THE Healing Attempt: Being a Representation OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Church of England, According to the Judgment of her Bishops unto the End of Q.
Elizabeth's
Reign.
Humbly Tendred To the Consideration of the Thirty Commissionated for a Consult about
ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS
in Order to a
Comprehension;
And Published, In hopes of such a Moderation of Episcopacy, that the
Power
be kept within the Line of our
First Reformers:
and the
Exercise
of it reduced to the Model of
ArchBishop
USHER.
Mediocria firma.
LONDON,
Printed for
Thomas Parkhurst,
at the
Bible
and
Three Crowns
in
Cheapside,
near
Mercers-Chapel,
1689.
The Epistle to the Commissioners.
Most Reverend, Right Reverend and Reverend,
I Bless you all in the Name of the Lord, and Blessed be your Meeting this Day, and this Appointment for you to Sit about so Blessed a reconciling Work. I have but this short Grace to say,
Blessed are the Peacemakers.
When such a
Choice
of Persons is Congregated, and their Business
Accommodation,
the Tidings hereof to the poor
Outed Shepherds
should, methinks, be so
affecting,
as if the
Angels
were again upon the Wing, and singing
over
that Hymn,
Glory be to God in the highest, in Earth Peace, and good will towards Men.
Alas! How many Years have passed since the Reformation, wherein your Nonconformist Brethren have been a Loading, and their Burthen increasing, and none of you that were willing, were able to ease them, when by the Artifice of the Papists, and the Higher Powers influenced by them, you were forced to
bear
the
blame
of those things which your Souls did
abhor:
And now is the time come when God hath sent us such a
Nursing Father
and
Nursing Mother
to his Church, as hath
called you to the liberty
of showing
of what manner of spirit
indeed
you are.
Blessed be his Name for it, and the ho
••
es we have on that account.
This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will be glad, and rejoice in it.
I know indeed how hard of belief the most of our Brethren generally are that any good should be done for us by a
Convocation
or this
Meeting. It is impossible
(they are readier to say)
that those—But
Reverendly
beloved, I am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany Salvation, though
they
thus speak.
I am persuaded that even this will stimulate you to a greater earnestness to do them the more good (for such is Christianity), and that I shall not need to say anything (not anymore than in the Title) to put you on this grateful task,
The same also which ye are forward to do:
I have less need to be impertinent in offering
Arguments
to such
Wits,
which were to bring
Water
to the
Spring:
but this one thing I have need to do, which is, to beg of you that you will Pardon what is done, if in anything the Author seems to
presume,
or to be more
slender
than he ought, for want of more
time
and
search,
or does in any regard
offend.
I will also beg of you more
Two
things; the
One
is, To take heed how you make more conditions necessary to us for Communion with you, than Christ requires of you for Communion with him: The
Other
is, That you do not
Tantalize
your Brethren, or
Procrastinate
that Kindness (whatsoever it is) which you intend towards those who are capable to receive it;
For we must needs die, and are as water spilled upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: Neither doth God respect any person, yet doth he devise means that his banished be not expelled from him.
A Friend to the Design and Substance of these Papers,
J. H.
Octob. 3. 1689.
THE AUTHOR TO THE READER.
THE Greatest thing in Controversy amongst Protestants is, Whether
the Office
of a
Presbyter,
and
Bishop
be, according to the Holy Scriptures, the
same?
and on a Just Determination of this Question depends the Peace of our Church.
To affirm,
That
the Bishop and Presbyter are of different Orders,
That
the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of Bishops,
That
Ordination, only by Presbyters, is void and null, and that the Ordaining 'em again by Bishops is not
Re-Ordination,
destroys the Church State, not only of Dissenters, but of all other Protestants in the World, except of those in the Church of
England,
nulling their Ministry, Sacraments, and Discipline.
A Comprehension therefore on these Terms is none at all; It's only an offer to Unite with Dissenters on their
doing what is to them Impossible; They cannot Renounce their Ordination, nor Consent to the Destroying their own, nor the Church State of Reformed Protestants Abroad.
But, lest the Impossibility they lie under be Interpreted
a
Peevish Humour, and Obstinacy in them, the Sentiments of the
First-Reformers,
in the Days of
Henry
the Eighth,
Edward
the Sixth, and Queen
Elizabeth,
are Impartially Propos'd and found to be exactly the same with theirs; and, what will, touching Matters of Church Government, Heal our Divisions.
The Author could Descend lower than the last of
Elizabeth;
but there's no need on it, and he must acknowledge, that though' a great many Eminent Writers, Learned Divines of the Church of
England,
asserted this Old Reformer's Principle; yet the
Canons
of
James I.
ran another way, and in his Reign the Learned were divided in their Opinions about the Office of Bishop and Presbyter; and so they are at this very time: However, it cannot be denied, that the
First Reformers,
adhered unto by Archbishop
Usher,
held the same, which the Dissenters have all along stiffly maintained, and have
Antiquity
on their side.
The Learned
Carleton
is Positive, that the
Power of Order
by all Writers, that He could see, even of the Church of
Rome,
is understood to be Immediately from Christ, given to all
Bishops
and
Priests,
alike by their Consecration, and that in this there was no Difference between
Papist
and
Protestant;
whence it follows, that the Divesting the
Parish Presbyter
of the
Pastoral Office
is but a late Invention.
Thus much He Asserts of that Power of
Order
which he distinguisheth from the Power of
Jurisdiction,
and includes in it the Power of
Ordination.
And although, according to the most taking Opinion amongst those, who seemed to be somewhat Zealous for Prelacy, the Power of
Jurisdiction
was peculiarly appropriated to the Bishop, yet this Jurisdiction following Orders, could never be so separated from it, but that there still remain some Convincing Instances of its belonging unto Presbyters.
In the Case of a
Bishop's Suspension,
it's clear; I will only observe what is at this time most obvious.
On the Suspension of the Archbishop of
Canterbury,
All Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the
Dean
and
Chapter,
who are but
Presbyters,
as is daily Asserted in these words.
Nos Johannes
Tillotson
Sacrae Theology Professor,
Decanus
Ecclesiae Cathedralis & Metropoliticae Christi Cant'. Et Ejusdem Ecclesiae
Capitulum,
ad quos
Omnis, & omnimoda Jurisdictio Spiritualis,
&
Ecclessiastica,
quae ad Archiepiscopum
Cant.
pertinuit, nunc
ration Suspensionis,
&c.
dignoscitur pertinere.
A Condescending to settle the Power of Orders, and Jurisdiction on Presbyters, as well as Bishops, according to the Learned Archbishop
Usher's Model,
will as to Matters of Church Government End the Controvesie between the
Moderate Episcopal,
and
Presbyterian.
As to what relates unto
Stinted-Forms
of Prayer, the Judicious Mr.
Clerkson,
in his Excellent
Discourse of Liturgies,
having so Learnedly and fully
discussed it, the Author need do no more than only Commend its Perusal to the Candid
Reader,
with an Assurance, that until it be cleared that Stinted Liturgies are Ancienter than that Learned Person Represents them to be, we shall be freed from a strict Imposition.
THE Healing Attempt.
The Introduction.
THose, who are most sensible of the late Deliverance from the Dangers we were in of being overturned by the
Papists,
must be of an Opinion, that the many
Divisions,
amongst ourselves, had too great a hand in bringing on us what was the true Ground of our Danger;
that
we can never be perfectly free from the Fears of a Return, so long as our Breaches remain Uncured; and,
that,
it's absolutely necessary, that everyone do his Part towards the
Settlement
of a
lasting Union
amongst Protestants, as the strongest Bulwark against
Popery.
Thus much I count is very manifest to every Considering Mind; for, at this time, Protestants, of all Perswasions, seem to be desirous of it.
Although there are different Apprehensions about the
Means
of attaining it, as, whether by an
Indulgence
only; or, whether by Indulgence, and
Comprehension,
yet is there no doubt, that I know, about the
Union
itself; and seeing an
Indulgence
is already given, Extending
Liberty of Conscience
even to the
Quakers,
and a
Bill of Comprehension
is at this time on the Anvil, I will humbly offer my thoughts concerning it.
That such as are only for an Indulgence will be angry with this Essay, is no other than I expect. However, the Arguments
for a well-Establish'd Comprehension influencing me more than the Displeasure of any Party of Men on Earth, I am resolved in God's strength, to do the uttermost in me lieth towards the obtaining it.
It is a Concernment for the Protestant Faith, the Salvation of Souls, the Glory of God, that puts me on this work; all which have been Endangered through that want of Powerful Preachers in Parish Churches, which hath been the Effect of our Divisions.
I bless God, there are so many Faithful and Laborious Ministers in
Public
Places, and yet, considering how few these are in comparison of the Churches wants, I cannot but lament the Deplorable Condition of Thousands in this Nation, who on this occasion are like Eternally to Perish, and pray the Lord of the Harvest to
Open
the Door, that more Laborers may enter in, even men of the most Tender Consciences, who, no doubt. will be the most successful in their Ministry.
In Queen
Elizabeth's,
and
James
the First's days, it so fell out, that a strict
Injunction
of
Subscription
Depriv'd the Church of the Labors of several Divines eminent for their Learning, Holiness of Life, and Conversation.
Consult the
Complaint,
Presented to the Right Honorable the Lord's of Her Majesty's Council, and their Lordships
Answer:
The
Copy of a Letter,
written by a Gentleman in the Country to a
Londoner, touching the Answer to the Archbishop's Articles:
The
Lamentable Complaint
of the Commonalty by way of Supplication to the High Court of Parliament for a Learned Ministry, and you will see, that for Non-conformity some of the most Conscientious, and Painful Preachers were brought to the Barr, Marshalled with the worst Malefactors, Indicted, Arraigned, Condemned, New Christened with the odious name of
Puritan,
Depriv'd, to the Advancement of Popery, Debauchery, Atheism, and to the great Declension of the Power of Godliness.
A Disgracing those Ministers, that are sound in the Faith and Industrious in their Work, hath been one of the most successful Engines the Antichristian Party have used.
The first Ten years of Queen
Elizabeth's
Reign, the
Papists
kept to our Churches, and if
Saunders,
and some others, had not with an unexpected success nick-named some of the most Valiant Opposers of
Popery,
and Painful Preachers with the odious names of
Puritan
and
Precisian,
to the good liking of some amongst ourselves, they might have still continued their Communion with us.
This is not the Observation of some Nonconformists only,
but of the Wise and Judicious Sir
Robert Cotton,
who assures us, that the Reason of the Papists separating from our Church, and returning to their old Apostasy, was not the
Bull
of
Pius Quintus
on the Bishop of
London
's Door (as the Lord Chief Justice
Coke
apprehended) or the forbearing to hang up Priests, but in conjunction with the Idleness and Insufficiency of many Teachers conspiring with the Peoples cold Zeal,
Saunders
his pinning the name of
Puritan
on some of the most Learned and courageous Protestants, gave life to that Faction.
It was not (saith this Noble Baronet) the Bull of
Pius Quintus
on the Bishop of
London
's Doors,
or the forbearing to hang up Priests, that have wrought this Apostasy, but the Idleness and Insufficiency of many Teachers, conspiring with the Peoples cold Zeal, that hath been the Contriver of this Web. Until the Eleventh year of Queen
Elizabeth's
Reign, Recusants name was scarcely known, the Reason was, because the Zeal, begotten in the time of the
Marian
Persecution, was yet fresh in Memory, and the late Persecutors were so amazed with the sudden alteration of Religion, that they could not choose but say,
Digitus Dei est hîc.
In those days there was an Emulation between the Clergy, and the Laity; and a strife arose whether of them should show themselves most affectionate to the Gospel: Ministers haunted the Houses of worthiest Men, where
Jesuits
now build their Tabernacles, and poor Country Churches were frequented with the best of the Shire, the Word of God was precious, Prayer and
Preaching went hand in hand together, until Archbishop
Grindal
's
Disgrace,
and
Hatfield
's hard conceit of Prophecying, brought the flowing of those good Graces to a still water; the name of a Papist smelt rank even in their own Nostrils, and for pure shame to be accounted such they reforted duly both to our Churches, and Exercises; But when they saw their great
Coryphaeus Saunders
had slily pinned the name of
Puritan
upon the sleeves of the Protestants that encountered them with
most Courage,
and perceived that the
Word
was pleasing to some of our own side, they took heart at Grass, to set little by the Service of God, and Duty to their Sovereign—most Men grew to be frozen in Zeal and benumbed, that whosoever (as the worthy Lord Keeper
Bacon
observed in those days) pretended a little spark of
Earnestness,
he seemed no less than red fire hot, in comparison of the other. And as some fare the worse for an ill Neighbor's sake dwelling beside them; so did it betide the Protestants, who, seeking to curb the the Papists, or reprove an idle Drone, were incontinently branded with the Ignominious note of
Precisian,
all which wind brought plenty of water to the
Pope's Mill,
and there will most Men grind where they see Appearance to be well served: So far Sir
Robert Cotton.
And as the disgracing Godly-Ministers by fastening the names of
Puritan, Precisian,
&c. on 'em, and the laying 'em aside from the public exercise of their Ministry, did in the Reign of
Elizabeth
give life to Popery, so 'twill still, and all those Protestant Ministers that are now denied entrance into the Parish Churches will be in disgrace amongst the People and their Ministry not half so successful amongst those that mostly need it.
The
wider
therefore the Church Doors are made, the greater will be the number of Pious and Painful Preachers, the greater the Advantage on Truth's side, and the greater Discouragement on the other hand.
But that the Door may be made
wide enough
to answer the desired End, seeing our Governors are inclined to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies, with some more offensive Impositions there is this one thing, to wit, The
Ordering,
and
Declaring the Government of the Church
to
be now no other,
but
what it was held, and intended to be by the first
Reformers,
will,
as I humbly apprehend, be the most Effectual Expedient of any else in the World.
