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
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
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
the Word Administring the Sacraments Imposing of Hands and guiding the Keys to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first two must be general to all Pastors and Presbyters of Christ's Church but so do not the other two I have largely debated and made it plain as well by the Scriptures as by other Ancient Writers past all Exception there have always been selected some of greater Gifts than the Residue to succeed in the Apostles Places to whom it belonged both to moderate the Presbyters of each Church and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands and this their Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining have been observed from the Apostles times as the Peculiar and Substantial marks of Episcopal Power and Calling The Power of the Keys and Right to Impose Hands by which he always means the Power to Ordain Ministers and Excommunicate Sinners belong unto the Bishop distinguishing him from a Presbyter What the things are Chap. 12. p. 208. which must abide for ever in the Church I shewed before it shall suffice now to rehearse them namely Power to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments the Right use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands These four parts for Brevities sake I often reduce to two Branches which are Doctrine and Discipline comprizing in Doctrine the Dividing of the Word and Dispensing of the Sacraments and referring the rest I mean the Publick use of the Keys and Imposition of Hands to the Discipline or Regiment of the Church The Discipline and Government of the Church I mean the Power of the Keys Ch. 12. p. 213. and Imposing of Hands are two parts of Apostolick Authority which must remain in the Church for ever These Keys are double the Key of Knowledge annexed to the Word the Key of Power referred to the Sacraments Some late Writers by urging the one abolish the other howbeit I see no sufficient Reason to countervail the Scriptures and Fathers that Defend and Retain both The Key of Knowledge must not be doubted of our Saviour in express words nameth it Wo be to you Interpreters of the Law for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge The Key of Power standeth in these words of Christ to Peter I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. And likewise to all his Apostles Whatsoever ye bind on Earth P. 218. c. It resteth in this place to be considered to whom those Keys were committed whether Equally to all Presbyters or Chiefly to Pastors and Bishops The like must be done for Imposition of Hands whether that also pertain'd indifferently to all or specially to Bishops This is the State of the Point in Controversie namely Whether the Power of the Keys and that of Imposition of Hands belong Equally and Indifferently to all Presbyters and Bishops or whether they do not belong chiefly and specially to Bishops But whether the one or the other be affirm'd 't will unavoidably follow that these Powers in a sense belong to both Thus much is supposed in the very state of the Question which is not whether these Powers do not at all belong to Presbyters but whether they do belong so much to Presbyters as unto Bishops so that the holding them to belong chiefly and specially unto the Bishop implies that they do tho' in a lesser Degree belong unto Presbyters They appertain both to the Presbyter and Bishop but not Equally to the Bishop chiefly and specially Now Conform hereunto the Learned Bilson saith The Bishop then or President of the Presbyters for I stand not on Names Ch. 14. p. 293. while I discuss their Powers is by Christ's own Mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church that is the Chief Steward over God's Houshold and Overseer of his Flock And touching the Presbyter's Power P. 319. He adds That at first the Presbyters sate with the Bishop as Assessors and Consenters before Synods undertook such Causes But after when once Councils began to have the Hearing of Grievances then sate the Presbyters with the Bishop only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgment The Private use of the Keys in appointing Offenders upon the Acknowledging their Sins P. 317. for a time to forbear the Lord's Table we deny not to Presbyters However the Ambiguity of the Name of Bishop and Community of many things incident and appertinent both to Bishops and Presbyters urged him to lay down certain Peculiar Marks and Parts of the Bishop's Office whereby they are always Distinguished from Presbyters and never Confounded with them either in Scriptures Councils or Fathers There were many Prerogatives says he appropriate unto the Bishop Ch. 13. p. 244. by the Authority of the Canons and Custom of the Church such as Reconciling of Penitents Confirmation of Infants and others that were Baptized by Laying on their Hands Dedication of Churches c. But the things Proper to Bishops which might not be Common to Presbyters were Singularity in Succeeding and Superiority in Ordaining These two the Scriptures and Fathers reserve only to Bishops they never Communicate them to Presbyters The Singularity of one Pastor in every place preserveth the Peace and Unity of the Churches and stoppeth Schisms and Dissentions for which Cause they were first Ordained by the Apostles 246. This is a certain Rule to Distinguish Bishops from Presbyters the Presbyters were many in every City of whom the Presbytery consisted Bishops were