if they will stand to what is more maturely and pertinently by them alledged and proved agreeably also to their own practice for Diocesan Episcopacy as established in the Church of England If those Dissenters who were so importunate and industrious to advance their Discipline on the ruines of the established Church had proceeded on the Principles laid down by the Divines above-mentioned whereof this is one that they lay hold on viz. That the forms of Government not being plainly exprest in Scripture are alterable and may by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate be determined to this or that species which yet they will not grant of their own Discipline they ought then to acquiesce in that Government which was established and to which all those Divines most willingly submitted as the best in all the Christian World and though by reason of their dissent from it they had drawn on themselves the execution of some moderate Penalties yet if they had been fully perswaded that they did suffer for a good Conscience and for Righteousness sake they ought like good Christians to have taken it patiently and not by Railing by Sedition by forming Schisms and meditating Rebellions seek to avenge themselves and return evil for evil but contrarily blessing being thereto called by the Example and Precepts of their great Master but when they returned evil for good and hatred for good-will and thought themselves persecuted because they could not grasp a Power to persecute their Superiours this was not agreeable to that wisdom that comes from above which is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated And if our present Dissenters be satisfied of the purity of our Doctrine they may by the Principles which are laid down submit to that Discipline and Government that Authority doth establish there being nothing in it contrary to the Word of God but wholly agreeable to the constant practice of the Universal Church I think it sufficient to solve all that hath been alledged out of our Divines to clear these two things 1. What kind of Government was setled by the Apostles 2. What Answer may be given to the Objections so often mentioned from St. Hierom. As to the first it is evident that there was a Superiority in the Apostles to those to whom they committed the care of the several Churches whether they were Bishops or Presbyters and as the Apostles dyed their Successors in Ecclesiastical Power who in all Ages were the Bishops were the Subjects of that Superiority such as Timothy Titus Clemen Linus c. and their Successors as they stand recorded in Ecclesiastical History for what the Apostles did for the perpetual Order and Government of the Church was agreeable to our Saviour's Institution and all Antiquity bears proof to this Truth that from the Apostles days there were setled in the most eminent Churches of Hierusalem Rome Antioch and Alexandria several Bishops that had a Superiority over the Presbyters in their respective Churches and that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons were established in those Churches in those purest and most Primitive times insomuch that they who will not admit those Testimonies will be to seek for one of the best Proofs for the Canon of the Scripture As therefore we believe the Succession of Roman Emperours from the Writings of such Historians as lived near their times so may we believe the truth of such Orders of Men and of their Successions as it is delivered by Men of good Credit and Honesty that lived near those times and have handed down in undoubted written Records from Age to Age St. Polycarp Ignatius Clemens who conversed with the Apostles Ireneus Justin Martyr and others that lived with them then Origen Clem. Alexandrinus Tertullian who succeeded them and many others who lived within two hundred years after the Apostles from whom Eusebius had the Materials of his History and refers to them for the truth of his Relations He had the Acts of the Martyrs and the Books of Hegesippus concerning the Acts of the Church from which and other helps from the very Persecutors of the Christians he compiled his History and particularly the Succession of Bishops Clemens Rom. in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the Officers of the Church in his time alluding to those under the Law The High-Priest hath his Office the Priest his Station and the Levite his Ministry the Lay-man his Office let every one worship God in his Order Ignatius mentions these Three Orders in his Epistles so plainly that the Enemies of those Orders have martyred him again in his Reputation denying his Epistles to be genuine which the Learned Bishop Pearson hath irrefragably asserted and so hath Dr. Beveridge the Authority of Apostolical Canons which have been owned by the Councils and expresly assert the Three Orders so that tho' while the Apostles lived the Names might be confounded yet immediately on their deaths all Ancient Writers have distinguished them because such as succeeded to their Power were Bishops and yet all the Minister's or Elders were not so for a Parity is usually the Parent of Confusion and if such a Parity had been setled by Christ or his Apostles how could it be that as St. Hierom says The whole World should agree for prevention of Schism to alter what Christ had established Was the whole World i. e. every particular Church which are it seems agreed on setting up a Bishop above Presbyters wiser than our Saviour or had they Authority so to do And if they did so by sufficient Authority why will the Presbyters as generally agree to pull them down now as their Ancients did to set them up So that I see no shadow of Reason why we may not subscribe to that which is said before the Book of Consecration That it is evident to all Men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been ever these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons 2. As to St. Hierom's Testimony the import of it is this That tho' the Apostles had a Superiority over Presbyters yet when they died they did not bequeath that Power to others but left it in common to the Presbyters whose management of it was such as it begat Schisms and Animosities for suppression of which it was thought fit through the whole World to chuse out of the body of the Presbyters one that should have a Presidency over the rest so that this Presidency was not an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical and Prudential Constitution wherein St. Hierom doth not only contradict the Joynt Suffrage of all the Ancients but his own Testimony Against this Opinion of St. Hierom some affirm that what he said was in a Discourse against some proud Deacons that would equal themselves with the Presbyters which was as great a presumption as to invade the Office of the Bishops seeing in most things as St. Hierom says the Bishops and Presbyters were of