Some of our Clergy have Notions about
Church-Government,
very Dissonant from what the Gentry, and
Parliament Men
have, and the first Reformers heretofore had, and it's feared by some thinking Persons, that the
Laws,
yet in Being, have Established a Government in the Church, very different from what the
Legislators,
I mean, the King, the Temporal Lord's and Commons generally designed.
The Government settled in the Church by the first Reformers, and still supposed by our Gentry to continue, is consistent enough with the Church state of all other Protestants; but
that,
which is really Established by Law is Inconsistent with, and Destructive of it, driving many Learned Godly Protestant Divines from that Conformity which is at this time made necessary to the Exercise of their Ministry in Parish Churches.
To clear thus much is (methinks) one of the most necessary things to be attempted, and the very
next step
to be taken towards the settling a Comprehension, which will be of validity with Judicious Men.
What were the Sentiments of the First-Reformers about
Episcopacy,
and
Church Government,
during Queen
Elizabeth's
Reign, I will with the greatest impartiality declare, as near as possibly I can in their own words, and add some Arguments to show, that the most effectual way to settle such a
Comprehension
as will best secure the Protestant Religion, is the Forming and Framing the Government of the Church, according to the Sentiments of our
First-Reformers;
which in the Learned Archbishop
Usher
's
Reduction
of Episcopacy, I take to be very happily copied out unto us.
I will begin with those who lived in
Henry
the Eighth's days; for then began the
Reformation.
CHAP. I.
The Sense of our First Reformers in
Henry
the Eighth's Days.
IN this King's Reign
Tyndale, Lambert
and
Barns,
Men of good Learning, and blessed Martyrs, sealing the Truths they professed with their Blood, struggled strenuously for a Reformation of
Church Government.
Tyndale,
looking on Corruptions in
Discipline
to be a principal occasion of that greater Deluge of Enormities in the Church, presseth for a Reduction of all things in the Discipline to the
Apostolical Institution,
and therefore makes Enquiry after those Officers, the Apostles Ordained in Christ's Church, and what their Offices were, and gives us an account of his Perswasion of it thus:
Wherefore the Apostles following and obeying the Rule,
Doctrine and Commandment of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ordained in his Kingdom and Congregation
TWO OFFICERS:
one called after the
Greek
word
Bishop,
in
English
an
Overseer,
which same was called
Priest
after the
Greek, Elder
in
English,
because of his Age, Discretion, and Sadness; for he was as nigh as could be always an
Elderly Man.
And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plough of God's Word, and fed Christ's Flock, and tended them only, without looking to any other Business in the World. Another
Officer
they chose, and called him
Deacon,
after the
Greek,
a
Minister
in
English,
to
Minister the Alms of the People unto the Poor, and Needy.
For in the Congregation of Christ, love maketh every Man's Gifts and Goods common to the Necessity of his Neighbor—There is
Presbyteros
called an
Elder
by birth,
which same is called immediately a
Bishop,
or
Overseer,
to declare what
Persons are meant,—They were called
Elders,
because of their Age, Gravity,
&c.
and
Bishops
and
Overseers
by reason of their
Offices.
And all that were called
Elders,
or
Priests
(if they so will) were called
Bishops
also, though' they have divided the names now, which thing thou mayst evidently see by the first Chapter of
Titus,
and the twentieth of the
Acts.
Those
Overseers,
which we now call
Bishops
after the Greek word, were always
biding in One
place to Govern the Congregation there; But
Deacons
were Overseers of the Poor, and crept not into Orders till the Church grew
rich.
Lambert
is of the same Opinion.
As touching Priesthood (saith he) in the
Primitive Church,
when Virtue bare (as ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same) the most room, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than
Bishops
and
Deacons,
that is to say,
Ministers,
as witnesseth besides Scripture, full apertly
Jerome
in his
Commentaries
upon the Epistles of
Paul;
whereas he faith, That those we call
Priests,
were all one and no other but
Bishops,
and the
Bishops
none other but
Priests,
Men ancient both in Age and Learning, so near as they could be chosen. Neither were they
Institute,
and chosen as they be nowadays, with small regard of a
Bishop,
or his
Officer,
only apposing them, if they can construe a Collect.—To conclude, I say, the
Order,
or
State
of
Priests,
and
Deacons
was Ordained by God.
The Sixth Article against Dr.
Barns
was, That he declared himself thus.
I will never believe, nor yet can I ever believe, that one Man may be by the Law of God a Bishop of two, or three Cities, yea, of an whole Country; for it is contrary to St.
Paul,
which saith,
I have left thee behind, to set in every City a Bishop.
And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called
Episcopy,
you shall find in many that they be called
Presbyteri.
—I was (saith he) brought before my Lord
Cardinal
into his Gallery, and there he read all my Articles till he came to this, and there he stopped, and said, That
this touched him,
and therefore he asked me, if I thought it wrong that
One Bishop
should have so many Cities underneath him? Unto whom I
answered, That I could no further go than to St.
Paul
's Text, which, set in every City a Bishop. Then asked he me, whether I thought it unright (seeing the Ordinance of the Church, that one Bishop should have so many Cities? I answered, that I knew no Ordinance of the Church, as concerning this thing, but St.
Paul
's Saying only? Nevertheless I did see a contrary Custom and Practice in the World, but I know not the original thereof. Then said He, There were divers Cities, some seven Miles, some six Miles long, and over them was there set but one
Bishop,
and of their Suburbs also; so likewise now a
Bishop
has also but one City to his
Cathedral
Church, and the Country about it as Suburbs to it. Methought this was far fetched, but I durst not deny it, because it was so great Authority, and of so
Holy a Father,
and so great a Divine. But this I dare say, that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture, nor yet by any Authority of Drs. nor yet by any Practice of the Apostles, and yet it must be true, because a Pillar of the Church has spoken it: But let us see what the Drs. say to mine Article.
Athanasius
doth declare this Text of the Apostle,
I have left thee behind,
&c. He would not commit unto one
Bishop
a whole
Ylde,
but he did enjoin, that every City should have his
Proper Pastor,
supposing, that by this means they should more diligently
Oversee
the People—Also
Chrysostom
on that same Text:
He would not that a whole Country should be permitted unto One man,
but
He enjoined to every man his Cure, by that means he knew, that his Labor should be more easy,
and
the Subjects should be with more Diligence Govern'd, if the Teachers were not distract with the Governing of
many
Churches, but had
Cure,
and
Charge
of
one Church
only,
&c. Methinks these be plain words, and able to move a man to speak as much as I did—But I, poor Man, must be an Heretic, there is no Remedy, you will have it so, and who is able to say nay?
Not all Scripture, nor yet God Himself.
So far these three Worthies.
About this time the Notion of these blessed Martyrs found respect amongst those, that bore a great Figure in the Church. The Author of the
True Difference between the Regal Power
and the Ecclesiastical,
gives countenance unto it, and at last
Cranmer
with many others fell in with it, and it became a Point established by Authority, as may be seen in the
Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man,
where, after the Description given of the Office of
Priests
and
Deacons,
it's affirmed, That of these
Two Orders only
Scripture makes express mention,
and that we may not mistake 'em, it's added,
of these two
Orders only,
that is to say, Priests, and Deacons, Scripture makes express mention, and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer, and Imposition of hands.
Besides, The Description they give of the Office of a Bishop or Priest, for when they speak of the Divine Institution, they make no distinction between 'em; it's thus:
The Office consists in true Preaching and Teaching the Word of God unto the People, in Dispensing and Ministring the Sacraments, in Consecrating and Offering the blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, in loosing and assoyling from Sin such Persons as be sorry and truly penitent for the same, and Excommunicating such as be guilty in manifest Crimes, and will not be reformed otherwise, and finally in Praying for the whole Church of Christ, and especially for the Flock committed to them.
Thus there are but two
Orders only,
that is to say, Priests and Deacons, no third Order; Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests, and their Office the same, and the Superiority of one above the other only by Human Ordinance and Appointment.
And whereas
(say they)
we have thus summarily declared what is the Office and Ministration which in Holy Scriptures has been committed to Bishops and Priests, and in what things it consisteth, as is afore rehearsed, we think it expedient and necessary, that all men should be advertis'd, and taught, that all such Lawful Power and Authority of any one Bishop
[or
Priest,
for they are in the sense of these Great Divines the same]
over another were,
and
be given them by the Consent, Ordinance, and Positive Laws of Men only, and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture.
So far the
Necessary Erudition.
Thus in
Henry
the Eighth's days, the Bishop and Priest of the same Order according to the Scriptures, and their Office the same, the Difference therefore between 'em and the Government that is grounded thereupon by Prelatic
Bishops, Archbishops,
&c.
is only by the Positive Laws of Men.
In a
Declaration
made of the
Functions
and
Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests,
subscrib'd by
Thomas Cromwell,
the Archbishops of
Canterbury
and
York,
and divers other Bishops,
Civilians,
and Learned Men, it is thus Resolved.
As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We will, That all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our People committed by us unto their Spiritual Charge. First, How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament, that beside the Civil Powers, and Governance of Kings and Princes, which is called in Scripture
Potestas gladii,
the Power of the Sword, there should be also continually in the Church Militant, certain other Ministers, or Officers, which should have Spiritual Power, Authority and Commission under Christ to Preach and Teach the Word of God unto his People, and to Dispense and Administer the Sacraments of God unto them; and by the same to confer and give the Grace of the Holy Ghost, to consecrate the blessed Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, to loose and absoile from Sin, all Persons which be duly penitent, and sorry for the same; to bind and Excommunicate such as be Guilty in manifest Crimes and Sins, and will not amend their defaults, to order and consecrate others in the same room, Order and Office whereunto they recalled & admitted themselves; and finally, to feed Christ's People like good
Pastors
and
Rectors,
as the Apostle calleth them, with their wholesome Doctrine▪ and by their continual Exhortations and Monitions to reduce them from Sin and Iniquity so much as in them lieth, and to bring them unto perfect Knowledge the perfect Love and Dread of God, and unto the perfect Charity of their Neighbors.—That this Office, this Power and Authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain Persons
only,
that is to say,
unto
Priests,
OR
Bishops,
whom they did Elect, call and admit thereunto by their Prayer, and Imposition of their hands.
—And to the intent the Church of Christ should never
be destituted of such Ministers as should have and execute the said Power of the
Keys,
it was also Ordained and Commanded by the Apostles, that the same Sacrament should be applied and ministered by the Bishops from time to time, unto such other Persons as had the Qualities which the Apostles very diligently descryve; as it appeareth evidently in the third Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
Paul
to
Timothy,
and his Epistle unto
Titus.
And surely this is the whole Virtue and Efficacy, and the Cause also of the Institution of this Sacrament, as it is found in the
New Testament;
for albeit the Holy Fathers of the Church of Christ, with all those things which were commendable in the Temple of the
Jews,
did devise not only certain other Ceremonies than before rehearsed, as
Tonsures, Rasures, Unctions,
and such other Observances to be used in the Administration of the said Sacraments; but did also Institute certain Inferior Orders or Degrees, as
Janitors, Lectors, Exorcists, Acolits,
and
Sub-Deacons;
and deputed to everyone of those certain Offices to execute in the Church, wherein they followed undoubtedly the Example and Rites used in the Old Testament; yet the Truth is,
That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any
Degrees,
or
Distinctions
in Orders, but only of
Deacons,
OR
Ministers,
and of
Priests,
OR
Bishops:
Nor there is any word spoken of any other Ceremony used in the Conferring of this Sacrament; but only of Prayer, and the Imposition of the Bishops hand.
Thus the Power of
Excommunication,
and
conferring Orders
by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, as declared in the
New Testament,
belongs unto the
Priest,
which is the same with the Bishop; there being no Degrees or Distinctions in Orders, but only of
Deacons
or
Ministers;
and
Priests
or
Bishops,
and consequently no Superiority therefore of a Bishop above a Priest to be found in the New Testament, during King
Henry
the Eighth's days.
CHAP. II.
The Judgment of the
Reformers
in
Edward
the Sixth's Days the same 'twas in
Henry
the Eighth's, holding no Difference by Divine Law between a
Bishop
and
Presbyter.
IN the First Year of
Edward
the Sixth's Reign, an Act of Parliament passed, sufficiently Declaring the Episcopal Orders as distinct from, and above that of the Presbyter, to be wholly from the Crown; for it was affirmed, That all Authority of Jurisdiction
Spiritual,
is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty, as
Supreme Head
of these Churches of
England
and
Ireland.
The Design of this Law, as Dr.
Heylin
has it,
was to weaken
the Authority of the
Episcopal Order,
by forcing them from their strong hold of
Divine Institution,
and making them no other than the King's Ministers only, His Ecclesiastical Sheriffs (as a man might say) to execute his Will, and disperse his Mandates.
Dr.
Poynet
Bishop of
Winchester,
in this King's Reign, in Answer unto a Book writ by
Stephen Gardener,
though' sent out under the Name of Dr.
Martin,
about the
Marriage of Priests,
doth sufficiently show that the
Reformers
in those days were great Approvers of
Calvin
's Notions about Church Government, and therefore willing to lay aside even the very Name
Bishop,
and make use of the Names [
Superintendent, Minister, Senior, Elders,
&c.] for these are his words.
