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
Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay-men a Power to be by way of Jurisdiction a Pastor even to Pastors themselves And the things which properly belong to a Bishop cannot be common to other Pastors and of Bishops restrained to some definite local compass he says their Regiment we hold to be a thing most Divine and Holy in the Church of Christ In two things J. H. notes that Hooker differs from the Non-Cons p. 40. 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary he makes it permanent 2. They deny the Bishops have any Power over other Pastors that is Mandatory Judicial and Coercive Mr. Hooker affirms it Then he shews how Mr. Hooker resolves a Sentence of St. Hierome which seems inconsistent with itself viz. How the Apostles should be the Authors of that Government i. e. Episcopacy and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted the chief Prop of it To which the substance of his Answer is That what Laws the Universal Church might change and doth not St. Hierome ascribes the continuance of such Laws tho' instituted by God himself to the Judgment of the Church for they which may abrogate a Law and do not may be said to establish it and seeing the whole Church receiving it for a Custome which was established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was in an abundant manner poured out for ordering of Christ's Church it had either Divine appointment before-hand or Divine approbation afterwards Now how Mr. J. H. could from these premises draw this following conclusion I cannot perceive p. 44. Let there be saith he as many Bishopricks as there are considerable Personages and a Provision made for the Presbyters which are to assist the Bishops in the Government of the Churches and then a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters will be no longer a Bone of Contention The Sense whereof seems to me to be this Let the Presbyters in every Parish have all the Power that belongs to Bishops and then and not else they will be pleased But the Judicious Hooker would not have been so pleased with them that should have inferred this conclusion from any premises of his That which followeth our of Mr. Hooker's maimed Book is 1. That the Church Visible hath not ordinarily allowed any but Bishops alone to Ordain howbeit in some necessary Cases we may decline from the ordinary ways 2. That Confirmation hath not always belonged to the Bishops but in some places in the absence of the Bishop the Presbyter might Ordain 3. That the Presbyters are for the most part mentioned as Counsellors and Assistants to the Bishop The last Bishop whom he would constrain to help on his New Model is Bishop Bilson who says That to prevent Dissention and Confusion there must needs even by God's Ordinance be a President or Ruler of every Presbytery but that in the Apostles times the Presidentship should go round to every Presbyter by course this is the main point between us Then he says There are Four Things must be perpetual in the Church 1. The Dispensing of the Word And 2. Sacraments 3. Imposing of Hands 4. Guiding the Keyes to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first Two belong to all Pastors or Presbyters but it belongs to some selected persons who succeed in the Apostles places to moderate the Presbyters of each Church and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands And this singularity in succeeding and superiority in ordaining hath been observed from the Apostles times as the peculiar and subsiantial Marks of Episcopal Power and Calling As to the Power of the Keyes the private use of them in appointing Offenders upon the acknowledgement of their sins to for bear the Lord's Table for a time we deny not to Presbyters but the Bishop is by Christ's own mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church the chief Steward of his Houshold to hear and determine Grievances with whom the Presbyters sate at first as Assessors but when Councils began only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgment and he adds that the right by imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops was at first derived from the Apostles to Bishops and not to Presbyters N. B. And for 1500 Years without instance or example to the contrary till this our Age remained in Bishops and not in Presbyters for which he quotes St. Hierome Quid faecit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter J. H. observes that whereas it is objected That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery he answers out of St. Chrysostom that by the word Presbytery in SS must be understood Bishops not Presbyters because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop And from this Bishop he adds All that we can say for Bishops above Presbyters out of SS is that the Holy Ghost by the mouth of St. Paul hath given the Bishop of each place Authority to Ordain the worthy to examine such as be faulty to reprove and discharge such as be guilty either of unsound Teaching or offensive Living and this he saith belongs to all Bishops of Christ's Church forever I have transcribed so much of these Quotations because the very repetition of them is a confutation of that Design which Mr. H. attempts and will shew it to be not a healing but a very hurtful Attempt as precluding that way of Peace and Reconciliation which is generally intended if the unreasonable Demands of some unquiet Men do not put a bar to it Thus saith Mr. J. H. I have gone through the principal Writers about Church Government in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign And indeed he hath cull'd out such Foundations on which he would build his Hay and Stubble as will no way suit with them I shall not prepossess the Reader with the inferences which J. H. would force from them but leave every Man to consider whether he can fix his Half-sheet Model on these Concessions and now briefly inform the Reader of the Judgment of some of these Divines and some States-men what Qualifications he and such Master-Builders are endowed with for the Building of a Temple fit for the Publick Worship of God and our Saviour And I shall begin with The Speech of the Lord Keeper Puckering to the House of Lords by Order of Queen Elizabeth ESpecially you are commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no ear be given nor time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that are commonly called Puritans wherewithal the late Parliament have been exceedingly importuned which sort of Men while in the giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but distract the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth and as the present case standeth it may be doubted whether they or the
