into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said That this touch'd him and therefore he ask'd me if I thought it wrong that One Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him Unto whom I answered That I could no further go than to St. Paul's Text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked he me whether I thought it unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered that I knew no Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but St. Paul's Saying only Nevertheless I did see a contrary Custom and Practice in the World but I know not the original thereof Then said He There were divers Cities some seven Miles some six Miles long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbs also so likewise now a Bishop has also but one City to his Cathedral Church and the Country about it as Suburbs to it Methought this was far fetch'd but I durst not deny it because it was so great Authority and of so Holy a Father and so great a Divine But this I dare say that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any Authority of Drs. nor yet by any Practice of the Apostles and yet it must be true because a Pillar of the Church has spoken it But let us see what the Drs. say to mine Article Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde but he did injoyn that every City should have his Proper Pastor supposing that by this means they should more diligently Oversee the People Also Chrysostom on that same Text He would not that a whole Country should be permitted unto One man but He enjoyned to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his Labour should be more easie and the Subjects should be with more Diligence Govern'd if the Teachers were not distract with the Governing of many Churches but had Cure and Charge of one Church only c. Methinks these be plain words and able to move a man to speak as much as I did But I poor Man must be an Heretick there is no Remedy you will have it so and who is able to say nay Not all Scripture nor yet God Himself So far these three Worthies About this time the Notion of these blessed Martyrs found respect amongst those that bore a great Figure in the Church The Author of the True Difference between the Regal Power and the Ecclesiastical gives countenance unto it and at last Cranmer with many others fell in with it and it became a Point establish'd by Authority as may be seen in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man where after the Description given of the Office of Priests and Deacons it 's affirmed That of these Two Orders only Scripture makes express mention and that we may not mistake 'em it 's added of these two Orders only that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture makes express mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands Besides The Description they give of the Office of a Bishop or Priest for when they speak of the Divine Institution they make no distinction between 'em it 's thus The Office consists in true Preaching and Teaching the Word of God unto the People in Dispensing and Ministring the Sacraments in Consecrating and Offering the blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar in loosing and assoyling from Sin such Persons as be sorry and truly penitent for the same and Excommunicating such as be guilty in manifest Crimes and will not be reformed otherwise and finally in Praying for the whole Church of Christ and especially for the Flock committed to them Thus there are but two Orders only that is to say Priests and Deacons no third Order Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests and their Office the same and the Superiority of one above the other only by Humane Ordinance and Appointment And whereas say they we have thus summarily declared what is the Office and Ministration which in Holy Scriptures has been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is afore rehearsed we think it expedient and necessary that all men should be advertis'd and taught that all such Lawful Power and Authority of any one Bishop or Priest for they are in the sense of these Great Divines the same over another were and be given them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture So far the Necessary Erudition Thus in Henry the Eighth's days the Bishop and Priest of the same Order according to the Scriptures and their Office the same the Difference therefore between 'em and the Government that is grounded thereupon by Prelatick Bishops Archbishops c. is only by the Positive Laws of Men. In a Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests subscrib'd by Thomas Cromwell the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and divers other Bishops Consult the Addenda in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation p. 321 c. Civilians and Learned Men it is thus Resolved As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders We will That all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our People committed by us unto their Spiritual Charge First How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament that beside the Civil Powers and Governance of Kings and Princes which is called in Scripture Potestas gladii the Power of the Sword there should be also continually in the Church Militant certain other Ministers or Officers which should have Spiritual Power Authority and Commission under Christ to Preach and Teach the Word of God unto his People and to Dispense and Administer the Sacraments of God unto them and by the same to confer and give the Grace of the Holy Ghost to consecrate the blessed Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar to loose and absoile from Sin all Persons which be duly penitent and sorry for the same to bind and Excommunicate such as be Guilty in manifest Crimes and Sins and will not amend their defaults to order and consecrate others in the same room Order and Office whereunto they recalled admitted themselves and finally to feed Christ's People like good Pastors and Rectors as the Apostle calleth them with their wholesom Doctrin and by their continual Exhortations and Monitions to reduce them from Sin and Iniquity so much as in them lieth and to bring them unto perfect Knowledge the perfect Love and Dread of God and unto the perfect Charity of their Neighbours That this Office this Power and Authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain Persons only that is to say unto
perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ which no doubt should have been done if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church Secondly Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only The true Preaching of the Word and the right Administration of Sacraments So that notwithstanding Government or some kind of Government may be a part of the Church touching the outward Form and Perfection of it yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government and therefore the kind of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation There is no certain kind of Government or Discipline prescribed to the Churches but that the same may be altered as the Profit of the Churches requires and out of Gualters he saith Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form. I do deny that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form and kind of Government of the Church to be Perpetual for all Times Persons and Places without Alteration It is well known Tract 17. Chap. 2. Divis 29. that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time and expressed in the Scriptures neither is now nor can or ought to be observed either touching the Persons How then can the Government of the Church by Bîshops Archbishops c. be Apostolical or the Functions We see manifestly that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times is and hath been of necessity altered and that it neither may nor can be revoked whereby 't is plain that any one kind of External Government perpetually to be observed is no where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof is left to the Magistrate so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers This was it's like Universally received by all the English Clergy in Whitgifts time Neither do I know saith the Archbishop any Learned Man of a contrary Judgment Either we must admit another Form now of Governing the Church than was in the Apostles time or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters I am perswaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Common-wealth else how can you make the Prince Supream Governour of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical If you therefore will have the Queen of England Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all and every part of the same and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as she doth the Common-wealth in Civil Dr. Cosins Chancellor to this Archbishop in his Answer to the Abstract Pag. 58. asserts That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline neither is it necessary that they should seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God. Dr. Low speaks to the same purpose Complaint of the Church No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word P. 64 66. only general Rules laid down for it Bishop Bridges God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government at least not so as to bind us What is here mention'd of Cosins Low and Bishop Bridges I have out of Dean Stillingfleet's Weapon Salve and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about Whitaker who making his Remarques on St. Hierom's teling us Whitaker De Ecles Regimin Contr. 4. q. 1. §. 29. p. 540. Col. 2. That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men long after the Apostles as a Remedy against Schism assures us That it 's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church and this other of Bishop Morton telling the Papists That Power of Order and of Jurisdiction which they ascribe to Bishops doth de jure divino belong to all other Presbyters and particularly Morton 's Apol. Cath. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 55. That to Ordain is the jus antiquum the Ancient Right of Presbyters in fine That Dr. Laurence Humfrey and Dr. Holland Humf. against Campian Jesuit Part 2. p. 273. both of them Doctors of the Chair in Oxford did teach and maintain the same Doctrine Holland in the Act July 9. 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures the Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England the Schoolmen Lombard Aquinas Bonaventure c. CHAP. IV. Dr. Willet 's Sentiments much the same with the foremention'd Bishops The Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter as of Divine Right declur'd to be Popish and oppos'd as such The special Consecration of Bishops was Ordained not by a Divine Law but by the Church for the Dignity of their Calling Saravia for no other Difference between a Presbyter and Bishop but in Degree Bancroft for a Priority in degree only holding with Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fulk whose Authorities he insists on to Confirm his Opinion about a Gradual Difference between Bishop and Presbyter TO these I will add another namely In his Life of Willet Dr. Andrew Willet who as Dr. Smith observes is by Bishop Hall numbred amongst those Worthies of the Church of England Hall in his Noah 's Dove to whom he gives this Elogy Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus This Dr. in his Synopsis Papismi is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted The grand Question under Debate is Willet 's Synops Papism Contr. 5. Quest 3. Concerning the Clergy Append. Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers be grounded upon the Law of God and Institution of the Apostles The Papists Bellarmine saith the Dr. affirmeth Lib. 1. De Clericis c. 14. That the Jurisdiction of Bishops as now it standeth in their Church and the Difference between them and other Presbyters is Jure Divino grounded upon the Law of God and of such necessity that he holdeth the contrary to be Heresie and those to be Hereticks that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politick Constitution of the Church to avoid Schism than of the Institution of the Apostles yea they hold them to be no Churches at all which are not under the Government of Bishops but of other Overseers and Superintendents Surely I see not
Church recogniz'd by all to be common at least in the Third Century For though Bishop Parker will not admit them to have been in the Church till the Fourth Century because no mention of 'em in any Record before the Council of Ancyra sat which notwithstanding what Angelocrator avers who would have it be after the Council of Nice because Vitalis Bishop of Antioch the first named amongst the Bishops that sate in it was not made a Bishop before the Year 331. it 's generally held to be in the Year 314. And it 's not easie to imagine that these Chorepiscopi could in so short a time spring out of Nothing and arrive to that height they were at An. 314 or as others 308. Besides there were several Chorepiscopi in the Council of Nice that was but Ten or Twelve Years after this and Rabanus Maurus Seven or Eight Hundred Years ago produced an Apostolical Argument to prove that they were as ancient as City Bishops For says he in the Book which Damasus the first wrote on the desire of Hierome the Presbyter it 's affirm'd That Linus and Cletus by the Commandment of St. Peter Ordained Presbyters who yet succeeded him not in the Apostolical Chair Clemens being by the Order of this blessed Apostle made his Successor And saith Maurus from hence it is that the Chorepiscopi as I suppose had their Rise and have ever since continued in the Catholick Church who being Ordained by their own Bishops by their Commandment did Ordain Presbyters Deacons and other Inferior Degrees and discharge all the other Offices belonging to Priesthood So far Rabanus They were but Presbyters and yet did Ordain and Exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction That they did at first exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction in the Countrey is clear from the 13th Canon of the Council of Ancyra which according to Zonaras and Balsaman is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exactly translated by Gentianus Hervetus Chorepiscopos non â—icere Presbyteros vel Diaconos Ordinare sed nequeVrbis Presbyteros nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in aliena Parochia This as Bishop Parker confesseth is the most correct Copy That it shall not be lawful for Countrey Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons nor yet for City Presbyters without the permission of their Bishop Only he omits this material Expression in another Parish or Diocess which Words do greatly