Priests OR Bishops whom they did Elect call and admit thereunto by their Prayer and Imposition of their hands And to the intent the Church of Christ should never be destituted of such Ministers as should have and execute the said Power of the Keys it was also Ordained and Commanded by the Apostles that the same Sacrament should be applied and ministred by the Bishops from time to time unto such other Persons as had the Qualities which the Apostles very diligently descryve as it appeareth evidently in the third Chapter of the first Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy and his Epistle unto Titus And surely this is the whole Vertue and Efficacy and the Cause also of the Institution of this Sacrament as it is found in the New Testament for albeit the Holy Fathers of the Church of Christ with all those things which were commendable in the Temple of the Jews did devise not only certain other Ceremonies than before rehearsed as Tonsures Rasures Vnctions and such other Observances to be used in the Administration of the said Sacraments but did also Institute certain Inferiour Orders or Degrees as Janitors Lectors Exorcists Acolits and Sub-Deacons and deputed to every one of those certain Offices to execute in the Church wherein they followed undoubtedly the Example and Rites used in the Old Testament yet the Truth is That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any Degrees or Distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons OR Ministers and of Priests OR Bishops Nor there is any word spoken of any other Ceremony used in the Conferring of this Sacrament but only of Prayer and the Imposition of the Bishops hand Thus the Power of Excommunication and conferring Orders by Prayer and Imposition of Hands as declared in the New Testament belongs unto the Priest which is the same with the Bishop there being no Degrees or Distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and Priests or Bishops and consequently no Superiority therefore of a Bishop above a Priest to be found in the New Testament during King Henry the Eighth's days CHAP. II. The Judgment of the Reformers in Edward the Sixth's Days the same 't was in Henry the Eighth's holding no Difference by Divine Law between a Bishop and Presbyter IN the First Year of Edward the Sixth's Reign an Act of Parliament passed sufficiently Declaring the Episcopal Orders as distinct from and above that of the Presbyter to be wholly from the Crown for it was affirm'd That all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches of England and Ireland The Design of this Law as Dr. Heylin has it was to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order Hist Edw. 6. p. 51. by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the King's Ministers only His Ecclesiastical Sheriffs as a man might say to execute his Will and disperse his Mandates Dr. Poynet Bishop of Winchester in this King's Reign in Answer unto a Book writ by Stephen Gardiner tho' sent out under the Name of Dr. Martin about the Marriage of Priests doth sufficiently shew that the Reformers in those days were great Approvers of Calvin's Notions about Church Government and therefore willing to lay aside even the very Name Bishop and make use of the Names Superintendent Minister Senior Elders c. for these are his words And further whereas it pleaseth Martin not only in this place but also hereafter to Jest at the Name Superintendent he sheweth himself bent to condemn all things that be good Who knoweth not that the Name Bishop hath so been abused that when it was spoken the People understood nothing else but a great Lord that went in a white Rochet with a wide shaven Crown and that carrieth an Oyl Box with him wherewith he useth once in seven years riding about to Confirm Children c. Now to bring the People from this abuse what better means can be devised than to teach the People their Error by another word out of the Scriptures of the same signification which thing by the term Superintendent would in time have been well brought to pass The name Bishop spoken amongst the Unlearned signified to them nothing less than a Preacher of God's Word because there was not nor is any thing more rare in any Order of Ecclesiastical Persons than to see a Bishop Preach I deny not but the name Bishop may be well taken but because the Evilness of the Abuse hath marred the Goodness of the Word it cannot be denied but that it was not amiss to joyn for a time another word with it in his place whereby to restore that abused word to his Right Signification Oh how the Papists would triumph over us if they had like proof for the names I say of Pope Cardinal Canon Prebendary Monk c. as we that profess Christ have for the maintainance of the terms and names Superintendent Minister Seniors Elders Brethren and such like by us used The Resolution Archbishop Cranmer gave to the Questions propounded by Edw. 6. approved by the Bishop of St. Asaph Therleby Redman and Cox See Dr. Stillingflèet's MS. makes it manifest that these great Reformers owned not Episcopacy as a Distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better Governing the Church In the Apostles time says Cranmer when there was no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of God's Word might be appointed Resol to Q. 9. nor Sins by the Sword corrected there was no Remedy then for the Correction of Vice or appointing of Ministers but only the consent of Christien multitude by themselfe by an Uniform consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of wisdom and counsaile Sometime the Apostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of God's Word sometime the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two distinct Things Resol to Q. 10. but both one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion The People before Christian Princes were Resol to Q. 11. commonly elected their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture Resol to Q. 12. for Election or appointing thereto is sufficient Thus far that Excellent Person saith a Reverend Divine of the Church of England in whose Judgment nothing is more clear than his ascribing the particular Form of Government in the Church to the Determination of the Supream Magistrate The Divine Right of Forms of Church Government Examined p. 390 c. CHAP. III. Aley Bishop of Exeter Pilkington Bishop of Durham Jewel Bishop of Salisbury Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury of the same Opinion with Tindall Lambert Barnes