Presbyters by divine authority where the publick Magistrate did permit it Dr. Cox. Although the Apostles had no authority to force any man to be Priests yet they moved by the Holy Ghost had authority of God to exhort and induce men to set forth God's honour and so to make them Priests Dr. Day The Apostles ordained Bishops by authority given them by God. Joh. 20. Sicut misit me c. Item Joh. ult Acts 20. 1 Tim. 4. Paulus ordinavit Timotheum Titum prescribit quales ille debeant ordinare 1 Tim. 1. Tit. 1. Dr. Oglethorp The Apostles by authority and command of God did ordain and institute Bishops leave being desired and obtained from the Prince or Magistrate who was then chief As I suppose Dr. Redman Christ gave his Apostles authority to make Bishops and Ministers in his Church as he had received authority of the Father to make them Bishops But if any Christian Prince had then been the Apostles had been and ought to have been obedient Subjects and would have attempted nothing but under the permission and assent of their earthly Governours Yet was it meet that they which were special and elect Servants of our Saviour Christ and were sent by him to convert the World and having most abundantly the Holy Ghost in them should have special ordering of such Ministry as pertained to the planting and increasing of the Faith whereunto I doubt not but a Christian Prince of his godly mind would most lovingly have condescended And it is to be considered in this Question with other like this word making a Bishop or Priest may be taken two ways for understanding the word to ordain or consecrate so it is a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and their Successours only but but if by this word making be understood the appointing or naming to the Office so it pertaineth specially to the supreme Heads and Governours of the Church which be Princes Dr. Edgworth The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God and not for lack of any higher power notwithstanding where there is a Christian King or Prince the Election Deputation and Assignation of them that shall be Priests and Bishops belongeth to the King or Prince so that he may forbid any Bishop within his Kingdom that he give no Orders for considerations moving him and may assign him a time when he shall give Orders and to whom Example of King David 1 Chron. 24. dividing the Levites into twenty four Orders deputing over every Order one chief Bishop prescribing an Ordinal and Rule how they should do their duties and courses and what Sacrifices Rites and Ceremonies they should use every day as the day and time required And his Son King Solomon diligently executed and commanded the same usages to be observed in the Temple after he had erected and finished it 2 Chron. 8. Dr. Symmons The Aposties made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God. Dr. Tresham The Apostles had authority of God to make Bishops yet if there had been a Christian King in any place where they made Bishops they would and ought to have desired authority of him for the executing of such Godly acts which no Christian King would have denied Dr. Leighton The Apostles as I suppose made Bishops by authority given to them of Christ howbeit I think they would and should have required the Christian Princes consent and license thereto if there had been any Christian Kings or Princes Dr. Coren The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God Notwithstanding if there had been a Christian King at that time it had been their duties to have had his license and permission thereto Here you see they all affirm that the Apostles by authority from God did make Bishops as well as Priests and Deacons and that there needs no other authority for their Successours to do the like but what is given them of God. Now that they were distinct Orders will appear by the next Question Quest 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priest were first then the Priest made the Bishop The Bishop of St. Davids my Lord elect of Westminster Dr. Cox and Dr. Redman say That at the beginning they were all One. The Bishops of York London Rechester Carlisle Doctors Day Tresham Symmons Oglethorp be in other contrary Opinions The Bishop of York and Dr. Tresham think that the Apostles first were Priests and after were made Bishops when the overseeing of other Priests was committed to them My Lords of London Duresm Carlisle and Rochester Drs. Symmonds and Grayford think that the Apostles were first Bishops and they after made other Bishops and Priests Drs. Coren and Oglethorp say That the Apostles were made Bishops and the seventy two were after made Priests Dr. Day thinks that Bishops as they are now called were before Priests My Lord of London Drs. Edgworth and Robertson think it no inconvenience if a Priest made a Bishop in that time Quest 11. Whether a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest by the SS or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest To the former part of the Question the Bishop of St. Davids doth answer That Bishops have no authority to make Priests unless they be authorized of the Christian Prince The others do all say That they be authorized of God. Yet some of them add That they cannot use their Authority without their Christian Prince doth permit them To the second part the Answer of the Bishop of St. Davids is That Lay-men have otherwhile made Priests So doth Drs. Edgworth and Redman say That Moses by a priviledge given him of God made Aaron his Brother Priest Drs. Tresham Grayford and Cox say That Lay-men may make Priests in time of necessity The Bishops of York Duresm Rochester Carlisle Elect of Westminster Drs. Coren Leighton Symmonds seem to deny this thing for they say They find not nor read not any such Example Quest 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Pishop and Priest or onely appointing to the Office be sufficient The Bishop of St. Davids saith That onely the appointing And Dr. Cox That onely the appointing cum manuum impositione is sufficient without Consecration The Bishops of York London Duresm Carlisle Drs. Day Coren Leighton Tresham Edgworth Oglethorp say That Consecration is requisite Dr. Redman saith That Consecration hath been from the Apostles time and instituted of the Holy Ghost to confer Grace My Lord of Rochester Drs. Day and Symmons say The Priesthood is given per manuum impositionem and that by Scripture and that Consecration hath of long time been received in the Church So that in this Paper which contains a previous Consultation some years before to the things published in the Necessary Erudition they did generally agree That the Office of Bishops is mentioned in Scripture That they were of a superiour Order to Priests That the Apostles