confound the Learned Archbishop of Paris De Marca who will therefore have the Greek Copy corrected Quid est illud in aliena Paraeciâ ac si Chorepiscopis libera esset Ordinatio Presbyteri in sua Paraecia sine literis De Marc. de Concord Sacer. Imper. l. 2. c. 14. Sect. 1 2. What is the meaning of these words saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in alienae paroicia as if it had been lawful for-the Chorepiscopi to Ordain Presbyters in their own Precincts without the leave of the City-Bishop He will therefore have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in unaquâque Paraecia which agrees not only with the Translation of Dionysius Exiguus but with an ancient Copy in the Library at Oxford P. 140. as Thorndike of the Right of the Church reports who can make no Sense of De Marca's Emendation For says he can the Reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable to Reasonable Persons What Consequence of Sense is there in saying unless License be granted in every Parish Which is plain when it is said That the City-Presbyters do nothing in the Parish that is in the Countrey or Diocess without Authority by the Bishop's Letters So far Thorndike who is for the blotting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Zonara's and Balsanion's Copy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Copy at Oxford and who agrees with De Marca in adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Canon and prefers Isidore Mercator's Translation before the Original Greek and have it thus Vicariis Episcoporum quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos Ordinare sed nec Presbyteris Civitatis sine Episcopi Praecepto amplius aliquid Imperare vel sine Autoritate Literarum ejus in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere Whereby contrary to all Rule by Addition Mutilation c. they impose a Sense directly contradicting the express Words of the Canon which is done in so gross a manner that Thorndike himself was compell'd to acknowledge Right of the Church pag. 141 142. That for his part he doth not believe that we have the true Reading of this Canon in any Copy that he hath heard of or seen But why is Thorndike who is followed by Dr. Hammond and Bishop Parker all differing from Queen Elizabeth's Old Episcopal Divines so concern'd to oppose the Universally Receiv'd Copies of Zonaras and Balsamon but because do they what they can it may be easily inferr'd that before the Council of Ancyra the Chorepiscopi did ordain Presbyters c. that afterwards they might do it in their own Parishes without leave in other Parishes with leave or at least in their own Parishes with leave Thus much is the Import of Zonara's Balsamon's and the Oxford Copies one of which must be receiv'd notwithstanding any thing hitherto oppos'd unto ' em The whole that Thorndike hath laid in against us narrowly look'd into comes to nothing The Reasons why our Copy is to be suspected saith he are these 1. In an Arabick Paraphrase now extant in the Oxford Library there is nothing to be found of that Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Isidore Mercator's Translation which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus wherewith that Copy agreed which Hervetus translated as also Fulgentius his Breviate which Pope Adrian the first followed hath only this Vicariis Episcoporum quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant c. ut supra 3. Can the Reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable c. ut supra 4. Seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for by the Council of Laodicea Cap. LVI in the same Subject it seems very probable that this should be the provision which the Council of Ancyra intended as all Ignatius his Epistles and other Canons Apost XL. Arelat XIX express it To all which I reply 1. The Greek Copy compared with Translations having the Reputation of an Original is not to be neglected though in the Arabick Paraphrase the Clause about City Presbyters is omitted for it might be either negligently or willingly done Besides if this Clause had never been in the Original there still remains enough to carry our Point in that as we shall hereafter prove the Chorepiscopi were but Presbyters and yet by the other parts of this Canon had power to ordain both Presbyters and Deacons at least with the permission of the City-Bishop To the Second touching Isidore's Translation which differs from Hervetus's and Dionysius Exiguus's as well as from every Greek Copy cannot be
THE Healing Attempt Being a Representation OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Church of England According to the Judgment of her Bishops unto the End of Q. Elizabeths Reign Humbly Tendred To the Consideration of the Thirty Commissionated for a Consult about ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS in Order to a Comprehension And Published In hopes of such a Moderation of Episcopacy that the Power be kept within the Line of our First Reformers and the Exercise of it reduced to the Model of Arch-Bishop USHER Mediocria firma LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers-Chappel 1689. The Epistle to the Commissioners Most Reverend Right Reverend and Reverend I Bless you all in the Name of the Lord and Blessed be your Meeting this Day and this Appointment for you to Sit about so Blessed a reconciling Work. I have but this short Grace to say Blessed are the Peacemakers When such a Choice of Persons is Congregated and their Business Accommodation the Tidings hereof to the poor Outed Shepherds should methinks be so affecting as if the Angels were again upon the Wing and singing over that Hymn Glory be to God in the highest in Earth Peace and good will towards Men. Alas How many Years have passed since the Reformation wherein your Nonconformist Brethren have been a Loading and their Burthen encreasing and none of you that were willing were able to ease them when by the Artifice of the Papists and the Higher Powers influenced by them you were forced to bear the blame of those things which your Souls did abhor And now is the time come when God hath sent us such a Nursing Father and Nursing Mother to his Church as hath called you to the liberty of shewing of what manner of spirit indeed you are Blessed be his Name for it and the hoâ—â—es we have on that account This is the day which the Lord hath made we will be glad and rejoyce in it I know indeed how hard of belief the most of our Brethren generally are that any good should be done for us by a Convocation or this Meeting It is impossible they are readier to say that those But Reverendly beloved I am perswaded better things of you and things that accompany Salvation though they thus speak I am perswaded that even this will stimulate you to a greater earnestness to do them the more good for such is Christianity and that I shall not need to say any thing not any more than in the Title to put you on this grateful task The same also which ye are forward to do I have less need to be impertinent in offering Arguments to such Wits which were to bring Water to the Spring but this one thing I have need to do which is to beg of you that you will Pardon what is done if in any thing the Author seems to presume or to be more slender than he ought for want of more time and search or does in any regard offend I will also beg of you more Two things the One is To take heed how you make more conditions necessary to us for Communion with you than Christ requires of you for Communion with him The Other is That you do not Tantalize your Brethren or Procrastinate that Kindness whatsoever it is which you intend towards those who are capable to receive it For we must needs die and are as water spilt upon the ground which cannot be gathered up again Neither doth God respect any person yet doth he devise means that his banished be not expelled from him A Friend to the Design and Substance of these Papers J. H. Octob. 