to the Apostles and Bishops in Scripture-times of which they say that express mention is made in Scripture onely of these two i. e. Priests and Deacons To which two though the Church added other inferiour and lower degrees mentioned in Ancient Writers yet there is no mention of them in the Scripture but in some old Councils and namely in the four African where all the kinds of Orders be rehearsed Now in that Council you may find the several Rites of Ordaining 1. Bishops 2. Presbyters 3. Deacons 4. Subdeacons 5. Acolythi 6. Exorcists c. And Canon 27. Vt Episcopus de loco ignobile ad nobilem non transeat nec quisquam inferioris ordinis Clericus Inferioris vero gradus Sacerdotes possunt concessione suorum Episcoporum ad alias Ecclesias migrare So that in the Judgment of that Council Priests were an inferiour Order to Bishops and consequently they were so in the Judgment of our Reformers who quote it to that end See Binius Tom. 1. p. 728. This also appears from the Milevitan Council which is also quoted by the Reformers in which St. Augustine was also present wherein a Canon was made Quo prohibiter ne Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis suis ulla extra Africam adeant judicia So that by both these Councils Priests as well as Deacons are proved to be inferiour to Bishops which was the thing intended by our Reformers in that Paragraph So that when these Dissenters from this passage viz that of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention do in the words immediately following infer That all others meaning particularly that of Bishops were afterward added by the Church p. 2. and name this inference as if it were the very words of that excellent Book is no less a sin than the bearing false witness against them for they treat onely of other inferiour and lower degrees So that if the word Order be taken in the first sense for the power or faculty of administring holy things conferred by the Bishops it is their plain sense That the Scripture maketh express mention of these two inferiour Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons and not of Subdeacons Acolytes c. Moreover two things especially seem designed by the Reformers concerning the Sacrament of Orders The first is to shew that Bishops are of Divine Institution and had not their dependance on the Pope whom his Favourites made the only Bishop and all the rest deriving their power and authority from him The second was to shew that of all those seven Orders which were made Sacramental onely those of Bishops Priests and Deacons had foundation in Scripture the rest were added in after-times And to confirm both these they describe the manner of ordaining both Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Holy Scripture to discharge it from those superstitious Ceremonies introduced by the Pope and made necessary to their Ordination As for the Superiority of Bishops to Priests there is no question made much less of their Identity or sameness of Office. For the Divine Right of Bishops they assert it in four several places that they have it from Christ and prove it by Scripture and from thence infer this Conclusion That whereas the Bishop of Rome hath heretofore claimed and usurped to be Head and Governour of all Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church by the Laws of God it is evident that his Power is utterly feigned and untrue and was neither given him by God in Holy Scripture nor allowed by the Fathers in Ancient General Councils nor by consent of the Cotholick Church And they declare That the Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions of Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Metropolitans were given them by the positive Laws of men onely and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture And the power usurped by any one Bishop over another not given him by the Consent of men is no lawful Power but plain Usurpation and Tyranny Which they prove from the Ancient Councils and Fathers against the Pope Secondly They shew that of those seven Orders owned by the Church of Rome as Sacramental onely Bishops Priests and Deacons had their Institution in the Holy Scripture and that Subdeacons Acolytes Exorcists c. were added by the Church as also the Rites and Ceremonies by which they were conferred And thirdly to confirm what they had said they describe the manner of ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons to clear it from those superstitious Ceremonies brought in by the Church of Rome as the Ring and Crosier-staff several Unctions and Garments some of which must come from Rome whereas the Scripture mentions onely the imposition of Hands and Prayers In these words Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and imposition of their Hands And evident it is to me that by the word Orders they intended onely the manner of Ordaining not the distinction of Orders for they all held the Superiority of Bishops to Priests And this will appear first from the word used by the Latine Translation which is De his tantum Ordinationibus of these Ordinations onely not of these two Orders onely the Scripture makes mention and describeth the manner of conferring them And doubtless those learned men did not confound the words Ordo and Ordinatio For the understanding whereof I shall explain the English Edition by the Latine Thus in the beginning they say That these Orders were given by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops hands Per Consecrationem Impositionem manum Episcopi And as the Apostles themselves in the beginning of the Church did order Priests and Bishops so they willed the other Bishops to the like Thus the Latine Book Et Quemadmodum Apostoli ipsi Episcopos Presbyteros Ordinaverunt ita eosdem etiam instituisse ut in posterum succedentes Episcopi eundem ordinandi morem in Ecclesia servarent Again Here is to be noted That although this Form before declared is to be observed in giving Orders c. in the Latine Quanquam autem hunc in modum Scriptura Ordinationes fieri instituit Again Thus we have briefly touched the Ordering not the Orders of Priests and Bishops The Latine Hactonus quidem de Ordinatione Presbyterorum Neither speak of the Order but Ordering Moreover touching the Order of Deacons we read Acts 6. that they were ordered and instituted by the same Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their hands The Latine Jam vero praeter Episcopos Sacerdotes Diaconorum etiam Scriptura meminit traditque hos ab Apostolis per Orationem manuum impositionem ordinatos institutos fuisse After all which it followeth Of these two Orders onely which I cannot understand the premises being considered in any other sense than as the Latine renders it Of these Ordinations onely and how they were conferred the