always Singular that is one in a City and no more except another intruded which the Church of Christ counted a Schism or else an Helper were given in respect of extream and feeble age in which case the Power of the latter ceased in the presence of the former And this Singularity of one Pastor in each place descended from the Apostles and their Scholars in all the famous Churches of the World by a Perpetual Chair of Succession and doth to this day continue but where Abomination or Desolation I mean Heresie or Violence interrupt it The second assured sign of Episcopal Power is Imposition of Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops for as Pastors were to have some to assist them in their Charge which were Presbyters P. 248. so were they to have others to succeed them in their Places which were Bishops And this Right by Imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops in the Church of Christ was at first derived from the Apostles unto Bishops and not unto Presbyters and hath for these fifteen Hundred Years without Example or Instance to the contrary till this our Age remained in Bishops and not in Presbyters Jerom where he retcheth the Presbyters Office to the uttermost of purpose to shew that he may do by the Word of God as much as the Bishop he excepteth this One Point as unlawful for Presbyters by the Scriptures Quid facit Exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non
Dean of Westmâ—nster and yet when the Bishop does Ordain any there with the Dean's leave it 's not I presume by any Power deriv'd from the Dean that he does it but by a Power inhering in himself and the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import no other leave than this If then these Chorepiscopi be conform'd to the Number of Rural Deanries and the Rural Deans allowed to exercise the same Power the Chorepiscopi did in the ancient Church 't will afford great Relief to the Consciences of many Worthy Protestant Dissenting Ministers without exposing the Church of England to the Reproach of Novelty To return to the Archbishop's Reduction which continues the Second Proposition thus Archbishop To this Synod the Rector and Church-Wardens might present such impenitent persons as by Admonitions and Suspension from the Sacrament would not be reformed who if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible the Sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived Hitherto also all things that concerned the Parochial Ministers might be referred whether they did touch their Doctrine or their Conversation as also the Censure of all New Opinions Heresies and Schisms which did arise within that Circuit with liberty of Appeal if need so require unto the Diocesan Synod Notes It is not to be doubted but that as soon as the Church of England grants unto the Presbyter the Exercise of the Episcopal Rights they will be content that the Rural Dean or Chorepiscopus hold his Synod of Parish-Pastors or Rectors within the Precincts of the Rural Deanry and exercise as much Power as is here desired III. The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the Year as it should be thought most convenient Therein all the Suffragans i. e. Chorepiscopi and the rest of the Rectors or incumbent Pastors or a certain select number of every Deanry within the Diocess might meet with whose Consent or the major part of them all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Superintendentes unde nomen Episcopi tractum est Hieron Epist 85. ad Evagrium call him whether you will or in his absence by one of the Suffragans whom he shall depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly Here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration and the Orders of the monthly Synods revised and if need be reformed And if here also any matter of Difficulty could not receive a full Determination it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod Notes Dr. Poynet Bishop of Winchester pleads for the Word Superintendent as much better than that of Bishop and it is a word less offensive to the Presbyterians than the other is and perhaps because the Archbishop found it so he speaks so indifferently of the Name and to give Reputation to the word Superintendent refers us unto St. Hierome But it 's to be hoped that the wiser of all Parties when they have concerted the thing will not quarrel about the Name whether one or the other IV. The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans and such other of the Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocess within the Province the Archbishop of every Province might be the Moderator of this Meeting or in his room some one of the Bishops appointed by him and all Matters be ordered therein by common consent as in the former Assemblies This Synod might be held every Third Year and if the Parliament do then sit according to the Act of a Triennial Parliament both the Archbishops and Provincial Synods of the Land might joyn together and make up a National Council Wherein all Appeals from Inferior Synods might be received all their Acts examined and all Ecclesiastical Constitutions which concern the State of the whole Nation established This Scheme of Church-Government drawn up by this Learned Primate as it is admirably adjusted to the several Tempers of Men of different Apprehensions about some things in Church-Government so it is not in the least repugnant to any thing of Christ's Institution for there is not ascrib'd unto any of the Synodical Conventions a proper Jurisdiction over any Parochial Church That in