3. 1689. THE AUTHOR TO THE READER THE Greatest thing in Controversie amongst Protestants is Whether the Office of a Presbyter and Bishop be according to the Holy Scriptures the same and on a Just Determination of this Question depends the Peace of our Church To affirm That the Bishop and Presbyter are of different Orders That the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of Bishops That Ordination only by Presbyters is void and null and that the Ordaining 'em again by Bishops is not Re-Ordination destroys the Church State not only of Dissenters but of all other Protestants in the World except of those in the Church of England nulling their Ministry Sacraments and Discipline A Comprehension therefore on these Terms is none at all It 's only an offer to Vnite with Dissenters on their doing what is to them Impossible They cannot Renounce their Ordination nor Consent to the Destroying their own nor the Church State of Reformed Protestants Abroad But lest the Impossibility they lie under be Interpreted a Peevish Humour and Obstinacy in them the Sentiments of the First-Reformers in the Days of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth are Impartially Propos'd and found to be exactly the same with theirs and what will touching Matters of Church Government Heal our Divisions The Author could Descend lower than the last of Elizabeth but there 's no need on 't and he must acknowledge that tho' a great many Eminent Writers Learned Divines of the Church of England asserted this Old Reformer's Principle yet the Canons of James I. ran another way and in his Reign the Learned were divided in their Opinions about the Office of Bishop and Presbyter and so they are at this very time However it cannot be denied that the First Reformers adher'd unto by Archbishop Usher held the same which the Dissenters have all along stifly maintain'd and have Antiquity on their side The Learned Carleton is Positive that the Power of Order by all Writers that He could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be Immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration and that in this there was no Difference between Papist and Protestant whence it follows that the Divesting the Parish Presbyter of the Pastoral Office is but a late Invention Thus much He Asserts of that Power of Order which he distinguisheth from the Power of Jurisdiction and includes in it the Power of Ordination And although according to the most taking Opinion amongst those who seem'd to be somewhat Zealous for Prelacy the Power of Jurisdiction was peculiarly appropriated to the Bishop yet this Jurisdiction following Orders could never be so separated from it but that there still remain some Convincing Instances of its belonging unto Presbyters In the Case of a Bishop's Suspension it 's clear I will only observe what is at this time most obvious On the Suspension of the Archbishop of Canterbury All Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Dean and Chapter who are but Presbyters as is daily Asserted in these words Nos Johannes Tillotson Sacrae Theologiae Professor Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metropoliticae Christi Cant ' Et Ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum ad quos Omnis omnimoda Jurisdictio Spiritualis Ecclessiastica quae ad Archiepiscopum Cant. pertinuit nunc ratione
that whosoever as the worthy Lord Keeper Bacon observ'd in those days pretended a little spark of Earnestness he seemed no less than red fire hot in comparison of the other And as some fare the worse for an ill Neighbour's sake dwelling beside them so did it betide the Protestants who seeking to curb the the Papists or reprove an idle Drone were incontinently branded with the Ignominious note of Precisian all which wind brought plenty of water to the Pope's Mill and there will most Men grind where they see Appearance to be well served So far Sir Robert Cotton And as the disgracing Godly-Ministers by fastning the names of Puritan Precisian c. on 'em and the laying 'em aside from the publick exercise of their Ministry did in the Reign of Elizabeth give life to Popery so 't will still and all those Protestant Ministers that are now denied entrance into the Parish Churches will be in disgrace amongst the People and their Ministry not half so successful amongst those that mostly need it The wider therefore the Church Doors are made the greater will be the number of Pious and Painful Preachers the greater the Advantage on Truth 's side and the greater Discouragement on the other hand But that the Door may be made wide enough to answer the desired End seeing our Governours are inclin'd to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies with some more offensive Impositions there is this one thing to wit The Ordering and Declaring the Government of the Church to be now no other but what it was held and intended to be by the first Reformers will as I humbly apprehend be the most Effectual Expedient of any else in the World. Some of our Clergy have Notions about Church-Government very Dissonant from what the Gentry and Parliament Men have and the first Reformers heretofore had and it 's feared by some thinking Persons that the Laws yet in Being have Established a Government in the Church very different from what the Legislators I mean the King the Temporal Lords and Commons generally designed The Government settled in the Church by the first Reformers and still supposed by our Gentry to continue is consistent enough with the Church state of all other Protestants but that which is really Established by Law is Inconsistent with and Destructive of it driving many Learned Godly Protestant Divines from that Conformity which is at this time made necessary to the Exercise of their Ministry in Parish Churches To clear thus much is methinks one of the most necessary things to be attempted and the very next step to be taken towards the setling a Comprehension which will be of validity with Judicious Men. What were the Sentiments of the First-Reformers about Episcopacy and Church Government during Queen Elizabeths Reign I will with the greatest impartiality declare as near as possibly I can in their own words and add some Arguments to shew that the most effectual way to settle such a Comprehension as will best secure the Protestant Religion is the Forming and Framing the Government of the Church according to the Sentiments of our First-Reformers which in the Learned Archbishop Vsher's Reduction of Episcopacy I take to be very happily copied out unto us I will begin with those who liv'd in Henry the Eighth's days for then began the Reformation CHAP. I. The Sense of our First Reformers in Henry the Eighth's Days IN this King's Reign Tindall Lambert and Barnes Men of good Learning and blessed Martyrs sealing the Truths they professed with their Blood struggled strenuously for a Reformation of Church Government Tindall looking on