A SCHOLASTICALL DISCOURSE Demonstrating this Conclusion That admitting Erastus Senior's Reasons for true neither the Pope nor those called Bishops in the Church of Rome are Bishops either in Order or Jurisdiction Wherein is answered All which is alledged by Erastus Senior against the Order and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of ENGLAND ALSO A Defence of the Order and Jurisdiction of the Bishops in the Church of ENGLAND By R. C. LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. Royston Bookseller to His most SACRED MAjESTY 1663. PREFACE to the READER MEn in avoiding Scylla usually fall upon Charybdis But the Nation is wiser I hope having avoided the Irreligion Profaneness of the late times then now to run into Popery although many fear there is more then an ordinary designe tending thereunto To facilitate which is newly crept abroad a Champion of the Roman-Catholick Cause under the title of Erastus Senior who in charity to others will not allow so much charity to our Bishops in the Church of England as to be so much as Legal But if his zeal the Roman Cause or charity to other men hath so far dilated his reasons that they conclude as much against the Pope and Bishops in the Church of Rome as he intended them against ours in the Church of England he shall have no great cause to triumph nor his Church much reason to thank him in that he has made himself and Church as very Heathens as he designed us of the Church of England Imprimatur M. Franck S.T.P. R.D. Ep. Lond. à Sac. Dom. Nov. 27. 1662. CHAP. I. Proving from Erastus Senior's Reasons that neither those called Bishops in the Church of Rome nor the Pope himself are Bishops Ordine TO the perfection of all powers whether Spiritual Natural or Legal these two things are necessary Jus Exercitium these I think Erastus Senior calls Order and Jurisdiction or Office the former may be without the latter nay it must be afore the latter can be Therefore a King must be by right or order before he can rightfully exercise any Regal Authority or Power so must a Bishop or Priest be by right or order before he can justly exercise any Episcopal or Sacerdotal Jurisdiction and so Parents Husbands Magistrates and Masters of Families are endued with a right or power before they can exercise any Jurisdiction over their Children Wives Fellow-subjects or Servants That Kings Husbands and Parents are endued with a right or power from the Law of Nature and Magistrates and Masters of Families from the Municipal Lawes of every place where they do exercise them hath been asserted by us elsewhere That Episcopal Order or right is a Divine Institution and founded by our Saviour and not by Nature or any Temporal or Civil Sanction is affirmed as well by Erastus Senior as us of the Church of England in the 9. chap. A Bishop then Ordine or by Right is he who is so made or ordained by such form and means as our Saviour hath instituted and by no other unless Erastus Senior will grant another a Divine Power which is Blasphemy A Bishop Jurisdictione or by Office we will call him who is possess'd of a Bishoprick So that Erastus and I will not differ who is a Bishop Ordine and who Jurisdictione Ours in the Church of England are no Bishops Ordine Erastus Senior sayes because the form of Ordination wants fit words to signifie the Order given The words are these Take thou the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of Hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness If this form be insufficient to the Ordination of Bishops in the Church of England then were not the Apostles Bishops by order for our Saviour used no other in their Ordination Nor were they made Bishops by these or any other Sacramental words with much confidence c. 3. p. 10. and no reason Erastus Senior sayes but onely S. Peter and that by these words Pasce oves meas What were none of the Apostles Bishops but onely S. Peter how then I pray came the Colledge of Apostles not Saint Peter to chuse S. Matthias to the Bishoprick of Judas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Judas had no Episcopal right or order Acts 1.20 how came all the Apostles not S. Peter to ordain S. Stephen Acts 6.5 and six other Deacons and how is it that S. Paul and Barnabas and not S. Peter Act. 14.23 did ordain Elders in every Church which without all contradiction were acts of Episcopal power Nay can any man believe Acts 8. that when S. Philip the Deacon had converted and baptized Samaria and given notice thereof to the Colledge of Apostles at Jerusalem that they being inferiour Apostles should upon Canonical Record send their superiour and only Bishop among them viz. S. Peter to administer their Decrees and joyn S. John in equal power with him Ver. 14. for sayes the Text They sent Peter and John to confirm them Ver. 17. and they laid their hands upon them and they received the holy Ghost or that S. Paul should publickly withstand S. Peter to his face in that wherein he was to be blamed if he had been any wayes inferiour to him either in Order or Power for however men may privately advise their Superiours yet no man can without Arrogance and contempt of Authority publickly withstand his Superiour Nor had alwayes S. Peter the precedency of name with the other Apostles for we read of James Gal. 2.9 Cephas and John which seemed c. Nay S. * The Lords brother B. B. of Ierusalem James though none of the twelve Apostles did preside in the Council of Jerusalem although Saint Peter and the other Apostles were members of it Well but if the form by which our Saviour did ordain the Apostles did not give them Episcopal order as Erastus Senior sayes let us see whether upon his own grounds Pasce oves meas could endue S. Peter with it I say it could not For if the form by which our Saviour did ordain his Apostles which was a form of Ordination viz. Receive the holy Ghost P. 2. c. were insufficient to confer Episcopal Order for want of fit words to signifie it as he sayes then much less can Pasce oves meas which not onely do not signifie the order given but are no form of Ordination at all but onely imperative and refer to Jurisdiction confer any upon S. Peter If our Saviour had ordained S. Peter in this sense it must have been by these or like words Accipe potestatem pascendi oves meas and that this is not my single sense but of Erastus Senior he sayes c. 2. p. 9. the exhortation to the Bishop consecrated to behave himself as a good Pastor does not give this Order and I pray what is the difference between I exhort thee
