the Polity of the Church appears to me to be thus That tho' Polity in general be necessary to the Church yet it 's not necessary that any one compleat Form of Church Polity be in Scripture Besides it 's his conclusion Sect. 10. p. 82. That neither God's being Author of Laws for Government of his Church nor his committing them unto Scripture is any reason sufficient wherefore all Churches should for ever be bound to keep them without change Again if we did seek to maintain that which most advantageth our own Cause the very best way for us and the strongest against them viz. The Noncons were to hold even as they do That in Scripture there must needs be found some particular Form of Church Polity which God hath instituted and which for that very cause belongeth to all Churches to all times But with any such partial Eye to respect our selves and by cunning to make those things seem the truest which are the fittest to serve our purpose is a thing which we neither like nor mean to follow Wherefore that which we take to be generally true concerning the Mutability of Laws the same we have plainly delivered as being perswaded of nothing more than we are of this that whether it be in matter of Speculation or of Practice no Vntruth can possibly avail the Patron and Defender long and that things most Truly are likewise most behovefully spoken Sect. 11. p. 90. And to make manifest that from Scripture we offer not to derogate the least thing that truth thereunto doth claim in as much as by us it is willingly confess'd that the Scripture of God is a Storehouse abounding with inestimable Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge in many kinds yea even that matters of Ecclesiastical Polity are not therein omitted but taught also albeit not so taught as those other things before-mentioned For so perfectly are those things taught that nothing ever can need to be added nothing ever cease to be necessary These on the contrary side as being of a far other nature and Quality not so strictly nor everlastingly commanded in Scripture but that unto the compleat Form of Church-Polity much may be requisite which the Scripture teacheth not and much which it hath taught become unrequisite sometime because we need not use it sometimes also because we cannot In which respect for my own part altho' I see that certain Reformed Churches the Scottish especially and French have not that which best agreeth with the Sacred Scriptures I mean the Government which is by Bishops inasmuch as both these Churches are faln under a different kind of Regiment which to remedy it is for the one altogether too late and to soon for the other during their present Affliction and Trouble He adds The Matters wherein Church-Polity is conversant P. 92. are the Publick religious Duties of the Church as the Administration of the Word and Sacraments Prayers Spiritual Censures and the like To these the Church stands always bound Laws of Polity are Laws which appoint in what manner these Duties shall be performed In their performance the first thing in Polity required is a Difference of Persons in the Church without which difference those Functions cannot in orderly sort be executed Hereupon we hold That God's Clergy are a State which hath been and will be as long as there is a Church upon Earth necessary by the plain Word of God himself Again where the Clergy are any great Multitude Order doth necessarily require that by Degrees they be distinguished we hold there have ever been and ever ought to be in such case at leastwise two sorts of Ecclesiastical Persons the one subordinate unto the other as to the Apostles in the begining and to Bishops always since we find plainly both in Scripture and in all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments have been Moreover it cannot enter into any man's conceit to think it lawful that every man which listeth should take upon him charge in the Church and therefore a Solemn Admittance is of such necessity that without it there can be no Church-Polity These are the Principal and Perpetual parts in Ecclesiastical Polity Thus much in the Third Book where he looks on Church-Polity in the general and some special parts thereof such as a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters and a Subordination of the Presbyter to the Bishop to be agreeable to the Word of God but no compleat form of Church Polity to be found in the Scripture neither are all the Laws of God concerning the Government of the Church Immutable and Everlasting We must go to the Seventh Book for a more distinct account of the Office of a Bishop and the difference between him and a Presbyter where 't is thus But to let go the Name Bishop and to come to the very Nature of that thing Lib. 7. Sect. 2. pag. 5. which is thereby signified in all kinds of Regiment whether Ecclesiastical or Civil as there are sundry Operations Publick so likewise great Inequality there is in the same Operations some being of Principal respect and therefore not fit to be dealt in by every one to whom Publick Actions and those of Good Importance are notwithstanding well and fitly enough committed From hence have grown those different Degrees of Magistrates or Publick Persons even Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Amongst Ecclesiastical Persons therefore Bishops being Chief ones a Bishop's Function must be defined by that wherein his Chiefty consisteth A Bishop is a Minister of God unto whom with permanent continuance there is given not only Power of administring the Word and Sacraments which Power other Presbyters have but also a further Power to Ordain Ecclesiastical Persons and a Power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay-men A Power to be by way of Jurisdiction a Pastor even to Pastors themselves Those things incident unto the Bishop's Office which do properly make him a Bishop cannot be common unto him with other Pastors Now even as Pastors so likewise Bishops being Principal Pastors aâ—e either at Large or else with Restraint At Large when the subject of their Regiments is indefinite and not tied to any certain Place Bishops with Restraint are they whose Regiment over the Church is contained within some definite local compass beyond which compass their Jurisdiction reacheth not such therefore we always mean when we speak of that Regiment by Bishops which we hold a thing most Lawful Divine and Holy in the Church of Christ But what doth He mean by Chiefty in Government In answer unto this he tells us how far the old Noncons went in the grant of an Inequality and how much further He goeth They which cannot brook saith he the Superiority which Bishops have Sect. 3. p. 6. do notwithstanding themselves admit that some kind of Difference and Inequality there may be lawfully amongst Ministers Inequality touching Gifts and Graces they grant Again a Priority of Order they
