THE Healing Attempt Examined and Submitted TO THE PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION Whether it be HEALING or HURTFUL To the Peace of the CHURCH JOB XXIV 2. Some remove the Land-marks they violently take away the Flocks and feed thereof Licensed and Entred according to Order LONDON Printed by Freeman Collins and are to be Sold by Richard Baldwin in the Old-Bailey MDCLXXXIX THE Healing Attempt EXAMINED c. THE Author begins with his Blessing And without Controversie a good Conceit therefore he seems to have of himself who attempts to impose his Conceptions on the Judgment of those Thirty Divines to whom he presents them and to perswade them to Abolish that Government and Liturgy to which they have obliged themselves to live in Obedience and Conformity by their Oaths and Subscriptions And immediately to his Blessing he subjoyns what implies a Curse for loading and increasing the Burthens of their Non-conforming Brethren though he seems to excuse it as being done against their wills And gives it as the Belief of his Brethren That no good will be done them by that Meeting or Convocation seeing they say it is impossible that they c. How this should stimulate them to a greater earnestness to do what they believe and have made impossible to be done I cannot see nor can the Author conceive seeing he thinks it unnecessary to propound any other Argument than what is contained in the Title i. e. Such a Moderation of Episcopacy that the Power be kept within the line of our first Reformers which will certainly destroy his Project and confirm the present Establishment as to Episcopacy and Liturgy from the strict imposition whereof he hopes to be freed The Author complains of want of time and search to excuse the slenderness of his Attempt But if Mr. Jo. Humphryes be the Author I suppose he hath had sufficient time since his renouncing his re-ordination which was about Twenty Years since and that he had made his search before he with the help of other his Non-Con-Brethren set forth their Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet wherein the chiefest of his present Arguments were then urged and shortly after refuted as by the following Account will hereafter appear He tells his Readers That it is impossible for the Dissenters to Vnite if it be still affirmed That the Bishop and Presbyters are not of the same Order That the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of the Bishops i.e. if the Presbyters may not Ordain as effectually as the Bishops That the Ordination by Presbyters only is void That the Ordaining them again by Bishops is not re-ordination This saith our Author destroys the Church-state not only of the Dissenters but of all other Protestants in the World which is a very large stretch seeing there are many other Protestant Churches who affirm and practice the same things with the Church of England and yet he asserts That if a comprehension may not be had but on these terms there can be none at all However seeing he makes his Appeal to the Sentiments of the first Reformers in the days of Henry VIII Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth to them we will joyntly submit because he says that will heal our Divisions touching Church Government of which I doubt seeing I have Reason to say they are not impartially proposed by Mr. J.H. nor will be found to be so exactly the same with the Dissenters So that if the present Episcopacy appear to be the same as it was in the days of the first Reformers Martyrs and Confessors and our Liturgy much more Reformed though they accounted it such a Grievance as neither they nor their Fathers could bear Their Non Conformity will still lye under the interpretation of a peevish Humour and Obstinacy though they do with the like Confidence pretend that they have Antiquity as well as our first Reformers on their side it is a condescention in the Author to acknowledge that the Canons of James I. run another way and to those Canons the Clergy did consent as do the present Clergy and if as he says Arch-Bishop Vsher adhered to the first Reformers we may yet hope for an Accommodation As for the Opinions of particular Divines I shall refer them to their due place and only intimate his Observation to the Reader That because Jurisdiction is given to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury during the Suspension of the Arch-Bishop therefore they have also the Power of conferring Orders when other Deans and Arch-Deacons also have an Episcopal Jurisdiction in their several peculiars but neither of them have the Power of Orders and frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum And St. Hierom expresly appropriates Ordination to the Bishops only As to Mr. Clerkson's Excellent Discourse of Liturgies I shall recommend to the Reader 's perusal what hath been written by Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond and Dr. Faulkner to which I may add Mr. Calvin's Epistle to the Protector and leave it to the Reader 's determination whether a Liturgy of Extemporary Prayers are most agreeable to Publick Worship I agree with the Author in his Introduction That our Divisions had too great a hand in bringing us under those Dangers and keeping us in those Fears which are still threatning us but that Indulgence and Comprehension together will secure us I much doubt because Experience hath taught the contrary and therefore though Mr. J. H. apprehends a necessity for the saving of many thousand Souls to let in Men of more tender Consciences Absit invidia to set open the Church-Doors wider I