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
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
Scripture maketh mention That they were conferred by Prayer and Imposition of hands Nor can it be thought that by the mentioning the manner of ordaining Bishops and Priests to be the same that therefore the Reformers thought the Order to be the same because the Deacons were ordained in the same manner and yet it is granted that they were distinct Orders And for the distinction of the Orders of Priests and Bishops enough had been spoken before and their present practice did demonstrate what their Opinions were If any desire farther satisfaction in these things let him read the Casuists de Sacramento Ordinis where this distinction is obvious Ordo significat vel ipsam potestatem vel Ordinationem quâ potestas datur And they may find that Bellarmine and generally the Jesuits reckon Bishops and Priests to be but one Order as our Dissenters would have it and among the later Schoolmen it was made a Question An Episcopatus sit Ordo à Presbyteratu distinctus and they generally hold that they are one in Genere Sacerdotis but are distinct in Specie the Episcopal Character including that of a Priest and so they hold that Solum Sacerdotium est Ordo Sacramentum So they dispute against the Imposition of hands in Ordination of Priests and the usual form was by delivering the Patine and Chalice with Bread and Wine with these words Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificia pro vivis mortuis In nomine Patris c. And they affirm That the Pope can create a Bishop or Priest onely by saying Be thou a Bishop or Priest A Deacon is ordained by delivering of the Gospels into his hands and the Subdeacon by delivery of an empty Patine and Chalice Which superstitious uses our Reformers would destroy and reduce to the Apostolical Practice One Argument more these Dissenters mention from the Necessary Erudition as good as the rest p. 3. The Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same whose Office is not onely to preach and administer Sacraments but moreover to exercise Discipline namely in assoyling and loosing from sin such as be truly penitent and in excommunicating the obstinately vicious where from the Community of some Offices they would argue to the equality of the Orders though nothing is more evident than that the Bishops of this Age reserved the power of Confirmation Ordination and Diocesan Jurisdiction to themselves as their Right Jure Divino as will yet further appear But no-where doth the Necessary Erudition say That the Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same as they sophistically infer And they may as well affirm it to be the sence of the Council of Trent as of our Reformers who use almost the same words Non solum Sacerdotibus sed de Diaconis Sacrae Literae apertam mentionem faciunt I cannot conceive what ground these Dissenters had to fix this Errour of theirs upon unless an unwary Expression of Dr. Burnet's who perhaps considering the Arch-bishop's Judgment more than the Judgments of the rest doth assert the same as the Dissenters do But if they had it from him they had also in him a correction of this Error and it was far from the ingenuity of true Protestant Divines to publish the Error and conceal the Confutation of it Thus then Dr. Burnet discovers the whole Intrigue Dr. Burnet p. 336. of the first part That both in this Writing i.e. Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript and in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian man Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office. But Dr. Burnet adds In the ancient Church they knew none of those subtilties which were found out in the later Ages it was then thought enough that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his Function by a new Imposition of hands and that several Offices could not be performed without a Bishop such as Ordination Confirmation c. But they did not refine in these matters so much as to enquire whether Bishops and Priests differed in Order and Office or only in degree But after the School-men fell to examine matters of Dignity with logical and unintelligible Niceties the Canonists began to comment upon the Rules of the Ancient Church they studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one to another so that the difference was but small They did it with different designs The School-men having set up the grand Mystery of Transubstantiation were to exalt the Priestly Office as much as was possible for the turning of the Host into God was so great an action that they reckoned there could be no Office higher than that which qualified a man to so mighty a performance Therefore as they changed the form of Ordination from what it was anciently believed to consist in viz. Imposition of hands to a delivering of Sacred Vessels and held that a Priest had his Orders by that Rite not by the Imposition of hands So they raised their Order or Office so high as to make it equal with the Order of a Bishop But as they designed to extol the Order of Priesthood so the Canonists had as great a mind to depress the Episcopal Order they generally wrote for preferment and the way to it was to extol the Papacy Nothing could do that so effectually as to bring down the power of Bishops this only could justifie the Exemptions of the Monks and Friars the Popes setting up Legantine Courts and receiving at first Appeals and then Original Causes before them together with many other Encroachments on the Jurisdiction of Bishops all which were unlawful if the Bishops had by Divine Right Jurisdiction in their Diocesses Therefore it was necessary to lay them as low as could be and to make them think that the power they held was rather as delegates of the Apostolick See than by a Commission from Christ or his Aposties So that they looked on the declaring Episcopal Authority to be of Divine Right as a blow that would be fatal to the Court of Rome therefore they did after this at Trent use all possible endeavours to hinder any such Decision it having been then the common Stile of that Age to reckon Bishops and Priests as the same Office it is no wonder if at this time the Clergy of this Church the greatest part of them being still leavened with the old Superstition and the rest of them not having enough of spare time to examine lesser matters retain still the former Phrases in this particular This might have been sufficient to correct the forwardness of our Dissenters to comply with the Papists in this new Notion of Bishops or Priests as one Order but because they abated nothing of their confidence by this I shall mind them of that severer Reprimand of the Doctor 's for which in their behalf I give him hearty thanks for I think he shall have none from them It is in these words N. B. On this I have insisted the more that it may appear how little
