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
Scripture maketh mention That they were conferred by Prayer and Imposition of hands Nor can it be thought that by the mentioning the manner of ordaining Bishops and Priests to be the same that therefore the Reformers thought the Order to be the same because the Deacons were ordained in the same manner and yet it is granted that they were distinct Orders And for the distinction of the Orders of Priests and Bishops enough had been spoken before and their present practice did demonstrate what their Opinions were If any desire farther satisfaction in these things let him read the Casuists de Sacramento Ordinis where this distinction is obvious Ordo significat vel ipsam potestatem vel Ordinationem quâ potestas datur And they may find that Bellarmine and generally the Jesuits reckon Bishops and Priests to be but one Order as our Dissenters would have it and among the later Schoolmen it was made a Question An Episcopatus sit Ordo à Presbyteratu distinctus and they generally hold that they are one in Genere Sacerdotis but are distinct in Specie the Episcopal Character including that of a Priest and so they hold that Solum Sacerdotium est Ordo Sacramentum So they dispute against the Imposition of hands in Ordination of Priests and the usual form was by delivering the Patine and Chalice with Bread and Wine with these words Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificia pro vivis mortuis In nomine Patris c. And they affirm That the Pope can create a Bishop or Priest onely by saying Be thou a Bishop or Priest A Deacon is ordained by delivering of the Gospels into his hands and the Subdeacon by delivery of an empty Patine and Chalice Which superstitious uses our Reformers would destroy and reduce to the Apostolical Practice One Argument more these Dissenters mention from the Necessary Erudition as good as the rest p. 3. The Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same whose Office is not onely to preach and administer Sacraments but moreover to exercise Discipline namely in assoyling and loosing from sin such as be truly penitent and in excommunicating the obstinately vicious where from the Community of some Offices they would argue to the equality of the Orders though nothing is more evident than that the Bishops of this Age reserved the power of Confirmation Ordination and Diocesan Jurisdiction to themselves as their Right Jure Divino as will yet further appear But no-where doth the Necessary Erudition say That the Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same as they sophistically infer And they may as well affirm it to be the sence of the Council of Trent as of our Reformers who use almost the same words Non solum Sacerdotibus sed de Diaconis Sacrae Literae apertam mentionem faciunt I cannot conceive what ground these Dissenters had to fix this Errour of theirs upon unless an unwary Expression of Dr. Burnet's who perhaps considering the Arch-bishop's Judgment more than the Judgments of the rest doth assert the same as the Dissenters do But if they had it from him they had also in him a correction of this Error and it was far from the ingenuity of true Protestant Divines to publish the Error and conceal the Confutation of it Thus then Dr. Burnet discovers the whole Intrigue Dr. Burnet p. 336. of the first part That both in this Writing i.e. Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript and in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian man Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office. But Dr. Burnet adds In the ancient Church they knew none of those subtilties which were found out in the later Ages it was then thought enough that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his Function by a new Imposition of hands and that several Offices could not be performed without a Bishop such as Ordination Confirmation c. But they did not refine in these matters so much as to enquire whether Bishops and Priests differed in Order and Office or only in degree But after the School-men fell to examine matters of Dignity with logical and unintelligible Niceties the Canonists began to comment upon the Rules of the Ancient Church they studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one to another so that the difference was but small They did it with different designs The School-men having set up the grand Mystery of Transubstantiation were to exalt the Priestly Office as much as was possible for the turning of the Host into God was so great an action that they reckoned there could be no Office higher than that which qualified a man to so mighty a performance Therefore as they changed the form of Ordination from what it was anciently believed to consist in viz. Imposition of hands to a delivering of Sacred Vessels and held that a Priest had his Orders by that Rite not by the Imposition of hands So they raised their Order or Office so high as to make it equal with the Order of a Bishop But as they designed to extol the Order of Priesthood so the Canonists had as great a mind to depress the Episcopal Order they generally wrote for preferment and the way to it was to extol the Papacy Nothing could do that so effectually as to bring down the power of Bishops this only could justifie the Exemptions of the Monks and Friars the Popes setting up Legantine Courts and receiving at first Appeals and then Original Causes before them together with many other Encroachments on the Jurisdiction of Bishops all which were unlawful if the Bishops had by Divine Right Jurisdiction in their Diocesses Therefore it was necessary to lay them as low as could be and to make them think that the power they held was rather as delegates of the Apostolick See than by a Commission from Christ or his Aposties So that they looked on the declaring Episcopal Authority to be of Divine Right as a blow that would be fatal to the Court of Rome therefore they did after this at Trent use all possible endeavours to hinder any such Decision it having been then the common Stile of that Age to reckon Bishops and Priests as the same Office it is no wonder if at this time the Clergy of this Church the greatest part of them being still leavened with the old Superstition and the rest of them not having enough of spare time to examine lesser matters retain still the former Phrases in this particular This might have been sufficient to correct the forwardness of our Dissenters to comply with the Papists in this new Notion of Bishops or Priests as one Order but because they abated nothing of their confidence by this I shall mind them of that severer Reprimand of the Doctor 's for which in their behalf I give him hearty thanks for I think he shall have none from them It is in these words N. B. On this I have insisted the more that it may appear how little