the Word Administring the Sacraments Imposing of Hands and guiding the Keys to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first two must be general to all Pastors and Presbyters of Christ's Church but so do not the other two I have largely debated and made it plain as well by the Scriptures as by other Ancient Writers past all Exception there have always been selected some of greater Gifts than the Residue to succeed in the Apostles Places to whom it belonged both to moderate the Presbyters of each Church and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands and this their Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining have been observed from the Apostles times as the Peculiar and Substantial marks of Episcopal Power and Calling The Power of the Keys and Right to Impose Hands by which he always means the Power to Ordain Ministers and Excommunicate Sinners belong unto the Bishop distinguishing him from a Presbyter What the things are Chap. 12. p. 208. which must abide for ever in the Church I shewed before it shall suffice now to rehearse them namely Power to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments the Right use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands These four parts for Brevities sake I often reduce to two Branches which are Doctrine and Discipline comprizing in Doctrine the Dividing of the Word and Dispensing of the Sacraments and referring the rest I mean the Publick use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands to the Discipline or Regiment of the Church The Discipline and Government of the Church I mean the Power of the Keys Ch. 12. p. 213. and Imposing of Hands are two parts of Apostolick Authority which must remain in the Church for ever These Keys are double the Key of Knowledge annexed to the Word the Key of Power referred to the Sacraments Some late Writers by urging the one abolish the other howbeit I see no sufficient Reason to countervail the Scriptures and Fathers that Defend and Retain both The Key of Knowledge must not be doubted of our Saviour in express words nameth it Wo be to you Interpreters of the Law for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge The Key of Power standeth in these words of Christ to Peter I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. And likewise to all his Apostles Whatsoever ye bind on Earth P. 218. c. It resteth in this place to be considered to whom those Keys were committed whether Equally to all Presbyters or Chiefly to Pastors and Bishops The like must be done for Imposition of Hands whether that also pertain'd indifferently to all or specially to Bishops This is the State of the Point in Controversie namely Whether the Power of the Keys and that of Imposition of Hands belong Equally and Indifferently to all Presbyters and Bishops or whether they do not belong chiefly and specially to Bishops But whether the one or the other be affirm'd 't will unavoidably follow that these Powers in a sense belong to both Thus much is supposed in the very state of the Question which is not whether these Powers do not at all belong to Presbyters but whether they do belong so much to Presbyters as unto Bishops so that the holding them to belong chiefly and specially unto the Bishop implies that they do tho' in a lesser Degree belong unto Presbyters They appertain both to the Presbyter and Bishop but not Equally to the Bishop chiefly and specially Now Conform hereunto the Learned Bilson saith The Bishop then or President of the Presbyters for I stand not on Names Ch. 14. p. 293. while I discuss their Powers is by Christ's own Mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church that is the Chief Steward over God's Houshold and Overseer of his Flock And touching the Presbyter's Power P. 319. He adds That at first the Presbyters sate with the Bishop as Assessors and Consenters before Synods undertook such Causes But after when once Councils began to have the Hearing of Grievances then sate the Presbyters with the Bishop only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgment The Private use of the Keys in appointing Offenders upon the Acknowledging their Sins P. 317. for a time to forbear the Lord's Table we deny not to Presbyters However the Ambiguity of the Name of Bishop and Community of many things incident and appertinent both to Bishops and Presbyters urged him to lay down certain Peculiar Marks and Parts of the Bishop's Office whereby they are always Distinguished from Presbyters and never Confounded with them either in Scriptures Councils or Fathers There were many Prerogatives says he appropriate unto the Bishop Ch. 13. p. 244. by the Authority of the Canons and Custom of the Church such as Reconciling of Penitents Confirmation of Infants and others that were Baptized by Laying on their Hands Dedication of Churches c. But the things Proper to Bishops which might not be Common to Presbyters were Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining These two the Scriptures and Fathers reserve only to Bishops they never Communicate them to Presbyters The Singularity of one Pastor in every place preserveth the Peace and Unity of