think it may be a means to let in many Adversaries with a few Friends I know the Complaints of Dissenters have been bold and clamourous ever since the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and great boasts made of their Numbers and never louder than in the days of Charles the First of Blessed Memory where the Martial Canons were planted to throw down the Ecclesiastical and the Petitions of Dissenters worried that Good Prince and the Archbishop out of their Lives and therefore I think our Governours both in Church and State had more just cause to complain of the Dissenters than these of them whereof you shall hear a fuller account from those whom the Author mentioneth as Friends to his new Model As to the Quotation from Sir Robert Cotton I cannot much commend the ingenuity of Mr. J. H. who in the midst of it leaves out these words after these words Duty to their Sovereign It thus proceeds Therewith start up from among us some that might have been recommended for their Zeal if it had been tempered with Discretion who fore-running the Authority of the Magistrate took upon them in sundry places and publickly to censure what agreed not with their private conceits with which gross humours vented in Pulpits and Pamphlets most Men grew to be frozen in Zeal c. And the Marginal Note says Some think that if these Mens zeal had by order been put to imploy
Apostles who did oversee both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents Ecclesiastical Histories and ancient Fathers have kept a Register of their Names who Succeeded and Ruled the Churches after them And this inequality hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted and by all the General Councils and by all other Men of Learning for many hundred Years after the Apostles time saving Arrius the Heretick who missing of a Bishoprick that he shed for first broached the Opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest N. B. That which Bishop Bancroft notes from Dr. Robinson is this I have maintain'd that the Titles of Honour given to our Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word than for us to be called Wardens or Presidents of Colledges and in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governors of their Diocess as we being Ministers may Govern Colledges of Mrnisters Nor do I think this was a late devised Polity for I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom St. John writes was one Minister set over the rest for why seeing there were many Pastors there should St. John write to the Angel and not to the Angels if there had been no difference among them neither if this Presidency had had that fault which is reproved in Diotrephes would our Saviour who reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence therefore as Titus was left in Greet to reform the Churches in that whole Island so I am perswaded that in other Places some of that Order and of Pastors and Teachers which is perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles and had a Prelacy among their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And to come lower tho' the word Episcopus signifieth that care which is required of all and be in SS required of all that have care of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer wherein that word doth not import a greater Dignity than is common to all Ministers neither do I think that any old Writer did under the Name of Bishop mean the Pastor of every Parish Thus Dr. Robinson with whom if Dr. Raynolds do agree I see not saith he whether the Factioners will turn them for this Doctor in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet among those was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and this is he whom after in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. He proceeds thus The Name of Bishop common before to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual Language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over the Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had fallen in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised with them and others These Two are for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers speaking of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion Dr. Fulke who in confutation of the Rbemish Testament says Among the Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was always one Principal to whom by long use of the Church the Name of Bishop or Superintendant hath been applied which room Titus exercised in Creet Timothy in Ephesus and others in other places therefore altho' in SS a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preacling the Word and Administring the Sacraments as Hierome doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech he is onely called a Bishop which is in SS so called Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chief in Government to whom the Ordination or Consecration by Imposition of Hands was always principally committed which most Ancient Form of Government when Arrius would take away it was noted among his other Errors So I hereby trust it may appear to Mr. Cartwright's reproach and to all their shames that shall pretend any Authority from the Ancient Fathers to impugne the Right Honourable and Lawful Calling of Bishops not Parsons in every Parish but Bishops in their Diocess and Province appointed in the Apostles times for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ As to Bishop Spotwood's History of Scotland p. 514 concerning the Ordination of the Three Scots Bishops in