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
to be a Pastor and Feed my sheep He sayes moreover c. 6. p. 28. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the word of God and his holy Sacraments do not give any power to this or any other Sacrament but onely to dispense them Now to dispense a Sacrament is not to consecrate it for it must be consecrated before it can be dispensed by like reason cannot Pasce oves meas give any Episcopal Order to S. Peter for to command to feed is not to consecrate and S. Peter must have a power to feed before he can be commanded to feed my sheep P. 28. Again he sayes be thou a faithfull dispenser c. give no power c. and have thou authority c. give no power of Order but of Jurisdiction and therefore Pasce oves meas give none for they onely command and refer to Jurisdiction not Order or Consecration The Pope therefore nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome are Bishops Ordine from Pasce oves meas nor from the form by which our Saviour ordained the Apostles he sayes and thefore no Bishops Ordine which was the thing propounded Well but suppose Pasce oves meas did endue S. Peter with Episcopal Order yet cannot the Pope nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome from hence derive it for being a Divine Institution it cannot be conferred or ordained but by such means as God did institute and ordain it but neither the Pope nor any Bishops in the Church of Rome are consecrated or ordained by this form and therefore are not Bishops Ordine by virtue of it So then take Pasce oves meas to be essential or not essential to the conferring of Episcopal Order yet hence cannot the Pope nor any Bishops in the Church of Rome derive any Episcopal Order CHAP. II. Asserting the Order of Bishops in the Church of England BUt though Erastus Senior out of his charity to others hath argued himself and party into a Heathenish state and reduced them into the same condition he intended us of the Church of England in his Preface yet will not I grant the form used in the Church of England to be insufficient for the consecrating of Bishops of giving Episcopal Order for since it is evident the Apostles did exercise this Order or Power yet were endued with it by no other form then that used in our Church how much better is it to apply this form being instituted by our Saviour to one presented to the Consecrators as a Bishop elect and after examination and prayers as for a Bishop elect and as called to the office of a Bishop and after Consecration to exhort him as a Pastor or Bishop then to alter it into any other thereby making it doubtfull whether it be done or not as if any Creature were wiser then God and would dare to mend what God has made But certainly it is most abominably done of Erastus Senior P. 11. equivocally and cantingly to deny this form of our Saviour used in his Church as well as ours to be any essential part of their form which I believe no ingenuous man besides himself in his Church will doe and to affirm that the prayers of Propitiare Domine c. anciently called the Benediction and used ever since S. Peter's time in their Consecration Physicè non moralitèr loquendo and no wayes essential to the Consecration but of later time altered by his Church should give that which onely God could do unless he will make himself or Church equal to God to abrogate or make what God has made a vain thing and set up what himself and his party think fit above it or instead of it If there be any defect in our Ordination Erastus with much more ingenuity might have charged it upon our Saviour for instituting it then upon our Church for imitating it CHAP. III. Proving that neither the Pope nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome granting Erastus Senior's Reasons for true are Bishops Jurisdictione ERastus Senior sayes P. 3◠none can give a Jurisdiction which he hath not hence he sayes it is that no number of Bishops can validly confirm or consecrate the Bishop of any Diocese but the Metropolitane of the Province must be one nor the Metropolitane of a Province but the Primate of a Nation nor the Primate of a Nation but the Patriarch of that part of the World or some person having faculty from him and in the next page he sayes the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and the undoubted rightfull Metropolitane to the Primate of this Nation and therefore no Bishop can validly confirm or consecrate the Primate of this Nation but the Bishop of Rome If it be true which Erastus Senior sayes that none can give a Jurisdiction which he hath not then if he cannot shew in the intervals of the Papacy some who may give this supreme Patriarchal power or Headship of the Church to the Pope then can neither the Pope have it nor any Primate Metropolitane or Bishop derive any Jurisdiction from him and by consequence neither the Pope nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome are Bishops Jurisdictione I say it is impossible any such Primacy as is pretended by Erastus Senior can be in the Pope for admitting that our Saviour did endue S. Peter with a Primacy above the other Apostles and that he was Bishop of Rome and the Popes his rightful Successors yet cannot this Primacy be transferred to any of them for Extraordinaria potestas non transit in successorem After S. Peter's death none of the Apostles having this Primacy could give it to another for as Erastus sayes None can give a Jurisdiction to another which he hath not The Pope of Rome therefore not having this Primacy no Primate of a Nation can receive Jurisdiction from him nor the Metropolitane any from the Primate nor any Bishop from the Metropolitane and therefore from Erastus Senior's Reasons neither the Pope nor any Bishop in the Church of Rome are Bishops Jurisdictione Although at first I designed no more then to shew from Erastus Senior's Reasons there is neither Order nor Jurisdiction in the Church of Rome and to assert the Order and Jurisdiction of our Bishops in the Church of England yet cannot I but take notice how ignorantly I will say no more he affirms Bishops to be consecrated to their Bishopricks and that the Pope was Founder of the See of Canterbury For no Bishop is consecrated into his Bishoprick but invested or installed and originally Bishopricks with us in England were donative per traditionem baculi i.e. the Crosier which was the Pastoral staff annuli the Ring whereby he was married to the Church Coke com Lit. 344. Sect. 648. and therefore if the meanest Bishop of Jurisdiction in the world be elected to the Papacy he is no more consecrated nay though he be one sine titulo yet he is never more consecrated though made Primate Patriarch or Pope
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