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
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
order Priests and Bishops so they appointed and willed other Bishops after them to do the like for which they quote Titus 1. and 1 Tim. 5. which is another Proof out of the New Testament In another place they say that the Priests and Bishops in the execution of their Office and Ministration do use and exercise the power and authority of God committed unto them And to name but one place more for I shall quote those onely which in the sense of those Reformers and our Dissenters too prove the Order of Bishops to be distinct from that of Priests and of Divine Institution speaking of the power of the Prince over Bishops and Priests they say that the Prince is to oversee and cause the said Bishops and Priests to execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and specially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them So that it is undeniable that Bishops are mentioned as Church-Officers in the New Testament by this excellent Book and consequently are necessary to such a Church-Government as is Jure Divino according to the first and second Assertion of the Dissenters Let us inquire therefore how they derive their third Assertion from this Book which is That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons To which words they immediately add That no other Government is of Divine Right but what is under the conduct of Bishops or Priests and that the New Testament mentioneth no other Which grants that Bishops are mentioned in the New Testament as well as Priests But the Dissenters will not grant them to be mentioned in the sense of the Reformers that is as a distinct Office and having a Superiority over Priests and Deacons for in the Fourth Assertion they say That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order For proof whereof they quote these words out of the Necessary Erudition viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament And that of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention To which I answer That it is no-where said in the Necessary Erudition That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order And that this Assertion is contradicted by the following Quotation upon which they ground it viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament For throughout that whole Chapter the Reformers make as plain a distinction betwen Bishops and Priests as between Priests and Deacons I do therefore reject the first Assertion as a Fiction of their own not to be found in the Necessary Erudition nor in the practice of the Authors of it which could best expound their meaning viz. That Bishops or Priests are of one and the same Order As to the second viz. That of these two Orders onely i. e. of Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh mention I hope to give such a plain and genuine sense of the Authors as our Dissenters notwithstanding all their Prejudices and Evasions shall not be able to deny And because Qui benè distinguit benè docet I desire them to observe this distinction of the word Order which signifieth either the Power and Faculty conferred by the Apostles hands or the Modus the Rite and Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and Prayer by which it was conferred The first is properly Order and the second as they term it Ordering or Ordination Now I will not dispute in which sense our Reformers use the word Order in this place the Context will shew that But let the Dissenters take it in which sense they will it will be so far from establishing that it will overthrow their Propositions That Bishops and Priests are one and the same Order and that of these two onely Scripture maketh express mention I grant therefore that this second sentence is found intire in that Book viz. Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention But had these men been so ingenuous as to quote the whole Paragraph or to judge of the sense of this Expression which is somewhat dark by those which were more plain whereof some go before and others follow that sentence and all declare Bishops to be a distinct Order and to be mentioned in the New Testament they would never have had the confidence so to expose these learned Reformers as if they had contradicted themselves in the same breath and professed their Judgment to be contrary to their Practice in a Book of that importance written with great Advice and Deliberation and published to give the World an account of the Reformation Could their Popish Adversaries of that Age have fixed such an Opinion and Contradiction on them they should have heard of it as loudly as we have of the Nags head Fable but they had not the confidence to feign them guilty of that Opinion which these Dissenters would force on them whether they will or no. For the Papists of that Age knew that Lex currit cum praxi and that the Reformers exercising Episcopal Authority over the Presbyters within their several Diocesses was a clear proof that they judged their Order to be superiour to that of Priests and that by Divine Institution as in the four places above-mentioned doth appear But to clear this Objection I shall first examine the place quoted as it is entire Secondly I shall shew the sense of it from the Latine Translation which is the best Commentary And thirdly from the received Opinion of other Divines of that Age. And fourthly I shall give you Dr. Burnet's Opinion of the whole matter First The place quoted says thus Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their Hands and to these two the Primitive Church did add and conjoyn certain other inferiour and lower degrees as Subdeacons Acolytes Exorcists with divers other of the which mention is made both of the most Ancient Writers that we have in the Church of Christ after the Aposties as also in divers old Councils and namely in the fourth Council of Africk in which St. Augustine was present where all the kinds of Orders which were then in the Church be rehearsed Now though what hath been observed from the Context might be enough to satisfie all Persons that were not maliciously disposed to quarrel with those Reformers as if they contradicted themselves and overthrew that Episcopal Order in Thesi which they maintained in Praxi yet this Paragraph is so clear by its own light that they must needs wink with both eyes that could not see the sense of the Reformers in it First then the scope of the Paragraph ought to have been considered which is to speak of such Orders as were inferiour
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
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