King James's time Bishop Andrews urged That it might not be done because they were not duly made Presbyters i. e. by Bishops but the Archbishop considering that this might reflect on the Reformed Churches that had no Bishops which was the condition also of Scotland where Episcopal Ordination could not be had it was dispensed with But this is not the Case of our Dissenters who refuse Episcopal Ordination where it may be had and set up the Presbyterian against it Ch. 5. Begins with the Judicious Mr. Hooker from whom after a long Quotation he infers p. 37. That the Polity in general be necessary to the Church yet it is not necessary that any one Temporal Polity be in the SS This being the Position of the Non-Cons Mr. Hooker makes this use of it You cannot so much as pretend to this ground that all the parts of your Discipline are in SS and your Mouths are stopt when you plead against all other Forms seeing their Polity may be agreeable to the general Axiomes of SS as well as yours And therefore he says The best way for our Cause and the strongest against them is to hold as the Non-Cons do that in SS there must needs be found some particular Form of Church-Government which God hath instituted and belongs to all Churches at all times but by partiality and cunning to make those things truest which are fittest to serve our purpose is what we neither like nor mean to follow In p. 38. Mr. Hooker says First That in the Clergy there have ever been and ought to be some subordinate to others as the Apostles in the beginnig and to Bishops ever since as in SS and all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers have been Secondly That a solemn admittance viz. of Ministers into the Church is of such necessity that without it there can be no Church Polity These he says are the perpetual and principal parts in Ecclesiastical Polity And this is all that Mr. J. H. hath noted out of those Books of Mr. Hooker which are generally allowed to be genuine which being not much for his purpose he goes to the Seventh Book and there he finds this discription of a Bishop A Bishop is a Minister of God to whom with permanent continuance not only a Power of Administring the Word and Sacraments is given which other Presbyters have but a farther Power to Ordain Ecclesiastical Persons and a Power of
Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay-men a Power to be by way of Jurisdiction a Pastor even to Pastors themselves And the things which properly belong to a Bishop cannot be common to other Pastors and of Bishops restrained to some definite local compass he says their Regiment we hold to be a thing most Divine and Holy in the Church of Christ In two things J. H. notes that Hooker differs from the Non-Cons p. 40. 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary he makes it permanent 2. They deny the Bishops have any Power over other Pastors that is Mandatory Judicial and Coercive Mr. Hooker affirms it Then he shews how Mr. Hooker resolves a Sentence of St. Hierome which seems inconsistent with itself viz. How the Apostles should be the Authors of that Government i. e. Episcopacy and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted the chief Prop of it To which the substance of his Answer is That what Laws the Universal Church might change and doth not St. Hierome ascribes the continuance of such Laws tho' instituted by God himself to the Judgment of the Church for they which may abrogate a Law and do not may be said to establish it and seeing the whole Church receiving it for a Custome which was established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was in an abundant manner poured out for ordering of Christ's Church it had either Divine appointment before-hand or Divine approbation afterwards Now how Mr. J. H. could from these premises draw this following conclusion I cannot perceive p. 44. Let there be saith he as many Bishopricks as there are considerable Personages and a Provision made for the Presbyters which are to assist the Bishops in the Government of the Churches and then a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters will be no longer a Bone of Contention The Sense whereof seems to me to be this Let the Presbyters in every Parish have all the Power that belongs to Bishops and then and not else they will be pleased But the Judicious Hooker would not have been so pleased with them that should have inferred this conclusion from any premises of his That which followeth our of Mr. Hooker's maimed Book is 1. That the Church Visible hath not ordinarily allowed any but Bishops alone to Ordain howbeit in some necessary Cases we may decline from the ordinary ways 2. That Confirmation hath not always belonged to the Bishops but in some places in the absence of the Bishop the Presbyter might Ordain 3. That the Presbyters are for the most part mentioned as Counsellors and Assistants to the Bishop The last Bishop whom he would constrain to help on his New Model is Bishop Bilson who says That to prevent Dissention and Confusion there must needs even by God's Ordinance be a President or Ruler of every Presbytery but that in the Apostles times the Presidentship should go round to every Presbyter by course this is the main point between us Then he says There are Four Things must be perpetual in the Church 1. The Dispensing of the Word And 2. Sacraments 3. Imposing of Hands 4. Guiding the Keyes to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first Two belong to all Pastors or Presbyters but it belongs to some selected persons who succeed in the Apostles places