And further, whereas it pleaseth
Martin,
not only in this place, but also hereafter, to Jest at the Name
[Superintendent,]
he showeth himself bent to condemn all things that be good. Who knoweth not, that the Name
[Bishop]
hath so been abused, that when it was spoken, the People understood nothing else but a great
Lord, that went in a white Rochet, with a wide shaven Crown,
and that
carrieth an Oil Box with him,
wherewith he useth once in seven years, riding about to Confirm Children,
&c. Now to bring the People from this
abuse,
what better means can be devised than to teach the People their Error by another word out of the Scriptures of the same signification, which thing by the term
[Superintendent]
would in time have been well brought to pass—The name
[Bishop]
spoken amongst the Unlearned, signified to them nothing less than a
Preacher of God's Word,
because there was not, nor is anything more rare in any Order of Ecclesiastical Persons than to see a Bishop Preach.—I deny not, but the name
[Bishop]
may be well taken, but because the Evilness of the Abuse hath marred the Goodness of the Word, it cannot be denied but that it was not amiss to join for a time another word with it in his place, whereby to restore that abused word to his Right Signification.—Oh how the Papists would triumph over us, if they had like proof for the names (I say) of
Pope, Cardinal, Canon, Prebendary, Monk,
&c. as we, that profess Christ have for the maintenance of the terms and names
(Superintendent, Minister, Seniors, Elders, Brethren,)
and such like by us used.
The Resolution Archbishop
Cranmer
gave to the Questions propounded by
Edw.
6. approved by the Bishop of St.
Asaph, Therleby, Redman
and
Cox,
makes it manifest, that these great
Reformers
owned not Episcopacy as a Distinct Order from Presbytery, of
Divine Right,
but only, as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better Governing the Church.
In the Apostles time (says
Cranmer
) when there was no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of God's Word might be appointed,
nor Sins by the Sword corrected, there was no Remedy then for the Correction of Vice, or appointing of Ministers, but only the consent of Christien multitude by themselfe, by an Uniform consent to follow the advice and persuasion of such Persons, whom God had most endued with the Spirit of wisdom and counsel.—Sometime the Apostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit, sent, or appointed Ministers of God's
Word, sometime the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto.
—The
Bishops
and
Priests were at one time,
and
were not two distinct Things,
but
both one Office
in the Beginning of Christ's Religion.—The People before Christian Princes were,
commonly elected their Bishops and Priests.—In the
New Testament,
he that is appointed to be a Bishop or Priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture;
for Election or appointing thereto is sufficient.
Thus far that Excellent Person (saith a Reverend Divine of the Church of
England
) in whose Judgment nothing is more clear than his ascribing the particular Form of Government in the Church to the Determination of the
Supreme Magistrate.
CHAP. III. Aley
Bishop of
Exeter, Pilkington
Bishop of
Durham, Jewel
Bishop of
Salisbury, Whitgift
Archbishop of
Canterbury,
of the same Opinion with
Tyndale, Lambert, Barns,
and the
Reformers
in King
Edward's
Time.
IN Queen
Elizabeth
's Reign, the first I find to mention anything about the Office of
Bishops
and
Priests,
is Dr.
Alley
Bishop of
Exeter,
in his
Miscellanea
on his third
Praelection,
read at
Paul
's in the Year 1560. on the word
Bishops.
What difference is between a Bishop and a Priest, St.
Jerome
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
Paul's,
I am
Apollos,
I am of
Cephas,
the Churches were Governed
with the Common Council of the Priests
(or Elders.)
But after that everyone 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
Timothy
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 yourselves,
&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 alleged, (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,
the Bishop adds out of St.
Jerome,
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,
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, performed 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 though' 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,
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 prefer'd to that Office of the Church of God,
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 he shutteth up the Gate of the Kingdom of Heaven against Unbelieving and Stubborn Persons, denouncing unto them God's Vengeance, and everlasting Punishment; or else when he doth quite shut them out from the bosom of the Church, by open
Excommunication.
Out of doubt, what Sentence soever the Minister of God shall give
in this sort, God himself doth so well allow it, that, whatsoever here in Earth by their means is loosed and bound, God himself will loose and bind, and confirm the same in Heaven.—And seeing one word is given to all, and one only
Key
belongeth to all, we say,
there is but one only Power of all Ministers, as concerning opening and shutting.
At this time so much was given the Priest, that no room was left to make the Bishop of an Order distinct from him: The Keys belonged to all Ministers, to the Priest as well as Bishop.
In the
Defense of the Apology
of the
Church
of
England,
this Learned Bishop is more full and particular in his Assertions.
In St.
Jerome
's time (saith he) there were
Metropolitans, Archbishops, Archdeacons,
and
others,
but Christ appointed not these Distinctions of Orders from the beginning. These names are not found in all the Scriptures: This is the thing which we defend. St.
Jerome
saith,
Sciant Episcopy,
&c. Let Bishops understand, that they are in Authority over Priests more by
Custom,
than by
Order
of
God's Truth.—Erasmus
speaking of the times of
Jerome,
saith, that
Id temporis idem erat Episcopus, Sacerdos, & Presbyter.
These three names
Bishop, Priest, Presbyter,
at that time were all one.—
To the Testimony of
Jerome,
the Bishop adds that of St.
Austin,
Epist. 19. saying,
That the Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest, not by Authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of Honor, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.
The Bishop in Defense of the Church of
England,
had affirmed, That against the Sacred Scripture, neither Law, nor Ordinance, nor any Custom ought to be heard, no, though'
Paul
himself, or an Angel from Heaven should come, and teach the contrary.
To this
Harding
replies,
If all things necessary to Salvation be contained in the Scriptures, then whatever is not in them contained, the same is not necessary; if not necessary, why should we be laden with unnecessary Burdens? Then away with all Traditions at a Clap, be they never so Apostolic.—Remember you not what the most Renowned Fathers have said of the Necessity of Traditions?—
If we go about to reject the Customs that be not set forth in Writing—we shall bring the Preaching of the Faith but to a bare name.
For so
they were taken for Heretics, who denied the Distinction of a Bishop, and a Priest,
&c.
Jewel
rejoyns,
This [in the Margin] in an Untruth, for hereby both St.
Paul
and St.
Jerome,
and other good men are condemned of Heresy.—But what meant Mr.
Harding
here to come in with the Difference between
Priests
and
Bishops?
thinketh he that
Priests
and
Bishops
hold only by Tradition? or is it so horrible a Heresy as he makes it, to say, That by
the Scriptures of God, a Bishop and a Priest are all One?
or, knoweth he how far, and to whom he reacheth the name of an Heretic? Verily,
Chrysostom
saith, Between a Bishop and a Priest, in a manner there is no difference; St.
Jerome
saith somewhat in a rougher sort, I hear say, There is one become so peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops; whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us, that Priests and Bishops are all one. St.
Austin
saith, what is a Bishop but the
first Priest,
that is to say, the Highest Priest? so saith Saint
Ambrose,
There is but
One Ordination
of
Priest
and
Bishop,
for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is the
first.
All these and other Holy Fathers, together with St.
Paul
the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr.
Harding
's Advice, must be held for Heretics.
Besides, as the Bishop is very express in his asserting a Bishop and Presbyter to be according to Christ's Institution all one;
He is no less so in granting that the Bishop has received from the Prince the several Privileges he has above a Presbyter.
I grant there be many special Privileges granted upon great and just Considerations of the
mere favor of the Prince,
that a Priest being found negligent, or otherwise offending in his Ministry, should be convinced and punished, not by the Temporal and Civil Magistrate, but by the Discretion of the Bishop.—Mr.
Harding
must remember that all these, and other like Privileges passed unto the Clergy
from the Prince,
and not from God; and proceed only of special
Favor,
and not of
Right.
Archbishop
Whitgift
in opposing
Cartwright
's Platform about the Government of the Church, asserted to be
de Jure divino,
distinguisheth between
Spiritual
and
External
Government, and saith,
That the
External
Government hath both a
Substance
and
Matter
about which it is occupied, and also a
Form
to attain the same, consisting in certain Offices and Functions, and in the Names and Titles of them. The
Substance
and
Matter
of Government must indeed be taken out of the Word of God, and consisteth in these points: That the Word be truly taught, the Sacraments rightly administered, Virtue furthered, Vice repressed, and the Church kept in quietness and order: The
Officers
in the Church, whereby this Government is wrought, be
not namely,
and
particularly expressed in the Scriptures,
but in some points left to the Discretion and Liberty of the Church to be disposed according to the state of Times, Places, and Persons.
Thus much in his
Preface;
conform to those who went before. The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and Reprehensions,
&c.
which belong to the Priest, is of God, the other Offices and Functions, which as he elsewhere has it, belong to the external Order and Policy of the Church, and consequently the Distinction between Bishop and Priest,
and Superiority of a Bishop above a Priest, are only of human Institution.
More particularly,
Cartwright
contending for a sort of Discipline which is a Matter of Faith, and necessary to Salvation, the
Archbishop
distinguisheth between such things as are
so necessary,
that
without them we cannot be saved,
and such things as are
so necessary,
that
without 'em, we cannot so
well
and
conveniently
be saved;
and then adds, To be short,
I confess, that in a Church collected together in
one Place,
and at Liberty, Government is necessary with the second kind of Necessity, but that any one kind of Government is so necessary, that without it, the Church cannot be saved, or, that it
may not be altered into some other kind,
thought to be more Expedient,
I utterly deny;
and the reasons that move me so to do, be these: The first is, because I find no
one certain and perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures,
to the Church of Christ; which no
doubt should have been done, if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church. Secondly, Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only; The true Preaching of the Word, and the right Administration of Sacraments:—So that notwithstanding,
Government,
or
some kind
of
Government
may be a part of the Church, touching the outward Form and Perfection of it; yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being, but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government; and therefore the
kind
of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation.—There is
no certain kind of Government
or
Discipline prescribed to the Churches,
but that the same may be altered, as the Profit of the Churches requires; and out of
Gualters
he saith, Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth, and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time, and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others, neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form.—I do deny,
that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form,
and
kind of Government of the Church to
be
Perpetual,
for all
Times, Persons,
and
Places:
without Alteration.—It is well known,
that the
manner
and
form of Government
used in the
Apostles time,
and expressed in the Scriptures,
neither is now,
nor
can,
or
ought to be observed,
either
touching the Persons,
or
the Functions.
—We see manifestly, that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times, is, and hath been of necessity
altered,
and that it neither may nor can be revoked; whereby 'tis plain, that any one kind of External Government
perpetually
to be observed, is nowhere in the Scripture prescribed to the Church, but the charge thereof is left to the
Magistrate,
so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers,
Neither do I know
(saith the Archbishop)
any Learned Man of a contrary Judgment.
—Either we must admit another Form
now
of Governing
the Church than was in the Apostles time, or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters.—I am persuaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Common-wealth; else how can you make the Prince Supreme Governor of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical?—If you therefore will have the
Queen
of
England
Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions, then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all, and every part of the same, and
so
to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs, as she doth the Common-wealth in Civil.
Dr.
Cosins,
Chancellor to this Archbishop, in his Answer to the
Abstract,
asserts,
That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline, neither
is it necessary that they should,
seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God.
Dr.
Low
speaks to the same purpose,
Complaint of the Church,
No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word;
only general Rules laid down for it.
Bishop
Bridges;
God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government, at least not so as to bind us.
What is here mentioned of
Cosins, Low,
and Bishop
Bridges,
I have out of Dean
Stillingfleet
's
Weapon Salve,
and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about
Whitaker,
who, making his Remarques on St.
Jerome
's teling us,
That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men, long after the Apostles, as a Remedy against Schism, assures us, That
it's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady, for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church;
and this other of Bishop
Morton,
telling the Papists, That Power of Order, and of Jurisdiction, which they ascribe to Bishops, doth
de jure divino
belong to all other Presbyters and particularly,
That [to
Ordain
] is the
jus antiquum,
the Ancient Right of Presbyters, in fine,
That Dr.
Laurence Humfrey,
and Dr.
Holland,
both of them Doctors of the Chair in
Oxford,
did teach and maintain the same Doctrine;
Holland
in the
Act,
July 9. 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctrine of the Church of
England,
the Schoolmen,
Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure,
&c.
CHAP. IV. Dr.
Willet
's Sentiments
much the same with the forementioned
Bishops,
The Difference between a
Bishop
and
Presbyter
as of
Divine Right
declur'd to be
Popish,
and opposed as
such.
The special
Consecration
of
Bishops
was Ordained, not by a Divine Law, but by the
Church,
for the Dignity of their Calling.
Saravia
for no other Difference between a
Presbyter
and
Bishop
but in
Degree. Bancroft
for a
Priority
in
degree only,
holding with Dr.
Robinson,
Dr.
Reynolds,
and Dr.
Fulk,
whose Authorities
he
insists on to Confirm his Opinion about
a
Gradual
Difference
between
Bishop
and
Presbyter.
TO these I will add another, namely,
Dr.
Andrew Willet;
who, as Dr.
Smith
observes, is by Bishop
Hall
numbered amongst those
Worthies
of the Church of
England,
to whom he gives this Elogy,
Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus.
This Dr. in his
Synopsis Papismi
is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter, and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted.
The grand Question under Debate is,
Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers, be grounded upon the Law of God,
and
Institution of the Apostles?
The
Papists.
Bellarmine
(saith the Dr.) affirmeth,
That the Jurisdiction of Bishops, as now it standeth in their Church, and the Difference between them, and other Presbyters is,
Jure Divino,
grounded upon the Law of God, and of such necessity, that he holdeth the contrary to be
Heresy;
and those to be Heretics that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politick Constitution of the Church to avoid Schism, than of the Institution of the Apostles; yea, they hold them to be no Churches at all, which are not under the Government of Bishops, but of other Overseers and Superintendents. Surely, I see not (saith one) How there can be any Church where there is no Bishop.
—
The
Protestants.
Of the Difference between Bishops and Priests, there are three Opinions: The first of
Arius,
who did hold that all Ministers should be Equal, and that a Bishop was not,
neither ought to be
Superior to a Priest, neither that there was any Difference at all between them,
which Opinion of his was counted amongst other
Heresies:
The second Opinion in the other Extream is of the
Papists,
as we have seen, that would have not only a Difference, but a Princely Pre-eminence of their Bishops over the Clergy, and that by the
Word of God.