Matters of greater moment care be taken that all things be done in every Parish by a general Consent Concord and Agreement is necessary and to this end that the Parish Rectors proceed not to Excommunication until they have consulted the Dean Rural's Synod and that what is done by these Synods be examined by Bishops in a larger Assembly and that by a larger again until we come to a National if the case so require Though it be said Let the Sentence of Excommunication be decreed against the obstinately Impenitent by the Synod yet it may be understood thus Let the Rector of the Parish consult the Synod and there come to a Resolution and Determination with the consent of this Synod Whoever will consult the Learned Writers of the Church of England particularly Dr. Burnet now Bishop of Salisbury will see cause to conclude them to be against the Power and Jurisdiction of Councils That they are rather for Concord than Regiment That particular Churches as to matters of Government are independent on any Convention or Colledge of other Bishops or Pastors whatsoever that to this very end of securing the Power of the Diocesan or City-Bishop the Diocesan Church is made a single Church Infimae Speciei and whatever Power Authority or Jurisdiction belong unto a particular Church of the lowest Rank they are affirmed to belong to the Diocesan Church which Dr. Barrow hath endeavoured to prove to be independent So that let the bounds of particular Churches be made Parochial or of no larger extent than a Parish-Congregation and the Parish-Minister be entrusted with Pastoral Power to be exercised as above-mentioned 't will of course follow that what is now said to belong to a Diocesan must be seated in the parish-Parish-Church There is not so much a Controversie between the Powers Preheminences and Priviledges of a particular Church as about its Bounds and Limits Reduce the Bounds of a particular Church to those of a Parish and the Debate will be at an end as to this point That the Primate by Chorepiscopi means Presbyters vested with the Episcopal Rights is manifest from what he and Dr. Holdsworth in the end of the Reduction thus assert We are of the Judgment That the Form of Government here proposed is not in any Point repugnant to the Scripture and that the Suffragans mention'd in the Second Proposition may lawfully use the Power both of Jurisdiction and Ordination according to the Word of God and the Practice of the Ancient Church Ja. Armachanus Rich. Holdsworth CHAP. VII The Reasonableness of the Church of England's condescending to establish the Government proposed by Archbishop Usher in this Reduction IF then the
and the Reformers in King Edward's Time. IN Queen Elizabeth's Reign the first I find to mention any thing about the Office of Bishops and Priests is Dr. Alley Bishop of Exeter in his Miscellanea on his third Praelection Alley 's Poor Man's Library Tom. 1. pag. 95 96. read at Paul's in the Year 1560. on the word Bishops What difference is between a Bishop and a Priest St. Hierome writing ad Titum doth declare whose words be these Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. A Priest therefore is the same that a Bishop is And before Schisms and Factions by the instinct of the Devil begun in Religion and before it was said among the People I am Pauls I am Apollos I am of Cephas the Churches were Governed with the Common Councel of the Priests or Elders But after that every one thought those whom he Baptized to be his and not Christ's it was decreed throughout the World that one of the Priests or Elders should be chosen to be set over the rest unto whom all the care or charge of the Church should appertain and that the beginnings of Schisms should be taken away Some do think that it is not the sentence of the Scriptures but ours that a Bishop and Priest or Elder are one thing and they do also think the one to be a name of Age and the other to be a name of Office. Let them read again the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Jesu Christ to all the Saints in Christ Jesu which are at Philippos with the Bishops and Deacons Grace and Peace be with you c. Philippi is one of the Cities of Macedonia And truly there could not be many as they are called Bishops in one City But because at that time they called those Bishops which they did also call Priests or Elders therefore indifferently he spake of Bishops as of Priests or Elders It may yet seem doubtful to some unless it be approved by other Testimonies In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when the Apostle came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and did call the Priests or Elders of the same Church unto whom among other things he said thus A Hand to your selves c. And here mark you diligently how that he calling the Priests or Elders of that one City of Ephesus did afterwards call them Bishops c. And Peter which took his name of the firmness of his Faith in his Epistle saith I your fellow Elder do beseech the Elders that are among you c. Haec Hieronimus These words are alledg'd saith Bishop Aley that it may appear Priests among the Elders to have been even the same that Bishops were But it grew by little and little that the whole charge and care should be appointed to one Bishop within his Precinct that the Seeds of Dissention might be utterly rooted out In his Second Tome P. 15. the Bishop adds out of St. Jerom Sicut Presbyteri c. Like as Priests do know themselves to be subject by the Custom of the Church unto him which is made Ruler over them So let the Bishops know that they are