Corruptions in Discipline to be a principal occasion of that greater Deluge of Enormities in the Church presseth for a Reduction of all things in the Discipline to the Apostolical Institution and therefore makes Enquiry after those Officers the Apostles Ordained in Christ's Church and what their Offices were and gives us an account of his Perswasion of it thus Wherefore the Apostles following and obeying the Rule Tindall's Practice of Popish Prelates Doctrine and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ Ordained in his Kingdom and Congregation TWO OFFICERS one called after the Greek word Bishop in English an Overseer which same was called Priest after the Greek Elder in English because of his Age Discretion and Sadness for he was as nigh as could be always an Elderly Man. And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plough of God's Word and fed Christ's Flock and tended them only without looking to any other Business in the World. Another Officer they chose and called him Deacon after the Greek a Minister in English to Minister the Alms of the People unto the Poor and Needy For in the Congregation of Christ love maketh every Man's Gifts and Goods common to the Necessity of his Neighbour There is Presbyteros called an Elder by birth Tindall on the word Elder which same is called immediately a Bishop or Overseer to declare what Persons are meant They were called Elders because of their Age Gravity c. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices And all that were called Elders or Priests if they so will were called Bishops also tho' they have divided the names now which thing thou mayst evidently see by the first Chapter of Titus and the twentieth of the Acts. Those Overseers which we now call Bishops after the Greek word were alway biding in One place to Govern the Congregation there But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew rich Lambert is of the same Opinion As touching Priesthood saith he in the Primitive Church Ach. Mon. Vol. 2. when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same the most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture full apertly Hierome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul whereas he faith That those we call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops none other but Priests Men ancient both in Age and Learning so near as they could be chosen Neither were they Institute and chosen as they be now adays with small regard of a Bishop or his Officer only apposing them if they can construe a Collect. To conclude I say the Order or State of Priests and Deacons was Ordained by God. The Sixth Article against Dr. Barnes was That he declared himself thus I will never believe nor yet can I ever believe that one Man may be by the Law of God a Bishop of two or three Cities yea of an whole Countrey for it is contrary to St. Paul which saith I have left thee behind to set in every City a Bishop And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi you shall find in many that they be called Presbyteri I was saith he brought before my Lord Cardinal
the Authority of the Bishop let him be Excommunicated Divers other Constitutions have been made in Ecclesiastical Politie for the maintaining the Dignity of Bishops So also the Civil State hath augmented and enlarged the Privileges and Immunities of Bishops which they have rather by the Munificence of Princes than by Divine Authority As first the Division of Provinces and Cities unto Archbishops and Bishops and the limitation of their Jurisdiction was brought in by the consent of Princes Secondly The Revenues and Lands of Bishopricks have been given by Devout and Religious Princes unto Bishops and their Successors and divers Imperial Laws have been made in favour of the Maintenance of the Church Thirdly The Titles of Honour annexed to Bishopricks as that they are created Barons and made Lords of the Parliament-House here in England have been bestowed by the Liberality of the Kings of this Realm not yet above 400 years since Fourthly The Judgment of Matrimonial and Testamentary Causes and of other such like Matters hath been reserved unto Bishops by the Civil and Imperial Authority Thus we see how in Civil Policy the Dignity of Bishops by the favour of Christian Emperors hath been enlarged And hitherto I have shewed what is to be judged Political in the Distinction of Bishops from the rest of the Clergy both as touching the Civil and Ecclesiastical Policy So far Willet out of whom I observe That the Government of the Church is not de jure divino That according to the Scriptures the Office of a Bishop and Priest is the same That a convenient Priority of Order amongst Ministers is Divine and Apostolical That the Powers of Confirmation Ordination and Jurisdiction are reserv'd to the Bishops by Ecclesiastical constitutions only That in the Beginning a Bishop and Presbyter had but one Ordination and the Consecration of Bishops was added since for their greater Dignity In Hierom's days the Election of Bishops without any other circumstances being their Ordination That Priests without a Licence from the Bishop might Preach There is one thing more to be regarded touching the Difference of Bishops and other Ministers for says he We differ from the Papists in two Points First they say That Bishops are not only in a higher degree of Superiority to other Ministers but they are as Princes of the Clergy and other Ministers as Subjects and in all things to be commanded by them Secondly They affirm That Bishops are only properly Pastors and that to them only it doth appertain to Preach and that other Ministers have no Authority without their Licence or Consent to preach at all and that not principally or chiefly but solely and wholly to them appertaineth the Right of Consecrating and giving Orders so that the making the Bishop to be of a distinct Order from the Priest and the denying the Priest to have a Power to Preach without the Bishop's Licence or any hand in Ordination Willet opposeth as Popish Doctrines representing the opposite Notions to have been then held by the Church of England Hitherto the Government of the Church by Bishops lays no claim to a Divine Right On the contrary it 's generally asserted that according to the Scriptures the Priest and Bishop are the same and that the superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter is only by Ecclesiastick Custom and the Government of the Church now different from what it was in the Apostles days Willet indeed saith That for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical and towards the latter end of the Queens Reign the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution yet not to be de jure divine and unalterable Saravia about the two and thirtieth year of the Queen professeth * Hoc enim pacto fiet magis clarum quid omnes Evangelii ministri inter se habeant commune quid cuique ordini sit peculiare Ea vero in tres partes ego distribuo Prima est Evangelii Praedicatioâ— altera Communicatio sacramentorum tertia Ecclesiasticae Gubernationis authoritas De Divers Grad Minist Evang. p. 15. Quamvis unum idem Evangelii Ministerium sit omnibus Pastoribus Ecclesiae concreditum in hac tertia parte non parva inter eos invenitur Inaequalitas propter diversos Authoritatis Gradus quos primo Dominus statim ab initio postea Apostoli constituerunt p. 7. Primum ab ipso Domino Duos Gradus Evangelii ministrorum