The third Opinion is between both, that altho' this Distinction of Bishops and Priests, as it is now received, cannot be directly proved out of Scripture: yet it is very good for the Policy of the Church, to avoid Schism, and to preserve it in Unity. Of this Judgment, Bishop
Jewel
against
Harding,
showeth both
Chrysostom,
Ambrose
and
Jerome
to have been. And another most Reverend Prelate of our Church in these words: I know these Names be confounded in the Scriptures, but I speak according to the manner and Custom of the Church ever since the Apostles times; which saying is agreeable to that of St.
Augustine;
Secundum,
&c.
according to the Names of Honor, which the Use or Custom
of the Church hath obtained,
a
Bishop is greater than a Priest;
so that
Augustine
himself, who was no
Aerian,
doth ground this Distinction rather upon
Ancient Custom
than the
Scripture.
—The Difference between the Opinion of
P.
275.
Arius
on the one part, and of
Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostom
on the other, lieth here:
Arius
would have no difference at all between a Bishop and a Priest: the Fathers above allowed a difference, holding it to be profitable for the Peace of the Church: They only affirmed, That this Distinction was rather Authorized by the Ancient Practice of the Church, than by any direct place of Scripture. For the proof that a Bishop and Priest were all one in the Apostles time, St.
Jerome
alledgeth divers places of Scripture. The second Argument is thus:
Archbishops and Primates have the same Right of Jurisdiction over other Bishops, which Bishops have over simple Priests:
But their Authority and Jurisdiction is rather grounded upon the
Ancient Custom
of the Church, than any
Apostolical Injunction,
or
Institution
in Scripture.—A fourth Argument, If the Distinction of Bishops and Priests were by the Commandment and Institution of Christ and his Apostles, it should necessarily be enjoined unto all Churches; But this cannot, without prejudice of many Reformed Churches, be affirmed, which have no Bishops, though' they have other Overseers in their stead—Wherefore I cannot conclude
that this special Form of Ecclesiastical Government is absolutely prescribed in the Word:
for then all those Churches, which have not that Prescript Form, whether of Bishops or other, should be condemned as Erroneous Churches. 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
not able difference
between the Bishops of the Popish Church, and of the Reformed Churches.—Let every Church use that Form which best
fitteth their state:
In
External Matters
every Church is Free, not one bound to the Prescription of another; so they measure themselves
by the Rule of the Word.—Now to conclude this whole Matter, and to speak distinctly of every Point, that it may appear how far this Difference in Ecclesiastical Functions is
Divine,
and wherein
Human:
This I judge may safely without any Contradiction be affirmed, that in this Distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is some. what
Apostolical,
somewhat also
Political.
—First, In the calling of Bishops, as they are now Ordain'd in some Reformed Church, there is somewhat
Divine
and
Apostolical:
for it cannot be denied, but that to have Order in the Church, and to have diversity of Degrees, and Ministrations to avoid confusion, proceedeth from the Institution of Christ.—This then we say is agreeable to the Institution of Christ, that there should be, not a
Popular Equality,
but a convenient Superiority, and
Priority
in the Ministers of the Gospel; as St.
Paul
also showeth,
First, Apostles; Secondly, Prophets,
&c. Secondly, there is somewhat
Political,
and that of two sorts, as touching the Politie
Ecclesiastical,
and
Civil.
To the
Ecclesiastical Politie
in the advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things do appertain.
First of all St.
Jerome
saith, of
Confirmation
committed only to Bishops,
Disce hanc,
&c. Know that this Observation is rather for the Honor of their Priesthood, than by necessity of any Law.
Jerome. adver. Luciferian.
Secondly, The Council of
Aquisgrane,
cap. 8. saith, That the
Ordination
and
Consecration
of Ministers is now reserved to the
Chief Minister, Solum propter Authoritatem;
only for Authority sake, lest that the Discipline of the Church being challenged by many, should break the Peace of the Church.
Thirdly, The Author of the Book under
Jerome
's Name,
De
7.
Ordinib.
saith, That the Consecration of Virgins, which is not now in use, in the Reformed Churches, was reserved to the Bishop for
Concord sake.
Fourthly, The Jurisdiction of the Church which in time past,
Jerome
saith, was committed to the
Senate,
or
College of Presbyters,
was afterward to avoid Schism, devolv'd to the Bishop.
Fifthly, S.
Ambrose
saith,
Episcopy & Presbyteri,
&c. A Bishop and a Presbyter have but one Ordination; for they are both in the Priesthood. Whereby it may appear, that the
Special Consecration of Bishops
was since Ordain'd for the Dignity of that Calling. And S.
Jerome
saith,
That in the Church of
Alexandria,
the Presbyters did make Choice of one,
whom they placed in a Higher Degree, and called him their Bishop; like as if an Army should choose a
General,
or the Deacons should choose an Industrious man whom they make their
Archdeacon. So it should seem that the very
Election
of a Bishop in those Days without any other circumstances, was his
Ordination.
Sixthly, In
Jerome
's time, it was lawful for Priests and Ministers to Preach without further Licence obtained from the Bishop, as it may appear
Distinct.
95.
c.
6.
Qui non vult Presbyteros,
&c. He that will not have a Minister to do that which is commanded him of God (that is, to Preach) would be greater than Christ,
&c.
—But since to stay the Humour of Contentious and Schismatical Preachers, it hath seemed good to the Church to refer the Allowance of Preachers to the
Ordinary,
according to the Decree of the
Lateran
Council
Sub Innocent.
3. c. 3.
Praeter Autoritatem.
He that Preacheth privately or publicly without 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 Bishoprics have been given by Devout and Religious Princes unto Bishops and their Successors, and divers Imperial Laws have been made in favor of the Maintenance of the Church. Thirdly, The
Titles
of Honor annexed to Bishoprics, as that they are created Barons and made Lord's 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 favor of Christian Emperors, hath been enlarged: And hitherto I have shown, 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 reserved 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
Jerome
'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 Ecclesiastic 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 affirmed 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,
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 looked on as an Unchangeable Canon of the Apostles.
The Difference between
Saravia
and those who went before him lieth 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.
Jerome,
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, confirmed by the Observation of the Fathers ought to continue forever.
|
The Superiority in
Degree
of a
Bishop
above a
Presbyter
a
Divine Institution,
and that St.
Jerome
was in the same Error with
Arius. 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 received this day by any Reformed Church in
Christendom.
And elsewhere in the Book itself,
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, very many Churches. As the number of Christians grew, and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within everyone of their Circuits: they placed
Pastors
in every Congregation, they ordained certain
Apostolical
men, to be
Chief
Assisters unto them: whom they placed, someone 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 idly 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 honored 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
Arius
the Heretic, an ambitious Person, growing into great rage, for that he missed of a Bishopric, 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,
seems clear from what he urges out of Dr.
Robinson,
Dr.
Reynold's
and
Fulk,
in favor 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,
that the Titles of Honor, 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 Governors of their
Diocese,
as we being Ministers, may be
Governors
of
Colleges
of Ministers. Neither do I think, that this was a late devised Policy. For I am persuaded, 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.
Jerome
proveth, that the
Jews
had not corrupted the Original Text before Christ's coming.
Quod nunquam Dominus & Apostoli, qui caetera crimina arguunt in S
•
ribis & Pharisaeis, de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent:
So I may say, neither would our Savior, 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 persuaded 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
Preeminence
is approved by our Savior. And if we come any lower, though' the word
Episcopus,
signify 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,
though' 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 Savior 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 fallen 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 Clergy for Order and seemly
Government,
there was always one
Principal,
to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or
Superintendent
hath been applied, which room
Titus
exercised in
Creta; Timothy,
in
Ephesus;
and others in other Places. Therefore altho' in the Scripture a
Bishop,
and an Elder is of one Order, and Authority in Preaching the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments
(as
Jerome
doth often confess)
yet
in Government by ancient use of Speech,
He
is only called a
Bishop,
which is in the Scriptures called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Rom. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 13.17.
that is,
Chief
in Government, to whom the
Ordination,
or
Consecration
by Imposition of hands, was always
Principally
committed, and which most ancient Form of Government, when
Arius
would take away, it was noted amongst his other Errors.
Hitherto Dr.
Fulke;
so as hereby I trust it may appear to Master
Cart-wright
's Reproach, and to all their Shames that shall pretend any Authority from the ancient Fathers to impugn the Right Honorable and Lawful calling of
Bishops,
not Parsons in every Parish, but Bishops in their Dioceses and Provinces, appointed in the Apostles times, for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ.
So far
Rancroft,
who introduceth these three great Men's Authority to countenance the
Presidency,
or
Chiefty
of the Bishop over Presbyters in Government, as Apostolical, though'
Fulke
goes no higher than the
Custom
of the Church, agreeing with
Jewel
and
Whit gift,
and it must be observed, that they make not the Bishop to be a distinct Order from that of Presbyters, nor deny the Presbyters to be
Pastors;
nor affirm the Invalidity of the Presbyterial Ordination, only that the Ordination by Imposition of hands, was
Principally
committed to the
Bishops;
and as Archbishop
Spotiswood
reports,
Bancroft
held the Ordination only by Presbyters, to be valid and lawful.
Spotiswood
has it in these words,
A Question was moved by Dr.
Andrew's
Bishop of
Eli,
touching the Consecration of the
Scottish
Bishops; who, as he said, must first be Ordained
Presbyters,
as having received no Ordination from a Bishop. The Archbishop of
Canterbury,
Dr.
Bancroft,
who was by, maintained,
That thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the Ordination given by
Presbyters
must be esteemed Lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any Lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches.
This applauded to by the other Bishops,
Eli
acquiesced, and at the day and in the place appointed the three
Scottish
Bishops were consecrated.
CHAP. V.
The Learned
Hooker,
and Bishop
Bilson
's Opinion impartially stated, differing but little from
Saravia
and
Bancroft.
THE Learned and Judicious
Hooker
seems also to be of the same mind with
Saravia
and
Bancroft,
for in his
Third Book,
it's only Polity in the general, that in his Opinion is necessary to the several particular Churches;
For,
(saith he) even the several Societies of Christian Men, unto every of which the name of a Church is given, with addition betokening severally, as the Church of
Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, England,
and so the rest, must be endued with correspondent general
Properties
belonging unto them, as they are Public Christian Societies. And of such Properties common unto all Societies Christian, it may not be denied, that one of the very chiefest is
Ecclesiastical Polity.
Which word I therefore the rather choose because the name of
Government,
as commonly Men understand it in ordinary speech, doth not comprize the largeness of that whereunto in this Question it is applied. For when we speak of Government, what doth the greater part conceive thereby, but only the exercise of
Superiority
peculiar unto
Rulers,
and Guides of others? To our purpose therefore the
name
of
Church-Polity
will better serve, because it containeth both Government, and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the Ordering of the Church in Public.
Neither is anything in this degree more necessary than Church
Polity,
which is a form of Ordering Public Spiritual Affairs of the Church of God.
Thus
Hooker
looks on Polity to be necessary to the Church, and why necessary, but because God himself is the Author of it.
It is not possible that any Form of Polity, much less of Polity Ecclesiastical should be good,
unless God himself be Author of it.
Those things which are not of God
(saith
Tentullian) they can have no other than God's Adversary for their Author.
Be it whatsoever in the Church of God, if it be not of God, we hate it.
But then he distinguished between what is of God by the
Law of Nature,
and the
Revelation
made of the Divine Will in Scripture.
Of God it must be either as those things sometimes were, which God supernaturally revealed, and so delivered them unto
Moses
for Government of the Commonwealth of
Israel;
or else as those things which Men find out by help of that Light which God hath given them unto that end. The very Law of Nature itself, which no man can deny but God hath instituted, is not of God unless that be of God, whereof God is the Author as well this latter way as the former.
The Controversy between
Hooker,
and the
Old Nonconformists
was,
Whether any particular Form of Polity be so of God,
that
it be set down in Scripture?
and the
Noncons
asserted. That no Form of Church Polity was lawful,
or of God, unless God be so the Author of it that it be also set down in Scripture.
Hooker
on the contrary,
That he which affirmeth Speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the World, doth not thereby import, that all men must necessarily speak one kind of Language; Even so the
necessity
of Polity, and Regiment in all Churches may be held without
holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all;
so far He, who doth moreover thus reason with the Noncons: "You should tell us plainly, whether your meaning be that it must be there set down in
whole,
or in
Parts.
For if
wholly,
show what one form of Policy ever was so; your own to be so taken out of Scripture, you will not affirm, neither do you deny that in
part
even
this,
which you so much oppugn is also from thence taken. Again, you should tell us, whether only that be taken out of Scripture, which is
actually
and
particularly
there set down; or else, that also, which the
general Principles
and
Rules
of Scripture
Potentially
contain. The one way you cannot so much as pretend that all the Parties of your own Discipline are in Scripture; and the
other
way your mouths are stopped, when you
would plead against all other Forms besides your own; seeing the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry, may equally be consonant unto the general Axioms of the Scripture.
After the most impartial Enquiry, this Learned Man's Judgment about the
Polity
of the Church appears to me to be thus: That though'
Polity
in
general be necessary
to the Church; yet it's
not necessary that any one complete Form of Church Polity be in Scripture. Besides, it's his conclusion,
That neither God's being Author of Laws, for Government of his Church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, is any reason sufficient, wherefore all Churches should forever be bound to keep
them without change.
— Again, if we did seek to maintain that which most advantageth our own Cause, the very best way for us and the strongest against them, [
viz.
The Noncons.] were to hold even as they do,
That in Scripture there must needs be found some particular Form of Church Polity, which God hath instituted, and which for that very cause belongeth to all Churches, to all times.