deny not but that there may be yea such a Priority as maketh one man amongst many a Principal Actor in those things whereunto sundry of them must necessarily concur so that the same be admitted only during the time of such Actions and no longer The Inequality they complain of is That one Minister of the Word and Sacraments should have a permanent Superiority above another or in any sort a Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over other Ministers Thus you see how far the old Noncons could go and no farther and immediately after he tells us how much farther the Church of England at that time went for says he By Vs on the contrary side Inequality even such Inequality as unto Bishops being Ministers of the Word and Sacraments is granted a Superiority Permanent above Ministers yea a Permanent Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over them is maintained a thing Allowable Lawful and Good. In two things Hooker differs from the old Noncons 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary Hooker makes it Permanent 2. They deny the Bishops having a Power over other Pastors that is Mandatory Judicial and Coercive Hooker affirms it There is one thing more to be enquired into viz. whether He grants to Presbyters the Pastoral Office He calls them Pastors and in his very definition of a Bishop makes the Bishop to be a Pastor of Pastors and of Presbyters and he calls the Bishop but Principal Pastor and makes him to have a Chiefty in Regiment above Presbyters as if he held that the Presbyter had some tho' not so great a share in the Government and out of Austin That a Bishop is a Presbyter Superior and in several places a Bishop is of a Higher Degree than a Presbyter And altho' in his Third Book he makes the Episcopal Office to be a part of Church Polity perpetual as tho' the Episcopacy had been de jure Divino and Immutable yet in this Seventh Book in clearing the sense of St. Jerom he is expresly against the Immutability and Unchangeableness of the Bishop's Superiority as if he held it to be Apostolical in the same manner Bishop Downame doth of whom hereafter The words of St. Hierom on which he puts his own Comment are these As therefore Presbyters do know that the Custom of the Church makes them subject to the Bishop which is set over them so let Bishops know that Custom rather than the Truth of any Ordinance of the Lord's maketh them greater than the rest and that with Common Advice they ought to Govern the Church To this Hooker replies To clear the sense of these words therefore Laws which the Church from the beginning universally hath observ'd were some delivered by Christ himself with a Charge to keep them to the worlds End as the Law of Baptizing and administring the Holy Eucharist some brought in afterwards by the Apostles yet not without the special Direction of the Holy Ghost as occasions did arise Of this sort are those Apostolical Orders and Laws whereby Deacons Widows Virgins were first appointed in the Church This Answer to St. Hierom seemeth dangerous I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint yet I satisfie not my self in my Judgment it would be altered Now whereas Jerom doth term the Government of Bishops by restraint an Apostolical Tradition acknowledging thereby the same to have been the Apostles own Institution it may be demanded how these two will stand together namely That the Apostles by Divine Instinct should be as Jerom confesseth the Authors of that Regiment and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted for so by Jerom it may seem to be in this place accounted the Chiefest prop that upholdeth the same To this we answer That as much as the whole Body of the Church hath Power to ALTER with general consent and upon necessary occasions even the Positive Laws of the Apostles if there be no Commandment to the contrary and it manifestly appears to her that change of times have clearly taken away the very reason of God's first Institution as by sundry Examples may be most clearly proved what Laws the Universal Church might change and doth not if they have long continued without any alteration it seemeth that St. Jerom ascribeth the continuance of such Positive Laws tho' instituted by God himself to the Judgment of the Church For they which might Abrogate a Law and do not are properly said to Uphold to Establish it and to give it Being The Regiment therefore whereof Jerom speaketh being Positive and consequently not absolutely necessary but of a Changeable Nature because there is no Divine Voice which in express words forbiddeth it to be changed He might imagine both that it came by the Apostles by very Divine Appointment at the first and notwithstanding after a sort said to stand in force rather by the Custom of the Church choosing to continue it than by the necessary constraint of any Commandment from the Word requiring Perpetual Continuance thereof Thus Hooker who a little after says Bishops albeit they may avouch with Conformity of Truth that their Authority hath thus descended even from the very Apostles themselves yet the Absolute and Everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any Commandment of the Lord doth injoyn And therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath Power by Universal Consent upon urgent cause to take it away if thereunto she be constrained through the Proud Tyrannical and unreformable Dealings of her Bishops Wherefore lest Bishops forget themselves as if none on Earth had Authority to touch their States let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of Custom whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the Regiment of her vertuous Bishops doth still uphold maintain and honour them in that respect than that any such true and Heavenly Law can be shewed by the Evidence whereof it may of a Truth appear That the Lord himself hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Bishops in what sort soever they behave themselves This Answer of the Learned Hooker makes it manifest that tho' he held the Institution of Episcopal Superiority to be Apostolical yet he was not of Opinion that 't was unalterable And altho' he held it Apostolical yet suggests as if there had been a Church Government instituted before the Episcopal took place The Apostles of our Lord says he did according unto those Directions which were given them from above erect Churches in all such Cities as received the Word of Truth the Gospel of God All Churches by them erected received from them the same Faith the same Sacraments the same Form of Publick Regiment The Form of Regiment established by them at first was That the Laity or People should be subject unto a College of Ecclesiastical Persons which were in every such City appointed for that purpose These in their Writings