to moderate the Presbyters of each Church and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands And this singularity in succeeding and superiority in ordaining hath been observed from the Apostles times as the peculiar and subsiantial Marks of Episcopal Power and Calling As to the Power of the Keyes the private use of them in appointing Offenders upon the acknowledgement of their sins to for bear the Lord's Table for a time we deny not to Presbyters but the Bishop is by Christ's own mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church the chief Steward of his Houshold to hear and determine Grievances with whom the Presbyters sate at first as Assessors but when Councils began only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgment and he adds that the right by imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops was at first derived from the Apostles to Bishops and not to Presbyters N. B. And for 1500 Years without instance or example to the contrary till this our Age remained in Bishops and not in Presbyters for which he quotes St. Hierome Quid faecit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter J. H. observes that whereas it is objected That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery he answers out of St. Chrysostom that by the word Presbytery in SS must be understood Bishops not Presbyters because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop And from this Bishop he adds All that we can say for Bishops above Presbyters out of SS is that the Holy Ghost by the mouth of St. Paul hath given the Bishop of each place Authority to Ordain the worthy to examine such as be faulty to reprove and discharge such as be guilty either of unsound Teaching or offensive Living and this he saith belongs to all Bishops of Christ's Church forever I have transcribed so much of these Quotations because the very repetition of them is a confutation of that Design which Mr. H. attempts and will shew it to be not a healing but a very hurtful Attempt as precluding that way of Peace and Reconciliation which is generally intended if the unreasonable Demands of some unquiet Men do not put a bar to it Thus saith Mr. J. H. I have gone through the principal Writers about Church Government in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign And indeed he hath cull'd out such Foundations on which he would build his Hay and Stubble as will no way suit with them I shall not prepossess the Reader with the inferences which J. H. would force from them but leave every Man to consider whether he can fix his Half-sheet Model on these Concessions and now briefly inform the Reader of the Judgment of some of these Divines and some States-men what Qualifications he and such Master-Builders are endowed with for the Building of a Temple fit for the Publick Worship of God and our Saviour And I shall begin with The Speech of the Lord Keeper Puckering to the House of Lords by Order of Queen Elizabeth ESpecially you are commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no ear be given nor time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that are commonly called Puritans wherewithal the late Parliament have been exceedingly importuned which sort of Men while in the giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but distract the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth and as the present case standeth it may be doubted whether they or the
if they will stand to what is more maturely and pertinently by them alledged and proved agreeably also to their own practice for Diocesan Episcopacy as established in the Church of England If those Dissenters who were so importunate and industrious to advance their Discipline on the ruines of the established Church had proceeded on the Principles laid down by the Divines above-mentioned whereof this is one that they lay hold on viz. That the forms of Government not being plainly exprest in Scripture are alterable and may by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate be determined to this or that species which yet they will not grant of their own Discipline they ought then to acquiesce in that Government which was established and to which all those Divines most willingly submitted as the best in all the Christian World and though by reason of their dissent from it they had drawn on themselves the execution of some moderate Penalties yet if they had been fully perswaded that they did suffer for a good Conscience and for Righteousness sake they ought like good Christians to have taken it patiently and not by Railing by Sedition by forming Schisms and meditating Rebellions seek to avenge themselves and return evil for evil but contrarily blessing being thereto called by the Example and Precepts of their great Master but when they returned evil for good and hatred for good-will and thought themselves persecuted because they could not grasp a Power to persecute their Superiours this was not agreeable to that wisdom that comes from above which is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated And if our present Dissenters be satisfied of the purity of our Doctrine they may by the Principles which are laid down submit to that Discipline and Government that Authority doth establish there being nothing in it contrary to the Word of God but wholly agreeable to the constant practice of the Universal Church I think it sufficient to solve all that hath been alledged out of our Divines to clear these two things 1. What kind of Government was setled by the Apostles 2. What Answer may be