But with any such
partial
Eye to respect ourselves, and by cunning to make those things seem the truest, which are the fittest to serve our purpose, is a thing, which we neither like, nor mean to follow. Wherefore
that,
which we take to be generally true concerning the
Mutability of Laws,
the same we have plainly delivered, as being persuaded of nothing more than we are of this, that whether it be in matter of Speculation, or of Practice, no
Vntruth
can possibly avail the Patron and Defender long, and that things most
Truly
are likewise most
behovefully
spoken.
—And to make manifest that from Scripture, we offer not to derogate the least thing that truth thereunto doth claim; in as much as by us it is willingly confessed, that the Scripture of God is a Storehouse abounding with inestimable Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge in many kinds—yea, even that matters of
Ecclesiastical Polity
are not therein omitted, but taught also, albeit not
so taught as those other things before-mentioned.
For so perfectly are those things taught, that nothing ever can need to be added, nothing ever cease to
be necessary:
These
on the contrary side, as being of a far other nature and Quality, not so
strictly
nor
everlastingly,
commanded in Scripture, but that unto the complete Form of
Church-Polity
much may be
requisite, which the Scripture teacheth not, and much, which it hath taught,
become
unrequisite,
sometime, because we
need not
use it, sometimes also because
we cannot.
In which respect for my own part, altho' I see that certain Reformed Churches, the
Scottish
especially, and
French
have not that which best agreeth with the Sacred Scriptures, I mean, the Government which is by Bishops; inasmuch as both these Churches are fallen under a different kind of Regiment, which to remedy, it is for the one altogether too late, and to soon for the other during their present Affliction and Trouble.
He adds,
The Matters wherein Church-Polity is conversant,
are the Public religious Duties of the Church, as the
Administration of the Word,
and
Sacraments, Prayers, Spiritual Censures,
and the like; To
these
the Church
stands always bound.
Laws
of Polity, are Laws which appoint in what
manner
these Duties shall be performed.
In their performance, the
first
thing in
Polity
required is a
Difference of Persons
in the Church, without which difference, those Functions cannot in orderly sort be executed. Hereupon we hold, That
God's Clergy are a State,
which
hath been,
and
will be as long as there is a Church upon Earth,
necessary
by the plain Word of God himself.
Again,
where the Clergy are any great Multitude,
Order
doth necessarily require that by
Degrees
they be distinguished: we hold there have ever been and ever ought to be in such case, at leastwise
two sorts
of Ecclesiastical Persons, the one
subordinate
unto the other, as to the Apostles in the beginning, and to
Bishops
always since, we find plainly both in Scripture, and in all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments have been.
Moreover, it cannot enter into any man's conceit to think it lawful, that every man which listeth, should take upon him charge in the Church; and therefore a
Solemn Admittance
is of such necessity, that without it there can be no
Church-Polity.
These are the
Principal
and
Perpetual
parts in Ecclesiastical Polity.
Thus much in the
Third Book,
where he looks on Church-Polity in the general and some special parts thereof, such as a distinction between
Bishops
and
Presbyters,
and a
Subordination
of the Presbyter to the Bishop to be agreeable to the Word of God,
but no complete form of Church Polity to be found in the Scripture, neither are all the Laws of God concerning the Government of the Church
Immutable,
and
Everlasting:
We must go to the Seventh Book for a more distinct account of the
Office
of a
Bishop,
and the difference between him and a Presbyter; where 'tis thus:
But to let go the Name
[Bishop]
and to come to the very Nature of that
thing,
which is thereby signified in all kinds of Regiment, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil: as there are sundry Operations Public, so likewise great
Inequality
there is in the same Operations, some being of
Principal
respect, and therefore not fit to be dealt in by everyone to whom Public Actions, and those of Good Importance, are notwithstanding well, and fitly enough committed. From hence have grown those different
Degrees
of Magistrates, or Public Persons, even
Ecclesiastical,
as well as Civil. Amongst
Ecclesiastical
Persons therefore
Bishops
being
Chief
ones, a Bishop's Function must be defined by that wherein his
Chiefty
consisteth.
A Bishop is a Minister of God, unto whom with permanent continuance, there is given not only Power of administering the Word and Sacraments,
which Power other Presbyters have, but also
a further Power to Ordain Ecclesiastical Persons, and a Power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters, as well as Laymen; A Power to be by way of Jurisdiction, a Pastor even to Pastors themselves.
Those things incident unto the Bishop's Office, which do properly make him a Bishop, cannot be common unto him with other
Pastors.
Now even as
Pastors,
so likewise Bishops being
Principal Pastors,
a
•
e either at
Large;
or else with
Restraint. At Large,
when the subject of their Regiments is indefinite, and not tied to any certain Place; Bishops with
Restraint,
are they whose Regiment
over the Church is contained within some definite local compass, beyond which compass their Jurisdiction reacheth not; such therefore, we always mean, when we speak of that Regiment by Bishops, which we hold a thing most
Lawful, Divine
and
Holy
in the Church of Christ.
But what doth He mean by
Chiefty
in Government? In answer unto this, he tells us how far the old
Noncons
went in the grant of an
Inequality,
and how much further He goeth.
They which cannot brook (saith he) the Superiority which Bishops have,
do, notwithstanding themselves, admit that some kind of
Difference
and
Inequality
there may be
lawfully
amongst Ministers. Inequality touching Gifts and Graces they grant—Again, a
Priority of Order
they 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 inquired 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, though' 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 though' the Episcopacy had been
de jure Divino,
and
Immutable;
yet in this
Seventh Book,
in clearing the sense of St.
Jerome,
he is expressly 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.
Jerome,
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 observed were some delivered by Christ himself, with a
Charge to keep them to the worlds End,
as the Law of Baptizing, and administering 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.
Jerome
seemeth dangerous, I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint; yet I satisfy not myself in my Judgment it would be altered.
Now whereas
Jerome, 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
Jerome
confesseth, the Authors of that Regiment, and yet the
Custom
of the Church be accounted (for so by
Jerome
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.
Jerome
ascribeth the continuance of such
Positive Laws,
though' 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
Jerome
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 enjoin; 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 virtuous Bishops, doth
still uphold, maintain, and honor them in that respect, than that any such
true,
and
Heavenly Law
can be shown, by the Evidence whereof it may of a Truth appear, That the Lord himself hath appointed Presbyters forever to be under the Regiment of Bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves.
This Answer of the Learned
Hooker
makes it manifest, that though' he held the
Institution
of Episcopal Superiority to be
Apostolical;
yet he was not of Opinion that 'twas
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 Public 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 they term sometime
Presbyters,
sometimes
Bishops.
—That in process of time the Apostles appointed under them Bishops, of an Order
Superior above Presbyters;
the cause wherefore they did appoint under themselves such Bishops as were not everywhere at the first, is said to have been those
Strifes
and
Contentions,
for remedy whereof, whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a Regiment, or else
they,
together with the whole Church, judging it a fit and needful Policy, did agree to receive it for a
Custom,
no doubt but being established by them, on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ's Church, it had either
Divine Appointment
beforehand, or
Divine Approbation
afterwards.
This passage of
Hooker,
moves me to think he very much agreed with his most Reverend Metropolitan, Archbishop
Whit gift,
who vehemently asserts an actual change of Church Government in the Primitive Times, as well as the changeableness of it in all Ages of the Church. There are other
intimations in this Learned Author, which oblige me to conclude that the Church of
England
was not in his days come to a steady Resolution either about the Nature of a Particular Church
infimae speciei,
or of the whole belonging to the Episcopal Office.
Touching the Nature of a Particular Church of the lowest Rank, whether Parochial or Diocesan, was not much with him; for speaking of the Dissimilitudes which in some respects are found to be between the present Bishops, and the Bishops in the Primitive times, he grants that many things there are in the State of Bishops,
which the times have changed, saying,
That many a Parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient Bishoprics were.—To Men that have any part of Skill, what more evident and plain in Bishops than that Augmentation and Diminution in their Precincts, Allowances, Privileges, and such like, do make a Difference indeed; but no Essential Difference between one Bishop and another.
But a Learned Nonconformist assures us,
That he shall try among other things,
whether the Name of a Bishopric will make a Parsonage and a Diocese to be
Ejusdem speciei,
and whether Magnitude do not make a specific Difference between the Sea, and a Rivulet or a Glass of Water, or between a Ship and a Nutshell.
And I may add, that if there be no Essential Difference between a Bishopric no larger than a Parsonage, and a Diocesan Bishopric, the Controversy between the Church of
England
and generality of Nonconformists, may touching Church Government, be determined by such Condescensions made by the
Church
to the Dissenters, as are short of an
Essential
Alteration to Episcopacy. Let there be as many Bishoprics as there are considerable Parsonages, or Parishes endowed, and a Provision made for the Presbyters who are to assist the Bishops in the Government of these little Churches, and a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters, or a
Chiefty
in the Regiment will be no longer a bone of Contention.
As to what belongs to the Episcopal Function as Different from the Presbyters, it's held by some that
Ordination, Confirmation
and
Jurisdiction,
are proper to it; Let us see then
Hooker
's Judgment for the first Point,
There may be (saith he) sometimes very just and sufficient Reasons to all Ordination made without a Bishop.
The whole Church Visible being the
true-Original-Subject
of all Power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to Ordain: Howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may in some Cases not unnecessary, that we decline from the ordinary ways.
The Power of Ordination is appropriated to the Bishop by the Churches Allowance and no otherwise, and the same Church allowing Presbyters to Ordain, their Ordination is Good, so that Ordination is not proper to a Bishop
quarto modo,
for it doth not
Convenire
to him
semper & soli;
and therefore he adds in the next Page,
That we are not simply without Exception to urge a lineal Descent of Power from the Apostles by continued succession of Bishops in every Effectual Ordination.
For the second Point,
I make not Confirmation part of that Power which hath always belonged only unto Bishops; because in some places the
Custom
was that Presbyters might also Confirm in the absence of a Bishop.
Touching the last Point, How Bishops together with Presbyters have used to Govern the Churches under them:
It is by
Zonaras
(saith he) somewhat plainly and at large declared, That the Bishop had his Seat on high in the Church above the Residue, which were present; that a number of Presbyters did always there
Assist him,
and that in the Oversight of the People, those Presbyters were after a sort the Bishops
Coadjutors.
The Bishops and Presbyters who together with him governed the Church, are for the most part by
Ignatius
jointly mentioned; They are Counselors and Assistants of the Bishop.
Thus this great Man grants: That though' Government in general be necessary to the Church, yet no one particular kind of Government is so; That the Scriptures do not make the Episcopal Government unalterable; That the Power of conferring Orders, is not by a Divine Law so appropriate to the Bishops, that in no case an Ordination by Presbyters can be
valid; That the Church Visible is the
true-Original-Subject
of all Power, and can alter the Government of the Church; That Confirmation is not essential to the Office of a Bishop; That Presbyters have a share in the Government; That the Difference between the Bishop and Presbyter is in the Degree, the Bishop having a Chiefty in the Government, and Presbyters the Bishops Coadjutors, Assistants, Advisers and Counselors.
The Learned
Bilson,
afterwards Bishop of
Winchester,
speaking of the Controversy between the Old Nonconformists and the Church of
England,
expresseth himself in these words.
Thus far we join, That to prevent Dissention and Confusion, there must needs,
even by God's Ordinance, be a President, or Ruler of every Presbytery; which Conclusion because it is warranted by the Grounds of Nature, Reason and Truth, and hath the Example of the Church of God,
before, Under
and
after
the Law, we accept as Irrefutable, and lay it as the
Ground-work of all that ensueth.
But whether this
Presidentship
did in the Apostles times, and by their Appointment go round by course to all the Pastors and Teachers of every Presbytery, or were by Election committed to One chosen as the fittest to supply that Place so long as He discharged his Duty without blame, that is a main point betwixt us.—
But more particularly he adds,
In the Apostles I observe four things needful for the first Founding and Erecting of the Church, and four other Points that must be
Perpetual
in the Church of Christ. These are
the Dispensing 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,
which must abide forever in the Church I shown 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
Public 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,
and
Imposing of Hands
) are two parts of Apostolic Authority, which must remain in the Church forever. 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 Savior in express words nameth it.
Woe 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,
&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 Controversy; 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 affirmed, 'twill 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, though' 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,
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 Household, and Overseer of his Flock.—And touching the Presbyter's Power,
He adds, That at first the Presbyters sat 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 sat 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,
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,
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 Dissensions, for which Cause they were first Ordained by the Apostles.
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 extreme 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, Heresy 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,
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.—
Jerome,
where he retcheth the Presbyters Office to the uttermost, of purpose to show, 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 facit?
And whereas 'tis objected, That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery, he answereth out of
Chrysostom,
that by the word
Presbytery
in that place of Scripture must be understood
Bishops,
not Presbyters, because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop.
All that we can say for the Power of Bishops above Presbyters out of the Scriptures,
is this: That the Holy Ghost by the mouth of St.
Paul
hath given the Bishop of each Place, Authority to
Ordain
such as be worthy, to
examine
such as be faulty, and
Reprove
and
Discharge
such as be
guilty
either of Unsound Teaching, and Offensive Living. Thus much he saith to
Timothy,
and to
Tite,
and in them to their Successors, and to all other Bishops of Christ's Church forever.
The Power of Ruling the People is not
solely,
but
chiefly
in the Bishop.
My meaning (says he) is soon understood. You establish one
Chief
in your
Presbyteries
by God's Essential and Perpetual Ordinance, to execute that which you decree, whom you call a
President.
How far I join with you, you shall quickly perceive.
