into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said That this touch'd him and therefore he ask'd 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 fetch'd 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 injoyn 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 enjoyned to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his Labour should be more easie 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 Heretick 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 establish'd 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 Humane 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 Prelatick 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 Consult the Addenda in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation p. 321 c. 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 wholesom Doctrin 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 Neighbours 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
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
saith one How there can be any Church where there is no Bishop Espenc in 1 Tim. 194. h. The Protestants Of the Difference between Bishops and Priests there are three Opinions The first of Aerius who did hold that all Ministers should be Equal and that a Bishop was not neither ought to be Superiour to a Priest neither that there was any Difference at all between them August de Haeres c. 53. Epiphan Haeres 75. 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 sheweth both Chrysostom Bish Whitgift Ambrose and Hierom 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 Epist 19. ad Hieron Secundum c. according to the Names of Honour which the Vse or Custom of the Church hath obtain'd 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. Aerius on the one part and of Hierom Ambrose Austin Chrysostom on the other lyeth here Aerius 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 affirm'd 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. Hierom 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 enjoyned unto all Churches But this cannot without prejudice of many Reformed Churches be affirmed which have no Bishops tho' 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 Humane 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 sheweth 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. Hierom saith of Confirmation committed only to Bishops Disce hanc c. Know that this Observation is rather for the Honour of their Priesthood than by necessity of any Law. Hierom. 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 Hierom'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 Hierome saith was committed to the Senate or College of Presbyters was afterward to avoid Schism devolv'd to the Bishop Fifthly S. Ambrose saith 1 Tim. 3. Episcopi 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. Hierom saith That in the Church of Alexandria the Presbyters did make Choice of one Hier. ad Evagr 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 Hierom's time it was lawful for Priests and Ministers to Preach without further Licence obtain'd 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 publickly 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 Bishopricks have been given by Devout and Religious Princes unto Bishops and their Successors and divers Imperial Laws have been made in favour of the Maintenance of the Church Thirdly The Titles of Honour annexed to Bishopricks as that they are created Barons and made Lords of the Parliament-House here in England have been bestowed by the Liberality of the Kings of this Realm not yet above 400 years since Fourthly The Judgment of Matrimonial and Testamentary Causes and of other such like Matters hath been reserved unto Bishops by the Civil and Imperial Authority Thus we see how in Civil Policy the Dignity of Bishops by the favour of Christian Emperors hath been enlarged And hitherto I have shewed what is to be judged Political in the Distinction of Bishops from the rest of the Clergy both as touching the Civil and Ecclesiastical Policy So far Willet out of whom I observe That the Government of the Church is not de jure divino That according to the Scriptures the Office of a Bishop and Priest is the same That a convenient Priority of Order amongst Ministers is Divine and Apostolical That the Powers of Confirmation Ordination and Jurisdiction are reserv'd to the Bishops by Ecclesiastical constitutions only That in the Beginning a Bishop and Presbyter had but one Ordination and the Consecration of Bishops was added since for their greater Dignity In Hierom's days the Election of Bishops without any other circumstances being their Ordination That Priests without a Licence from the Bishop might Preach There is one thing more to be regarded touching the Difference of Bishops and other Ministers for says he We differ from the Papists in two Points First they say That Bishops are not only in a higher degree of Superiority to other Ministers but they are as Princes of the Clergy and other Ministers as Subjects and in all things to be commanded by them Secondly They affirm That Bishops are only properly Pastors and that to them only it doth appertain to Preach and that other Ministers have no Authority without their Licence or Consent to preach at all and that not principally or chiefly but solely and wholly to them appertaineth the Right of Consecrating and giving Orders so that the making the Bishop to be of