given to the Objections so often mentioned from St. Hierom. As to the first it is evident that there was a Superiority in the Apostles to those to whom they committed the care of the several Churches whether they were Bishops or Presbyters and as the Apostles dyed their Successors in Ecclesiastical Power who in all Ages were the Bishops were the Subjects of that Superiority such as Timothy Titus Clemen Linus c. and their Successors as they stand recorded in Ecclesiastical History for what the Apostles did for the perpetual Order and Government of the Church was agreeable to our Saviour's Institution and all Antiquity bears proof to this Truth that from the Apostles days there were setled in the most eminent Churches of Hierusalem Rome Antioch and Alexandria several Bishops that had a Superiority over the Presbyters in their respective Churches and that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons were established in those Churches in those purest and most Primitive times insomuch that they who will not admit those Testimonies will be to seek for one of the best Proofs for the Canon of the Scripture As therefore we believe the Succession of Roman Emperours from the Writings of such Historians as lived near their times so may we believe the truth of such Orders of Men and of their Successions as it is delivered by Men of good Credit and Honesty that lived near those times and have handed down in undoubted written Records from Age to Age St. Polycarp Ignatius Clemens who conversed with the Apostles Ireneus Justin Martyr and others that lived with them then Origen Clem. Alexandrinus Tertullian who succeeded them and many others who lived within two hundred years after the Apostles from whom Eusebius had the Materials of his History and refers to them for the truth of his Relations He had the Acts of the Martyrs and the Books of Hegesippus concerning the Acts of the Church from which and other helps from the very Persecutors of the Christians he compiled his History and particularly the Succession of Bishops Clemens Rom. in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the Officers of the Church in his time alluding to those under the Law The High-Priest hath his Office the Priest his Station and the Levite his Ministry the Lay-man his Office let every one worship God in his Order Ignatius mentions these Three Orders in his Epistles so plainly that the Enemies of those Orders have martyred him again in his Reputation denying his Epistles to be genuine which the Learned Bishop Pearson hath irrefragably asserted and so hath Dr. Beveridge the Authority of Apostolical Canons which have been owned by the Councils and expresly assert the Three Orders so that tho' while the Apostles lived the Names might be confounded yet immediately on their deaths all Ancient Writers have distinguished them because such as succeeded to their Power were Bishops and yet all the Minister's or Elders were not so for a Parity is usually the Parent of Confusion and if such a Parity had been setled by Christ or his Apostles how could it be that as St. Hierom says The whole World should agree for prevention of Schism to alter what Christ had established Was the whole World i. e. every particular Church which are it seems agreed on setting up a Bishop above Presbyters wiser than our Saviour or had they Authority so to do And if they did so by sufficient Authority why will the Presbyters as generally agree to pull them down now as their Ancients did to set them up So that I see no shadow of Reason why we may not subscribe to that which is said before the Book of Consecration That it is evident to all Men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been ever these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons 2. As to St. Hierom's Testimony the import of it is this That tho' the Apostles had a Superiority over Presbyters yet when they died they did not bequeath that Power to others but left it in common to the Presbyters whose management of it was such as it begat Schisms and Animosities for suppression of which it was thought fit through the whole World to chuse out of the body of the Presbyters one that should have a Presidency over the rest so that this Presidency was not an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical and Prudential Constitution wherein St. Hierom doth not only contradict the Joynt Suffrage of all the Ancients but his own Testimony Against this Opinion of St. Hierom some affirm that what he said was in a Discourse against some proud Deacons that would equal themselves with the Presbyters which was as great a presumption as to invade the Office of the Bishops seeing in most things as St. Hierom says the Bishops and Presbyters were of