the Lord of which hereafter To the same effect he quotes Pilkington Bishop of Durham arguing against a Popish Author and therefore probably against Popish Bishops and he says That God's Commission is alike to all Priest Bishop Archbishop and Prelate for which he quotes St. Hierome ad Evagrium That a Bishop where-ever he be is of the same Power and Priesthood which he urged against those that still claimed their Bishop of Rome usurped Power above Princes and other Bishops who as this Bishop says had no Authority to Suspend Deprive and Interdict any Priest that paid not his Subsidies but from the Parliament I cannot see what inference the Author can make from this to favour his Opinion The sum of what Bishop Jewel says is that of St. Hierome That all Priests are of the same Power that the Names of Metropolitans Archbishops Archdeacons c. are not found in the SS That St. Hierome says Sciant Episcopi that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custome than by Order of God's Truth And against Harding he says What meant Mr. Harding to come in with the difference between Priests and Bishops thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition or is it so humble a Heresie to say that by the SS of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one He grants also That it is by the favour of Princes that a Priest being found negligent c. he may be punished by the discretion of the Bishop That the Matters of Government must be taken out of the Word of God viz That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in Quietness and Order That the Officers whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in SS but left to the discretion of the Church according to the state of Times Places and Persons and therefore no certain and perfect kind of Government being prescribed in SS as necessary to the Salvation of the Church the same may be altered For which he quotes Gualter Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the people and most fit for the time and place and let no Man rashly prescribe to others and bind all Churches to one Form It is well known that the Manner and Form of Government in the Apostles times and expressed in the SS neither is now nor can nor ought to be observed This he wrote against Cartwright pleading for his Government as if prescribed in SS and thus he applies it to the then Dissenters If you will have the Queen Rule as Monarch in her own Dominions you must give her leave to use one kind and form of Government in all and every part and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as in Civil I wish they would follow his Example and Advice that so seem to recommend his Judgment Ch. 4. begins with Dr. Willet's Opinion who says That of the difference between Bishops and Priests there are Three Opinions the first of Arrius who held that all Ministers should be equal and that a Bishop was not nor ought to be superiour to a Priest nor was there any difference at all between them Which Opinion was counted an Heresie N. B. The Second in the other extream is of the Papists That would have not only a difference but a Princely Preheminence of their Bishops over the Clergy and that by the Word of God. The Third Opinion between both is That although this distinction of Bishops and Priests as now received cannot be directly proved out of SS yet it is very good for the Polity of the Church to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity And he concludes So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists and us they say It is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope and to Bishops and Archbishops under him as necessarily prescribed in the Word But so do not our Bishops and Archbishops which is a notable difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church and the Reformed Churches Let every Church use the Form which best fitteth their State in External Matters N. B. Every Church is free not one bound to the Prescription of another So they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word This then he says may without any contradiction be affirmed that in this distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is somewhat Apostolical somewhat also Political First in the calling of Bishops as now ordained in some Reformed Church it cannot be denied but that we have Order in the Church and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations to avoid Confusion proceeds from an Institution of Christ that there should not be a popular Equality but a convenient Superiority and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel as St. Paul also sheweth First Apostles second Prophets c. Secondly There is somewhat Politick and that of two sorts as touching the Polity Ecclesiastical and Civil To the Ecclesiastical in advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things appertain 1. St. Hierome says of Confirmation That it is committed only to Bishops that it is rather for the honour of the Priesthood then by necessity of any Law. 2. The Council of Aquisgrane ch 8 saith That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the chief Minister only for Authority's-sake lest that the Discipline of the Church being changed by many should break the Peace of the Church 3. The Author of the Book under Hierome's Name De Septem Ordinibus saith That the Consecration of Virgins which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches was reserved to the Bishop for Concord's sake 4. The Jurisdiction of the Church which in times past Hierome says was committed to the Colledge of Presbyters was afterwards to avoid Schism devolved to the Bishop Among other Inferences from Dr. Willet he concludes That Willet indeed saith that for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical And at the latter end of Queen Eligabeth the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution And as to Saravia our Author gives his Judgment in these two particulars differing from Whitgift 1. That not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirmed by the Fathers ought to be continued forever 2. The Superiority in degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter is a Divine Institution and that St. Hierome was in the same Error with Arrius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronimi Opinionem consentaneam cum Arrio Dei verbo contrariam The last that he mentioneth in this Ch. is Bishop Bancroft who says We have a Church-Government which in my Conscience is truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other received this day in any Reformed Church in Christendome And after the Death of the
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