the Churches and stoppeth Schisms and Dissentions for which Cause they were first Ordained by the Apostles 246. This is a certain Rule to Distinguish Bishops from Presbyters the Presbyters were many in every City of whom the Presbytery consisted Bishops were always Singular that is one in a City and no more except another intruded which the Church of Christ counted a Schism or else an Helper were given in respect of extream and feeble age in which case the Power of the latter ceased in the presence of the former And this Singularity of one Pastor in each place descended from the Apostles and their Scholars in all the famous Churches of the World by a Perpetual Chair of Succession and doth to this day continue but where Abomination or Desolation I mean Heresie or Violence interrupt it The second assured sign of Episcopal Power is Imposition of Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops for as Pastors were to have some to assist them in their Charge which were Presbyters P. 248. so were they to have others to succeed them in their Places which were Bishops And this Right by Imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops in the Church of Christ was at first derived from the Apostles unto Bishops and not unto Presbyters and hath for these fifteen Hundred Years without Example or Instance to the contrary till this our Age remained in Bishops and not in Presbyters Jerom where he retcheth the Presbyters Office to the uttermost of purpose to shew that he may do by the Word of God as much as the Bishop he excepteth this One Point as unlawful for Presbyters by the Scriptures Quid facit Exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non
taken from the Presbyter and transferr'd over to the Diocesan who alone hath the Power of Ordering Priests and Deacons and of Governing or Ruling the Church whence it follows that as there is but One Pastor in a Diocess there is but one Church That all Parish-Assemblies are but parts or parcels of this One single Church under the Conduct and Government only of the Diocesan Bishop their only Pastor That all Ordinations by Presbyters are of no greater Validity than those by Deacons or Lay-men and therefore altho' Ordination is no more to be repeated than Baptism yet those who have had their Ordination only by Presbyters must be Ordained again or not admitted unto any Benefice nor allowed the Exercise of the Priestly Office nor be esteemed Lawful Priests so that as there is a vast Difference between Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Charles the Second's so between Queen Elizabeth's Law and King Charles's Q. Elizabeth's Act runs thus That every Person under the Degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other Form of Institution Consecration or Ordering than the Form now used in the Reign of our most Gracious Soveraign Lady shall declare his Assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Profession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprised in a Book Entituled Articles c. viz. 39 Articles upon pain that every such Person which shall not subscribe shall be ipso facto deprived and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void as if he had been naturally dead King Charles his Law is thus That no Parson who now is Incumbent and in the Possession of any Parsonage or Benefice and who is not in Holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination or shall not be before the said Feast-day of St. Bartholomew Ordained Priest or Deacon shall have hold or enjoy any Parsonage with Cure but shall be utterly disabled and ipso facto deprived of the same and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void as if he had been naturally dead Touching Persons ordained by any other Form than the Episcopal a Subscription to the Articles was sufficient by 13 Eliz. c. 12. to Qualifie them for Spiritual Promotion and Whittingham's whose Ordination was only by Presbyters abroad was esteemed good and he enjoyed his Benefice to the day of his death as Traverse in his Supplication to the Council affirms but tho' the Articles be subscribed unto by one having only an Ordination by Presbyters he must be ordained by the Bishop or not admitted to any Ecclesiastical Promotion or if admitted he is ipso facto deprived and whoever consults the Book of Ordering Presbyters will find that the whole of it plainly declares that the former Odination of the Person thus re-ordained was invalid and null and that till now he was never of the Presbyters Office for the Ordination of one never before ordained and the Ordination of him who was formerly ordain'd by Presbyters is the same Whether I am right in these my Sentiments I appeal to the Right Reverend and Reverend Bishops and others of the Dignified Clergy who with the greatest importunity are desired to declare their Judgments in this Matter To know what the Government of the Church of England is that is by Archbishops Bishops and what is the Office of a Presbyter what that of a Bishop is a matter of extraordinary importance If it be the same it was in Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth's days which is the same with what the Learned Archbishop Vsher was for the greatest Bone of Contention between the Cons and Noncons will be removed farther Every Parish-Presbyter will be granted to be a Pastor vested with a Right to Rule the Church from whence saith the Learned Archbishop the name of Rector also was given unto him at first and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter to be only in Degree and not in Order as this Learned Primate ever held as he saith in an Answer to an abusive Report that went abroad of him I have ever declared my Opinion to be saith he That Episcopus Presbyter gradu tantum differunt non Ordine and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid and Dr. Bernard in his Animadversions on the Archbishop's Opinion asserts That in this Judgment he was not singular Dr. Davenant that Pious and Learned Bishop of Salisbury consents with him in it Determinat Q. 42. produceth the Principal of the Schoolmen Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson Durand c. Episcopatus non est Ordo praecise distinctus à Sacerdotio simplici c. non est alia potestas Ordinis in Episcopis quà m Presbyteris sed inest modo perfectiori And declares it to be the general Opinion of Schoolmen c. And whereas the Primate saith That in Cases of Necessity where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid Bishop Davenant concurs with him also and produceth the Opinion of Richardus Armathanus one of this Primate's Predecessors and one of the most Learned men in his time to be accordingly To which divers others might be added as in special Dr. Field sometimes Dean of Glocester in his Learned Book of the Church where this Judgment of the Primate Lib. 3. c. 39. lib. 5. c. 27. and the Concurrence of Bishop Davenant's is largely confirmed But that Book Entituled The Defence of the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas maintained by Mr. Archdeacon Mason against the Romanists who wrote also a Defence of Episcopacy and of the Ministry of the Church of England is fufficiently known and I have been assur'd it was not only the Judgment of Bishop Overal but that he had a Principal hand in it He produceth many Testimonies the Master of the Sentences and most of the Schoolmen Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas Durand Dominicus Soto Richardus Armachanus Tostatus Alphonsus à Castro Gerson Canisius to have affirmed the same and at last quotes Medina a Principal Bishop of the Council of Trent who affirm'd That Jerom Ambrose Augustine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact were of the same Judgment also In a word if the Ordination of Presbyters in such places where Bishops cannot be had were not valid the late Bishops of Scotland had a hard Task to maintain themselves to be Bishops who were not Priests for their Ordination was no other What Dr. Bernard mentions about the Archbishop's dislike of the late Prerbyterians here in England is not so much against their Exercising the Power as the Manner of their Exercise they did not add to the Imposition of Hands Receive the Holy Ghost c. nor so much as these words Be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his
saith one How there can be any Church where there is no Bishop Espenc in 1 Tim. 194. h. The Protestants Of the Difference between Bishops and Priests there are three Opinions The first of Aerius who did hold that all Ministers should be Equal and that a Bishop was not neither ought to be Superiour to a Priest neither that there was any Difference at all between them August de Haeres c. 53. Epiphan Haeres 75. which Opinion of his was counted amongst other Heresies The second Opinion in the other Extream is of the Papists as we have seen that would have not only a Difference but a Princely Pre-eminence of their Bishops over the Clergy and that by the Word of God. The third Opinion is between both that altho' this Distinction of Bishops and Priests as it is now received cannot be directly proved out of Scripture yet it is very good for the Policy of the Church to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity Of this Judgment Bishop Jewel against Harding sheweth both Chrysostom Bish Whitgift Ambrose and Hierom to have been And another most Reverend Prelate of our Church in these words I know these Names be confounded in the Scriptures but I speak according to the manner and Custom of the Church ever since the Apostles times which saying is agreeable to that of St. Augustine Epist 19. ad Hieron Secundum c. according to the Names of Honour which the Vse or Custom of the Church hath obtain'd a Bishop is greater than a Priest so that Augustine himself who was no Aerian doth ground this Distinction rather upon Ancient Custom than the Scripture The Difference between the Opinion of P. 275. Aerius on the one part and of Hierom Ambrose Austin Chrysostom on the other lyeth here Aerius would have no difference at all between a Bishop and a Priest the Fathers above allowed a difference holding it to be profitable for the Peace of the Church They only affirm'd That this Distinction was rather Authorized by the Ancient Practice of the Church than by any direct place of Scripture For the proof that a Bishop and Priest were all one in the Apostles time St. Hierom alledgeth divers places of Scripture The second Argument is thus Archbishops and Primates have the same Right of Jurisdiction over other Bishops which Bishops have over simple Priests But their Authority and Jurisdiction is rather grounded upon the Ancient Custom of the Church than any Apostolical Injunction or Institution in Scripture A fourth Argument If the Distinction of Bishops and Priests were by the Commandment and Institution of Christ and his Apostles it should necessarily be enjoyned unto all Churches But this cannot without prejudice of many Reformed Churches be affirmed which have no Bishops tho' they have other Overseers in their stead Wherefore I cannot conclude that this special Form of Ecclesiastical Government is absolutely prescribed in the Word for then all those Churches which have not that Prescript Form whether of Bishops or other should be condemned as Erroneous Churches So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists and us They say it is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope and to Bishops and Archbishops under him as necessarily prescribed in the Word but so do not our Bishops and Archbishops which is a not able difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church and of the