book of Common Prayer and the Book of the Form and Manner of the making and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons And that after mature Consideration they should make such Additions and Alterations in the said Books respectively as to them should seem meet and convenient And should Exhibit and Present the same to his Majesty in Writing for his further Allowance or Confirmation since which time upon full and mature Deliberation they the said Presidents Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces have accordingly Reviewed the said Books and have made some Alterations which they think fit to be inserted to the same and have Exhibited and Presented the same unto his Majesty in Writing All which his Majesty having duly considered hath fully Approved and Allowed the same and recommended to this present Parliament The Books thus altered were by this Parliament confirm'd and established and the Alterations such as make the Office of the Presbyter quite another thing than it was before for tho' in the old Book of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons the Reading unto the Presbyters at the time of their Ordination Acts 20.27 28. did put it out of Doubt that the Presbyters were vested with the Pastoral Office having Power given 'em to Rule the Church In the new Book this Exhortation is removed from the Presbyters Ordination unto the Consecration of Bishops thereby manifestly Evincing the Pastoral Power to be taken from the Presbyter and feated with the Bishop only and accordingly the name Pastor which was in the old Book given unto the Presbyter is in the new omitted and in several places the word Curate or Priest substituted in its stead and whereas in the old Book the Presbyter was admitted to the Ministry of Priesthood in the new it 's to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood thereby making Priesthood an Order distinct from those of Deaconship and Episcopacy In the Consecrating of Bishops in the Collect to shew what they mean by Bishop more than formerly it 's added by way of Explication to all Bishops the Pastors of thy Church and in the Prayer for the Bishop Almighty God c. in the old Book 't was Replenish him so with thy Truth that He may faithfully serve thee in this Office to the Edifying of thy Church in the new it is to the well Governing thy Church And when the Archbishop and other Bishops present do lay their Hands on the Elected and according to the old Book were to say Receive the Holy Ghost c. in the new it 's added for the Office and Work of a Bishop Now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands in the Name of the Father c. Thus the Alterations by Law establshed do clearly shew that both the Name and Office of a Pastor is
cause let no one say Et ne alicui talis Ordinatio vel Confirmatio aut Consecratio Reiteratio esse videatur That when any of those who have been Ordained by the Chorepiscopi are afterwards Ordained by the City-Bishop that they were Re-ordained but let 'em attend that Saying Quod non ostenditur gestum ratio non sinit ut videntur iteratum And Pope Nicholas 1. gives this as a Reason why he judges their Ordination valid The Chorepiscopi were such as the Seventy sent out by our Lord Jesus who without doubt were vested with the Episcopal Power But tho' these Papal Determinations are different yet they agree in witnessing to this Truth That the Chorepiscopi exercis'd Episcopal Authority De Marca proves the same out of the Arabian Canons translated by Alfonsus Pisanus and from the last words of the Canon of Antioch Dr. Parker himself makes no doubt of it for says he That these Chorepiscopi had the Character of Proper Bishops Parker's Account p. 154. appears plainly from the tenth Canon of Antioch that allows them to Ordain the inferiour Officers of the Church This of Bishop Parker doth exactly agree with the 55. Chapter of Nice as translated out of Arabick by Turrianus the Jesuit When the Chorepiscopus visits the Churches and Monasteries under his Power let him gather together the Elders of Castles and expound unto 'em the Holy Scriptures and enquire whether they have any Sons or Daughters and give order that they be brought unto him that he may sign 'em pray over them impose Hands on 'em bless and institute Ministers that is say the Notes on this Chapter Lectores Exorcistae Hypodiaconi And that these Chorepiscopi were but of the same Order with Presbyters and were no otherwise Bishops than as all other Presbyters are is as clear for their Ordination was by one Bishop only not by three and when they entred on the Exercise of the Episcopal Power they had no new Consecration as may be seen in the 54. Chapter of Nice translated out of the Arabick where Turrianus renders it thus Et debet Episcopus vid. Civitatis recitare super electum scil Chorepiscopum Orationem consuetam Chorepiscopus non ordinabatur sed per oraticnem benedicebatur Benedicere illi dareque illi nomina omnium Ecclesiarum Monasteriorum qua sub Potestate ejus sunt The Notes on this Chapter have it that they were not consecrated anew to the Office of a Country-Bishop but only by the Prayer of the City-Bishop blessed Damasus 1. expresly affirms them to be but Presbyters in these words Quod ipsi iidem sunt qui Presbyteri sufficienter invenitur quia ad formam exemplum septuaginta inveniuntur prius instituti The select Capitula of Charles the Great concurring with Leo the Third Tit. 4. c. 3. and speaking of the Episcopal Rights say the same Haec verò non à Presbyteris vel Chorepiscopis qui ambo unius formae esse videntur Besides such were some of the Ancient Canons decreeing that there should be but one Bishop in a Diocess and he only in the City that