institutos videmus quorum alter altero fuit superior p. 25. Consensu totius Orbis Ecclesiarum probatur Episcoporum supra Presbyteros authoritas Quod inde ab Apostolorum temporibus patribus per universum terrarum Orbem factum ab omnibus Ecclesiis legimus usque ad nostra tempora Canonem Apostolorum immutabilem esse judico p. 44. c. 20. That the general Nature of the Evangelical Ministry common both to Bishops and Presbyters containeth these three things 1. The Preaching of the Gospel 2. The Communication of the Sacraments 3. The Authority of Church Government and doth only plead that in this last the Power of Bishops and Presbyters is not equal but the Bishop's Power is principal in Government Whence arises a Diversity of Degrees not of Orders between them and thus much he affirms hath been held by the Fathers of the Church universally ever since the Apostles days and therefore may well be look'd on as an Unchangeable Canon of the Apostles The Difference between Saravia and those who went before him lyeth here Whit gift c. Saravia The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments divinely Instituted and to continue to the End of the World but no particular Form of Government left on Record in Scripture The Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter according to St. Hierom rather by Custom of the Church than an Institution of Christ. Not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirm'd by the Observation of the Fathers ought to continue for ever The Superiority in Degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter a Divine Institution and that St. Hierom was in the same Error with Aerius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi Opinionem consentaneam cum Aerio Dei verbo contrariam p. 51. A Year or two after Saravia's Book came out Bancroft afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury publisheth a Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline as he calls his Book in the Preface to which he saith That we have a Church Government of our own which is in my conscience truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other that is receiv'd this day by any Reformed Church in Christendom And elsewhere in the Book it self P. 105. The Apostles saith he having received the Promise of the Holy Ghost after a short time dipersed themselves by advice into divers Regions and there by painful Preaching and Labouring in the Lord's Harvest they planted no doubt
Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was always one Principal to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which room Titus exercised in Creta Timothy in Ephesus and others in other Places Therefore altho' in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments as Hierom doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech He is only called a Bishop which is in the Scriptures called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.17 that is Chief in Government to whom the Ordination or Consecration by Imposition of hands was always Principally committed and which most ancient Form of Government when Aerius would take away it was noted amongst his other Errors Hitherto Dr. Fulke so as hereby I trust it may appear to Master Cart-wright's Reproach and to all their Shames that shall pretend any Authority from the ancient Fathers to impugn the Right Honourable and Lawful calling of Bishops not Parsons in every Parish but Bishops in their Diocesses and Provinces appointed in the Apostles times for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ So far Rancroft who introduceth these three great Men's Authority to countenance the Presidency or Chiefty of the Bishop over Presbyters in Government as Apostolical tho' Fulke goes no higher than the Custom of the Church agreeing with Jewel and Whit gift and it must be observed that they make not the Bishop to be a distinct Order from that of Presbyters nor deny the Presbyters to be Pastors nor affirm the Invalidity of the Presbyterial Ordination only that the Ordination by Imposition of hands was Principally committed to the Bishops and as Archbishop Spotiswood reports Bancroft held the Ordination only by Presbyters to be valid and lawful Histor Church of Scotland lit 7. p. 514. Spotiswood has it in these words A Question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops who as he said must first be Ordained Presbyters as having received no Ordination from a Bishop The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by maintained That thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed Lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any Lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated CHAP. V. The Learned Hooker and Bishop Bilson's Opinion impartially stated differing but little from Saravia and Bancroft THE Learned and Judicious Hooker seems also to be of the same mind with Saravia and Bancroft for in his Third Book it 's only Polity in the general that in his Opinion is necessary to the several particular Churches For Lib. 3. Sect. 1. p. 66. Edit 61. saith he even the several Societies of Christian Men unto every of which the name of a Church is given with addition betokening severally as the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus England and so the rest must be endued with correspondent general Properties belonging unto them as they are Publick Christian Societies And of such Properties common unto all Societies Christian it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity Which word I therefore the rather choose because the name of Government as commonly Men understand it in ordinary speech doth not comprize the largeness of that whereunto in this Question it is applied For when we speak of Government what doth the greater part conceive thereby but only the exercise of Superiority peculiar unto Rulers and Guides of others To our purpose therefore the name of Church-Polity will better serve because it containeth both Government and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the Ordering of the Church in Publick Neither is any thing in this degree more necessary than Church Polity which is a form of Ordering Publick Spiritual Affairs of the Church of God. Thus Hooker looks on Polity to be necessary to the Church and why necessary but because God himself is the Author of it It is not possible that any Form of Polity much less of Polity Ecclesiastical should be good Lib. 3. §. 