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
order Priests and Bishops so they appointed and willed other Bishops after them to do the like for which they quote Titus 1. and 1 Tim. 5. which is another Proof out of the New Testament In another place they say that the Priests and Bishops in the execution of their Office and Ministration do use and exercise the power and authority of God committed unto them And to name but one place more for I shall quote those onely which in the sense of those Reformers and our Dissenters too prove the Order of Bishops to be distinct from that of Priests and of Divine Institution speaking of the power of the Prince over Bishops and Priests they say that the Prince is to oversee and cause the said Bishops and Priests to execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and specially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them So that it is undeniable that Bishops are mentioned as Church-Officers in the New Testament by this excellent Book and consequently are necessary to such a Church-Government as is Jure Divino according to the first and second Assertion of the Dissenters Let us inquire therefore how they derive their third Assertion from this Book which is That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons To which words they immediately add That no other Government is of Divine Right but what is under the conduct of Bishops or Priests and that the New Testament mentioneth no other Which grants that Bishops are mentioned in the New Testament as well as Priests But the Dissenters will not grant them to be mentioned in the sense of the Reformers that is as a distinct Office and having a Superiority over Priests and Deacons for in the Fourth Assertion they say That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order For proof whereof they quote these words out of the Necessary Erudition viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament And that of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention To which I answer That it is no-where said in the Necessary Erudition That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order And that this Assertion is contradicted by the following Quotation upon which they ground it viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament For throughout that whole Chapter the Reformers make as plain a distinction betwen Bishops and Priests as between Priests and Deacons I do therefore reject the first Assertion as a Fiction of their own not to be found in the Necessary Erudition nor in the practice of the Authors of it which could best expound their meaning viz. That Bishops or Priests are of one and the same Order As to the second viz. That of these two Orders onely i. e. of Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh mention I hope to give such a plain and genuine sense of the Authors as our Dissenters notwithstanding all their Prejudices and Evasions shall not be able to deny And because Qui benè distinguit benè docet I desire them to observe this distinction of the word Order which signifieth either the Power and Faculty conferred by the Apostles hands or the Modus the Rite and Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and Prayer by which it was conferred The first is properly Order and the second as they term it Ordering or Ordination Now I will not dispute in which sense our Reformers use the word Order in this place the Context will shew that But let the Dissenters take it in which sense they will it will be so far from establishing that it will overthrow their Propositions That Bishops and Priests are one and the same Order and that of these two onely Scripture maketh express mention I grant therefore that this second sentence is found intire in that Book viz. Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention But had these men been so ingenuous as to quote the whole Paragraph or to judge of the sense of this Expression which is somewhat dark by those which were more plain whereof some go before and others follow that sentence and all declare Bishops to be a distinct Order and to be mentioned in the New Testament they would never have had the confidence so to expose these learned Reformers as if they had contradicted themselves in the same breath and professed their Judgment to be contrary to their Practice in a Book of that importance written with great Advice and Deliberation and published to give the World an account of the Reformation Could their Popish Adversaries of that Age have fixed such an Opinion and Contradiction on them they should have heard of it as loudly as we have of the Nags head Fable but they had not the confidence to feign them guilty of that Opinion which these Dissenters would force on them whether they will or no. For the Papists of that Age knew that Lex currit cum praxi and that the Reformers exercising Episcopal Authority over the Presbyters within their several Diocesses was a clear proof that they judged their Order to be superiour to that of Priests and that by Divine Institution as in the four places above-mentioned doth appear But to clear this Objection I shall first examine the place quoted as it is entire Secondly I shall shew the sense of it from the Latine Translation which is the best Commentary And thirdly from the received Opinion of other Divines of that Age. And fourthly I shall give you Dr. Burnet's Opinion of the whole matter First The place quoted says thus Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their Hands and to these two the Primitive Church did add and conjoyn certain other inferiour and lower degrees as Subdeacons Acolytes Exorcists with divers other of the which mention is made both of the most Ancient Writers that we have in the Church of Christ after the Aposties as also in divers old Councils and namely in the fourth Council of Africk in which St. Augustine was present where all the kinds of Orders which were then in the Church be rehearsed Now though what hath been observed from the Context might be enough to satisfie all Persons that were not maliciously disposed to quarrel with those Reformers as if they contradicted themselves and overthrew that Episcopal Order in Thesi which they maintained in Praxi yet this Paragraph is so clear by its own light that they must needs wink with both eyes that could not see the sense of the Reformers in it First then the scope of the Paragraph ought to have been considered which is to speak of such Orders as were inferiour
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