Reformed Churches Let every Church use that Form which best fitteth their state In External Matters every Church is Free not one bound to the Prescription of another so they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word Now to conclude this whole Matter and to speak distinctly of every Point that it may appear how far this Difference in Ecclesiastical Functions is Divine and wherein Humane This I judge may safely without any Contradiction be affirmed that in this Distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is some what Apostolical somewhat also Political First In the calling of Bishops as they are now Ordain'd in some Reformed Church there is somewhat Divine and Apostolical for it cannot be denied but that to have Order in the Church and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations to avoid confusion proceedeth from the Institution of Christ This then we say is agreeable to the Institution of Christ that there should be not a Popular Equality but a convenient Superiority and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel as St. Paul also sheweth First Apostles Secondly Prophets c. Secondly there is somewhat Political and that of two sorts as touching the Politie Ecclesiastical and Civil To the Ecclesiastical Politie in the advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things do appertain First of all St. Hierom saith of Confirmation committed only to Bishops Disce hanc c. Know that this Observation is rather for the Honour of their Priesthood than by necessity of any Law. Hierom. adver Luciferian Secondly The Council of Aquisgrane cap. 8. saith That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the Chief Minister Solum propter Authoritatem only for Authority sake lest that the Discipline of the Church being challenged by many should break the Peace of the Church Thirdly The Author of the Book under Hierom's Name De 7. Ordinib saith That the Consecration of Virgins which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches was reserved to the Bishop for Concord sake Fourthly The Jurisdiction of the Church which in time past Hierome saith was committed to the Senate or College of Presbyters was afterward to avoid Schism devolv'd to the Bishop Fifthly S. Ambrose saith 1 Tim. 3. Episcopi Presbyteri c. A Bishop and a Presbyter have but one Ordination for they are both in the Priesthood Whereby it may appear that the Special Consecration of Bishops was since Ordain'd for the Dignity of that Calling And S. Hierom saith That in the Church of Alexandria the Presbyters did make Choice of one Hier. ad Evagr whom they placed in a Higher Degree and called him their Bishop like as if an Army should choose a General or the Deacons should choose an Industrious man whom they make their Archdeacon So it should seem that the very Election of a Bishop in those Days without any other circumstances was his Ordination Sixthly In Hierom's time it was lawful for Priests and Ministers to Preach without further Licence obtain'd from the Bishop as it may appear Distinct 95. c. 6. Qui non vult Presbyteros c. He that will not have a Minister to do that which is commanded him of God that is to Preach would be greater than Christ c. But since to stay the Humour of Contentious and Schismatical Preachers it hath seemed good to the Church to refer the Allowance of Preachers to the Ordinary according to the Decree of the Lateran Council Sub Innocent 3. c. 3. Praeter Autoritatem He that Preacheth privately or publickly without
they term sometime Presbyters sometimes Bishops That in process of time the Apostles appointed under them Bishops of an Order Superiour above Presbyters the cause wherefore they did appoint under themselves such Bishops as were not every where at the first is said to have been those Strifes and Contentions for remedy whereof whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a Regiment or else they together with the whole Church judging it a fit and needful Policy did agree to receive it for a Custom no doubt but being established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ's Church it had either Divine Appointment beforehand or Divine Approbation afterwards This passage of Hooker moves me to think he very much agreed with his most Reverend Metropolitan Archbishop Whit gift who vehemently asserts an actual change of Church Government in the Primitive Times as well as the changeableness of it in all Ages of the Church There are other intimations in this Learned Author which oblige me to conclude that the Church of England was not in his days come to a steady Resolution either about the Nature of a Particular Church infimae speciei or of the whole belonging to the Episcopal Office. Touching the Nature of a Particular Church of the lowest Rank whether Parochial or Diocesan was not much with him for speaking of the Dissimilitudes which in some respects are found to be between the present Bishops and the Bishops in the Primitive times he grants that many things there are in the State of Bishops Lib. 7. Sect. 2. p. 4. which the times have changed saying That many a Parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient Bishopricks were To Men that have any part of Skill what more evident and plain in Bishops than that Augmentation and Diminution in their Precincts Allowances Privileges and such like do make a Difference indeed but no Essential Difference between one Bishop and another But a Learned Nonconformist assures us That he shall try among other things Treatise of Episcopacy chap. 5. pag. 49. whether the Name of a Bishoprick will make a Parsonage and a Diocess to be Ejusdem speciei and whether Magnitude do not make a specifick Difference between the Sea and a Rivulet or a Glass of Water or between a Ship and a Nutshell And I may add that if there be no Essential