2. unless God himself be Author of it Those things which are not of God saith Tentullian they can have no other than God's Adversary for their Author Be it whatsoever in the Church of God if it be not of God we hate it But then he distinguished between what is of God by the Law of Nature and the Revelation made of the Divine Will in Scripture Of God it must be either as those things sometimes were which God supernaturally revealed and so delivered them unto Moses for Government of the Commonwealth of Israel or else as those things which Men find out by help of that Light which God hath given them unto that end The very Law of Nature it self which no man can deny but God hath instituted is not of God unless that be of God whereof God is the Author as well this latter way as the former The Controversie between Hooker and the Old Nonconformists was Whether any particular Form of Polity be so of God that it be set down in Scripture and the Noncons asserted That no Form of Church Polity was lawful Ubi supra or of God unless God be so the Author of it that it be also set down in Scripture Hooker on the contrary That he which affirmeth Speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the World doth not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak one kind of Language Even so the necessity of Polity and Regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all so far He who doth moreover thus reason with the Noncons You should tell us plainly whether your meaning be that it must be there set down in whole or in Parts For if wholly shew what one form of Policy ever was so your own to be so taken out of Scripture you 'l not affirm neither do you deny that in part even this which you so much oppugn is also from thence taken Again you should tell us whether only that be taken out of Scripture which is actually and particularly there set down or else that also which the general Principles and Rules of Scripture Potentially contain The one way you cannot so much as pretend that all the Parties of your own Discipline are in Scripture and the other way your mouths are stop'd when you would plead against all other Forms besides your own seeing the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general Axioms of the Scripture After the most impartial Enquiry this Learned Man's Judgment about
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
cause let no one say Et ne alicui talis Ordinatio vel Confirmatio aut Consecratio Reiteratio esse videatur That when any of those who have been Ordained by the Chorepiscopi are afterwards Ordained by the City-Bishop that they were Re-ordained but let 'em attend that Saying Quod non ostenditur gestum ratio non sinit ut videntur iteratum And Pope Nicholas 1. gives this as a Reason why he judges their Ordination valid The Chorepiscopi were such as the Seventy sent out by our Lord Jesus who without doubt were vested with the Episcopal Power But tho' these Papal Determinations are different yet they agree in witnessing to this Truth That the Chorepiscopi exercis'd Episcopal Authority De Marca proves the same out of the Arabian Canons translated by Alfonsus Pisanus and from the last words of the Canon of Antioch Dr. Parker himself makes no doubt of it for says he That these Chorepiscopi had the Character of Proper Bishops Parker's Account p. 154. appears plainly from the tenth Canon of Antioch that allows them to Ordain the inferiour Officers of the Church This of Bishop Parker doth exactly agree with the 55. Chapter of Nice as translated out of Arabick by Turrianus the Jesuit When the Chorepiscopus visits the Churches and Monasteries under his Power let him gather together the Elders of Castles and expound unto 'em the Holy Scriptures and enquire whether they have any Sons or Daughters and give order that they be brought unto him that he may sign 'em pray over them impose Hands on 'em bless and institute Ministers that is say the Notes on this Chapter Lectores Exorcistae Hypodiaconi And that these Chorepiscopi were but of the same Order with Presbyters and were no otherwise Bishops than as all other Presbyters are is as clear for their Ordination was by one Bishop only not by three and when they entred on the Exercise of the Episcopal Power they had no new Consecration as may be seen in the 54. Chapter of Nice translated out of the Arabick where Turrianus renders it thus Et debet Episcopus vid. Civitatis recitare super electum scil Chorepiscopum Orationem consuetam Chorepiscopus non ordinabatur sed per oraticnem benedicebatur Benedicere illi dareque illi nomina omnium Ecclesiarum Monasteriorum qua sub Potestate ejus sunt The Notes on this Chapter have it that they were not consecrated anew to the Office of a Country-Bishop but only by the Prayer of the City-Bishop blessed Damasus 1. expresly affirms them to be but Presbyters in these words Quod ipsi iidem sunt qui Presbyteri sufficienter invenitur quia ad formam exemplum septuaginta inveniuntur prius instituti The select Capitula of Charles the Great concurring with Leo the Third Tit. 4. c. 3. and speaking of the Episcopal Rights say the same Haec verò non à Presbyteris vel Chorepiscopis qui ambo unius formae esse videntur Besides such were some of the Ancient Canons decreeing that there should be but one Bishop in a Diocess and he only in the City that made it necessary for some of those who anciently would have the Bishops to be of an Order superiour above Presbyters to hold that these Chorepiscopi tho' they had the name of Bishop given 'em and were vested with the Jura Episcopalia were but Presbyters usurping on the Episcopal Office so Damasus Leo and many French Bishops in Charles the Great 's days and it hath also put some later Writers such as Bellarmine Boverius in his Paraenetic Censure of de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato's Book de Rep. Eccles and De Marco to phansie that some made Chorepiscopi were formerly Consecrated to the Episcopal Dignity and that others were but Presbyters and thus by distinguishing the Office from the Person they hoped to extricate themselves but as Dr. Parker well observes Pag. 158. This is precariously said without any shadow of Pretence for it but meerly to salve his own Hypothesis Others Thorndike of Rights of Church p. 146. such as Thorndike are driven to the Invention of another Distinction which is between the Solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudicial to any Power to do that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it Some Acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this Distinction as the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Countrey-Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City-Church which is the Apostolical Rule for Episcopal Churches Thus Thorndike who differs greatly from the generality of his Brethren who hold that though the Potestas Jurisdictionis may be delegated to one that is not a Bishop yet the Potestas Ordinis cannot However it must be acknowledged that there is a great difference between a Presbyter's Ordaining other Presbyters with the leave of the Bishop and his doing it by a Power derived from the Bishop One vested with a Power may not be able to exercise it without the leave of another and yet when he hath leave he then exercises a Power inherent in himself virtute officii The Bishops themselves cannot exercise the Power of Orders without the leave of the Supreme Civil Magistrate and now that they do exercise it 't is with his leave but it does not therefore follow that the Power of Orders is derived from the Supreme Magistrate to the Bishop In the Council of Ancyra it 's not said That the Presbyter shall not Ordain Presbyters unless the Bishop delegates unto him a Power enabling him so to do but he shall not exercise this Power without the consent of the Bishop which was enjoyned by the Canon to prevent Schisms and Divisions in the Church So that I cannot see how this Distinction of Thorndike so applauded by Dr. Parker can help ' em To press this yet further Henry the Eighth's Suffragans were consecrated Bishops and had the same Power virtute officii that any other Bishop receiv'd at his Consecration but may not exercise it unless by Commission from the City-Bishop But when they did exercise the Episcopal Authority was it by a Power receiv'd at their Consecration and inherent in them or by a Power deriv'd unto 'em from the City-Bishop by Commission 'T was by the former no doubt why else were they consecrated If then this Commission given by the City-Bishop to the Suffragan limiting the Exercise of his Power doth not infer that the Suffragan did not act by a Derived Power much less can these Words Let not the Chorepiscopus Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without the consent of the City-Bishop imply that the Chorepiscopus deriv'd the Power of Ordaining from the City-Bishop The Bishop of Lincoln can't Ordain Priests or Deacons in Westminster-Abby without the leave of the
