Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56256
|
The qvestion concerning the divine right of episcopacie truly stated
|
Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
|
1641
(1641)
|
Wing P418; ESTC R19874
|
6,735
|
17
|
THE QVESTION CONCERNING The Divine Right OF EPISCOPACIE truly stated LONDON Printed for Robert Bostock 1641. To the most Reverend and Gracious Father in God my Lord Primate of IRELAND MY LORD IN a discourse lately written concerning Puritans I had occasion offred me to declare my opinion against the Divine right of Episcopacie Those reasons which I then urged seemed weak to your Grace as I have heard which was a great discouragement to me but I thought it not fit to desert so well a seeming cause and to resigne my judgement presently upon a meere discouragement I have since summoned up some more deep and retired thoughts that I might gain a more just cause to retract my error or to cleere the truth and persist in my assurance The question of Episcopacie I think I have now rightly stated and if I am not deceived I have let in such light upon it that judicious men will now more easily ransack the profundity of it Certainly the matter of it self is of great difficulty and of great moment in these times and it was not any confidence in my own wit that first ingaged me in it but the knowledge of my candor and freedome from private respects No man living I conceive can be more dispassionate or more disinteressed in this case then I am The heat of my own mind could never yet thrust me into any faction or make me turbulent in the world neither has any impression from without either by hope of gain or fear of dammage stirr'd up sleeping passion in me Of my selfe I rather wish well then ill to Episcopacie because it is so antient a government and for my own interest I have found more friendship then enmity from Bishops so that I am certain there is nothing but the simple love of truth as it is truth is the bias of my actions at this time As for the Presbyteriall discipline also I have so laid open my opinion concerning that that if I have erred therein I am sure the world can charge me of nothing else but error Had all men which have formerly treated of this subject been as unswayde by private interests as I am this controversie had not bin so long protracted as it is but your Grace knowes well that scarce any but Bishops have maintained Bishops hitherto nor scarce any opposed them but such as have found some opposition from them My Lord I now begge your gracious favour to lay aside your Palle and to put on the same impartiall man in perusing these papers as I now am whilst my pen is upon them for I know there is none has a more cleere Spirit and lesse liable to the grosse dampe of worldly respects then your self Let this my humble addresse be a testimony at this time that I am not a prejudging factious enemy to all Bishops and let your gracious acceptance of the same be as strong a crisis that your Grace is not a prejudging factious enemie to all which maintaine not Bishops Your Graces in all observance most humbly devoted H. P. The Question concerning the Divine right of Episcopacie truly stated THe question about Episcopacie hath never yet been truly stated nor the chief points of it methodically distributed and this is the cause that it is now become so intricate and involved to the great disturbance of the world for satisfaction therefore herein the first thing to be questioned is the Quid esse of Episcopacy and what is separable from the Order of it as it is now constituted in England According to Bishop Bilson there are foure things necessary in Religion 1. Dispensing of the word 2. Administring of the Sacraments 3. Imposing of hands in Ordination 4. Guiding of the keyes The first two of these being the ordinary means of Salvation he attributes generally to all Ministers the other two respect the clensing and governing of the Church and are committed as he saith to Bishops onely and not to all Presbyters equally least by a parity of rule confusion follow and ruine upon confusion It seems then that the end of Religion is that God be duly served and the end of Churchpolicie that Religion be wisely maintained And for the wise maintenance of Religion it behooveth not only that some peculiar chosen men be separated dedicated to officiate before God and to direct and assist others in the offices of Devotion but also that all Anarchy and confusion be avoided amongst those that are so chosen into the Priesthood Thus farre there needs no dispute the main branches then of this controversie are three 1. Who are designed by God to be governours over the Priesthood for avoiding of confusion 2. What proportion of Honour Revenue Power in Ecclesiasticall and in temporall affairs is due to those Governours 3. What are the proper distinct offices of that government to be executed undergone As to the first main branch the first question is who is supreme Head of the Church under Christ whether the Prince as Bishop Gardiner first held under H. 8. or the Bishop of Rome as Sir Thomas More held or the Aristocracy of Bishops as Dr. Downing holds or the Democracie of Presbyters and Lay-elders as Calvin taught if Scripture be expresse in any precept to this purpose or any Canon extending to all places and times we must look no farther but if no such expresse rule be nor no necessity of any such nor Divines were ever yet agreed upon any such it seems that under the King that Junto of Divines Statesmen and Lawyers in Parliament which hath a Legislative power over the State hath the same over the Church And if the King have not the same supreme power in spirituall as in temporall things it is either for want of sanctity in his person or for want of capacity in his judgement but that the Prince is more then temporall and of sanctity competent for supremacie of rule in the Church is sufficiently evinced by Bilson Hooker c. against Calvin and the Papists and Presbyterians both and that defect of judgement is no bar in the Church more then in the State is apparent for if the King be unlearned yea an infant Lunatick c. yet by his Counsels and Courts of Law warre and policie he may govern the Common-wealth well enough and it little skilleth whether he be Lawyer Souldier or Polititian and there is the same reason in the Church And if we admit the King to be supreme head of the Church I think no man will deny but that the fittest policie for him to govern the Church by will be the same pattern by which he governeth the State making as little difference between them as may be for it is the same body of men now of which both State and Church are compacted and so it was not in the Apostles times and the same body hath the same head now as it had not in the beginning for Tiberius was then the head of the Christians but the enemy