made Bishops by authority from God and left their Successours power to do the like And to this they all subscribed in the Necessary Erudition Much more might be added from some publick Writings of that Age of which I shall name but one or two as first the Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum a design first begun by King Henry the Eighth prosecuted by Edward the Sixth as by their two Orders prefixed to that Book doth appear and committed to the care of thirty two Divines and Civilians the Arch-Bishop being the chief wherein it is ordered That to the Bishop all are to give Obedience according to the Word of God p. 98. Episcope qui Ecclesiae praeficitur non solum Decanus Archidiaconus Archipresbyter reliqui Ministri parebunt c. And cap. 10. Episcopi quoniam inter caeteros Ecclesiae Ministros locum principem tenent ideo sana Doctriná gravi authoritate atque provido consilio debent inferiores Ordines Cleri regere ac pascere Dr. Burnet p. 71. of the second part says It is plain that Cranmer had quite laid aside those singular Opinions which he formerly held of the Ecclesiastical Functions for now in a Work of his own without the concurrence of any other speaking of his Catechism he fully sets forth their Divine Institution And now I shall consider how agreeable their Design is to the Ancient Constitution of our Government about matters Ecclesiastical which as they say is very excellently described in the Book called The necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian-man composed by several Bishops and other great Doctors and approved by Authority in the days of King Henry the Eighth The Dissenters cannot have a greater Reverence for that Book than the Conformists have as to the Constitution of our Church And to corroborate this Authority they add that of another excellent Book viz. Dr. Burnet 's History of the Reformation for which as they observe the whole Kingdom have given the Doctor thanks And I shall think the worse of these Dissenters if they will not do the same P. 16. From these Books they attempt to prove that the establishing a Parochial or Congregational Church-Discipline the great thing which the Dissenters desire may be done consistently with the Ancient Constitution of the Government of this Realm to the fixing the desired firm and lasting Vnion P. 11. If this appear the Dissenters may well boast that they are the Genuine Sons of the Church of England as it was setled by the first Reformers and that they have been as they complain misrepresented as Enemies both to Church and State as if the adhering to old Protestant Principles about Church-Discipline had been the Overt Act of a Spirit seditious and phanatical p. 17. To these two they have appealed for the truth of their Assertion and I hope they will not shew themselves such double-minded men as to be unstable in all their ways and not stand to the Evidence and Arbitration of these two Authorities produced by themselves And if the reducing of us to the Ancient Constitution of Church-Government and Discipline in this Realm may fix the desired firm and lasting Union it will be still the Dissenters fault that we are not all agreed In that Judicious Tract 't is manifest say the Dissenters p. 2. 1. That Church-Government is Jure Divino Be it so 2. That to the constituting such a Church-Government those Church-Officers onely are necessary who are mentioned in the New Testament This is also granted 3. That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons This is sub judice 4. That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order This also is to be determined To all this I shall oppose a short Syllogism viz. That Church-Government which is mentioned in the New Testament by the Compilers of the Necessary Erudition is Jure Divino But the Church Government mentioned c. is by Bishops Priests and Deacons Ergo the Church-Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons is Jure Divino according to the Necessary Erudition It chanced that on reading this Preface I had at hand that ancient Book printed in English 1543. and set forth by the King's Authority as appears by the Preface I had also a Translation of the same Book into elegant Latine printed the following year viz. 1544. This Latine Book hath a Preface more than I find in the English which seems to be compiled by the Arch-Bishop and the rest of the Reforming Clergy who give us this reason of the translating it into Latine Quam Institutionem Lector Carissime Illustrissimi simul Religiosissimi Principis industriâ primum vernaculo sermone editam nos nunc in Latinum versam in lucem damus Quòd indignum duximus ut hoc pacificandae Ecclesiae studium exemplum quo Regia Majestas immortalem sibi gloriam promerita est in obscuro lateret ac non potius orbi universo quo caeteri Principes ad similem componendae Religionis zelum excitentur innotesceret i. e. Which Erudition first published in English by the Industry of our most Illustrious and Religious Prince we now publish in Latine as thinking it an unworthy thing that the care and good Example of pacifying the Church whereby His Majesty hath deserved immortal Glory should lie hid and not be known to the World to stir up other Princes to the like Zeal From whence I desire the Reader to observe that this Book being set forth a year after the English one and being somewhat explained and inlarged as intended to inform the Foreign Churches with the matter and order of our Reformation is of the two the more exact and perfect as containing their second Thoughts and final Resolutions The place quoted out of that Book is that which concerns The Sacrament of Orders which say they are given of God to Christian men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops hands And doubtless King Henry would have been very much in wrath with any that should have denied the Order of Bishops to be Sacramental when by their hands and by a power given them of God as is their asserted other Orders were to be conveyed But secondly I observe that whereas that Book nameth Bishops And Priests as two distinct Orders these Dissenters by a little trick learnt of the Jesuits of changing a small syllable would alter the sense of the whole Chapter for four or five times in the second and third pages the Dissenters name Bishops Or Priests making them one and the same thing which the Reformers in that Chapter of Orders do distinguish as two distinct Orders and eight times at least read Bishops And not Or Priests in sensu diviso In the first place it is said that St. Paul did consecrate and order Priests and Bishops for which they quote 1 Tim. 4. i. e. Jure Divino And again as the Apostles themselves did