greater than the Priests rather by Custom than by the verity of Dispensation given of the Lord. He saith also in another place with the old Fathers the Bishops were the same that the Priests were for the name of one is the name of Dignity and the other of Age and Time. So far Bishop Aley The next I meet with is Pilkington Bishop of Duresme the Author of the Confutation of an Addition with an Apology written and cast in the Streets of West-Chester against the Causes of Burning Paul's Church in London declared by the Bishop at Paul's Cross The Bishop did at Paul's Cross Exhort the people to take the burning of Paul's to be a warning of a greater Plague to follow to the City of London if amendment of Life be not had in all Estates the Author of the Addition a Papist Histor Q. Eliz. pag. 312. notwithstanding what Heylin saith to the contrary when he tells us that the Papists ascribe it to some practice of the Zuinglian Faction out of their hatred unto all Solemnity and Decency in the Service of God perform'd more punctually in that Church for Examples sake than in any other in the Kingdom imputes it to the laying aside of the midnight Mattins forenoon Masses formerly had in the Church and Anthems and Prayers in the Steeple This Bishop a Person of great Learning and good Temper in Answer to this Paper doth in the Sixth year of the Queens Reign thus express himself Yet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words when he saith that the Government of the Church was committed to Bishops as tho' they had received a Larger and Higher Commission from God of Doctrine and Discipline than other Lower Priests and Ministers have and hereby might challenge a greater Prerogative But this is to be understood that the Privileges and Superiorities which Bishops have above other Ministers are rather granted by Man for maintaining of better Order and Quietness in Common-wealths than Commanded by God in his Word Ministers have better Knowledge and Utterance some than other but their Ministry of Equal Dignity God's Commission and Commandment is like and indifferent to all Priest Bishop Archbishop Prelate by what name soever he be called Saint Jerome in his Commentary on 1 Chap. Tit. says that a Bishop and Priest is all One and in his Epistle ad Evagrium he says That the Bishop wheresoever he be is of the same Power and Priesthood If they the Papists were not too much blinded in their own foolishness they might see in the last Subsidy granted in the time of their own Reign that they grant those to be their betters and above them from whence they receive their Authority The Parliament gives them and their Collectors Power to Suspend Deprive and Interdict any Priest that Pays not the Subsidy In that doing they grant the Parliament to be above them and from it to receive their Power I had not thought to have said so much on these his few words and yet much more hangs on this their Opinion of claiming their Usurped Power above Princes and other Ministers The Learned Bishop Jewel is of the same Mind with this Author Apol. Par. 2. Ch. 5. Divis 1. Ch. 6. Divis 1. and thus much he delivereth not as his private Opinion but as the sense of the Church of England Furthermore we say That the Minister ought lawfully duly orderly to be preferr'd to that Office of the Church of God Ch. 6. Divis 3. Ch. 7. Divis 5. and that no man hath power to wrest himself into the Holy Ministry at his own pleasure That Christ hath given to his Ministers Power to bind to loose to open to shut That the Minister doth execute the Authority of binding and shutting as often as
very many Churches As the number of Christians grew and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within every one of their Circuits they placed Pastors in every Congregation they ordained certain Apostolical men to be Chief Assisters unto them whom they placed some one in this particular Country and some others in sundry Cities to have the Rule and Oversight under them of the Churches there and to redress and supply such wants as were needful And they themselves after a while and as they grew in age and escaped the Cruelty of Tyrants remained for the most part in some Head City within their Compass to oversee them all both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents and to give their Directions as occasions required and as they thought it convenient When any of these Apostolical Assistants or of the Apostles themselves died there were ever some worthy Men chosen and appointed to succeed them in those Cities and Countries where they had remained For we may not idlely Dream that when they died the Authority which was given them ceased no more than we may that the Authority of Aaron and of his Natural Sons expired with them besides it is manifest by all Ecclesiastical Histories that many Churches were planted after their Deaths And furthermore it could not be but that some Churches especially under those Apostles that were soonest put to Death were when they died in the same case that Crete was when Titus was sent thither and had therefore as much need of a Titus as Crete had Furthermore who can be accounted to be well in his wits that will imagine that Christ should ordain such an Authority but for some Threescore years especially the same Causes continuing why it was first instituted that were before Nay I may boldly say that there was greater need for the continuance of it afterward For the Apostles having so great Power to work Miracles and by their Prayers to procure from God such strange Executions of his Pleasure upon