the same Power for Quis patiatur saith St. Hierom c. Who can endure that they whose Office it was to attend on Tables and Widows should equal themselves to those at whose Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated But to let this pass I say 2. This Opinion of his reflects on our Saviour and his Apostles as if they had not sufficiently provided for the future Peace of the Church and that if the Presbyters in after-Ages had not been more provident the Church would have wanted a Remedy against Schisms And if such a Remedy were thought necessary by the whole World of Presbyters then is the Office of a Bishop founded on Natural Reason for it is most true that the Peace of the Church which consists of a great number of the Clergy which are as subject to Passions as other Men cannot be secured in St. Hierom's Opinion without a Superior Power over them Cui si non exors ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes To which if all the rest of the Clergy do not yield Obedience there may be as many Schisms in the Church as there are Priests And thus it would follow that neither Christ nor his Apostles did provide so well for the Churches Peace as common Prudence and Natural Reason would direct 3. It being granted there was a Superiority in the Apostles it is alledged That after their Deaths the Government for a long time fell to the several Presbyters until the inconveniency of it appeared by the increase of Schisms and then it was agreed Toto orbe through the whole World to advance one Presbyter with Power over the rest But when the Succession of Bishops is apparently recorded in most of the eminent Churches immediately after the decease of the Apostles it is an incredible story to tell us that the Power of Governing the Church was in the Body of the Presbyters of which there is not the least Testimony in Antiquity for any one Church nor any for the Time Place or Persons when this Toto orbe decretum this new alteration should be made nor is it probable that all the World would agree at once to make an alteration in Church-Government so that the result is this There was a Superiority in the Apostles days which ceased for a while and then the Presbyters raised in common but that Rule or Government was found to be the occasion of many Schisms and then the Apostolical Superiority was decreed by all to be Re-established 4. St. Hierom's words do not consist with themselves for when he says these Presbyters did exalt one chosen from among themselves to a higher degree whom they named a Bishop how can that consist with what immediately follows That a Presbyter had not the Power of Ordaining Quid enim facit exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbiter It seems by this the ancient Presbyters did first for necessary Causes first set up Bishops and then it will sound ill if our new Presbyters should put them down unnecessarily So that the most of what hath been alledged from the Divines of the Church of England in favour of Mr. J. H's New Model depending on the Testimony of St. Hierom and that being proved to be a single and slender Opinion contrary to the Practice of all Churches and not consistent with itself I suppose the Reader will not be of Mr. H's mind to destroy the established Constitution for a new dangerous and impracticable Invention which indeed was no elder then Socinus the first Inventer of Independent Churches granting to every Congregation a Power to Elect their Church-Officers for Governing their Affairs and deciding of Controversies And by this Design I perceive Mr. J. H. is of the same Judgment with Dr. Owen as well in Church-Discipline as in Doctrine whose Treatise of The In-dwelling of the Spirit and Praying by the Spirit not without a Contempt of our Lord's Prayer Mr. J. H. in his peaceable Disquisitions and Animadversions on a Discourse writ against Dr. Owen's book of the Holy Spirit he attempts to reconcile to the Truth as now he doth the Independent Principles and Practices with the Church of England FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. line 2. after the word Controversie add the Less is blessed of the Greater P. 4. l. 35 for of read or
it self otherwise and a task set them to do some good and memorable thing in the Church they might have been reformed or made harmless by diversion I desire Mr. J. H. to consider what it is and of whom Sir Robert there speaketh and to give a Reason why this was interpoled And to this Quotation I shall subjoyn another of Mr. R. B's in an Epistle to his separated Brethren That thousands are gone to Hell and ten thousands going after them who would never have gone thither if they had kept in the Communion of their Parish-Churches But in the conclusion of the Introduction he seems no way satisfied with the Propension of our Governours to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies and other more offensive Impositions unless this one thing may be granted and I think such a grant will be still accounted a grievance viz. a declaring the Government of the Church to be no other than what it was held and intended by the first Reformers in the mean time he avers That that Government which is really established by Law is not only inconsistent with and destructive of that which was setled in the Church by the first Reformers but of the Church-state of all other Protestants This Durus Sermo This is his endeavour as to the Reign of Henry the Eighth in his first Chapter Here I think fit to advertise the Reader that the Materials for the new Model of Henry the Eighth's Bishops was fitted though Mr. J. H. complains for want of time above seven years since and the Scheme drawn-up by Mr. H. in 's half Sheet and offered to a Parliament and because he took no notice of what was then said in Answer to his Model in a Tract called No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot Printed 1682. He deserves to do Pennance in a whole Sheet now and because that Answer may be after so many years become forgotten or rarely found I beg the Reader 's leave to repeat so much of it as concerns the State of our Church and the Opinion of the Divines that then lived as to Episcopacy because our Author says the whole stress of his cause upon it saying That this one thing is the most effectual expedient in the whole World to promote his healing attempt wherein I shall joyn issue with him It might be expected that he