Difference between a Bishoprick no larger than a Parsonage and a Diocesan Bishoprick the Controversie between the Church of England and generality of Nonconformists may touching Church Government be determined by such Condescensions made by the Church to the Dissenters as are short of an Essential Alteration to Episcopacy Let there be as many Bishopricks as there are considerable Parsonages or Parishes indowed and a Provision made for the Presbyters who are to assist the Bishops in the Government of these little Churches and a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters or a Chiefty in the Regiment will be no longer a bone of Contention As to what belongs to the Episcopal Function as Different from the Presbyters it 's held by some that Ordination Confirmation and Jurisdiction are proper to it Let us see then Hooker's Judgment for the first Point There may be saith he sometimes very just and sufficient Reasons to all Ordination made without a Bishop Lib. 7. Sect. 14. pag. 37. The whole Church Visible being the true-Original-Subject of all Power it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to Ordain Howbeit as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed so it may in some Cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary wayes The Power of Ordination is appropriated to the Bishop by the Churches Allowance and no otherwise and the same Church allowing Presbyters to Ordain their Ordination is Good so that Ordination is not proper to a Bishop quarto modo for it doth not Convenire to him semper soli and therefore he adds in the next Page That we are not simply without Exception to urge a lineal Descent of Power from the Apostles by continued succession of Bishops in every Effectual Ordination Lib. 7. Sect. 6. pag. 14. For the second Point I make not Confirmation part of that Power which hath always belonged only unto Bishops because in some places the Custom was that Presbyters might also Confirm in the absence of a Bishop Touching the last Point How Bishops together with Presbyters have used to Govern the Churches under them Lib. 7. Sect. 7. pag. 17. It is by Zonaras saith he somewhat plainly and at large declared That the Bishop had his Seat on high in the Church above the Residue which were present that a number of Presbyters did always there Assist him and that in the Oversight of the People those Presbyters were after a sort the Bishops Coadjutors The Bishops and Presbyters who together with him governed the Church are for the most part by Ignatius joyntly mention'd They are Counsellors and Assistants of the Bishop Thus this great Man grants That tho' Government in general be necessary to the Church yet no one particular kind of Government is so That the Scriptures do not make the Episcopal Government unalterable That the Power of conferring Orders is not by a Divine Law so appropriate to the Bishops that in no case an Ordination by Presbyters can be valid That the Church Visible is the true-Original-Subject of all Power and can alter the Government of the Church That Confirmation is not essential to the Office of a Bishop That Presbyters have a share in the Government That the Difference between the Bishop and Presbyter is in the Degree the Bishop having a Chiefty in the Government and Presbyters the Bishops Coadjutors Assistants Advisers and Counsellors The Learned Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester speaking of the Controversie between the Old Nonconformists and the Church of England Perpetual Government of the Church expresseth himself in these words Thus far we joyn That to prevent Dissention and Confusion there must needs Epistle to the Reader even by God's Ordinance be a President or Ruler of every Presbytery which Conclusion because it is warranted by the Grounds of Nature Reason and Truth and hath the Example of the Church of God before Vnder and after the Law we accept as Irrefutable and lay it as the Ground-work of all that ensueth But whether this Presidentship did in the Apostles times and by their Appointment go round by course to all the Pastors and Teachers of every Presbytery or were by Election committed to One chosen as the fittest to supply that Place so long as He discharged his Duty without blame that is a main point betwixt us But more particularly he adds In the Apostles I observe four things needful for the first Founding and Erecting of the Church and four other Points that must be Perpetual in the Church of Christ These are the Dispensing
facit And whereas 't is objected That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery he answereth out of Chrysostom that by the word Presbytery in that place of Scripture must be understood Bishops not Presbyters because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop All that we can say for the Power of Bishops above Presbyters out of the Scriptures P. 299. is this That the Holy Ghost by the mouth of St. Paul hath given the Bishop of each Place Authority to Ordain such as be worthy to examine such as be faulty and Reprove and Discharge such as be guilty either of Unsound Teaching and Offensive Living Thus much he saith to Timothy and to Tite and in them to their Successors and to all other Bishops of Christ's Church for ever The Power of Ruling the People is not solely but chiefly in the Bishop P. 304. My meaning says he is soon understood You establish one Chief in your Presbyteries by God's Essential and Perpetual Ordinance to execute that which you decree whom you call a President How far I joyn with you you shall quickly perceive To avoid Tumults and Dissentions God hath Authorized One in each Place and Church Able to have and maintain a Presbytery who with Pastoral and Fatherly Moderation should Guide as well the Presbyters that assist him as the People that are Subject to him according to the