they have considered things who are so far carried with their Zeal against the established Government of this Church as to make much use of some passages of the Schoolmen and Canonists that deny them to be distinct Orders for these are the very dregs of Popery N. B. the one raising the Priests higher for the sake of Transubstantiation the other pulling the Bishops lower for the sake of the Popes Supremacy and by such means bringing them almost to an equality So partial are some men to their particular Conceits that they make use of the most mischievous Topicks when they can serve their turn not considering how much farther these Arguments will run if they ever admit them So that although the Phrase of Priests or Bishops might have been used in former times as it was in a Paper printed among the Addenda to the first part of the Doctor 's History p. 324. which Paper was written about six years before the Necessary Erudition as is proved p. 365. of the first part Yet when our Dissenters read as no doubt they did these Remarks of the Doctor 's concerning the rise and mischievous tendences of it their presumption in urging it from that Paper where it is so shamefully condemned is as unpardonable as their endeavour to fasten it on the Necessary Erudition where the contrary is evidently asserted And is this the great Reverence that our Dissenters have for the first Reformers thus to wrest and abuse their Writings by altering their Words curtailing their Sentences and representing them as contradicting themselves as well as the Universal Church in all Ages before them in such an excellent Book and to object that against them which their Adversaries who watched for such an advantage could never find This is no otherwise to honour them than to call them to a second Martyrdom more inglorious and hateful to them than the first And yet these Dissenters could not but know that all they who had a hand in compiling that Book were either Diocesan Bishops or such Divines as lived in a willing submission to them And these things are sufficient to shew that the Dissenters are more genuine Sons of some other Church than of the Church of England according to its Primitive Constitution And thus the Declaration mentioned by our Author to be subscribed by Tho. Cromwell c. which says That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers Priests or Bishops as also the Opinions of Tindal Lambert and Dr. Barnes must be submitted to the more mature and authorized Judgment of the State Civil and Ecclesiastical expressed in the Necessary Erudition And the private Sentiments of such Divines as have written from the days of Edward VI. until now must be adjudged to be conformable to the Judgment and Determination of the Church which hath been established by Law in their days to which also they generally subscribed and then I need say no more but that the Forms of Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons will determine the Question whether from the beginning of our Reformation the Church of England hath acknowledged three Orders viz. of Bishops Priests and Deacons or two only And whether the Church-Government established by Law ever since the days of Edward VI. hath not been by Diocesan Bishops But I would ask these men Could they have conformed to Episcopacy and Liturgy under King Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth and can they not now Was not Episcopacy the same then as it is now and the Liturgie much better now than it was then Could you conform to Henry the Eighth's Primer to his six Articles and seven Sacraments Or to the Liturgie established by King Edward the Sixth wherein were many things that were deservedly accounted Ineptias As in the Communion-Office where they commend to the mercy of God all his Servants departed hence from us And that God would command our Prayers and Supplications by the ministry of his holy Angels to be brought up into his holy Tabernacle The commending Auricular and Secret Confession to the Priest And in the Office of Baptism enjoyning a great part of that Office to be performed the people standing at the Church-door and then to take the Child by the right hand and lead it towards the Font To sign it with the sign of the Cross on the Breast as well as the Forehead The use of Exorcism in these words I command thee thou unclean Spirit in the Name of the Father c. to come out and depart from this Infant The dipping the Child three times in the Water except in case of weakness first on the right side then on the left and then with the Face towards the Water Then to put on it the Crysom saying Take thou this white Vesture for a Token of the Innocency c. Then to anoint the Infant on the head praying God to anoint him with the Vnction of the Spirit And to omit many other things anointing the sick and signing his breast with the sign of the Cross Commending at the time of Burial into the hands of God's mercy the Souls of the departed As for the Book of consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons it was added to the Liturgie by King Edward as it is received now with some few alterations mentioned by Dr. Burnet for the better p. 144. His Articles and Acts for Vniformity were as severe as any that are now And all these were established in Arch-bishop Cranmer's time and with his good Approbation In the Articles of Religion printed 1552. one concerning the Liturgy declares thus The Book of Prayers which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the Authority of Parliament containing the Manner and Form of praying and ministring the Sacraments and the Book of ordering Ministers of the Church set forth by the afore said Authority are godly and in no point repugnant to the wholsome Doctrine of the Gospel but agreeing thereunto furthering and beautifying the same not a little and therefore of all faithful Ministers of the Church of England and chiefly of the Ministers of the Lord ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving and to be commended to the people of God. Besides the Discourse concerning Ceremonies retained in our Book was then set forth as also a Proclamation against those that innovate alter or leave down any Rite or Ceremony in the Church and that preach without License printed in the second year of Edward the Sixth to which the Form for Bidding of Prayers may be added See p. 128. of Dr. Burnet's second part All which notwithstanding Bucer and Peter Martyr approved of Conformity And Mr. Calvin himself both perswaded and approved all that was done in the second Liturgy of King Edward in an Epistle of his to the then Protector being the forty first Epistle in the Edition at Amsterdam 1667. to this effect Let there