it self otherwise and a task set them to do some good and memorable thing in the Church they might have been reformed or made harmless by diversion I desire Mr. J. H. to consider what it is and of whom Sir Robert there speaketh and to give a Reason why this was interpoled And to this Quotation I shall subjoyn another of Mr. R. B's in an Epistle to his separated Brethren That thousands are gone to Hell and ten thousands going after them who would never have gone thither if they had kept in the Communion of their Parish-Churches But in the conclusion of the Introduction he seems no way satisfied with the Propension of our Governours to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies and other more offensive Impositions unless this one thing may be granted and I think such a grant will be still accounted a grievance viz. a declaring the Government of the Church to be no other than what it was held and intended by the first Reformers in the mean time he avers That that Government which is really established by Law is not only inconsistent with and destructive of that which was setled in the Church by the first Reformers but of the Church-state of all other Protestants This Durus Sermo This is his endeavour as to the Reign of Henry the Eighth in his first Chapter Here I think fit to advertise the Reader that the Materials for the new Model of Henry the Eighth's Bishops was fitted though Mr. J. H. complains for want of time above seven years since and the Scheme drawn-up by Mr. H. in 's half Sheet and offered to a Parliament and because he took no notice of what was then said in Answer to his Model in a Tract called No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot Printed 1682. He deserves to do Pennance in a whole Sheet now and because that Answer may be after so many years become forgotten or rarely found I beg the Reader 's leave to repeat so much of it as concerns the State of our Church and the Opinion of the Divines that then lived as to Episcopacy because our Author says the whole stress of his cause upon it saying That this one thing is the most effectual expedient in the whole World to promote his healing attempt wherein I shall joyn issue with him It might be expected that he should have laid a sure and solid Corner-stone for his new Model because an error in the foundation doth usually run through the whole Fabrick but this will appear to be nothing else but Slime and Sand that is in plain English a confident Imposture and Fiction of his own Brain for p. 9. the account which this Author gives of that excellent Book The Erudition of a Christian Man is this That of these two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons Scripture makes express mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands Thus saith Mr. H. There are but two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons no third Order Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests And again That all such lawful Power and Autherity of any one Bishop Mr. H. adds in a Parenthesis or Priest for they are in the sense of these great Divines the same over another were and be given them by the Consent Ordinance and positive Laws of Men and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture So far the necessary Erudition Now that there may be a fair trial of this case I shall set down from Dr. Stillingfleet's printed Paper the Opinions of those Divines which consulted about our Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days concerning which I shall only mind the Dissenters of an Observation of their own viz. That though some of these Reformers were of different Opinions as to some Points mentioned in this Manuscript yet they must be considered to have receded from them when they subscribed the Necessary Erudition being then all of that Judgment which is there described The intent of Printing Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript containing the Resolutions of the Archbishop and several Bishops and Divines of some Questions concerning the Sacraments was as Dr. Burnet says that it might appear with what maturity and care they proceeded in the Reformation And the Subscriptions which were at the end of every mans Paper he tells us p. 242. were in this form T. Cant. This is my Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but do remit the Judgment thereof wholly to your Majesty and as is also sometimes expressed p. 201. without prejudice to the Truth and saving always more better Judgment Cum facultate etiam melius deliberandi in hac parte Now this Consultation was some years before the Book was published and if any of the Bishops had been then of a contrary Opinion as the Dissenters observe that Archbishop Cranmer was in the case of Excommunication inclining to Erastianism from these they must be considered say the Dissenters to have receded because they subscribed the Necessary Erudition p. 8. This Manuscript speaks home to our purpose in Quest 9. Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given by God The Answer of the Archbishop to this Question as indeed to many others is singular and differs from the rest of the Reformers being as the Prefacers themselves do observe meer Erastianism p. 7. but from these also as they say of his Opinion concerning Excommunication p. 8. he must be considered to have receded because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition which being done on more mature deliberation we ought to impute nothing to the Archbishop as his judgment in those controverted Points but what is there by him asserted I shall therefore mention the Resolutions of the rest only as we find them in the Re-collection only of this first I shall speak at large York We find in SS that the Apostles used the power to make Bishops Priests and Deacons which power may be grounded upon these words Sicut misit me vivens Pater sic ego mitto vos And we verily think that they durst not have used so high a power unless they had had authority from Christ But that their power to ordain Bishops Priests or Deacons by Imposition of hands requireth any other authority than authority of God we neither read in SS nor out of SS London I think the Apostles made Bishops by the Law of God because Acts 22. it is said In quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Nevertheless I think if Christian Princes had been then they should have named by Right and appointed the said Bishops to their places Rochester I think that the Apostles made Bishops by authority given them from God. Carlisle That Christ made his Apostles Priests and Bishops and that he gave them power to make others it seemeth to be the very Trade of SS Dr. Robertson I think the Apostles made Bishops and
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