To avoid Tumults
and
Dissensions,
God hath Authorized One in each Place and Church, Able, to have and maintain a Presbytery, who with
Pastoral,
and
Fatherly Moderation,
should Guide as well the
Presbyters
that
assist him,
as the
People
that are
Subject to him,
according to the Laws of God and
Man;
the Execution whereof is
Chiefly
committed to his Charge that is the Leader, and Overseer of the rest: whom we call a Bishop. His Power I call a
Moderation,
and not a
Domination;
because the Wisdom of God hath likewise allowed and provided Christian means as well to
Bridle
him from wrongs, as to
Direct
him in Doubts.
And whereas the Nonconformist tells him, that this is right the Power which they give to their Presbyteries; his Answer is,
Did you not put
Lay-Men
instead of Pastors to be Presbyters, and make them Controulers, where they should be but Advisers, your Presbyteries might have some use in the Church of God; though' far less now than when they first began. And amongst the many uses of Presbyteries,
the Bishop is Positive, "That at first, lest
the Bishops
only will
should be the Rule of all things in the Church, the
Government
of the Church was so proportioned that neither the Presbyters should do anything without their Bishop; nor the Bishop dispose Matters of Importance without his Presbytery.
He distinguisheth between the
Private
use of the Keys in Refusing to give the Lord's Supper unto the Impeninent, and the
Public use
of the Keys, whereby the obstinate Person is excluded from all Fellowship of the Faithful, as well Sacred as Civil; The first belongs to the Presbyter, the last was by the Church of God allowed always and only to Bishops. So in another place.
—
For our parts, though' we take the Power of the Keys to be
Common
to all that have Pastoral Charge of Souls, in
their Degree,
yet to avoid the infinite Showers of Excommunication, which would overflow all Churches and Parishes, and the intolerable Quarrels and Brabbles that would ensue, if every Presbyter might Excommunicate without the Bishops consent and Licence, we praise the Wisdom of God's Church in suffering no Inferior to Excommunicate without the Bishop's consent and Licence.
Thus far this Learned Bishop, who urgeth the singularity of Succession and Superiority in Ordination, to be the Essential Marks of a Bishop, as he differs from a Presbyter, yet not divesting the Presbyter of all Governing Power in the Church of Christ. His Pleading for a Superiority of Power in the Bishop, carries in it the grant of a lesser degree of the same Power, as belonging to the Presbyter, and the denying Presbyters the Exercise of this Power without the consent of the Bishop, is but by an Ecclesiastical Constitution, such as that which makes the Reconciling Penitents, and Confirmation to be rather Peculiar to the Bishop for the Honor of his Calling, than for any Necessity of God's Word.
Thus I have gone through the Principal Writers about Church Government that were in Queen
Elizabeth's
Reign; namely,
Alley
Bishop of
Exeter, Pilkington
Bishop of
Duresme,
Jewel
Bishop of
Salisbury
and
Whitgift,
Archbishop of
Canterbury,
who held, that according to the Scriptures, there was no Difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop, that in Scripture account their Office and Powers were the same, and that the Apostles did not leave behind them any one kind of Church Government to be observed throughout all the Churches at all times. These were followed by Dr.
Cosins,
Dr.
Low,
and Bishop
Bridges.
The Learned
Willet,
in his
Synopsis Papismi,
a Book Published at least three or four times in Queen
Elizabeth's
Days, and afterwards by King
James
his Special Command, doth in most things agree with the Bishops, but now mentioned, and being more particular than they, affirming out of
Jerome,
That
Confirmation
and
Ordination
were appropriated to the Bishop, rather for the Honor of their Priesthood, and the Peace of the Church, than by necessity of any Law; the same he saith of the
Jurisdiction
of the Church; adding, That anciently there were no distinct
Consecrations of Bishops.
The thing wherein he may be supposed to differ from them is, that an
Inequality
amongst the Presbyters, and the Presidency of someone above the other for Orders sake, he holds to be
Apostolical;
but herein differs not from the Old Nonconformists.
After these, I have given the Judgments of
Saravia,
Archbishop
Bancroft,
the Judicious
Hooker,
and Bishop
Bilson;
who affirm, the Government of the Church to be
Apostolical.
Tho' formerly 'twas esteemed dangerous to the
Civil
Government to hold, that Church Government must
now
be the same 'twas in the Apostles days; yet it's looked on by these, as what
ought
to be. The Government of the Church with them is a Divine and Apostolical Institution, but not
Unalterable. Bilson,
I confess, says, it is
Perpetual,
and yet Bishop *
Downame,
who most willingly and gladly professeth to consent in Judgment with Him,
doth solemnly Declare in these words,
That
although he holds the Calling of Bishops in respect of their first Institution, to be an
Apostolical,
and so a Divine Ordinance, yet that he doth not maintain it to be
Divini Juris,
as intending thereby, that it is
Generally, Perpetually,
and
Immutably
necessary, as though there could not be a True Church without it.
And within a few Pages after this, He declares his Opinion to be the same with King
James
's; who doth say, That
it is granted to every Christian King, Prince, and Commonwealth to
prescribe
to their Subjects, that
Outward Form
of Ecclesiastical Regiment, which may seem best to agree with the Form of their Civil Government; but so as they swerve not at all from the Grounds of Faith, and True Religion.
This, saith
Downame,
maketh not against the Government of Bishops, as I maintain it—Tho' I hold the Government-Episcopal to be of Apostolical and Divine Institution; yet not as
Generally, Perpetually
and
Immutably
necessary: He doth not hold it necessary in all Places, nor in all Ages, but to be changeable by Man; and if herein He and
Bilson
accord, the Perpetuity
Bilson
is for, will admit of a Change.
But whether
Downame
gives us
Bilson
's Notion, when he states his own, I will not contend, nor is it needful I should; It's enough to my purpose, that the difference he placeth between a Bishop and Presbyter is only in
Degree,
that
Confirmation,
and
Excommunication
belong unto Presbyters; and that
Bilson
's Bishop differs more from the Bishops by Law Established than from the Nonconformist Parish Presbyters.
Bancroft
professes to agree with
Robinson, Reynolds,
and
Fulk,
who differed not from the Old Nonconformists, and
Hooker
never thought the Government of the Church to be in all Places and Ages necessarily the same; nor did he look on Bishops to be of a Different
Order
from Presbyters, but to be of the same Order, differing only in
Degree,
the Bishop having only a
Chiefty
of Power in the
Church, nor did any Great Men of the Church of
England,
in Queen
Elizabeth's
time, null the Ministry or Church State of the Reformed either in
Scotland
or beyond the Seas; They held their Churches to be true Churches, and their Government to be such as agreed with the General Rules of God's Word, and though' some esteemed the Ordination only by Presbyters to be defective, yet did not judge it to be Invalid, but admitted those who had their Ordination only from Presbyters abroad, to Ecclesiastical Promotions, on no other terms than their Subscribing the Articles of Religion, which concern the Faith, and Doctrines of the Sacraments only.
These Sentiments, which our first Reformers entertained about Episcopacy are such, as would (if the Government of the Church be at this time Fram'd accordingly) contribute much to the Peace of the Church, and Healing our Divisions; and seeing they are most admirably copied out unto us in the Learned Archbishop
Usher
's
Reduction of Episcopacy,
I will with some Notes present it to the Reader's more Deliberate Consideration.
CHAP. VI.
Archbishop
Usher's
Reduction of Episcopacy with some Notes on it.
The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the
Ancient Church;
proposed in the year
1641.
as an Expedient for the prevention of those Troubles, which afterwards did arise about the matter of Church-Government.
Episcopal and Presbyterial Government Conjoyned.
BY Order of the Church of
England
all Presbyters are charged to
administer the Doctrine and Sacraments,
and
the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded,
and as
this Realm hath received the same;
And that they might the better understand what
the Lord had commanded
therein,
the Exhortation to St.
Paul,
to the Elders of the Church of
Ephesus
is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination;
Take heed unto yourselves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to
Rule
the Congregation of God,
which he hath purchased with his Blood.
Notes.
Thus it was in the
Old Book
of Ordering
Priests
and
Deacons;
but on the Restauration of
Charles
II. there were such
Alterations
made in the Books of Common Prayer and Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as do plainly show, that though' heretofore the Presbyters had Power to Rule, yet now they have none.
In the
Act
of
Uniformity,
14
Car.
2. it is Declared,
That the King's Majesty (according to his Declaration of 25.
October,
1660.) granted his Commission under the Great Seal of
England,
to several Bishops, and other Divines, to Review the Book of Common Prayer, and to prepare such
Alterations,
and
Additions,
as they thought fit to offer: And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces of
Canterbury
and
York,
being by his Majesty called and Assembled, (and now sitting) his Majesty hath been pleased to Authorize and require the Presidents of the said Convocations, and other the Bishops, and Clergy of the same, to Review the said Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of the Form and Manner of the making and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; And that after mature Consideration, they should make such
Additions,
and
Alterations
in the said Books respectively, as to them should seem meet and convenient; And should Exhibit, and Present the same to his Majesty in Writing, for his further Allowance, or Confirmation; since which time, upon full and mature Deliberation, they, the said Presidents, Bishops, and Clergy of both Provinces, have accordingly Reviewed the said Books, and have made
some Alterations,
which they think fit to be inserted to the same, and have Exhibited and Presented the same unto his Majesty in Writing. All which his Majesty having duly considered, hath fully Approved and Allowed the same, and recommended to this present Parliament.
The Books thus
altered,
were by this Parliament confirmed and established, and the
Alterations
such as make the Office of the Presbyter quite another thing than it was before; for though' in the old Book of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, the Reading unto the Presbyters at the time of their Ordination,
Acts
20.27, 28. did put it out of Doubt, that the Presbyters were vested with the Pastoral Office, having Power given 'em to
Rule
the Church; In the
new Book
this Exhortation is removed from the Presbyters Ordination unto the Consecration of Bishops, thereby manifestly Evincing the
Pastoral Power
to be taken from the Presbyter, and feated with the Bishop only, and accordingly the name
[Pastor]
which was in the
old Book given unto the Presbyter, is in the new omitted, and in several places the word [
Curate,
or
Priest
] substituted in its stead; and whereas, in the old Book, the Presbyter was admitted [to the
Ministry of Priesthood
] in the new it's to the
[Order]
and Ministry of Priesthood, thereby making Priesthood an
Order
distinct from those of
Deaconship
and
Episcopacy.
In the Consecrating of Bishops in the
Collect,
to show what they mean by Bishop more than formerly, it's added by way of Explication to all
Bishops [the Pastors of thy Church]
and in the Prayer for the Bishop [
Almighty God,
&c.] in the old Book 'twas,
Replenish him so with thy Truth— that He may faithfully serve thee in this Office to the Edifying of thy Church;
in the new it is
[to the well Governing thy Church.]
And when the Archbishop and other Bishops present, do lay their Hands on the Elected, and according to the old Book, were to say, [
Receive the Holy Ghost,
&c.] in the new it's added [
for the Office and Work of a Bishop
Now
committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands in the Name of the Father,
&c.]
Thus the Alterations by Law establshed do clearly show, that both the
Name
and
Office
of a
Pastor
is taken from the Presbyter, and transferred over to the Diocesan, who alone hath the Power of Ordering Priests and Deacons, and of Governing or Ruling the Church; whence it follows, that as there is but
One Pastor in a Diocese,
there is but one Church; That all Parish-Assemblies are but parts or parcels of this One single Church, under the Conduct and Government only of the Diocesan Bishop, their only Pastor; That all Ordinations by Presbyters are of no greater Validity than those by Deacons or Lay-men; and therefore altho' Ordination is no more to be repeated than Baptism, yet those who have had their Ordination only by Presbyters, must be Ordained again, or not admitted unto any Benefice, nor allowed the Exercise of the Priestly Office, nor be esteemed
Lawful
Priests; so that as there is a vast Difference between Queen
Elizabeth
's Bishops and
Charles
the Second's, so between Queen
Elizabeth
's Law, and King
Charles
's.
Q.
Elizabeth
's Act runs thus,
That every Person under the Degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word and Sacraments, by reason of
any other Form
of Institution, Consecration,
or Ordering, than the Form now used in the Reign of our most Gracious Sovereign Lady—shall—declare his Assent, and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion,
which only concern the Profession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a Book Entituled, Articles,
&c.
[viz. 39
Articles
]—upon pain, that every
such Person which shall not subscribe, shall be
(ipso facto) deprived, and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void, as if he had been naturally dead.
King
Charles
his Law is thus,
That no Parson, who now is Incumbent, and in the Possession of any Parsonage or Benefice, and who is not in Holy Orders by
Episcopal Ordination,
or shall not be before the said Feast-day of St.
Bartholomew,
Ordained Priest or Deacon, shall have, hold, or enjoy any Parsonage with Cure—but shall be utterly disabled, and
ipso facto deprived of the same, and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void, as if he had been naturally dead.
Touching Persons ordained by any other Form than the
Episcopal,
a Subscription to the Articles was sufficient by 13
Eliz. c.
12. to Qualifie them for Spiritual Promotion, and
Whittingham
's, whose Ordination was only by Presbyters abroad, was esteemed good, and he enjoyed his Benefice to the day of his death, as
Traverse,
in his
Supplication
to the
Council,
affirms: but though' the Articles be subscribed unto by one having only an
Ordination
by
Presbyters,
he must be ordained by the Bishop, or not admitted to any Ecclesiastical Promotion; or if admitted, he is
ipso facto
deprived; and whoever consults the Book of
Ordering Presbyters,
will find that the whole of it plainly declares, that the former Odination of the Person thus re-ordained, was invalid and null, and that till now he was never of the Presbyters Office; for the Ordination of one never before ordained, and the Ordination of him who was formerly ordained by Presbyters, is the same.
Whether I am right in these my Sentiments, I appeal to the Right Reverend and Reverend Bishops and others of the Dignified Clergy, who, with the greatest importunity, are desired to declare their Judgments in this Matter.
To know what the Government of the Church of
England
is, that is by
Archbishops, Bishops;
and
what
is the
Office of a
Presbyter,
what that of a
Bishop,
is a matter of extraordinary importance.