be published a Summary of Doctrine to be received by all which all may conform to in their preaching for the observance of which let all Bishops and Parish-Priests be obliged by Oath and let none be admitted to Ecclesiastical Function unless he promise to observe that consent of Doctrine inviolate Let there be also a common form of Catechism for the use of Children I also greatly approve that there be a certain Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites from which it should not be lawful for the Pastors to recede in their Function as well to provide for the simplicity and unskilfulness of some as also that thereby the consent of all the Churches may more certainly appear and lastly that the desultory levity of some men who affect Novelties may be prevented So that there ought to be an established Catechism an established Administration of the Sacraments and publick Form of Prayers Did not Dr. Taylor a learned Martyr declare of the Liturgy as it stood in Edward the Sixth's days that according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained And is it well done to fill the Consciences of the People now with Scruples against almost every part of it How these men would have demeaned themselves under the Impositions and Bishops in the days of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth I cannot divine Uniformity being as strictly enjoyned then as it is now For such as did officiate in any other manner than was prescribed by the Liturgie were for the first Offence to suffer six months Imprisonment for the second to be imprisoned during life and if any should print in defamation of it or threaten Clergy men for using of it he was to be fined 10 l. for the first Offence 20 l. for the second and for the third to forfeit all his Goods and suffer Imprisonment during life And as for the Reign of Queen Mary let the Book of Martyrs be viewed and it will appear that they who bore Testimony to the Truths of Christ and truly deserved the name of Martyrdom were such as were eminent Assertors of the established Episcopacy and Liturgie such as Cranmer Ridley Latimer Hooper Taylor Lest I should lead my Reader into an Error while I follow the Method of these Men I thought fit to inform the Reader That the Erudition of a Christian Man was printed in the Year 1543. and the Resolution of the Questions mentioned in the Papeer by Dr. Stillingfleet in the days of King Edward the Sixth which whether they were consulted of before viz. in the days of Henry the Eighth is not material to enquire into but the Method Mr. H. and Mr. Lobb used in the Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in the Preface saying in Henry the Eighth's time Cranmer in Answer to that Question Whether Bishops or Priests were first did assert c. And that he did not vary from that Opinion the same being by him asserted in the Necessary Erudition As to the Opinion of those three Divines which are mentioned in this Chapter viz. Tindal Lambert and Barnes the first says That the Apostles ordained two Officers viz. Bishop or Overseer and Deacon or Minister and adds That Deacons crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich. Lambert he says was of the same Opinion which he took from St. Hierome who held Bishops and Priests to be one and the same of which we shall speak hereafter This Lambert was a stranger come from Avignon and would that every Parish should have his proper Bishop and in every City there ought to be many Bishops This Mr. Barnes denies and quotes St. Paul who said I have left thee behind me to set in every City a Bishop And the Article against Mr. Barnes was That he held that one Man might not by the Law of God be a Bishop of Two or Three Cities or of a whole Country he denyed not one Bishop in a City but thought that an Apostolical Institution His Opinion was That there ought not to be such Bishops as the Cardinal that examined him was Who told Mr. Barnes That this Article toucht him And it seems evident that this Man spake against such Usurpations as the Pope and Cardinals exercised wherein he agreed to the Sentiments of all those that subscribed the necessary Erudition And now there remains little too be said of Ch. 2. for that which he says from a Statute primo Edw. 6. was brought in by a Parenthesis as not part of the intention of the Statute which was to be learnt from the Preamble viz. That the Election of Bishops should not be in the Deans and Chapters to prevent Delays and Expences but in the King So that it respects only the External Government of the Church which is still acknowledged to be in the determination of the Magistrate who is Supreme in all Causes and over all Persons And therefore it needed not that Reflection of Dr. Heylin which our Author mentioneth viz. That it did weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order Which as hath been proved from the Erudition and the Judgment of the Divines mentioned in Dr. Stillingfleet's Paper was from Christ As to Bishop Poynet the sum of what he says is this Who knows not that the Name Bishop hath been so abused that when it was spoken the People understood no other thing but a great Lord Where he seems to describe a Cardinal or Popish Bishop that went in a white Rochet with a wide shaven Crown and that carried an Oil-Box with him wherewith he useth once in Seven Years Riding about to Confirm Children Certainly he could not mean this of Diocesan Protestant Bishops he being then Bishop of Winchester and the Name of Bishop being thus abused he thought it not amiss if another word were used in its place till the abused word were restored to its right Signification and then adds O how the Papists would triumph over us if they had like proof for the Names of Pope Cardinal c. as we have for the maintenance of the Names Superintendent i. e. in his sense Bishop Minister and such-like by us used Ch. 3. He says That Aley Bishop of Exeter Pilkington of Durham Jewel of Salisbury Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury were of the same Opinion with Tindal Lambert and Barnes and the Reformers in King Edward's time and what that was hath been considered I only observe in general that all these were Diocesan Bishops and therefore probably would write nothing to destroy their own Order That which Bishop Aley says is a Quotation from St. Hierome That a Presbyter and Bishop are the same c. But saith Bishop Aley it grew by little and little that the whole charge and care should be appointed to one Bishop within his Precinct Our Author mentions another Quotation from the Bishop out of St. Hierome viz. That Bishops are greater than Priests rather by Custome than by Dispensation from