they have considered things who are so far carried with their Zeal against the established Government of this Church as to make much use of some passages of the Schoolmen and Canonists that deny them to be distinct Orders for these are the very dregs of Popery N. B. the one raising the Priests higher for the sake of Transubstantiation the other pulling the Bishops lower for the sake of the Popes Supremacy and by such means bringing them almost to an equality So partial are some men to their particular Conceits that they make use of the most mischievous Topicks when they can serve their turn not considering how much farther these Arguments will run if they ever admit them So that although the Phrase of Priests or Bishops might have been used in former times as it was in a Paper printed among the Addenda to the first part of the Doctor 's History p. 324. which Paper was written about six years before the Necessary Erudition as is proved p. 365. of the first part Yet when our Dissenters read as no doubt they did these Remarks of the Doctor 's concerning the rise and mischievous tendences of it their presumption in urging it from that Paper where it is so shamefully condemned is as unpardonable as their endeavour to fasten it on the Necessary Erudition where the contrary is evidently asserted And is this the great Reverence that our Dissenters have for the first Reformers thus to wrest and abuse their Writings by altering their Words curtailing their Sentences and representing them as contradicting themselves as well as the Universal Church in all Ages before them in such an excellent Book and to object that against them which their Adversaries who watched for such an advantage could never find This is no otherwise to honour them than to call them to a second Martyrdom more inglorious and hateful to them than the first And yet these Dissenters could not but know that all they who had a hand in compiling that Book were either Diocesan Bishops or such Divines as lived in a willing submission to them And these things are sufficient to shew that the Dissenters are more genuine Sons of some other Church than of the Church of England according to its Primitive Constitution And thus the Declaration mentioned by our Author to be subscribed by Tho. Cromwell c. which says That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers Priests or Bishops as also the Opinions of Tindal Lambert and Dr. Barnes must be submitted to the more mature and authorized Judgment of the State Civil and Ecclesiastical expressed in the Necessary Erudition And the private Sentiments of such Divines as have written from the days of Edward VI. until now must be adjudged to be conformable to the Judgment and Determination of the Church which hath been established by Law in their days to which also they generally subscribed and then I need say no more but that the Forms of Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons will determine the Question whether from the beginning of our Reformation the Church of England hath acknowledged three Orders viz. of Bishops Priests and Deacons or two only And whether the Church-Government established by Law ever since the days of Edward VI. hath not been by Diocesan Bishops But I would ask these men Could they have conformed to Episcopacy and Liturgy under King Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth and can they not now Was not Episcopacy the same then as it is now and the Liturgie much better now than it was then Could you conform to Henry the Eighth's Primer to his six Articles and seven Sacraments Or to the Liturgie established by King Edward the Sixth wherein were many things that were deservedly accounted Ineptias As in the Communion-Office where they commend to the mercy of God all his Servants departed hence from us And that God would command our Prayers and Supplications by the ministry of his holy Angels to be brought up into his holy Tabernacle The commending Auricular and Secret Confession to the Priest And in the Office of Baptism enjoyning a great part of that Office to be performed the people standing at the Church-door and then to take the Child by the right hand and lead it towards the Font To sign it with the sign of the Cross on the Breast as well as the Forehead The use of Exorcism in these words I command thee thou unclean Spirit in the Name of the Father c. to come out and depart from this Infant The dipping the Child three times in the Water except in case of weakness first on the right side then on the left and then with the Face towards the Water Then to put on it the Crysom saying Take thou this white Vesture for a Token of the Innocency c. Then to anoint the Infant on the head praying God to anoint him with the Vnction of the Spirit And to omit many other things anointing the sick and signing his breast with the sign of the Cross Commending at the time of Burial into the hands of God's mercy the Souls of the departed As for the Book of consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons it was added to the Liturgie by King Edward as it is received now with some few alterations mentioned by Dr. Burnet for the better p. 144. His Articles and Acts for Vniformity were as severe as any that are now And all these were established in Arch-bishop Cranmer's time and with his good Approbation In the Articles of Religion printed 1552. one concerning the Liturgy declares thus The Book of Prayers which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the Authority of Parliament containing the Manner and Form of praying and ministring the Sacraments and the Book of ordering Ministers of the Church set forth by the afore said Authority are godly and in no point repugnant to the wholsome Doctrine of the Gospel but agreeing thereunto furthering and beautifying the same not a little and therefore of all faithful Ministers of the Church of England and chiefly of the Ministers of the Lord ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving and to be commended to the people of God. Besides the Discourse concerning Ceremonies retained in our Book was then set forth as also a Proclamation against those that innovate alter or leave down any Rite or Ceremony in the Church and that preach without License printed in the second year of Edward the Sixth to which the Form for Bidding of Prayers may be added See p. 128. of Dr. Burnet's second part All which notwithstanding Bucer and Peter Martyr approved of Conformity And Mr. Calvin himself both perswaded and approved all that was done in the second Liturgy of King Edward in an Epistle of his to the then Protector being the forty first Epistle in the Edition at Amsterdam 1667. to this effect Let there
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