the contemptuous as did fall upon Ananias and his Wife and I doubt not but in like cases sometimes upon some others their Ruling and Commanding Authority was not so necessary then as it was afterwards when the Power to work Miracles ceased But what should I need to use many words in a matter so apparent After the Death of the Apostles and of their Assistants viz. the Bishops placed by them as is mentioned the Ecclesiastical Histories and the Ancient Fathers have kept the Register of their Names that succeeded sundry of them and ruled the Churches after them as they before had ruled them Whereupon they were called from all Antiquity the Apostles and Apostolical man's Successors This Inequality in the Ministry of the Word hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted by all the General Councils that ever were held in Christendom and by all other Men of Learning that ever I heard of for many Hundred years after the Apostles time saving that Aerius the Heretick an ambitious Person growing into great rage for that he missed of a Bishoprick which he sued for first broached the Opinion which is now so currant amongst his Scholars that there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest Thus Bancroft who seems to be of the same mind with Saravia about the Apostolicalness of the Inequality and that he means no more P. 390. seems clear from what he urges out of Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynold's and Fulk in favour of his own Opinion and his holding Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be valid I have saith Robinson maintained it in the Pulpit D. Robins Answ Exhib to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Titles of Honour which we give to Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word of God than it is for us to be called Wardens Presidents Provosts of Colleges And in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governours of their Diocess as we being Ministers may be Governours of Colleges of Ministers Neither do I think that this was a late devised Policy For I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom S. John writeth was one Minister set over the rest For seeing there were many Pastors there why should S. John write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and not rather to the Angels if there had been no difference amongst them And if this Presidency had had that Fault which is reproved in Diotrephes as St. Hierom proveth that the Jews had not corrupted the Original Text before Christ's coming Quod nunquam Dominus Apostoli qui caetera crimina arguunt in Sâ—ribis Pharisaeis de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent So I may say neither would our Saviour who by his Servant reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence Therefore as Titus was left to Reform the Churches throughout the whole Island of Crete so I am perswaded that in other places some of that Order of Pastors and Teachers which is Perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles had a Prelacy amongst their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And if we come any lower tho' the word Episcopus signifie that care which is required of all and in Scripture be applied to all that have charge of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer that I have read wherein that word doth not import a greater Dignity than is common to all Ministers Neither do I think that any old Writer did under the name of Bishop mean the Pastor of every Parish And thus far Dr. Robinson with whom if Master Dr. Reynolds do agree I see not whither the Factioners will turn them For this Dr. in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus tho' it had sundry Elders and Pastors He useth these two words in one signification as by the Sentence going before is manifest to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. the name of Bishop common before to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual Language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had faln in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised of it with them and others Here then you have two for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers when they speak of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion I mean Dr. Fulke who in his Confutation of the Rhemish Notes upon the New Testament writeth thus Amongst the
Cowell affirms That in our Common Law Rector Ecclesioe Parochialis is he that hath the Charge or Cure of a Parish-Church qui tantum Jus in Ecclesia Parochiali habet quantum Proelatus in Ecclesiâ Collegiatâ That a Parson and Rector were anciently the same So †Lib. 4. Tract 5. ca. pri Bracton Sciendum quod Rectoribus Ecclesiarum Parochialium competit Assisa qui institui sunt per Episcopos Ordinarios ut Personae Lindwood holds the same For De Praesump c. ne Lepra Sect. quod si ver Personatus as he avers That in aliquibus locis Rectores Ecclesiarum vocantur Personae so he is as express that haec dictio Personae est vulgare Anglicorum ponitur pro Rectore Wats in his Glossary observing the Word Personatus in Otho's Constitutions delivered by Matthew Paris in Henry the Third's days In quibus locis omnibus accipitur pro Rectoria quam a Parsonage vocamus and in Pope Innocent's Letter to the Abbot of St. Albans assures us that it signifies a Rectory and the Persona or Parson is the Rector De Confes Personar Cleric Quod in quodan ver Persona John de Athon in his Commentary on Otho's Constitutions on the Word Personae saith i.e. Rectores loquitur enim