the Lord of which hereafter To the same effect he quotes Pilkington Bishop of Durham arguing against a Popish Author and therefore probably against Popish Bishops and he says That God's Commission is alike to all Priest Bishop Archbishop and Prelate for which he quotes St. Hierome ad Evagrium That a Bishop where-ever he be is of the same Power and Priesthood which he urged against those that still claimed their Bishop of Rome usurped Power above Princes and other Bishops who as this Bishop says had no Authority to Suspend Deprive and Interdict any Priest that paid not his Subsidies but from the Parliament I cannot see what inference the Author can make from this to favour his Opinion The sum of what Bishop Jewel says is that of St. Hierome That all Priests are of the same Power that the Names of Metropolitans Archbishops Archdeacons c. are not found in the SS That St. Hierome says Sciant Episcopi that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custome than by Order of God's Truth And against Harding he says What meant Mr. Harding to come in with the difference between Priests and Bishops thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition or is it so humble a Heresie to say that by the SS of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one He grants also That it is by the favour of Princes that a Priest being found negligent c. he may be punished by the discretion of the Bishop That the Matters of Government must be taken out of the Word of God viz That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in Quietness and Order That the Officers whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in SS but left to the discretion of the Church according to the state of Times Places and Persons and therefore no certain and perfect kind of Government being prescribed in SS as necessary to the Salvation of the Church the same may be altered For which he quotes Gualter Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the people and most fit for the time and place and let no Man rashly prescribe to others and bind all Churches to one Form It is well known that the Manner and Form of Government in the Apostles times and expressed in the SS neither is now nor can nor ought to be observed This he wrote against Cartwright pleading for his Government as if prescribed in SS and thus he applies it to the then Dissenters If you will have the Queen Rule as Monarch in her own Dominions you must give her leave to use one kind and form of Government in all and every part and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as in Civil I wish they would follow his Example and Advice that so seem to recommend his Judgment Ch. 4. begins with Dr. Willet's Opinion who says That of the difference between Bishops and Priests there are Three Opinions the first of Arrius who held that all Ministers should be equal and that a Bishop was not nor ought to be superiour to a Priest nor was there any difference at all between them Which Opinion was counted an Heresie N. B. The Second in the other extream is of the Papists That would have not only a difference but a Princely Preheminence of their Bishops over the Clergy and that by the Word of God. The Third Opinion between both is That although this distinction of Bishops and Priests as now received cannot be directly proved out of SS yet it is very good for the Polity of the Church to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity And he concludes 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 notable difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church and the Reformed Churches Let every Church use the Form which best fitteth their State in External Matters N. B. Every Church is free not one bound to the Prescription of another So they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word This then he says may without any contradiction be affirmed that in this distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is somewhat Apostolical somewhat also Political First in the calling of Bishops as now ordained in some Reformed Church it cannot be denied but that we have Order in the Church and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations to avoid Confusion proceeds from an Institution of Christ that there should not be a popular Equality but a convenient Superiority and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel as St. Paul also sheweth First Apostles second Prophets c. Secondly There is somewhat Politick and that of two sorts as touching the Polity Ecclesiastical and Civil To the Ecclesiastical in advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things appertain 1. St. Hierome says of Confirmation That it is committed only to Bishops that it is rather for the honour of the Priesthood then by necessity of any Law. 2. The Council of Aquisgrane ch 8 saith That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the chief Minister only for Authority's-sake lest that the Discipline of the Church being changed by many should break the Peace of the Church 3. The Author of the Book under Hierome's Name De Septem Ordinibus saith That the Consecration of Virgins which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches was reserved to the Bishop for Concord's sake 4. The Jurisdiction of the Church which in times past Hierome says was committed to the Colledge of Presbyters was afterwards to avoid Schism devolved to the Bishop Among other Inferences from Dr. Willet he concludes That Willet indeed saith that for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical And at the latter end of Queen Eligabeth the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution And as to Saravia our Author gives his Judgment in these two particulars differing from Whitgift 1. That not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirmed by the Fathers ought to be continued forever 2. The Superiority in degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter is a Divine Institution and that St. Hierome was in the same Error with Arrius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronimi Opinionem consentaneam cum Arrio Dei verbo contrariam The last that he mentioneth in this Ch. is Bishop Bancroft who says We have a Church-Government which in my Conscience is truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other received this day in any Reformed Church in Christendome And after the Death of the