a distinct Order from the Priest and the denying the Priest to have a Power to Preach without the Bishop's Licence or any hand in Ordination Willet opposeth as Popish Doctrines representing the opposite Notions to have been then held by the Church of England Hitherto the Government of the Church by Bishops lays no claim to a Divine Right On the contrary it 's generally asserted that according to the Scriptures the Priest and Bishop are the same and that the superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter is only by Ecclesiastick Custom and the Government of the Church now different from what it was in the Apostles days Willet indeed saith That for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical and towards the latter end of the Queens Reign the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution yet not to be de jure divine and unalterable Saravia about the two and thirtieth year of the Queen professeth * Hoc enim pacto fiet magis clarum quid omnes Evangelii ministri inter se habeant commune quid cuique ordini sit peculiare Ea vero in tres partes ego distribuo Prima est Evangelii Praedicatioâ— altera Communicatio sacramentorum tertia Ecclesiasticae Gubernationis authoritas De Divers Grad Minist Evang. p. 15. Quamvis unum idem Evangelii Ministerium sit omnibus Pastoribus Ecclesiae concreditum in hac tertia parte non parva inter eos invenitur Inaequalitas propter diversos Authoritatis Gradus quos primo Dominus statim ab initio postea Apostoli constituerunt p. 7. Primum ab ipso Domino Duos Gradus Evangelii ministrorum institutos videmus quorum alter altero fuit superior p. 25. Consensu totius Orbis Ecclesiarum probatur Episcoporum supra Presbyteros authoritas Quod inde ab Apostolorum temporibus patribus per universum terrarum Orbem factum ab omnibus Ecclesiis legimus usque ad nostra tempora Canonem Apostolorum immutabilem esse judico p. 44. c. 20. That the general Nature of the Evangelical Ministry common both to Bishops and Presbyters containeth these three things 1. The Preaching of the Gospel 2. The Communication of the Sacraments 3. The Authority of Church Government and doth only plead that in this last the Power of Bishops and Presbyters is not equal but the Bishop's Power is principal in Government Whence arises a Diversity of Degrees not of Orders between them and thus much he affirms hath been held by the Fathers of the Church universally ever since the Apostles days and therefore may well be look'd on as an Unchangeable Canon of the Apostles The Difference between Saravia and those who went before him lyeth here Whit gift c. Saravia The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments divinely Instituted and to continue to the End of the World but no particular Form of Government left on Record in Scripture The Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter according to St. Hierom rather by Custom of the Church than an Institution of Christ. Not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirm'd by the Observation of the Fathers ought to continue for ever The Superiority in Degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter a Divine Institution and that St. Hierom was in the same Error with Aerius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi Opinionem consentaneam cum Aerio Dei verbo contrariam p. 51. A Year or two after Saravia's Book came out Bancroft afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury publisheth a Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline as he calls his Book in the Preface to which he saith That we have a Church Government of our own which is in my conscience truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other that is receiv'd this day by any Reformed Church in Christendom And elsewhere in the Book it self P. 105. The Apostles saith he having received the Promise of the Holy Ghost after a short time dipersed themselves by advice into divers Regions and there by painful Preaching and Labouring in the Lord's Harvest they planted no doubt
very many Churches As the number of Christians grew and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within every one of their Circuits they placed Pastors in every Congregation they ordained certain Apostolical men to be Chief Assisters unto them whom they placed some one in this particular Country and some others in sundry Cities to have the Rule and Oversight under them of the Churches there and to redress and supply such wants as were needful And they themselves after a while and as they grew in age and escaped the Cruelty of Tyrants remained for the most part in some Head City within their Compass to oversee them all both Churches Pastors and Bishops or Superintendents and to give their Directions as occasions required and as they thought it convenient When any of these Apostolical Assistants or of the Apostles themselves died there were ever some worthy Men chosen and appointed to succeed them in those Cities and Countries where they had remained For we may not idlely Dream that when they died the Authority which was given them ceased no more than we may that the Authority of Aaron and of his Natural Sons expired with them besides it is manifest by all Ecclesiastical Histories that many Churches were planted after their Deaths And furthermore it could not be but that some Churches especially under those Apostles that were soonest put to Death were when they died in the same case that Crete was