should have laid a sure and solid Corner-stone for his new Model because an error in the foundation doth usually run through the whole Fabrick but this will appear to be nothing else but Slime and Sand that is in plain English a confident Imposture and Fiction of his own Brain for p. 9. the account which this Author gives of that excellent Book The Erudition of a Christian Man is this That of these two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons Scripture makes express mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands Thus saith Mr. H. There are but two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons no third Order Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests And again That all such lawful Power and Autherity of any one Bishop Mr. H. adds in a Parenthesis 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 and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture So far the necessary Erudition Now that there may be a fair trial of this case I shall set down from Dr. Stillingfleet's printed Paper the Opinions of those Divines which consulted about our Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days concerning which I shall only mind the Dissenters of an Observation of their own viz. That though some of these Reformers were of different Opinions as to some Points mentioned in this Manuscript yet they must be considered to have receded from them when they subscribed the Necessary Erudition being then all of that Judgment which is there described The intent of Printing Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript containing the Resolutions of the Archbishop and several Bishops and Divines of some Questions concerning the Sacraments was as Dr. Burnet says that it might appear with what maturity and care they proceeded in the Reformation And the Subscriptions which were at the end of every mans Paper he tells us p. 242. were in this form T. Cant. This is my Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but do remit the Judgment thereof wholly to your Majesty and as is also sometimes expressed p. 201. without prejudice to the Truth and saving always more better Judgment Cum facultate etiam melius deliberandi in hac parte Now this Consultation was some years before the Book was published and if any of the Bishops had been then of a contrary Opinion as the Dissenters observe that Archbishop Cranmer was in the case of Excommunication inclining to Erastianism from these they must be considered say the Dissenters to have receded because they subscribed the Necessary Erudition p. 8. This Manuscript speaks home to our purpose in Quest 9. Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given by God The Answer of the Archbishop to this Question as indeed to many others is singular and differs from the rest of the Reformers being as the Prefacers themselves do observe meer Erastianism p. 7. but from these also as they say of his Opinion concerning Excommunication p. 8. he must be considered to have receded because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition which being done on more mature deliberation we ought to impute nothing to the Archbishop as his judgment in those controverted Points but what is there by him asserted I shall therefore mention the Resolutions of the rest only as we find them in the Re-collection only of this first I shall speak at large York We find in SS that the Apostles used the power to make Bishops Priests and Deacons which power may be grounded upon these words Sicut misit me vivens Pater sic ego mitto vos And we verily think that they durst not have used so high a power unless they had had authority from Christ But that their power to ordain Bishops Priests or Deacons by Imposition of hands requireth any other authority than authority of God we neither read in SS nor out of SS London I think the Apostles made Bishops by the Law of God because Acts 22. it is said In quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Nevertheless I think if Christian Princes had been then they should have named by Right and appointed the said Bishops to their places Rochester I think that the Apostles made Bishops by authority given them from God. Carlisle That Christ made his Apostles Priests and Bishops and that he gave them power to make others it seemeth to be the very Trade of SS Dr. Robertson I think the Apostles made Bishops and
Presbyters by divine authority where the publick Magistrate did permit it Dr. Cox. Although the Apostles had no authority to force any man to be Priests yet they moved by the Holy Ghost had authority of God to exhort and induce men to set forth God's honour and so to make them Priests Dr. Day The Apostles ordained Bishops by authority given them by God. Joh. 20. Sicut misit me c. Item Joh. ult Acts 20. 