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
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 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
very many Churches As the number of Christians grew and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within every one of their Circuits they placed Pastors in every Congregation they ordained certain Apostolical men to be Chief Assisters unto them whom they placed some one in this particular Country and some others in sundry Cities to have the Rule and Oversight under them of the Churches there and to redress and supply such wants as were needful And they themselves after a while and as they grew in age and escaped the Cruelty of Tyrants remained for the most part in some Head City within their Compass to oversee them all both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents and to give their Directions as occasions required and as they thought it convenient When any of these Apostolical Assistants or of the Apostles themselves died there were ever some worthy Men chosen and appointed to succeed them in those Cities and Countries where they had remained For we may not idlely Dream that when they died the Authority which was given them ceased no more than we may that the Authority of Aaron and of his Natural Sons expired with them besides it is manifest by all Ecclesiastical Histories that many Churches were planted after their Deaths And furthermore it could not be but that some Churches especially under those Apostles that were soonest put to Death were when they died in the same case that Crete was when Titus was sent thither and had therefore as much need of a Titus as Crete had Furthermore who can be accounted to be well in his wits that will imagine that Christ should ordain such an Authority but for some Threescore years especially the same Causes continuing why it was first instituted that were before Nay I may boldly say that there was greater need for the continuance of it afterward For the Apostles having so great Power to work Miracles and by their Prayers to procure from God such strange Executions of his Pleasure upon the contemptuous as did fall upon Ananias and his Wife and I doubt not but in like cases sometimes upon some others their Ruling and Commanding Authority was not so necessary then as it was afterwards when the Power to work Miracles ceased But what should I need to use many words in a matter so apparent After the Death of the Apostles and of their Assistants viz. the Bishops placed by them as is mentioned the Ecclesiastical Histories and the Ancient Fathers have kept the Register of their Names that succeeded sundry of them and ruled the Churches after them as they before had ruled them Whereupon they were called from all Antiquity the Apostles and Apostolical man's Successors This Inequality in the Ministry of the Word hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted by all the General Councils that ever were held in Christendom and by all other Men of Learning that ever I heard of for many Hundred years after the Apostles time saving that Aerius the Heretick an ambitious Person growing into great rage for that he missed of a Bishoprick which he sued for first broached the Opinion which is now so currant amongst his Scholars that there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest Thus Bancroft who seems to be of the same mind with Saravia about the Apostolicalness of the Inequality and that he means no more P. 390. seems clear from what he urges out of Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynold's and Fulk in favour of his own Opinion and his holding Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be valid I have saith Robinson maintained it in the Pulpit D. Robins Answ Exhib to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Titles of Honour which we give to Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word of God than it is for us to be called Wardens Presidents Provosts of Colleges And in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governours of their Diocess as we being Ministers may be Governours of Colleges of Ministers Neither do I think that this was a late devised Policy For I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom S. John writeth was one Minister set over the rest For seeing there were many Pastors there why should S. John write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and not rather to the Angels if there had been no difference amongst them And if this Presidency had had that Fault which is reproved in Diotrephes as St. Hierom proveth that the Jews had not corrupted the Original Text before Christ's coming Quod nunquam Dominus Apostoli qui caetera crimina arguunt in Sâ—ribis Pharisaeis de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent So I may say neither would our Saviour who by his Servant reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence Therefore as Titus was left to Reform the Churches throughout the whole Island of Crete so I am perswaded that in other places some of that Order of Pastors and Teachers which is Perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles had a Prelacy amongst their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And if we come any lower tho' the word Episcopus signifie that care which is required of all and in Scripture be applied to all that have charge of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer that I have read 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 And thus far Dr. Robinson with whom if Master Dr. Reynolds do agree I see not whither the Factioners will turn them For this Dr. in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus tho' it had sundry Elders and Pastors He useth these two words in one signification as by the Sentence going before is manifest to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. 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 Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had faln in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised of it with them and others Here then you have two for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers when they speak of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion I mean Dr. Fulke who in his Confutation of the Rhemish Notes upon the New Testament writeth thus Amongst the
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'
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