If it be the same it was in
Edward
the Sixth and Queen
Elizabeth
's days, which is the same with what the Learned
Archbishop Usher
was for, the greatest Bone of Contention between the
Cons
and
Noncons
will be removed farther. Every Parish-Presbyter will be granted to be a
Pastor, vested with a Right to Rule the Church,
(from whence, saith the Learned Archbishop, the name of
Rector
also was given unto him at first)
and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments,
and the difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter to be only in
Degree,
and not in
Order,
as this Learned Primate ever held, as he saith in an Answer to an abusive Report, that went abroad of him:
I have ever declared my Opinion to be (saith he) That
Episcopus & Presbyter gradu tantum differunt, non Ordine,
and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters standeth
valid;
and Dr.
Bernard
in his
Animadversions
on the Archbishop's Opinion, asserts, That in this Judgment he was not
singular;
Dr.
Davenant,
that Pious and Learned Bishop of
Salisbury,
consents with him in it,
produceth the Principal of the Schoolmen,
Gulielmus Parisiensis, Gerson, Durand,
&c.
Episcopatus non est Ordo praecise distinctus à Sacerdotio simplici, &c. non est alia potestas Ordinis in Episcopis quàm Presbyteris, sed inest modo perfectiori.
And declares it to be the general Opinion of Schoolmen,
&c.
And whereas the Primate saith, That in Cases of
Necessity,
where Bishops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid: Bishop
Davenant
concurs with him also, and produceth the Opinion of
Richardus Armathanus
(one of this Primate's Predecessors, and one of the most Learned men in his time) to be accordingly. To which divers others might be added, as in special Dr.
Field
sometimes
Dean
of
Gloucester,
in his Learned Book of the
Church,
where this Judgment of the Primate,
and the Concurrence of Bishop
Davenant
's, is largely confirmed. But that Book Entituled,
The Defense of the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches
beyond the Seas,
maintained by Mr.
Archdeacon Mason
against the
Romanists
(who wrote also a Defense of Episcopacy, and of the Ministry of the Church of
England
) is fufficiently known, and I have been assured it was not only the Judgment of Bishop
Overal,
but
that he had a Principal hand in it.
He produceth many Testimonies, the
Master of the Sentences,
and most of the Schoolmen,
Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Durand, Dominicus Soto, Richardus Armachanus, Tostatus, Alphonsus à Castro, Gerson, Canisius
to have affirmed the same; and at last quotes
Medina,
a Principal Bishop of the Council of
Trent,
who affirmed, That
Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact
were of the same Judgment also. In a word, if the
Ordination
of Presbyters in such places where Bishops cannot be had, were not
valid,
the late Bishops of
Scotland
had a hard Task to maintain themselves to be
Bishops,
who were not Priests, for their
Ordination
was no other.
What Dr.
Bernard
mentions about the Archbishop's dislike of the late Prerbyterians here in
England,
is not so much against their Exercising the Power, as the
Manner
of their Exercise, they did not add to the Imposition of Hands [
Receive the Holy Ghost,
&c.] nor so much as these words [
Be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments,
&c.] Moreover in the Close to the Reduction the
Primate
and Dr.
Holdsworth
aver, That the Suffragans, mentioned 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, who yet are but the
Chorepiscopi,
of no other Order than the Presbyters, as hereafter I shall prove. A Declaring therefore thus much, namely, That the Presbyter is of the same Order, vested with the Power both of Order and Jurisdiction, and an entrusting them with the Exercise thereof, as in the second Proposition, will contribute very much towards a well Established
Comprehension;
And in Requital it's not to be doubted, but the
Latitudinarian Nonconformist,
of which there are a great number in this Kingdom, will readily yield to the
Presidency
of one Presbyter, for the sake of Union, to be over them, and close with what the Archbishop further adds.
Archbishop.
Of the many
Elders,
who in common
Ruled
the Church of
Ephesus,
there was one
President,
whom our Savior in his Epistle to this Church, in a peculiar manner styleth
the Angel of the Church of Ephesus:
and
Ignatius
in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, calleth the
Bishop
thereof. Betwixt the Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church, what an Harmonious Consent there was in the Ordering of the Church-Government, the same
Ignatius
doth fully declare, by the
Presbytery,
which St.
Paul,
understanding the
Community of the rest of the Presbyters
or
Elders,
who then had a hand,
not only in the Delivery of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the Administration of the
Discipline
of Christ: for further proof of which, we have that known Testimony of
Tertullian
in his general Apology for Christians.
In the Church are used Exhortations, Chastisements, and Divine Censure; for Judgment is given with great advice, as amongst those, who are certain they are in the sight of God, and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the Judgment which is to come, if any man have so offended, that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer, and of the Assembly, and of all Holy Fellowship. The
Presidents
that bear
Rule
therein, are certain approved
Elders,
who have obtained this Honor, not by
Reward,
but by good Report,
who were no other (as he himself intimates elsewhere) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the
Eucharist.
For with the Bishop, who was the
Chief
President (and therefore styled by the same
Tertullian
in another place
Summus Sacerdos
for distinction
sake) the rest of the Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joined in the
Common Government
of the Church; and therefore, where in Matters of Ecclesiastical Judicature,
Cornelius
Bishop of
Rome
used the received Form of
gathering together the Presbytery;
of what persons that did consist,
Cyprian
sufficiently declareth, when he wisheth them to read his Letters to
the flourishing Clergy,
which there did Preside
or Rule
with him.
The presence of the
Clergy
being thought to be so requisite in matters of
Episcopal Audience,
that in the fourth Council of
Carthage,
it was concluded,
That the Bishop might hear no man's cause without the Presence of the Clergy, and that otherwise the Bishop's Sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the Presence of the Clergy;
which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of
Egbert,
who was Archbishop of
York
in the
Saxon
times, and afterwards in the Body of the
Canon Law
itself.
True it is, that in our Church this kind of
Presbyterial Government
hath been long disused, yet seeing it still professeth, that every
Pastor
hath a Right to
Rule
the Church (from whence the name of
Rector
also was given at first unto him) and to Administer the
Discipline of Christ,
as well as to Dispense the
Doctrine
and
Sacraments,
and the Restraint of the Exercise of that Right, proceedeth only from the Custom
now received in this Realm,
no man can doubt, but by another Law of the Land, this hindrance may be well removed; And this
Ancient
Form of Government by the united Suffrages of the Clergy, might be revived again; and with what little show of
Alteration,
the
Synodical
Conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded with the Presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province,
the indifferent Reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing Propositions.
I.
In every Parish the
Rector,
or incumbent
Pastor,
together with the Church-Wardens and Sides-men, may every Week take notice of such as live scandalously in that Congregation, who are to receive such several Admonitions and Reproofs as the Quality of their Offence shall deserve: And if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they may be presented to the next
monthly Synod,
and in the mean time debar'd by the
Pastor
from Access unto the Lord's Table.
Notes.
The Name
Rector,
which signifieth a Governor or Ruler, was anciently given in common to Prelates, Bishops, Abbots, and Parish-Presbyters, but chiefly to the Parish-Priest or Parson that had Cure of Souls, as
DU FRESENE
observes out of the
Lombardian
Laws,
and
Charles Great
's Capitulars, and the
Almaine
Charter.
Lindwood
also in his
Provincial Constitution,
declares the same;
and
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
Bracton, Sciendum quod
Rectoribus
Ecclesiarum Parochialium competit Assisa, qui institui sunt per Episcopos & Ordinarios, ut
Personae.
Lindwood
holds the same: For,
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,
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.
John de Athon
in his Commentary on
Otho
's
Constitutions
on the Word
Personae,
saith,
(i.e.) Rectores; loquitur enim secundum
vulgare
Anglicorum. Lindwood,
that
Vicars Perpetual
were to be
Rectors
or
Governors
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,
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:
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 Governors; and why? but because they were vested with a Right to Govern their Churches, notwithstanding which, it cannot now be infer'd, that those who still bear the Name of
Rector,
are Governors 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 Laics,
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,
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 possessed 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 offered 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 itself; and if any of 'em have the
Name
of
Rector
leftthem, 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,
)
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 Diocese 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, though without Episcopal Consecrations, they were vested with the Powers and Authorities of
City
Bishops; and that they might be conformed 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 Controversy about the Government of the Church, heal the Division; and the
Church
in her Condescention herein, would conform unto an ancient Practice of the Church, recogniz'd by all to be common, at least in the
Third Century:
For though Bishop
Parker
will not admit them to have been in the Church till the
Fourth Century,
because no mention
of 'em in any Record before the Council of
Ancyra
sat, which (notwithstanding what
Angelocrator
avers, who would have it be after the Council of
Nice,
because
Vitalis,
Bishop of
Antioch,
the first named amongst the Bishops that sat in it, was not made a Bishop before the Year 331.) it's generally held to be in the Year 314. And it's not easy to imagine, that these
Chorepiscopi
could in so short a time spring out of Nothing, and arrive to that height they were at
An.
314, or as others 308. Besides, there were several
Chorepiscopi
in the Council of
Nice,
that was but Ten or Twelve Years after this; and
Rabanus Maurus
Seven or Eight Hundred Years ago produced an Apostolical Argument to prove, that they were as ancient as City Bishops:
For (says he) in the Book which
Damasus
the first wrote on the desire of
Jerome
the Presbyter, it's affirmed, That
Linus
and
Cletus,
by the Commandment of St.
Peter,
Ordained Presbyters, who yet succeeded him not in the Apostolical Chair,
Clemens
being by the Order of this blessed Apostle, made his Successor: And (saith
Maurus
) from hence it is, that the
Chorepiscopi,
as I suppose, had their Rise, and have ever since continued in the Catholic Church, who being Ordained, by their own Bishops, by their Commandment did Ordain Presbyters, Deacons, and other Inferior Degrees, and discharge all the other Offices belonging to Priesthood. So far
Rabanus.
They were but
Presbyters,
and yet did Ordain and Exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction.
That they did at first exercise
Episcopal
Jurisdiction in the Country, is clear from the 13th Canon of the Council of
Ancyra,
which according to
Zonaras
and
Balsaman
is thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Exactly translated by
Gentianus Hervetus,
Chorepiscopos
non
•
icere Presbyteros, vel Diaconos Ordinare, sed ne{que} Urbis Presbyteros, nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit, in aliena Parochia.
This, as Bishop
Parker
confesseth, is the most correct Copy; That
it shall not be lawful for Country Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons, nor yet for City Presbyters, without the permission of their Bishop.
Only he omits this material Expression.
[in another Parish or Diocese];
which Words do greatly
confound the Learned Archbishop of
Paris, De Marca,
who will therefore have the
Greek
Copy corrected:
What is the meaning of these words,
(saith he)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in alienae paroicia?
as
if it had been lawful for-the
Chorepiscopi
to Ordain Presbyters in their own Precincts, without the leave of the City-Bishop.
He will therefore have it,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in unaquâque Paraecia,
which agrees not only with the Translation of
Dionysius Exiguus,
but with an ancient Copy in the Library at
Oxford,
as
Thorndike
of the
Right of the Church,
reports, who can make no Sense of
De Marca
's Emendation:
For, says he, can the Reading of the last words,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, seem probable to Reasonable Persons? What Consequence of Sense is there in saying,
unless License be granted in
every Parish?
Which is plain, when it is said, That the City-Presbyters do nothing in the Parish, that is in the Country or Diocese, without Authority by the Bishop's Letters.
So far
Thorndike,
who is for the blotting
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
out of
Zonara
's and
Balsanion
's Copy, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
out of the Copy at
Oxford,
and who agrees with
De Marca,
in adding
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to the Canon, and prefers
Isidore Mercator
's Translation before the Original
Greek,
and have it thus,
Vicariis Episcoporum, quos,
Graeci Chorepiscopos
vocant, non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos Ordinare, sed nec Presbyteris Civitatis, sine Episcopy Praecepto, amplius aliquid Imperare, vel sine Autoritate Literarum ejus in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere:
Whereby, contrary to all Rule, by Addition, Mutilation,
&c.
they impose a Sense directly contradicting the express Words of the Canon; which is done in so gross a manner, that
Thorndike
himself was compel'd to acknowledge,
That for his part he doth not believe that we have the true Reading of this Canon in any Copy that he hath heard of or seen.
But why is
Thorndike,
who is followed by Dr.
Hammond
and Bishop
Parker,
all differing from Queen
Elizabeth
's Old Episcopal Divines, so concerned to oppose the Universally Received
Copies of
Zonaras
and
Balsamon,
but because, do they what they can, it may be easily infer'd, that before the Council of
Ancyra,
the
Chorepiscopi
did ordain Presbyters,
&c.
that afterwards they might do it in
their own Parishes without leave;
in other Parishes with leave, or at least in their own Parishes with leave. Thus much is the Import of
Zonara
's
Balsamon
's, and the
Oxford
Copies, one of which must be received, notwithstanding anything hitherto opposed unto 'em. The whole that
Thorndike
hath laid in against us, narrowly looked into, comes to nothing.
The Reasons why our Copy is to be suspected, saith he, are these.
-
1. In an
Arabic
Paraphrase now extant in the
Oxford
Library, there is nothing to be found of that Clause,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
-
2.
Isidore Mercator
's Translation, which seems to be that which was anciently received in the
Spanish
Churches, before
Dionysius Exiguus,
wherewith that Copy agreed which
Hervetus
translated, as also
Fulgentius
his
Breviate,
which Pope
Adrian
the first followed, hath only this,
Vicariis Episcoporum, quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant,
&c.
ut supra.
-
3. Can the Reading of the last words,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
seem probable,
&c. ut supra.