secundum vulgare Anglicorum Lindwood It is also clear from anciently acknowledged rish-Church and therefore that Vicars Perpetual were to be Rectors or Governours of the Paon the Constitution of Simon Langham where it 's Ordain'd That Nullus Rector presume to sell those Tithes of his Church not yet received Nullus Rector supple vel Vicarius ubi est Perpetuus De Consuet c. Nullus Rector ver Nullus Rector before the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary it must be understood also of Vicars Perpetual And John de Athon is very large in discussing and positive in determining it Credo respectu Rectorum Vicarium dici Intitulatum respectu vero aliorum nominare debet Rectorem Constit Otho de Instit Vicarior verb. ad Vicar For saith he out of Innocent's Extrav though if you consider a Vicar Perpetual with respect to his Rector whose Vicar he is he is not called a Rector yet if compared with others he is a Rector It 's then very plain That anciently every Parson and Vicar Perpetual were called Rectors or Governours and why but because they were vested with a Right to Govern their Churches notwithstanding which it cannot now be inferr'd that those who still bear the Name of Rector are Governours of the Church For the ancient Constitution of the Church is not only altered whereby Parish Presbytens Parsons Rectors and Vicars Perpetual have lost all their ancient Power of Ruling but by reason of Impropriations mere Laicks ever since the Statute of Dissolution that took away Appropriations from the Church have been Parsons and Rectors but not Rulers of the Church Sir Henry Spelman very Learnedly doth prove Of Tithes c. 29. That after the Appropriations the Parsonage still continues Spiritual as well in the Eye of the Common Law as of the Canon Law for if it became Temporal by Appropriation then were it within the Statute of Mortmaine and forfeited by that Act and as it continues Spiritual it must be made to a Spiritual Person and not Temporal Spiritual Things and Spiritual Men being Co-Relatives that cannot in Reason be divorced However we see that de facto Lay-men are possess'd of these Spiritual Impropriations and thereby are become the Parsons and Rectors and the Ecclesiastical Incumbent who hath the Cure of Souls is his Vicar who although according to the Ancient Dialect might be called Rector when compared with others yet not with respect to the Lay-man the Parson or Rector of the Parish He that hath the Parsonage or Rectory is the Parson or Rector and that is the Lay-Impropriator Besides according to what hath been offer'd in the first Note it 's plain that now no Governing Power is left with the Parish-Presbyter He is not only denied the Exercise of such a Power but diversted of the Power it self and if any of 'em have the Name of Rector left'em it 's vox praeterea nihil If in this I am mistaken the Fathers of the Church are humbly desired to tell the World so but whether I am mistaken or no the restoring the Parish-Presbyters to the ancient Power of Rectors and the Exercise of it will be a great step towards the healing our Breaches especially if what the ancient Chorepiscopi whom I must again mention who were but Presbyters enjoyed may be allowed them Of whom more in my Notes under the next Proposition II. Whereas by a Statute in the Six and Twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth revived in the First Year of Queen Elizabeth Ch. 14. Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty Six several places of this Kingdom the Number of them might very well be conformed unto the Number of the several Rural Deanries into which every Dioces is sub-divided which being done the Suffragan supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi might every Month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors or incumbent Pastors within the Precinct and according to the major part of their Voices conclude all Matters that shall be brought into Debate before them Notes The Suffragans appointed to be erected in the Twenty Sixth Year of Henry the Eighth were to be consecrated by the Archbishop and Two other Bishops or Suffragans and by them admitted to the Episcopal Dighity but yet were not to use have or execute any Jurisdiction or Episcopal Power or Authority within their said Sees nor within any Diocess or place of this Realm or elsewhere within the King's Dominions but only such Jurisdiction Power and Authority as shall be Licensed and Limited to them to take do and execute by a Commission from the Bishop of the See in which he is a Suffragan nor were they to use any Jurisdiction Ordinary or Episcopal Power otherwise nor longer time than limited by such Commission These were the Suffragans appointed to be erected by Henry the Eighth who though Consecrated and Ordained to the Episcopal Dignity yet must exercise no other Episcopal Power than was delegated to 'em by the Diocesan's Commission which was a very precarious and uncertain thing This Learned Archbishop doth therefore move that instead of this sort of Suffragan we might have men to supply the place of the ancient Chorepiscopi who were not at first under such Limitations tho without Episcopal Consecrations they were vested with the Powers and Authorities of City Bishops and that they might be conform'd to the Number of Rural Deanries A motion which if closed with by the Church of England would no doubt touching this part of the Controversie about the Government of the Church heal the Division and the Church in her Condescention herein would conform unto an ancient Practice of the