Apostles who did oversee both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents Ecclesiastical Histories and ancient Fathers have kept a Register of their Names who Succeeded and Ruled the Churches after them And this inequality hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted and by all the General Councils and by all other Men of Learning for many hundred Years after the Apostles time saving Arrius the Heretick who missing of a Bishoprick that he shed for first broached the Opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest N. B. That which Bishop Bancroft notes from Dr. Robinson is this I have maintain'd that the Titles of Honour given to our Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word than for us to be called Wardens or Presidents of Colledges and in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governors of their Diocess as we being Ministers may Govern Colledges of Mrnisters Nor do I think this was a late devised Polity for I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom St. John writes was one Minister set over the rest for why seeing there were many Pastors there should St. John write to the Angel and not to the Angels if there had been no difference among them neither if this Presidency had had that fault which is reproved in Diotrephes would our Saviour who reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence therefore as Titus was left in Greet to reform the Churches in that whole Island so I am perswaded that in other Places some of that Order and of Pastors and Teachers which is perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles and had a Prelacy among their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And to come lower tho' the word Episcopus signifieth that care which is required of all and be in SS required of all that have care of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer wherein that word doth not import a greater Dignity than is common to all Ministers neither do I think that any old Writer did under the Name of Bishop mean the Pastor of every Parish Thus Dr. Robinson with whom if Dr. Raynolds do agree I see not saith he whether the Factioners will turn them for this Doctor in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet among those was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and this is he whom after in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. He proceeds thus The Name of Bishop common before to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual Language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over the Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had fallen in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised with them and others These Two are for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers speaking of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion Dr. Fulke who in confutation of the Rbemish Testament says Among the Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was always one Principal to whom by long use of the Church the Name of Bishop or Superintendant hath been applied which room Titus exercised in Creet Timothy in Ephesus and others in other places therefore altho' in SS a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preacling the Word and Administring the Sacraments as Hierome doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech he is onely called a Bishop which is in SS so called Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chief in Government to whom the Ordination or Consecration by Imposition of Hands was always principally committed which most Ancient Form of Government when Arrius would take away it was noted among his other Errors So I hereby trust it may appear to Mr. Cartwright's reproach and to all their shames that shall pretend any Authority from the Ancient Fathers to impugne the Right Honourable and Lawful Calling of Bishops not Parsons in every Parish but Bishops in their Diocess and Province appointed in the Apostles times for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ As to Bishop Spotwood's History of Scotland p. 514 concerning the Ordination of the Three Scots Bishops in King James's time Bishop Andrews urged That it might not be done because they were not duly made Presbyters i. e. by Bishops but the Archbishop considering that this might reflect on the Reformed Churches that had no Bishops which was the condition also of Scotland where Episcopal Ordination could not be had it was dispensed with But this is not the Case of our Dissenters who refuse Episcopal Ordination where it may be had and set up the Presbyterian against it Ch. 5. Begins with the Judicious Mr. Hooker from whom after a long Quotation he infers p. 37. That the Polity in general be necessary to the Church yet it is not necessary that any one Temporal Polity be in the SS This being the Position of the Non-Cons Mr. Hooker makes this use of it You cannot so much as pretend to this ground that all the parts of your Discipline are in SS and your Mouths are stopt when you plead against all other Forms seeing their Polity may be agreeable to the general Axiomes of SS as well as yours And therefore he says The best way for our Cause and the strongest against them is to hold as the Non-Cons do that in SS there must needs be found some particular Form of Church-Government which God hath instituted and belongs to all Churches at all times but by partiality and cunning to make those things truest which are fittest to serve our purpose is what we neither like nor mean to follow In p. 38. Mr. Hooker says First That in the Clergy there have ever been and ought to be some subordinate to others as the Apostles in the beginnig and to Bishops ever since as in SS and all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers have been Secondly That a solemn admittance viz. of Ministers into the Church is of such necessity that without it there can be no Church Polity These he says are the perpetual and principal parts in Ecclesiastical Polity And this is all that Mr. J. H. hath noted out of those Books of Mr. Hooker which are generally allowed to be genuine which being not much for his purpose he goes to the Seventh Book and there he finds this discription of a Bishop A Bishop is a Minister of God to whom with permanent continuance not only a Power of Administring the Word and Sacraments is given which other Presbyters have but a farther Power to Ordain Ecclesiastical Persons and a Power of