and indulge God's Church And if Sacriledge be a sin then is Oblation to God a vertue Quod datum est Ecclesiae datum est Deo By our Lawes all Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks within the Realm of England have been founded by the Kings of England and do hold of the King by Barony and have been all called by Writ to the Court of Parliament and are Lords of Parliament as among many take one notable Record Rot. 18. H. 3. Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Glocestriam die Sabbati in crastin Sanctae Katherinae firmiter inhibendo quòd sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent diligunt nullo modo presumant consilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam Regis pertinent vel quae Personam Regis vel statum suum vel statum Concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quòd si fecerint Rex indè se capiet ad Baronias suas Teste Rege apud Hereford Coke Com. Lit. p. 97. 23. Novemb. c. And see Com. Lit. 344. At first all Bishopricks in England were of the King's foundation and donation per traditionem baculi annuli King Henry the first being requested to make them elective refused it but King John by his Charter bearing date Quinto Julii Anno decimo septimo granted that the Bishopricks should be eligible So that at first all Bishopricks were not onely of the King's foundation and donation but persons to them are eligible from no other cause but the King's Charter Since therefore by God's Precept Kings ought to be nursing Fathers to Christ's Church and since all Bishopricks are of the King's foundation and since the persons of all the King's Subjects are in his dominion and power or otherwise every soul should not be subject to Higher Powers it will certainly follow Bishops rightfully invested and installed in their Bishopricks from the King may regularly exercise any Episcopal Act in their Diocese and none but such without apparent disobedience and contempt of the Laws of the King to which they ought to be subject CHAP. V. Answering the Reasons alledged by Erastus against the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of England ALthough Erastus Senior in the first Chap. would distinguish between a Bishop Ordine and Jurisdictione yet in the 9. chap. he does so confound different things as it is impossible without further explaining them to shew wherein Erastus begs the question and wherein he is mistaken Things which pertain to the Church are two-fold either as they are in themselves purely and simply spiritual in their Essence or as they accidentally have reference to the Church and in themselves are not purely and simply spiritual for example Blasphemy Apostasie from Christianity Heresie Schisme Holy Orders Admissions of Clerks Celebration of Divine Service Rights of Matrimony Divorces generall Bastardy Substraction and right of Tithes Oblations Obventions Dilapidations Excommunication Reparation of Church Probate of Testaments Administrations and Accounts upon the same Simonie Incests Fornication Adultery Solicitation of Chastity Pensions Procurations Appeals in Ecclesiastical cases Commutation of Penance are determined here with us by Ecclesiastical Judges So that there is a mix'd Conusance or Ecclesiastical Judicature viz. of things purely spiritual by which Ecclesiastical Judges are impowered to determine and that by no Humane Power but only as they are impowered by our Saviour and are his Ministers viz. of Ordination Consecration Excommunication Heresie c. and this power the Church and Ecclesiastical persons had before ever temporall Powers received the Gospel of Christ or were converted to Christianity But after it pleased God Kings were converted to Christianity I do not read nor ever heard of a State or Common-wealth that ever was then did Kings cherish and defend God's Church and endued it with many priviledges and immunities which erewhile was persecuted by them It is true no question but that originally all Bishopricks their bounds and the Division of Parishes and their Endowments the conusance of Tithes the Probation of Wills the granting Letters of Administration and Accounts upon the same the Right of Institution and Induction and Erection of all Ecclesiastical Courts c. were of the Kings foundation and donation also to him by all divine and humane Lawes belongs the care and preservation of all his Subjects in all cases none excepted And therefore not onely all those things which relate to the extern peace and quiet of the Church although exercised by Ecclesiastical persons but all those priviledges and immunities which the Church and Church-men have in a Church planted which the Apostles and primitive Christians in a Church planting had not are all originally grants of Kings and supreme Powers So that to the Installment of a Bishop in an endowed Bishoprick divers things are necessary viz. That he be a Priest rightly and truly ordained and consecrated a Bishop and this is a pure spiritual act but that he is elected to the Bishoprick confirmed invested installed in