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 ministred 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 Vertue 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 Vnctions and such other Observances to be used in the Administration of the said Sacraments but did also Institute certain Inferiour Orders or Degrees as Janitors Lectors Exorcists Acolits and Sub-Deacons and deputed to every one 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 't was 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 affirm'd That all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty as Supream 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 Hist Edw. 6. p. 51. 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 Gardiner tho' sent out under the Name of Dr. Martin about the Marriage of Priests doth sufficiently shew 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 sheweth 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 Oyl 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 any thing 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 joyn 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 maintainance 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 See Dr. Stillingflèet's MS. 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 Resol to Q. 9. 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 perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of wisdom and counsaile 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 Resol to Q. 10. but both one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion The People before Christian Princes were Resol to Q. 11. 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 Resol to Q. 12. 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 Supream Magistrate The Divine Right of Forms of Church Government Examined p. 390 c. CHAP. III. Aley Bishop of Exeter Pilkington Bishop of Durham Jewel Bishop of Salisbury Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury of the same Opinion with Tindall Lambert Barnes
perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ which no doubt should have been done if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church Secondly Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only The true Preaching of the Word and the right Administration of Sacraments So that notwithstanding Government or some kind of Government may be a part of the Church touching the outward Form and Perfection of it yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government and therefore the kind of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation There is no certain kind of Government or Discipline prescribed to the Churches but that the same may be altered as the Profit of the Churches requires and out of Gualters he saith Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form. I do deny that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form and kind of Government of the Church to be Perpetual for all Times Persons and Places without Alteration It is well known Tract 17. Chap. 2. Divis 29. that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time and expressed in the Scriptures neither is now nor can or ought to be observed either touching the Persons How then can the Government of the Church by Bîshops Archbishops c. be Apostolical or the Functions We see manifestly that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times is and hath been of necessity altered and that it neither may nor can be revoked whereby 't is plain that any one kind of External Government perpetually to be observed is no where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof is left to the Magistrate so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers This was it's like Universally received by all the English Clergy in Whitgifts time Neither do I know saith the Archbishop any Learned Man of a contrary Judgment Either we must admit another Form now of Governing the Church than was in the Apostles time or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters I am perswaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Common-wealth else how can you make the Prince Supream Governour of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical If you therefore will have the Queen of England Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all and every part of the same and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as she doth the Common-wealth in Civil Dr. Cosins Chancellor to this Archbishop in his Answer to the Abstract Pag. 58. asserts That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline neither is it necessary that they should seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God. Dr. Low speaks to the same purpose Complaint of the Church No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word P. 64 66. only general Rules laid down for it Bishop Bridges God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government at least not so as to bind us What is here mention'd of Cosins Low and Bishop Bridges I have out of Dean Stillingfleet's Weapon Salve and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about Whitaker who making his Remarques on St. Hierom's teling us Whitaker De Ecles Regimin Contr. 4. q. 1. §. 29. p. 540. Col. 2. That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men long after the Apostles as a Remedy against Schism assures us That it 's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church and this other of Bishop Morton telling the Papists That Power of Order and of Jurisdiction which they ascribe to Bishops doth de jure divino belong to all other Presbyters and particularly Morton 's Apol. Cath. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 55. That to Ordain is the jus antiquum the Ancient Right of Presbyters in fine That Dr. Laurence Humfrey and Dr. Holland Humf. against Campian Jesuit Part 2. p. 273. both of them Doctors of the Chair in Oxford did teach and maintain the same Doctrine Holland in the Act July 9. 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures the Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England the Schoolmen Lombard Aquinas Bonaventure c. CHAP. IV. Dr. Willet 's Sentiments much the same with the foremention'd Bishops The Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter as of Divine Right declur'd to be Popish and oppos'd as such The special Consecration of Bishops was Ordained not by a Divine Law but by the Church for the Dignity of their Calling Saravia for no other Difference between a Presbyter and Bishop but in Degree Bancroft for a Priority in degree only holding with Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fulk whose Authorities he insists on to Confirm his Opinion about a Gradual Difference between Bishop and Presbyter TO these I will add another namely In his Life of Willet Dr. Andrew Willet who as Dr. Smith observes is by Bishop Hall numbred amongst those Worthies of the Church of England Hall in his Noah 's Dove to whom he gives this Elogy Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus This Dr. in his Synopsis Papismi is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted The grand Question under Debate is Willet 's Synops Papism Contr. 5. Quest 3. Concerning the Clergy Append. Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers be grounded upon the Law of God and Institution of the Apostles The Papists Bellarmine saith the Dr. affirmeth Lib. 1. De Clericis c. 14. That the Jurisdiction of Bishops as now it standeth in their Church and the Difference between them and other Presbyters is Jure Divino grounded upon the Law of God and of such necessity that he holdeth the contrary to be Heresie and those to be Hereticks that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politick Constitution of the Church to avoid Schism than of the Institution of the Apostles yea they hold them to be no Churches at all which are not under the Government of Bishops but of other Overseers and Superintendents Surely I see not
Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was always one Principal to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which room Titus exercised in Creta Timothy in Ephesus and others in other Places Therefore altho' in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments as Hierom doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech He is only called a Bishop which is in the Scriptures called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 Heb. 13.17 that is Chief in Government to whom the Ordination or Consecration by Imposition of hands was always Principally committed and which most ancient Form of Government when Aerius would take away it was noted amongst his other Errors Hitherto Dr. Fulke so as hereby I trust it may appear to Master Cart-wright's Reproach and to all their Shames that shall pretend any Authority from the ancient Fathers to impugn the Right Honourable and Lawful calling of Bishops not Parsons in every Parish but Bishops in their Diocesses and Provinces appointed in the Apostles times for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ So far Rancroft who introduceth these three great Men's Authority to countenance the Presidency or Chiefty of the Bishop over Presbyters in Government as Apostolical tho' Fulke goes no higher than the Custom of the Church agreeing with Jewel and Whit gift and it must be observed that they make not the Bishop to be a distinct Order from that of Presbyters nor deny the Presbyters to be Pastors nor affirm the Invalidity of the Presbyterial Ordination only that the Ordination by Imposition of hands was Principally committed to the Bishops and as Archbishop Spotiswood reports Bancroft held the Ordination only by Presbyters to be valid and lawful Histor Church of Scotland lit 7. p. 514. Spotiswood has it in these words A Question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops who as he said must first be Ordained Presbyters as having received no Ordination from a Bishop The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by maintained That thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed Lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any Lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated CHAP. V. The Learned Hooker and Bishop Bilson's Opinion impartially stated differing but little from Saravia and Bancroft THE Learned and Judicious Hooker seems also to be of the same mind with Saravia and Bancroft for in his Third Book it 's only Polity in the general that in his Opinion is necessary to the several particular Churches For Lib. 3. Sect. 1. p. 66. Edit 61. saith he even the several Societies of Christian Men unto every of which the name of a Church is given with addition betokening severally as the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus England and so the rest must be endued with correspondent general Properties belonging unto them as they are Publick Christian Societies And of such Properties common unto all Societies Christian it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity Which word I therefore the rather choose because the name of Government as commonly Men understand it in ordinary speech doth not comprize the largeness of that whereunto in this Question it is applied For when we speak of Government what doth the greater part conceive thereby but only the exercise of Superiority peculiar unto Rulers and Guides of others To our purpose therefore the name of Church-Polity will better serve because it containeth both Government and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the Ordering of the Church in Publick Neither is any thing in this degree more necessary than Church Polity which is a form of Ordering Publick Spiritual Affairs of the Church of God. Thus Hooker looks on Polity to be necessary to the Church and why necessary but because God himself is the Author of it It is not possible that any Form of Polity much less of Polity Ecclesiastical should be good Lib. 3. §. 2. unless God himself be Author of it Those things which are not of God saith Tentullian they can have no other than God's Adversary for their Author Be it whatsoever in the Church of God if it be not of God we hate it But then he distinguished between what is of God by the Law of Nature and the Revelation made of the Divine Will in Scripture Of God it must be either as those things sometimes were which God supernaturally revealed and so delivered them unto Moses for Government of the Commonwealth of Israel or else as those things which Men find out by help of that Light which God hath given them unto that end The very Law of Nature it self which no man can deny but God hath instituted is not of God unless that be of God whereof God is the Author as well this latter way as the former The Controversie between Hooker and the Old Nonconformists was Whether any particular Form of Polity be so of God that it be set down in Scripture and the Noncons asserted That no Form of Church Polity was lawful Ubi supra or of God unless God be so the Author of it that it be also set down in Scripture Hooker on the contrary That he which affirmeth Speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the World doth not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak one kind of Language Even so the necessity of Polity and Regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all so far He who doth moreover thus reason with the Noncons You should tell us plainly whether your meaning be that it must be there set down in whole or in Parts For if wholly shew what one form of Policy ever was so your own to be so taken out of Scripture you 'l not affirm neither do you deny that in part even this which you so much oppugn is also from thence taken Again you should tell us whether only that be taken out of Scripture which is actually and particularly there set down or else that also which the general Principles and Rules of Scripture Potentially contain The one way you cannot so much as pretend that all the Parties of your own Discipline are in Scripture and the other way your mouths are stop'd when you would plead against all other Forms besides your own seeing the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general Axioms of the Scripture After the most impartial Enquiry this Learned Man's Judgment about
Government of the Church of England be declared to be the same held by the First Reformers and by the Renowned Archbishop Vsher any Law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding And the Subscription of Submission be only unto the Church-Government as fram'd accordingly there are many powerful Preachers if not most of the Sober Godly amongst the Dissenters will chearfully enter into Parish-Churches and be capacitated to exercise their Ministry in Publick 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 intollerable burthen 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 enjoyned 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 strengthned by the Accession of many Protestant Dissenters great ease given the Bishops without the least Diminution of their Temporal Emoluments and Honours all Parish-Pastors allowed the Exercise of their Functions as the Lord Christ commanded them In like manner hereby 1. The Honour 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 Vniformity 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 Vsher 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 advanc'd by Laud and in its Heighths of Divine Right establish'd 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 Vnrestored 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 lye 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 joyn 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 compos'd of many Parishes under the Government of one only Pastor call'd 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 baptiz'd and live within the Terriers or Boundaries of the Diocess 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 tho some things remain in the Parishes which these men can't 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-Chappel