the Ordinary of the place where he had such knowledge or to any of her Majesty's Privy Council the same person shall not for his former concealment be hereafter molested or troubled Given at her Majesty's Palace at Westminster the thirteenth of February 1588. In the One and thirtieth Year of her Highness Reign GOD SAVE THE QUEEN Arch-bishop Grindall exprest in a Letter of his his great fear of two things viz. Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions by these means the Enemies of our Religion gain this that nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion whose every part is not opposed by one or other of her own Professors so that things continuing loose and confused the Papists have their Opportunity to urge their way which is attended with Order and Government And our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided some vile wretches lay hold on the Argument on one side to confute the other and so at last to destroy all And it is observed in the Life of Mr. Hooker p. 9. they perswaded men to believe that the Bishops were Antichrist and Antichrist was to be destroyed by the Sword and beginning with Petitions they proceeded to Admonitions then to Remostrances then to numbring their Party then to that boldness that one told the Queen in a Sermon She was like an untamed Heifer that would not be ruled by God's people but obstructed his Discipline And we have heard and seen worse things in our days Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to T. C. p. 605. tells the Puritans That the Papists could not have met with better Proctors than they And 55. That they did the Pope very good Service and that he would not miss them for any thing for what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath accursed utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Foreign means yet by Domestical Dissention And what fitter Instruments could he have had for that purpose who under pretence of Zeal overthrow that which other men have builded under colour of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloak of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over their Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church and that they were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church even by these mens Folly which they could not compass by all their Policy The Epistle of the Arch-bishop to the Reader before his Defence of the Answer to T. C's Admonition is worth pernsal As for Bishop Bancroft the whole design of his Book is to manifest what disturbance the endeavours of the Presbyterians to establish their Eldership did create in the Nation by such dangerous Positions and Practices as were in his time with equal violence and malice carried on for the destruction of the Church as it was then established There are some other of the mentioned Divines whose Writings I have not nor is there need to enquire farther into them seeing there is nothing alledged from them by Mr. J. H. but what being compared with their other sayings and practices doth fully frustrate his designs And when the Bishops of our Church do so ingenuously mention all that may be said for their Adversaries with so much Veracity Candor and Moderation what a Reproach is it to their Opponents to deal with them with so much Scorn and Contempt such Bitterness and Passion such Slanders and Falshoods as too many do and as T. C. did with the Archbishop Whitgift whom Queen Elizabeth called her black Husband and upheld him against the Contrivances and contrary Designs of Lechester and those Conformists whom he favoured to promote his own Sacrilegious ends As for Mr. Hooker whom Bishop King calls Malleum Hereticorum who was as meek and modest a man as well as judicious as any in his Generation he did profess to the Arch-bishop See p. 17. of his Life That he believed his Adversary Mr. Travers to be a good man and that occasioned him to examine his own Conscience concerning his Opinions and to satisfie that he consulted the Holy Scripture and other Laws Humane and Divine whether the Conscience of him and others of his judgment ought so far to be complyed with as to alter the frame of Church-Government and manner of Worship and Ceremonies as oft as their tender Consciences shall require it in which examination he had not only satisfied himself but begun his Ecclesiastical Polity for the satisfaction of others which he justly calls a Demonstration of the Reasonableness of our Ecclesiastical Laws and a hopeful Foundation for the Churches Peace and not to provoke either Mr. T. C. the Arch-bishop's Adversary nor Mr. Travers whom saith Mr. Hooker I take to be mine not mine Enemy God knows this to be my meaning Yet his Adversaries that could not answer his Arguments contrived to blot his Reputation and accused him of Incontinency which by a Trepan as the Author of his Life relates p. 22. they endeavoured to fasten on him he kept this Grief to himself many Months with great anxiety until he revealed it to Mr. Edwin Sands and George Cranmer who had been his Pupils who enquiring into the Imposture so followed it that they brought his Accusers to open Confession and Punishment which Punishment he endeavoured to prevent but was denied at which he replyed That however he would Fast and Pray that God would give them Repentance and Patience to undergo their Punishment and the first part was granted if we may believe saith my Author the penitent Behaviour and open Confession of his Accuser How his Adversaries dealt with his Books after his Death is thus related That one Mr. Clark and another Minister desired of his Widow a Month after his Death to search his Study for some Papers wherof they burnt some and tore others but Dr. Jackson having transcribed some draught of his three last Books they were compleated by Dr. Spencer who was acquainted with the Design of those Books The Doctor left them with Dr. King Bishop of Londo and he to his Son Bishop of Chichester he to Dr. Abbot Arch-bishop of Canterbury in whose Library they continued till the Death of Arch-bishop Laud and then the Library was given to Hugh Peters for his good Services and then many alterations and additions were made in them to make them speak for the power of the People above the King for which when the Lord Say quoted Hooker's Authority to King Charles the First he replyed That the Books were not Hooker's but however he would consent to what was proposed out of those doubted Books if that Lord would consent to Mr. Hooker 's Judgment in those Books which were undoubted The same may I say concerning the Judgment of such Divines as Mr. J. H. hath quoted we will stand to what is but weakly and impertinently quoted from those Divines