made it necessary for some of those who anciently would have the Bishops to be of an Order superiour above Presbyters to hold that these Chorepiscopi tho' they had the name of Bishop given 'em and were vested with the Jura Episcopalia were but Presbyters usurping on the Episcopal Office so Damasus Leo and many French Bishops in Charles the Great 's days and it hath also put some later Writers such as Bellarmine Boverius in his Paraenetic Censure of de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato's Book de Rep. Eccles and De Marco to phansie that some made Chorepiscopi were formerly Consecrated to the Episcopal Dignity and that others were but Presbyters and thus by distinguishing the Office from the Person they hoped to extricate themselves but as Dr. Parker well observes Pag. 158. This is precariously said without any shadow of Pretence for it but meerly to salve his own Hypothesis Others Thorndike of Rights of Church p. 146. such as Thorndike are driven to the Invention of another Distinction which is between the Solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudicial to any Power to do that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it Some Acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this Distinction as the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Countrey-Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City-Church which is the Apostolical Rule for Episcopal Churches Thus Thorndike who differs greatly from the generality of his Brethren who hold that though the Potestas Jurisdictionis may be delegated to one that is not a Bishop yet the Potestas Ordinis cannot However it must be acknowledged that there is a great difference between a Presbyter's Ordaining other Presbyters with the leave of the Bishop and his doing it by a Power derived from the Bishop One vested with a Power may not be able to exercise it without the leave of another and yet when he hath leave he then exercises a Power inherent in himself virtute officii The Bishops themselves cannot exercise the Power of Orders without the leave of the Supreme Civil Magistrate and now that they do exercise it 't is with his leave but it does not therefore follow that the Power of Orders is derived from the Supreme Magistrate to the Bishop In the Council of Ancyra it 's not said That the Presbyter shall not Ordain Presbyters unless the Bishop delegates unto him a Power enabling him so to do but he shall not exercise this Power without the consent of the Bishop which was enjoyned by the Canon to prevent Schisms and Divisions in the Church So that I cannot see how this Distinction of Thorndike so applauded by Dr. Parker can help ' em To press this yet further Henry the Eighth's Suffragans were consecrated Bishops and had the same Power virtute officii that any other Bishop receiv'd at his Consecration but may not exercise it unless by Commission from the City-Bishop But when they did exercise the Episcopal Authority was it by a Power receiv'd at their Consecration and inherent in them or by a Power deriv'd unto 'em from the City-Bishop by Commission 'T was by the former no doubt why else were they consecrated If then this Commission given by the City-Bishop to the Suffragan limiting the Exercise of his Power doth not infer that the Suffragan did not act by a Derived Power much less can these Words Let not the Chorepiscopus Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without the consent of the City-Bishop imply that the Chorepiscopus deriv'd the Power of Ordaining from the City-Bishop The Bishop of Lincoln can't Ordain Priests or Deacons in Westminster-Abby without the leave of the
the Authority of the Bishop let him be Excommunicated Divers other Constitutions have been made in Ecclesiastical Politie for the maintaining the Dignity of Bishops So also the Civil State hath augmented and enlarged the Privileges and Immunities of Bishops which they have rather by the Munificence of Princes than by Divine Authority As first the Division of Provinces and Cities unto Archbishops and Bishops and the limitation of their Jurisdiction was brought in by the consent of Princes Secondly The Revenues and Lands of Bishopricks have been given by Devout and Religious Princes unto Bishops and their Successors and divers Imperial Laws have been made in favour of the Maintenance of the Church Thirdly The Titles of Honour annexed to Bishopricks as that they are created Barons and made Lords of the Parliament-House here in England have been bestowed by the Liberality of the Kings of this Realm not yet above 400 years since Fourthly The Judgment of Matrimonial and Testamentary Causes and of other such like Matters hath been reserved unto Bishops by the Civil and Imperial Authority Thus we see how in Civil Policy the Dignity of Bishops by the favour of Christian Emperors hath been enlarged And hitherto I have shewed what is to be judged Political in the Distinction of Bishops from the rest of the Clergy both as touching the Civil and Ecclesiastical Policy So far Willet out of whom I observe That the Government of the Church is not de jure divino That according to the Scriptures the Office of a Bishop and Priest is the same That a convenient Priority of Order amongst Ministers is Divine and Apostolical That the Powers of Confirmation Ordination and Jurisdiction are reserv'd to the Bishops by Ecclesiastical constitutions only That in the Beginning a Bishop and Presbyter had but one Ordination and the Consecration of Bishops was added since for their greater Dignity In Hierom's days the Election of Bishops without any other circumstances being their Ordination That Priests without a Licence from the Bishop might