of Christian Religion So the main {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} remaining is whether the King having power to chuse subordinate officers and Counsellors in the Church may or ought to chuse such as are meerly spirituall or meerly temporall or a mixture of both The Papists hold no Governours over the Clergy competent neither supreme nor subordinate but such as are meerly spirituall The Protestants every where almost but in England incline to a mixt government in the Church though they exclude the King quatenus King in the mean while we in England admit of the King for our supreme governour but doubt of any subordinate mixt government 'T is not my taske at this present to dispute the conveniency of a mixt government and an association of Spirituall and Lay rulers but I think the Presbyterians have sufficiently asserted it though to another purpose And it seems to me that the Apostolicall form of government as to the supremacy of it is not now in force because there is not the same reason that head being then wanting in the Church which is since supplied but as to any constitution in the subordinate wheels of government if the Laity had then any motion or influence therein I think the same reason still remaines and the same form ought still to be in force In the second branch Be the subordinate governours of the Church mixt or simple either according to the Popish or Presbyterian discipline the question is whether or no such Ecclesiasticall governours ought to be vested and dignified with temporall honours above the Judges of the Land and equall with the Peeres of the Realme and whether or no they ought to enjoy temporall revenues proportionable to that Honour and power in secular affairs correspondent to those revenues and if so whether by divine or humane constitution Also if these differences were added as Bishop Bilson acknowledgeth rather for the honour of the calling then for any necessity of Gods Law it is next to be questioned whether or no a Parliament hath not now power and cause to reduce these additions of Episcopacy into more modest limits for it seems that from Adam till Christ no such grandour and splendor was in Church-men nor from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine to the Reformation we know how they were abused to the mischief of the Church and decay of Religion and in the reformation we know all Nations besides us did utterly remove them and we know that the Church in England is now much impoverished by many impropriations and commendams c. now deteined by Bishops and Cathedrals besides that which it suffers by Lay-men and it seems strange that the Pastors of the flock should be starved that Prelates should abound and swim in too great excesse and that the meer livelyhood of holy preachers should be held lesse necessary then the proud pomp of unusefull nay as some think mischievous dominators As to the third branch if the end of Episcopacy as Bishop Bilson holds be to prevent the confusion of parity in the Church we are first to question whether Ordination by imposition of hands and guiding of the keyes be necessary to Episcopacy and so necessary as that confusion cannot be prevented without them All wise men will allow some authority requisite whereby Ministers may be duly elected and their true qualifications of learning and integrity tried and that being rightly elected they may be further consecrated by prayer and the solemnity of hands and being consecrated that they may be further instituted and designed to some particular charge The Presbyterians do not dislike such authority nor are negligent in the same the question is therefore onely to whom this authority may be committed whether to Bishops onely or to some such judicatory as the Presbyterians use or some other of humane institution As for example if the Vniversities or some select Committee therein be intrusted to try the sufficiency of Scholars and to give Orders and upon the vacancy of a Rectory to present three c. to the King and the King out of those three to present two c. to the parish and the parish out of two to chuse one for their Pastour the question onely is whether such election ordination presentation and induction be not as legall and religious as if it were by Bishops and be not far more politike in preventing simony and in better satisfying the right of the flock whose soules are mainly concerned and whose tithes are to that purpose contributed And now it seemes S. Ierome allowes no further use of Bishops to have been of old for he sayes plainly that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter in no act exceptâ ordinatione and as for the power of the keyes that has been alwaies held common to the whole Clergie but we wil not stand upon this we will freely grant an authority necessary as well to superintend over Ministers in their charges as to place them therein and when B. Bilson appropriates to Bishops the guiding of the keyes we will understand not the meere power of them but the government of that power we will admit also under this terme of guiding the keyes to be comprehended 1. The power of making Ecclesiasticall Canons 2. Of giving judgement and executing according thereto 3. Of issuing the sentence of excommunication 4. Of deciding controversies And the question now is whether the keyes may not be so guided by some other Ecclesiasticall judges and magistrates besides Bishops if the King thinke fit to designe them for First the Legislative power of the Church was never yet only committed to Bishops the whole Clergie and the King were never yet excluded from Synods and Councels neither are the acts of Synods and Councels binding to any Nation unlesse the secular states ratifie them And I think there is no question of the validity of such Canons as are now made in those Protestant Countries where Bishops have no command or being at all And secondly spirituall jurisdiction is not only appropriated to Bishops but to Lay-men under Bishops Canonists and Civilians are held more able and knowing herein than Bishops and Bishops are held lesse fit by reason of their more sacred imployments so the question here will be only this Whether or no the jurisdiction of Lawyers and such like as now execute justice in the spirituall Courts under Bishops will be as competent under the King without Bishops as it is now under Bishops immediately Some say that Chancellours c. are not meere Lay-men no matter For by the same reason any others to whom such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction shall be committed by the King shall be held sacred and if they are not meere Lay-men yet they are not meere Bishops if they are preferred to some equality with the Clergie yet they are not preferred above the Clergie and this preferment is no other but such as may be bestowed upon any other Lay-man that is not otherwise insufficient And even amongst Presbyterians