to the Apostles and Bishops in Scripture-times of which they say that express mention is made in Scripture onely of these two i. e. Priests and Deacons To which two though the Church added other inferiour and lower degrees mentioned in Ancient Writers yet there is no mention of them in the Scripture but in some old Councils and namely in the four African where all the kinds of Orders be rehearsed Now in that Council you may find the several Rites of Ordaining 1. Bishops 2. Presbyters 3. Deacons 4. Subdeacons 5. Acolythi 6. Exorcists c. And Canon 27. Vt Episcopus de loco ignobile ad nobilem non transeat nec quisquam inferioris ordinis Clericus Inferioris vero gradus Sacerdotes possunt concessione suorum Episcoporum ad alias Ecclesias migrare So that in the Judgment of that Council Priests were an inferiour Order to Bishops and consequently they were so in the Judgment of our Reformers who quote it to that end See Binius Tom. 1. p. 728. This also appears from the Milevitan Council which is also quoted by the Reformers in which St. Augustine was also present wherein a Canon was made Quo prohibiter ne Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis suis ulla extra Africam adeant judicia So that by both these Councils Priests as well as Deacons are proved to be inferiour to Bishops which was the thing intended by our Reformers in that Paragraph So that when these Dissenters from this passage viz that of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention do in the words immediately following infer That all others meaning particularly that of Bishops were afterward added by the Church p. 2. and name this inference as if it were the very words of that excellent Book is no less a sin than the bearing false witness against them for they treat onely of other inferiour and lower degrees So that if the word Order be taken in the first sense for the power or faculty of administring holy things conferred by the Bishops it is their plain sense That the Scripture maketh express mention of these two inferiour Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons and not of Subdeacons Acolytes c. Moreover two things especially seem designed by the Reformers concerning the Sacrament of Orders The first is to shew that Bishops are of Divine Institution and had not their dependance on the Pope whom his Favourites made the only Bishop and all the rest deriving their power and authority from him The second was to shew that of all those seven Orders which were made Sacramental onely those of Bishops Priests and Deacons had foundation in Scripture the rest were added in after-times And to confirm both these they describe the manner of ordaining both Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Holy Scripture to discharge it from those superstitious Ceremonies introduced by the Pope and made necessary to their Ordination As for the Superiority of Bishops to Priests there is no question made much less of their Identity or sameness of Office. For the Divine Right of Bishops they assert it in four several places that they have it from Christ and prove it by Scripture and from thence infer this Conclusion That whereas the Bishop of Rome hath heretofore claimed and usurped to be Head and Governour of all Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church by the Laws of God it is evident that his Power is utterly feigned and untrue and was neither given him by God in Holy Scripture nor allowed by the Fathers in Ancient General Councils nor by consent of the Cotholick Church And they declare That the Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions of Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Metropolitans were given them by the positive Laws of men onely and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture And the power usurped by any one Bishop over another not given him by the Consent of men is no lawful Power but plain Usurpation and Tyranny Which they prove from the Ancient Councils and Fathers against the Pope Secondly They shew that of those seven Orders owned by the Church of Rome as Sacramental onely Bishops Priests and Deacons had their Institution in the Holy Scripture and that Subdeacons Acolytes Exorcists c. were added by the Church as also the Rites and Ceremonies by which they were conferred And thirdly to confirm what they had said they describe the manner of ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons to clear it from those superstitious Ceremonies brought in by the Church of Rome as the Ring and Crosier-staff several Unctions and Garments some of which must come from Rome whereas the Scripture mentions onely the imposition of Hands and Prayers In these words Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and imposition of their Hands And evident it is to me that by the word Orders they intended onely the manner of Ordaining not the distinction of Orders for they all held the Superiority of Bishops to Priests And this will appear first from the word used by the Latine Translation which is De his tantum Ordinationibus of these Ordinations onely not of these two Orders onely the Scripture makes mention and describeth the manner of conferring them And doubtless those learned men did not confound the words Ordo and Ordinatio For the understanding whereof I shall explain the English Edition by the Latine Thus in the beginning they say That these Orders were given by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops hands Per Consecrationem Impositionem manum Episcopi And as the Apostles themselves in the beginning of the Church did order Priests and Bishops so they willed the other Bishops to the like Thus the Latine Book Et Quemadmodum Apostoli ipsi Episcopos Presbyteros Ordinaverunt ita eosdem etiam instituisse ut in posterum succedentes Episcopi eundem ordinandi morem in Ecclesia servarent Again Here is to be noted That although this Form before declared is to be observed in giving Orders c. in the Latine Quanquam autem hunc in modum Scriptura Ordinationes fieri instituit Again Thus we have briefly touched the Ordering not the Orders of Priests and Bishops The Latine Hactonus quidem de Ordinatione Presbyterorum Neither speak of the Order but Ordering Moreover touching the Order of Deacons we read Acts 6. that they were ordered and instituted by the same Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their hands The Latine Jam vero praeter Episcopos Sacerdotes Diaconorum etiam Scriptura meminit traditque hos ab Apostolis per Orationem manuum impositionem ordinatos institutos fuisse After all which it followeth Of these two Orders onely which I cannot understand the premises being considered in any other sense than as the Latine renders it Of these Ordinations onely and how they were conferred the