Preach There is one thing more to be regarded touching the Difference of Bishops and other Ministers for says he We differ from the Papists in two Points First they say That Bishops are not only in a higher degree of Superiority to other Ministers but they are as Princes of the Clergy and other Ministers as Subjects and in all things to be commanded by them Secondly They affirm That Bishops are only properly Pastors and that to them only it doth appertain to Preach and that other Ministers have no Authority without their Licence or Consent to preach at all and that not principally or chiefly but solely and wholly to them appertaineth the Right of Consecrating and giving Orders so that the making the Bishop to be of a distinct Order from the Priest and the denying the Priest to have a Power to Preach without the Bishop's Licence or any hand in Ordination Willet opposeth as Popish Doctrines representing the opposite Notions to have been then held by the Church of England Hitherto the Government of the Church by Bishops lays no claim to a Divine Right On the contrary it 's generally asserted that according to the Scriptures the Priest and Bishop are the same and that the superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter is only by Ecclesiastick Custom and the Government of the Church now different from what it was in the Apostles days Willet indeed saith That for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical and towards the latter end of the Queens Reign the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution yet not to be de jure divine and unalterable Saravia about the two and thirtieth year of the Queen professeth * Hoc enim pacto fiet magis clarum quid omnes Evangelii ministri inter se habeant commune quid cuique ordini sit peculiare Ea vero in tres partes ego distribuo Prima est Evangelii Praedicatioâ— altera Communicatio sacramentorum tertia Ecclesiasticae Gubernationis authoritas De Divers Grad Minist Evang. p. 15. Quamvis unum idem Evangelii Ministerium sit omnibus Pastoribus Ecclesiae concreditum in hac tertia parte non parva inter eos invenitur Inaequalitas propter diversos Authoritatis Gradus quos primo Dominus statim ab initio postea Apostoli constituerunt p. 7. Primum ab ipso Domino Duos Gradus Evangelii ministrorum institutos videmus quorum alter altero fuit superior p. 25. Consensu totius Orbis Ecclesiarum probatur Episcoporum supra Presbyteros authoritas Quod inde ab Apostolorum temporibus patribus per universum terrarum Orbem factum ab omnibus Ecclesiis legimus usque ad nostra tempora Canonem Apostolorum immutabilem esse judico p. 44. c. 20. That the general Nature of the Evangelical Ministry common both to Bishops and Presbyters containeth these three things 1. The Preaching of the Gospel 2. The Communication of the Sacraments 3. The Authority of Church Government and doth only plead that in this last the Power of Bishops and Presbyters is not equal but the Bishop's Power is principal in Government Whence arises a Diversity of Degrees not of Orders between them and thus much he affirms hath been held by the Fathers of the Church universally ever since the Apostles days and therefore may well be look'd on as an Unchangeable Canon of the Apostles The Difference between Saravia and those who went before him lyeth here Whit gift c. Saravia The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments divinely Instituted and to continue to the End of the World but no particular Form of Government left on Record in Scripture The Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter according to St. Hierom rather by Custom of the Church than an Institution of Christ. Not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirm'd by the Observation of the Fathers ought to continue for ever The Superiority in Degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter a Divine Institution and that St. Hierom was in the same Error with Aerius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi Opinionem consentaneam cum Aerio Dei verbo contrariam p. 51. A Year or two after Saravia's Book came out Bancroft afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury publisheth a Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline as he calls his Book in the Preface to which he saith That we have a Church Government of our own which is in my conscience truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other that is receiv'd this day by any Reformed Church in Christendom And elsewhere in the Book it self P. 105. The Apostles saith he having received the Promise of the Holy Ghost after a short time dipersed themselves by advice into divers Regions and there by painful Preaching and Labouring in the Lord's Harvest they planted no doubt
taken from the Presbyter and transferr'd over to the Diocesan who alone hath the Power of Ordering Priests and Deacons and of Governing or Ruling the Church whence it follows that as there is but One Pastor in a Diocess there is but one Church That all Parish-Assemblies are but parts or parcels of this One single Church under the Conduct and Government only of the Diocesan Bishop their only Pastor That all Ordinations by Presbyters are of no greater Validity than those by Deacons or Lay-men and therefore altho' Ordination is no more to be repeated than Baptism yet those who have had their Ordination only by Presbyters must be Ordained again or not admitted unto any Benefice nor allowed the Exercise of the Priestly Office nor be esteemed Lawful Priests so that as there is a vast Difference between Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Charles the Second's so between Queen Elizabeth's Law and King Charles's Q. Elizabeth's