Laws of God and Man the Execution whereof is Chiefly committed to his Charge that is the Leader and Overseer of the rest whom we call a Bishop His Power I call a Moderation and not a Domination because the Wisdom of God hath likewise allowed and provided Christian means as well to Bridle him from wrongs as to Direct him in Doubts And whereas the Nonconformist tells him that this is right the Power which they give to their Presbyteries his Answer is Did you not put Lay-Men instead of Pastors to be Presbyters and make them Controulers where they should be but Advisers your Presbyteries might have some use in the Church of God tho' far less now than when they first began And amongst the many uses of Presbyteries P. 307. the Bishop is Positive That at first lest the Bishops only will should be the Rule of all things in the Church the Government of the Church was so proportioned that neither the Presbyters should do any thing without their Bishop nor the Bishop dispose Matters of Importance without his Presbytery He distinguisheth between the Private use of the Keys in Refusing to give the Lord's Supper unto the Impeninent and the Publick use of the Keys whereby the obstinate Person is excluded from all Fellowship of the Faithful as well Sacred as Civil The first belongs to the Presbyter the last was by the Church of God allowed always and only to Bishops So in another place P. 320. For our parts tho' we take the Power of the Keys to be Common to all that have Pastoral Charge of Souls in their Degree yet to avoid the infinite Showers of Excommunication which would overflow all Churches and Parishes and the intolerable Quarrels and Brabbles that would ensue if every Presbyter might Excommunicate without the Bishops consent and Licence we praise the Wisdom of God's Church in suffering no Inferiour to Excommunicate without the Bishop's consent and Licence Thus far this Learned Bishop who urgeth the singularity of Succession and Superiority in Ordination to be the Essential Marks of a Bishop as he differs from a Presbyter yet not divesting the Presbyter of all Governing Power in the Church of Christ His Pleading for a Superiority of Power in the Bishop carries in it the grant of a lesser degree of the same Power as belonging to the Presbyter and the denying Presbyters the Exercise of this Power without the consent of the Bishop is but by an Ecclesiastical Constitution such as that which makes the Reconciling Penitents and Confirmation to be rather Peculiar to the Bishop for the Honour of his Calling than for any Necessity of God's Word Thus I have gone through the Principal Writers about Church Government that were in Queen Elizabeths Reign namely Alley Bishop of Exeter Pilkington Bishop of Duresme Jewel Bishop of Salisbury and Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury who held that according to the Scriptures there was no Difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop that in Scripture account their Office and Powers were the same and that the Apostles did not leave behind them any one kind of Church Government to be observed throughout all the Churches at all times These were followed by Dr. Cosins Dr. Low and Bishop Bridges The Learned Willet in his Synopsis Papismi a Book Published at least three or four times in Queen Elizabeths Days and afterwards by King James his Special Command doth in most things agree with the Bishops but now mention'd and being more particular than they affirming out of Jerom That Confirmation and Ordination were appropriated to the Bishop rather for the Honour of their Priesthood and the Peace of the Church than by necessity of any Law the same he saith of the Jurisdiction of the Church adding That anciently there were no distinct Consecrations of Bishops The thing wherein he may be supposed to differ from them is that an Inequality amongst the Presbyters and the Presidency of some one above the other for Orders sake he holds to be Apostolical but herein differs not from the Old Nonconformists After these I have given the Judgments of Saravia Archbishop Bancroft the Judicious Hooker and Bishop Bilson who affirm the Government of the Church to be Apostolical Tho' formerly 't was esteemed dangerous to the Civil Government to hold that Church Government must now be the same 't was in the Apostles days yet it 's look'd on by these as what ought to be The Government of the Church with them is a Divine and Apostolical Institution but not Vnalterable Bilson I confess says it is Perpetual and yet Bishop * Downame Defence of his Sermon p. 26. who most willingly and gladly professeth to consent in Judgment with Him P. 2. doth solemnly Declare in these words That although he holds the Calling of Bishops in respect of their first Institution to be an Apostolical and so a Divine Ordinance yet that he doth not maintain it to be Divini Juris as intending thereby that it is Generally Perpetually and Immutably necessary as though there could not be a True Church without it And within a few Pages after this He declares his Opinion to be the same with King James's who doth say That it is granted to every Christian King Prince and Commonwealth to prescribe to their Subjects that Outward Form of Ecclesiastical Regiment which may seem best to agree with the Form of their Civill Government but so as they swerve not at all from the Grounds of Faith and True Religion This saith Downame maketh not against the Government of Bishops as I maintain it Tho'