1 Tim. 4. Paulus ordinavit Timotheum Titum prescribit quales ille debeant ordinare 1 Tim. 1. Tit. 1. Dr. Oglethorp The Apostles by authority and command of God did ordain and institute Bishops leave being desired and obtained from the Prince or Magistrate who was then chief As I suppose Dr. Redman Christ gave his Apostles authority to make Bishops and Ministers in his Church as he had received authority of the Father to make them Bishops But if any Christian Prince had then been the Apostles had been and ought to have been obedient Subjects and would have attempted nothing but under the permission and assent of their earthly Governours Yet was it meet that they which were special and elect Servants of our Saviour Christ and were sent by him to convert the World and having most abundantly the Holy Ghost in them should have special ordering of such Ministry as pertained to the planting and increasing of the Faith whereunto I doubt not but a Christian Prince of his godly mind would most lovingly have condescended And it is to be considered in this Question with other like this word making a Bishop or Priest may be taken two ways for understanding the word to ordain or consecrate so it is a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and their Successours only but but if by this word making be understood the appointing or naming to the Office so it pertaineth specially to the supreme Heads and Governours of the Church which be Princes Dr. Edgworth The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God and not for lack of any higher power notwithstanding where there is a Christian King or Prince the Election Deputation and Assignation of them that shall be Priests and Bishops belongeth to the King or Prince so that he may forbid any Bishop within his Kingdom that he give no Orders for considerations moving him and may assign him a time when he shall give Orders and to whom Example of King David 1 Chron. 24. dividing the Levites into twenty four Orders deputing over every Order one chief Bishop prescribing an Ordinal and Rule how they should do their duties and courses and what Sacrifices Rites and Ceremonies they should use every day as the day and time required And his Son King Solomon diligently executed and commanded the same usages to be observed in the Temple after he had erected and finished it 2 Chron. 8. Dr. Symmons The Aposties made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God. Dr. Tresham The Apostles had authority of God to make Bishops yet if there had been a Christian King in any place where they made Bishops they would and ought to have desired authority of him for the executing of such Godly acts which no Christian King would have denied Dr. Leighton The Apostles as I suppose made Bishops by authority given to them of Christ howbeit I think they would and should have required the Christian Princes consent and license thereto if there had been any Christian Kings or Princes Dr. Coren The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God Notwithstanding if there had been a Christian King at that time it had been their duties to have had his license and permission thereto Here you see they all affirm that the Apostles by authority from God did make Bishops as well as Priests and Deacons and that there needs no other authority for their Successours to do the like but what is given them of God. Now that they were distinct Orders will appear by the next Question Quest 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priest were first then the Priest made the Bishop The Bishop of St. Davids my Lord elect of Westminster Dr. Cox and Dr. Redman say That at the beginning they were all One. The Bishops of York London Rechester Carlisle Doctors Day Tresham Symmons Oglethorp be in other contrary Opinions The Bishop of York and Dr. Tresham think that the Apostles first were Priests and after were made Bishops when the overseeing of other Priests was committed to them My Lords of London Duresm Carlisle and Rochester Drs. Symmonds and Grayford think that the Apostles were first Bishops and they after made other Bishops and Priests Drs. Coren and Oglethorp say That the Apostles were made Bishops and the seventy two were after made Priests Dr. Day thinks that Bishops as they are now called were before Priests My Lord of London Drs. Edgworth and Robertson think it no inconvenience if a Priest made a Bishop in that time Quest 11. Whether a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest by the SS or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest To the former part of the Question the Bishop of St. Davids doth answer That Bishops have no authority to make Priests unless they be authorized of the Christian Prince The others do all say That they be authorized of God. Yet some of them add That they cannot use their Authority without their Christian Prince doth permit them To the second part the Answer of the Bishop of St. Davids is That Lay-men have otherwhile made Priests So doth Drs. Edgworth and Redman say That Moses by a priviledge given him of God made Aaron his Brother Priest Drs. Tresham Grayford and Cox say That Lay-men may make Priests in time of necessity The Bishops of York Duresm Rochester Carlisle Elect of Westminster Drs. Coren Leighton Symmonds seem to deny this thing for they say They find not nor read not any such Example Quest 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Pishop and Priest or onely appointing to the Office be sufficient The Bishop of St. Davids saith That onely the appointing And Dr. Cox That onely the appointing cum manuum impositione is sufficient without Consecration The Bishops of York London Duresm Carlisle Drs. Day Coren Leighton Tresham Edgworth Oglethorp say That Consecration is requisite Dr. Redman saith That Consecration hath been from the Apostles time and instituted of the Holy Ghost to confer Grace My Lord of Rochester Drs. Day and Symmons say The Priesthood is given per manuum impositionem and that by Scripture and that Consecration hath of long time been received in the Church So that in this Paper which contains a previous Consultation some years before to the things published in the Necessary Erudition they did generally agree That the Office of Bishops is mentioned in Scripture That they were of a superiour Order to Priests That the Apostles