it are no spiritual acts but founded in the King however it may be they are executed by Ecclesiastical persons Erastus Senior now confounding the creation and institution of a Pastor C. 9. p. 34. whereas they are different for to create or consecrate a Pastor is a power of the Keyes but to institute him into a Bishoprick is a power of the King's in the same thing not onely begs a false question in making it a power of the Keyes but also falsely infers that the King cannot institute a Pastor to a See or Bishoprick which is purely and solely in him And therefore Queen Elizabeth might assign constitute and confirm Matthew Parker to the See of Canterbury nor could any but she do it If she were the rightful Queen of England which Erastus does not deny What needs Erastus Senior now take such pains to prove ten whole Pages together that our Bishops had no right to be confirmed constituted and assigned to their Bishopricks but from the King which none will deny him I cannot but take notice how Erastus having confounded Consecration here with Institution P. 7.3 makes confirming and consecrating of an Arch-bishop or Bishop to any See the same thing and purely spiritual whereas to consecrate an Arch-bishop or Bishop is one thing and purely spiritual and to confirm an Arch-bishop or Bishop in his See is another and temporal But I would advise Erastus to have a care lest he be not shent for affirming P. 40. that no Bishop Ordine can confirm or consecrate a Pastor for the being seized of a Bishoprick does not validate or invalidate any spiritual Act of a Bishop as to the essence of it and if Barlow and Scory's being suspended the exercise of their Jurisdiction in their Bishopricks of Bath and Chichester did invalidate their consecrating and confirming Matthew Parker because they were not actual Bishops of Cathedral Churches P. 42. as Erastus sayes then do I not see how any
Act of Vigilius the first when he was in exile and Rome in the possession of Totila could be valid Nor could Boniface the Eighth when he was taken prisoner by Philip the Fair and Rome possessed by him nor Clement 7. when Charles 5. had him prisoner and possessed Rome consecrate or confirm any Arch-bishop or Bishop for without doubt they then were not actual Bishops of Rome P. 42. For Erastus Senior's Objection that simple Bishops cannot give a Superiour or Metropolitane Jurisdiction is nothing to the purpose nor affirmed by us for though the Order of Bishops be a Divine Institution yet the extraordinary exercise of a Metropolitane in his Province being no wise purely spiritual but having onely reference to the extern peace of the Church is not so but from humane and temporary Laws I will not undertake to answer for all which is literally contained in the Oath of Supremacy C. 9 p. 32 or charged by Erastus Senior upon our Church-men taking it neither is it much to our purpose This I say that Queen Elizabeth by her Proclamation and after by her Injunctions did declare that she took nothing upon her more then what anciently of right did belong to the Crown of England Cam. Eliz. Reg. 39 40 viz. that she had supreme Power under God over all sorts of people within the Kingdome of England whether they be Ecclesiastical or Lay persons and that no Foraign power hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction over them and in this sense every man is allowed to take the Oath of Supremacy and I hope Erastus will not deny his Soveraign this power * See the Admonition to simple men in Q Eliz. Injunctions as they are set out with Dr. Sparrow's Preface p. 78. C. 11. p. 3â— Nor will I undertake to answer for all the acts of Princes whether they entrench upon the Power of the Keyes or not This I say that if Kings do entrench upon this power yet cannot this annihilate any act thereof being rightfully done And therefore admit King Jame's did authorizing other Bishops of his own appointing them to doe all acts pertaining to the power and authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury in causes or matters Ecclesiastical as amply fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as the said Archbishop might have done which without all doubt the King might do and that the Declaration of his now Majesty whom God grant long to reign over us touching affairs of Religion in which he deprives all the Archbishops and Bishops of this Land Erastus sayes of their power of sole ordaining and censuring their Presbyters and joyns their Presbyters in Commission with them as to the acts of Ordaining and Censuring did entrench upon the Ghostly Power yet could not this any wayes rescind the Order of any Priest or Bishop rightfully ordained and consecrated but Priests and Bishops rightfully ordained and consecrated are as much Priests and Bishops after such acts as before CONCLUSION Whether our Bishops be legal or not conduces not to the Question whether they be rightfully ordained for the Order of Bishops being a Divine Institution cannot suscipere majus aut minus a Bishop rightly ordained is as much a Bishop although all temporal powers did contradict it as if they allowed it It is loss of time therefore fore to examine and cross-examine all the Statutes alledged by Erastus whether they allow or not allow the Order of our Bishops And now let any man judge whether Erastas Senior has any great reason to boast in that his own Reasons have concluded the Pope and Bishop of Rome to be neither Bishops Ordine nor Jurisdictione Neither has he clearly alledged one right Reason against the Order or Jurisdiction of the Bishops in the Church of England but onely lost much time in endeavouring to prove them no Legal Bishops which to the essence of the Order of a Bishop is no wayes material THE END ERRATA In the Preface Line 12. read his zeal to