Act runs thus That every Person under the Degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other Form of Institution Consecration or Ordering than the Form now used in the Reign of our most Gracious Soveraign Lady shall declare his Assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Profession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprised in a Book Entituled Articles c. viz. 39 Articles upon pain that every such Person which shall not subscribe shall be ipso facto deprived and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void as if he had been naturally dead King Charles his Law is thus That no Parson who now is Incumbent and in the Possession of any Parsonage or Benefice and who is not in Holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination or shall not be before the said Feast-day of St. Bartholomew Ordained Priest or Deacon shall have hold or enjoy any Parsonage with Cure but shall be utterly disabled and ipso facto deprived of the same and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void as if he had been naturally dead Touching Persons ordained by any other Form than the Episcopal a Subscription to the Articles was sufficient by 13 Eliz. c. 12. to Qualifie them for Spiritual Promotion and Whittingham's whose Ordination was only by Presbyters abroad was esteemed good and he enjoyed his Benefice to the day of his death as Traverse in his Supplication to the Council affirms but tho' the Articles be subscribed unto by one having only an Ordination by Presbyters he must be ordained by the Bishop or not admitted to any Ecclesiastical Promotion or if admitted he is ipso facto deprived and whoever consults the Book of Ordering Presbyters will find that the whole of it plainly declares that the former Odination of the Person thus re-ordained was invalid and null and that till now he was never of the Presbyters Office for the Ordination of one never before ordained and the Ordination of him who was formerly ordain'd by Presbyters is the same Whether I am right in these my Sentiments I appeal to the Right Reverend and Reverend Bishops and others of the Dignified Clergy who with the greatest importunity are desired to declare their Judgments in this Matter To know what the Government of the Church of England is that is by Archbishops Bishops and what is the Office of a Presbyter what that of a Bishop is a matter of extraordinary importance If it be the same it was in Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth's days which is the same with what the Learned Archbishop Vsher was for the greatest Bone of Contention between the Cons and Noncons will be removed farther Every Parish-Presbyter will be granted to be a Pastor vested with a Right to Rule the Church from whence saith the Learned Archbishop the name of Rector also was given unto him at first and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter to be only in Degree and not in Order as this Learned Primate ever held as he saith in an Answer to an abusive Report that went abroad of him I have ever declared my Opinion to be saith he That Episcopus Presbyter gradu tantum differunt non Ordine and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid and Dr. Bernard in his Animadversions on the Archbishop's Opinion asserts That in this Judgment he was not singular Dr. Davenant that Pious and Learned Bishop of Salisbury consents with him in it Determinat Q. 42. produceth the Principal of the Schoolmen Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson Durand c. Episcopatus non est Ordo praecise distinctus à Sacerdotio simplici c. non est alia potestas Ordinis in Episcopis quà m Presbyteris sed inest modo perfectiori And declares it to be the general Opinion of Schoolmen c. And whereas the Primate saith That in Cases of Necessity where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid Bishop Davenant concurs with him also and produceth the Opinion of Richardus Armathanus one of this Primate's Predecessors and one of the most Learned men in his time to be accordingly To which divers others might be added as in special Dr. Field sometimes Dean of Glocester in his Learned Book of the Church where this Judgment of the Primate Lib. 3. c. 39. lib. 5. c. 27. and the Concurrence of Bishop Davenant's is largely confirmed But that Book Entituled The Defence of the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas maintained by Mr. Archdeacon Mason against the Romanists who wrote also a Defence of Episcopacy and of the Ministry of the Church of England is fufficiently known and I have been assur'd it was not only the Judgment of Bishop Overal but that he had a Principal hand in it He produceth many Testimonies the Master of the Sentences and most of the Schoolmen Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas Durand Dominicus Soto Richardus Armachanus Tostatus Alphonsus à Castro Gerson Canisius to have affirmed the same and at last quotes Medina a Principal Bishop of the Council of Trent who affirm'd That Jerom Ambrose Augustine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact were of the same Judgment also In a word if the Ordination of Presbyters in such places where Bishops cannot be had were not valid the late Bishops of Scotland had a hard Task to maintain themselves to be Bishops who were not Priests for their Ordination was no other What Dr. Bernard mentions about the Archbishop's dislike of the late Prerbyterians here in England is not so much against their Exercising the Power as the Manner of their Exercise they did not add to the Imposition of Hands Receive the Holy Ghost c. nor so much as these words Be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his