deny not but that there may be yea such a Priority as maketh one man amongst many a Principal Actor in those things whereunto sundry of them must necessarily concur so that the same be admitted only during the time of such Actions and no longer The Inequality they complain of is That one Minister of the Word and Sacraments should have a permanent Superiority above another or in any sort a Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over other Ministers Thus you see how far the old Noncons could go and no farther and immediately after he tells us how much farther the Church of England at that time went for says he By Vs on the contrary side Inequality even such Inequality as unto Bishops being Ministers of the Word and Sacraments is granted a Superiority Permanent above Ministers yea a Permanent Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over them is maintained a thing Allowable Lawful and Good. In two things Hooker differs from the old Noncons 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary Hooker makes it Permanent 2. They deny the Bishops having a Power over other Pastors that is Mandatory Judicial and Coercive Hooker affirms it There is one thing more to be enquired into viz. whether He grants to Presbyters the Pastoral Office He calls them Pastors and in his very definition of a Bishop makes the Bishop to be a Pastor of Pastors and of Presbyters and he calls the Bishop but Principal Pastor and makes him to have a Chiefty in Regiment above Presbyters as if he held that the Presbyter had some tho' not so great a share in the Government and out of Austin That a Bishop is a Presbyter Superior and in several places a Bishop is of a Higher Degree than a Presbyter And altho' in his Third Book he makes the Episcopal Office to be a part of Church Polity perpetual as tho' the Episcopacy had been de jure Divino and Immutable yet in this Seventh Book in clearing the sense of St. Jerom he is expresly against the Immutability and Unchangeableness of the Bishop's Superiority as if he held it to be Apostolical in the same manner Bishop Downame doth of whom hereafter The words of St. Hierom on which he puts his own Comment are these As therefore Presbyters do know that the Custom of the Church makes them subject to the Bishop which is set over them so let Bishops know that Custom rather than the Truth of any Ordinance of the Lord's maketh them greater than the rest and that with Common Advice they ought to Govern the Church To this Hooker replies To clear the sense of these words therefore Laws which the Church from the beginning universally hath observ'd were some delivered by Christ himself with a Charge to keep them to the worlds End as the Law of Baptizing and administring the Holy Eucharist some brought in afterwards by the Apostles yet not without the special Direction of the Holy Ghost as occasions did arise Of this sort are those Apostolical Orders and Laws whereby Deacons Widows Virgins were first appointed in the Church This Answer to St. Hierom seemeth dangerous I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint yet I satisfie not my self in my Judgment it would be altered Now whereas Jerom doth term the Government of Bishops by restraint an Apostolical Tradition acknowledging thereby the same to have been the Apostles own Institution it may be demanded how these two will stand together namely That the Apostles by Divine Instinct should be as Jerom confesseth the Authors of that Regiment and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted for so by Jerom it may seem to be in this place accounted the Chiefest prop that upholdeth the same To this we answer That as much as the whole Body of the Church hath Power to ALTER with general consent and upon necessary occasions even the Positive Laws of the Apostles if there be no Commandment to the contrary and it manifestly appears to her that change of times have clearly taken away the very reason of God's first Institution as by sundry Examples may be most clearly proved what Laws the Universal Church might change and doth not if they have long continued without any alteration it seemeth that St. Jerom ascribeth the continuance of such Positive Laws tho' instituted by God himself to the Judgment of the Church For they which might Abrogate a Law and do not are properly said to Uphold to Establish it and to give it Being The Regiment therefore whereof Jerom speaketh being Positive and consequently not absolutely necessary but of a Changeable Nature because there is no Divine Voice which in express words forbiddeth it to be changed He might imagine both that it came by the Apostles by very Divine Appointment at the first and notwithstanding after a sort said to stand in force rather by the Custom of the Church choosing to continue it than by the necessary constraint of any Commandment from the Word requiring Perpetual Continuance thereof Thus Hooker who a little after says Bishops albeit they may avouch with Conformity of Truth that their Authority hath thus descended even from the very Apostles themselves yet the Absolute and Everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any Commandment of the Lord doth injoyn And therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath Power by Universal Consent upon urgent cause to take it away if thereunto she be constrained through the Proud Tyrannical and unreformable Dealings of her Bishops Wherefore lest Bishops forget themselves as if none on Earth had Authority to touch their States let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of Custom whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the Regiment of her vertuous Bishops doth still uphold maintain and honour them in that respect than that any such true and Heavenly Law can be shewed by the Evidence whereof it may of a Truth appear That the Lord himself hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Bishops in what sort soever they behave themselves This Answer of the Learned Hooker makes it manifest that tho' he held the Institution of Episcopal Superiority to be Apostolical yet he was not of Opinion that 't was unalterable And altho' he held it Apostolical yet suggests as if there had been a Church Government instituted before the Episcopal took place The Apostles of our Lord says he did according unto those Directions which were given them from above erect Churches in all such Cities as received the Word of Truth the Gospel of God All Churches by them erected received from them the same Faith the same Sacraments the same Form of Publick Regiment The Form of Regiment established by them at first was That the Laity or People should be subject unto a College of Ecclesiastical Persons which were in every such City appointed for that purpose These in their Writings
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