very many Churches As the number of Christians grew and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within every one of their Circuits they placed Pastors in every Congregation they ordained certain Apostolical men to be Chief Assisters unto them whom they placed some one in this particular Country and some others in sundry Cities to have the Rule and Oversight under them of the Churches there and to redress and supply such wants as were needful And they themselves after a while and as they grew in age and escaped the Cruelty of Tyrants remained for the most part in some Head City within their Compass to oversee them all both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents and to give their Directions as occasions required and as they thought it convenient When any of these Apostolical Assistants or of the Apostles themselves died there were ever some worthy Men chosen and appointed to succeed them in those Cities and Countries where they had remained For we may not idlely Dream that when they died the Authority which was given them ceased no more than we may that the Authority of Aaron and of his Natural Sons expired with them besides it is manifest by all Ecclesiastical Histories that many Churches were planted after their Deaths And furthermore it could not be but that some Churches especially under those Apostles that were soonest put to Death were when they died in the same case that Crete was when Titus was sent thither and had therefore as much need of a Titus as Crete had Furthermore who can be accounted to be well in his wits that will imagine that Christ should ordain such an Authority but for some Threescore years especially the same Causes continuing why it was first instituted that were before Nay I may boldly say that there was greater need for the continuance of it afterward For the Apostles having so great Power to work Miracles and by their Prayers to procure from God such strange Executions of his Pleasure upon the contemptuous as did fall upon Ananias and his Wife and I doubt not but in like cases sometimes upon some others their Ruling and Commanding Authority was not so necessary then as it was afterwards when the Power to work Miracles ceased But what should I need to use many words in a matter so apparent After the Death of the Apostles and of their Assistants viz. the Bishops placed by them as is mentioned the Ecclesiastical Histories and the Ancient Fathers have kept the Register of their Names that succeeded sundry of them and ruled the Churches after them as they before had ruled them Whereupon they were called from all Antiquity the Apostles and Apostolical man's Successors This Inequality in the Ministry of the Word hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted by all the General Councils that ever were held in Christendom and by all other Men of Learning that ever I heard of for many Hundred years after the Apostles time saving that Aerius the Heretick an ambitious Person growing into great rage for that he missed of a Bishoprick which he sued for first broached the Opinion which is now so currant amongst his Scholars that there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest Thus Bancroft who seems to be of the same mind with Saravia about the Apostolicalness of the Inequality and that he means no more P. 390. seems clear from what he urges out of Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynold's and Fulk in favour of his own Opinion and his holding Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be valid I have saith Robinson maintained it in the Pulpit D. Robins Answ Exhib to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Titles of Honour which we give to Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word of God than it is for us to be called Wardens Presidents Provosts of Colleges And in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governours of their Diocess as we being Ministers may be Governours of Colleges of Ministers Neither do I think that this was a late devised Policy For I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom S. John writeth was one Minister set over the rest For seeing there were many Pastors there why should S. John write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and not rather to the Angels if there had been no difference amongst them And if this Presidency had had that Fault which is reproved in Diotrephes as St. Hierom proveth that the Jews had not corrupted the Original Text before Christ's coming Quod nunquam Dominus Apostoli qui caetera crimina arguunt in Sâ—ribis Pharisaeis de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent So I may say neither would our Saviour who by his Servant reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence Therefore as Titus was left to Reform the Churches throughout the whole Island of Crete so I am perswaded that in other places some of that Order of Pastors and Teachers which is Perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles had a Prelacy amongst their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And if we come any lower tho' the word Episcopus signifie that care which is required of all and in Scripture be applied to all that have charge of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer that I have read 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 And thus far Dr. Robinson with whom if Master Dr. Reynolds do agree I see not whither the Factioners will turn them For this Dr. in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus tho' it had sundry Elders and Pastors He useth these two words in one signification as by the Sentence going before is manifest to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. 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 Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had faln in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised of it with them and others Here then you have two for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers when they speak of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion I mean Dr. Fulke who in his Confutation of the Rhemish Notes upon the New Testament writeth thus Amongst the