-
4. Seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for, by the Council of
Laodicea,
Cap. LVI. in the same Subject, it seems very probable, that this should be the provision which the Council of
Ancyra
intended, as all
Ignatius
his Epistles, and other Canons
Apost.
XL.
Arelat.
XIX. express it.
To all which I reply,
1. The
Greek
Copy compared with Translations, having the Reputation of an Original, is not to be neglected, though in the
Arabic Paraphrase
the Clause about City Presbyters is omitted; for it might be either negligently or willingly done: Besides, if this Clause had never been in the Original, there still remains enough to carry our Point in that, as we shall hereafter prove the
Chorepiscopi
were but Presbyters, and yet by the other parts of this Canon had power to ordain both
Presbyters
and
Deacons,
at least with the permission of the City-Bishop.
To the Second, touching
Isidore
's Translation, which differs from
Hervetus
's and
Dionysius Exiguus
's, as well as from every
Greek
Copy, cannot be of strength enough to invalidate an Original, anymore than the Vulgar, or any other Translation of the Bible, can blast the Reputation of the Originals either of the Old or New Testament.
What hath been already urged about
de Marca
's disgust against
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
Thorndike
's quarrel with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, is a sufficient Answer to his
Third
Argument: For if the Canon hath any meaning, be it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or be there an Omission of this Expression, it cannot but be granted, that before this Council the
Chorepiscopi
did Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without the City-Bishop's leave, and afterwards with it.
To the Fourth, that the Council of
Laodicea
did many Years after this make the same Provision, hath nothing of Argument in it to prove, That the Council of
Ancyra
did so, long before
Laodicea
's doing It now, seeing it's not by way of confirmation of an anteceding Decree, is a sufficient intimation, that
Ancyra
did it not.
However, seeing
Thorndike
will provoke us to consult this 56th, or rather 57th Canon of
Laodicea,
to it we will go; which on a diligent search we find to run thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] say some, [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] say others,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Hervetus
renders it thus,
Quod non oportet in vicis & pagis
Episcopos constitui, sed Periodeutas; hoc est, Circumcursentores.
Dionysius Exiguus,
Quod
non oporteat in Villulis vel in Agris Episcopos constitui, sed Visitores. Isidore Mercator
thus,
Non oportet in Villis & vicis Episcopos Ordinari, sed Visitatores;
(i. e.)
qui Circumeant, Constitui:
No Bishops ought to be appointed in the Country Towns or Villages, but Visitors. Neither of these take notice of the Various Reading: for it may be [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] as well as [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
], and so be thus translated:
For the future there shall not be Ordained in Country Places any Bishops or Periodeutae,
or
Visitors,
making the
Periodeutae
and Country Bishops the same; as
De Marca,
though he observes not this various Reading does,
Unde. Constanter asserere audeo eundem esse Chorepiscopum,
&
Periodeutum;
and as the same
De Marca
further observes, these
Periodeutae
were only Presbyters, as in the 4th
Action
of the Council of
Chalcedon,
mention is made of
Alexander, Presbyter,
and
Periodeuta,
and in the 11th
Action
of
Valentine, Presbyter,
and
Periodeuta;
whence I infer, that it's clear from this and the following parts of the Canon, that till this Council, Presbyters were not so very much under the Power of the Bishops, but could act according to their own discretion, without consulting the City-Bishops. The Canon is,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and thus rendered by
Hervetus, Eos autem qui prius constituti fuerunt, nihil agere sine mente Episcopy, qui est in Civitate,
clearly enough insinuating, that until this Council the
Chorepiscopi,
the
Periodeutae,
who were but Presbyters, did act in the Country as they judged meet, without consulting the Bishop of the City; and it's well known, that their work was to Ordain Presbyters, Deacons,
&c.
Thus much may suffice to vindicate what we have drawn from the Council of
Ancyra
to establish the Power of the
Chorepiscopi,
who agreeably enough to the 13th
Canon
of this Council, might exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction in their own Precinct, without the leave of the City-Bishop, and with his Permission they might do so out of their own Charge, even in the City.
To proceed, it's very clear that long after this time, yea, long after
Damasus,
this Severity against the
Chorepiscopi,
and
Leo
the Third's Attempt to suppress and banish them, when
Charles
the Great sent
Arno Invavensis
to know the mind of his Holiness about them, they continued in the Exercise of their Office, governing the Country-Churches, ordaining Presbyters,
&c.
And altho'
Hincmarus,
as
Baluzius
in
de Marca
out of
Flodoardus
his History observes,
wrote bitterly against those City-Bishops that had 'em in their Dioceses,
yet
Rabanus Maurus
pleads as warmly in their Defense,
and they were continued in
France
and elsewhere.
Elpidrus
a Monk, was or dained Presbyter by
Timothy
a Country Bishop:
Amalbertus,
a
Chorepiscopus,
governed the Church of
Verdun
during a Vacancy of twelve years, consecrated Churches, confirmed Children,
&c.
as may be seen in
Rudolphus
his Life of
Rabanus Maurus,
and in
De Marca.
That the
Chorepiscopi
did exercise the
Episcopal
Power, altho' they were but Presbyters, may plainly be seen in the Decrees that were against 'em, interdicting their presuming so to do for time to come. 'Twas this that filled the Soul of
Damasus
1.
with so much indignation against them, that they being but Presbyters, presumed to discharge the Episcopal Office: And for this very reason it was, that
Leo
the Third, in Answer unto the Question moved by
Charles
the
Great,
condemned them to Banishment, as may be seen in the select Ecclesiastical
Capitula
of
Charles
the Great, where it's very clear, that though' the French Prelates mitigated somewhat of the Rigour of the Pope's severe Decree against them, yet concur'd so far with him, as to Ordain that the Country-Bishops do no more enter on the Execution of the Episcopal Office,
ita ut
amplius
nihil de
Cpiscopali
ministerio praesumerent;
and they decreed, That no Country-Bishop presume, by Imposition of Hands, to give the Holy Ghost to any, or Consecrate any Priest, Levite, or Subdeacon. And though' these
Capitula
do null and make void all the Ordinations and Consecrations of the
Chorepiscopi, Nicholas
the First doth ratify and confirm them,
as may be seen in his Epistle to
Radolfus,
and thus he did for the very Reason, the
Capitula
as well as
Leo
and
Damasus,
did damn them.
Damasus
says, that
they are the same with
Presbyters,
because they are instituted according to the Form of the Seventy Disciples,
who were never vested with
Jura Episcopalia,
so
Leo
and the select
Capitula
of
Charles
the Great, the
Chorepiscopi
are not Chief Priests, nor Bishops, neither do any of the Episcopal Rights belong unto them, seeing they were instituted according to the Form of the Seventy;
for which cause let no one say,
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 though' these Papal Determinations are different, yet they agree in witnessing to this Truth, That the
Chorepiscopi
exercised 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,
appears plainly from the tenth Canon of
Antioch,
that allows them to Ordain the inferior Officers of the Church.
This of Bishop
Parker
doth exactly agree with the 55.
Chapter
of
Nice,
as translated out of
Arabic
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 inquire 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 entered 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
Arabic,
where
Turrianus
renders it thus:
Et debet Episcopus
[vid.
Civitatis]
recitare super electum
[scil. Chorepiscopum]
Orationem consuetam,
& Benedicere illi, dare{que} 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. expressly 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,
and speaking of the Episcopal Rights, say the same;
Haec vero 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 Diocese; 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 superior above Presbyters to hold that these
Chorepiscopi,
though' 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 Split
's Book
de Rep. Eccles.
and
De Marco
to fancy, 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,
This is precariously said without any shadow of Pretence for it, but merely to salve his own Hypothesis.
Others,
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 Country-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, 'tis
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 enjoined 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 received 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 received at their Consecration, and inherent in them, or by a Power derived unto 'em from the City-Bishop by Commission? 'Twas 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
derived the Power of Ordaining from the City-Bishop. The Bishop of
Lincoln
cannot Ordain Priests or Deacons in
Westminster-Abby
without the leave of the Dean of
Westm
•
nster;
and yet when the Bishop does Ordain any there with the Dean's leave, it's not, I presume, by any Power derived from the Dean that he does it, but by a Power inhering in himself; and the Words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
import no other leave than this.
If then these
Chorepiscopi
be conformed to the Number of Rural Deanries, and the Rural Deans allowed to exercise the same Power the
Chorepiscopi
did in the ancient Church, 'twill 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
Diocese
might meet, with whose Consent, or the
major
part of them, all things might be concluded by the
Bishop
or
Superintendent,
(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.
Jerome:
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
Diocese
within the
Province;
the
Archbishop
of every
Province
might be the
Moderator
of this Meeting, (or in his room, someone 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 join 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 anything of Christ's Institution; for there is not ascribed 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 College 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 endeavored 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, 'twill of course follow, that what is now said to belong to a Diocesan, must be seated in the
Parish-Church.
There is not so much a Controversy between the Powers, Preheminences and Privileges 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
mentioned 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 Government of the Church of
England
be declared to be the same held by the First Reformers, and by the Renowned Archbishop
Usher,
any Law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding.
And the
Subscription
of Submission be only unto the Church-Government, as framed accordingly, there are many powerful Preachers (if not most of the Sober Godly) amongst the Dissenters will cheerfully enter into Parish-Churches, and be capacitated to exercise their Ministry in Public, whom the Multitude otherwise will never hear, nor be benefited by their Talents.
The Allowance of this can do no hurt to the Bishops, unless the easing 'em of an intolerable burden, or discharging 'em of such Duties now incumbent on them, as are impossible to be performed by any.
Besides, that hereby shall all the pious and conscientious Parish-Ministers be put upon the attending those Pastoral Duties which are enjoined them by the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to the right Guidance and Edification of the particular Churches committed to their Cure.
And as hereby the Church of
England
will be enlarged and strengthened by the Accession of many Protestant Dissenters, great ease given the Bishops, without the least Diminution of their Temporal Emoluments and Honors; all Parish-Pastors allowed the Exercise of their Functions, as the Lord Christ commanded them. In like manner hereby,
1. The Honor due to the
First Reformers,
that with their Blood, or other grievous Sufferings, sealed to the Truth of the Reformation, shall be maintained and
restored.
I must say restored, because the altering our Episcopal Government, and
shaping it to the measure of the
Canons
of 1603, and since to the Act of
Uniformity
in
Charles
the Second's Reign, hath made it so much another thing than what they held and defended, that we cannot entitle them to be the Assertors of it without Reproach, or a Vindication. The Episcopacy they were for, I say, was but of the same Allay with the excellent Moderation of Archbishop
Usher.
2. This Primitive Government Restored, doth not in the least interfere, or clash with, but most effectually support the
Ancient Regal
Power in matters Ecclesiastical. But the Canonical Episcopacy advanced by
Laud,
and in its Heighths of Divine Right, established by
Charles
the Second, will on Examination be found to be held by some of the Clergy, as unalterable, to the great Diminution of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and the Power of Parliaments.
3. This Government
Restored,
will give Countenance to the
Protestant
Reformed Churches abroad, as well as to the Churches of Dissenters at home, owning their Ministry and Sacraments, and holding Communion with them, as with true Gospel Churches of Christ: Whereas the Episcopacy
Unrestored,
(our Nobles and Gentry of both Houses, having not been aware of it) does null their Church-State, destroying both their Ministry and Sacraments; and as that very Learned, but herein more dangerous man, Mr.
Dodwell,
will have it, puts 'em out of the common way of Salvation, and into the same deplorable Condition with the
Heathen.
They must be saved by an uncommon Prerogative, or not at all.
I the rather insist on this Particular, because, since his present Majesty, the glorious Instrument of our Deliverance, hath been brought up, and continues in the Communion of these Foreign Reformed Churches, we lie under a special Obligatian of our declaring, that we hold Communion with them: And will it not be a surprising Consideration, (if there be any who have not yet reflected on it) that our Church owns the Ministry of the Church of
Rome,
and at the same time disowns the Ministry of the Reformed Churches, even of the Churches of which His Majesty is now a Member?
4. This Government Restored will remove out of the way of those Dissenters who cannot do all that is necessary to their
obtaining the Advantages of this Comprehension, the principal Blocks, which hinder their holding Communion with the Church of
England.
The Reason why these Dissenters cannot join with the Parish-Assemblies in the Established Worship, so far as I can guess, is not the bare use of a Liturgy, nor the neglect of Discipline, nor because there are some disorderly Members of their Communion, but because the Specifick Nature of Christ's Instituted Churches are destroyed; the Parish-Ministers, who were Gospel-Pastors, deposed, and Church-Government made impracticable, by the erecting Diocesan Churches, one of which, composed of many Parishes, under the Government of one only Pastor, called the Diocesan Bishop, is made a particular Church of the lowest Rank, and substituting in the room of Parish-Pastors a New Order of
Sub-half-Presbyters,
affirming all that have been baptized and live within the Terriers or Boundaries of the Diocese, how ignorant or scandalous soever, to be sit Matter for an Instituted Church of Christ; and because of their setting up Forms of Prayer in opposition unto, and suppression of Spiritual and Free Prayer; the Corruptions in the Liturgy; and imposing, as Terms of Communion, such Ceremonies as are, in their Consciences, sinful.
If therefore the desired Church-Government be settled, the Parish-Churches will be established as particular Churches of Christ's Institution, their Pastors Restored, Government made practicable, Disorders amended; and though some things remain in the Parishes which these men cannot conform unto, yet they will own the Parishes thus Constituted and Reformed, for true Churches, and admit their Members, if desired, unto Communion with them.
THE END.
ADVERTISEMENT.
PLain Dealing: Being a Moderate general Review of the
Scots
Prelatical Clergies Proceedings in the latter Reigns. With a Vindication of the present Proceedings in Church-Affairs there. Printed for
Tho. Parkhurst,
at the
Bible
and
Three Crowns
in
Cheapside,
near
Mercers-Chapel.