when Titus was sent thither and had therefore as much need of a Titus as Crete had Furthermore who can be accounted to be well in his wits that will imagine that Christ should ordain such an Authority but for some Threescore years especially the same Causes continuing why it was first instituted that were before Nay I may boldly say that there was greater need for the continuance of it afterward For the Apostles having so great Power to work Miracles and by their Prayers to procure from God such strange Executions of his Pleasure upon the contemptuous as did fall upon Ananias and his Wife and I doubt not but in like cases sometimes upon some others their Ruling and Commanding Authority was not so necessary then as it was afterwards when the Power to work Miracles ceased But what should I need to use many words in a matter so apparent After the Death of the Apostles and of their Assistants viz. the Bishops placed by them as is mentioned the Ecclesiastical Histories and the Ancient Fathers have kept the Register of their Names that succeeded sundry of them and ruled the Churches after them as they before had ruled them Whereupon they were called from all Antiquity the Apostles and Apostolical man's Successors This Inequality in the Ministry of the Word hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers none excepted by all the General Councils that ever were held in Christendom and by all other Men of Learning that ever I heard of for many Hundred years after the Apostles time saving that Aerius the Heretick an ambitious Person growing into great rage for that he missed of a Bishoprick which he sued for first broached the Opinion which is now so currant amongst his Scholars that there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest Thus Bancroft who seems to be of the same mind with Saravia about the Apostolicalness of the Inequality and that he means no more P. 390. seems clear from what he urges out of Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynold's and Fulk in favour of his own Opinion and his holding Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be valid I have saith Robinson maintained it in the Pulpit D. Robins Answ Exhib to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Titles of Honour which we give to Bishops are no more repugnant to the Word of God than it is for us to be called Wardens Presidents Provosts of Colleges And in my Judgment they may with as good Conscience be Governours of their Diocess as we being Ministers may be Governours of Colleges of Ministers Neither do I think that this was a late devised Policy For I am perswaded that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus to whom S. John writeth was one Minister set over the rest For seeing there were many Pastors there why should S. John write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and not rather to the Angels if there had been no difference amongst them And if this Presidency had had that Fault which is reproved in Diotrephes as St. Hierom proveth that the Jews had not corrupted the Original Text before Christ's coming Quod nunquam Dominus Apostoli qui caetera crimina arguunt in Sâ—ribis Pharisaeis de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent So I may say neither would our Saviour who by his Servant reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches have passed over this great fault in silence Therefore as Titus was left to Reform the Churches throughout the whole Island of Crete so I am perswaded that in other places some of that Order of Pastors and Teachers which is Perpetual in the Church even in the time of the Apostles had a Prelacy amongst their Brethren and that this Preheminence is approved by our Saviour And if we come any lower tho' the word Episcopus signifie that care which is required of all and in Scripture be applied to all that have charge of Souls yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer that I have read wherein that word doth not import a greater Dignity than is common to all Ministers Neither do I think that any old Writer did under the name of Bishop mean the Pastor of every Parish And thus far Dr. Robinson with whom if Master Dr. Reynolds do agree I see not whither the Factioners will turn them For this Dr. in his Book against Hart saith That in the Church of Ephesus tho' it had sundry Elders and Pastors He useth these two words in one signification as by the Sentence going before is manifest to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For c. the name of Bishop common before to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual Language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders Thus are certain Elders reproved by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage for receiving to the Communion them who had faln in time of Persecution before the Bishop had advised of it with them and others Here then you have two for Oxford touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers when they speak of Bishops Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion I mean Dr. Fulke who in his Confutation of the Rhemish Notes upon the New Testament writeth thus Amongst the
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
the Polity of the Church appears to me to be thus That tho' Polity in general be necessary to the Church yet it 's not necessary that any one compleat Form of Church Polity be in Scripture Besides it 's his conclusion Sect. 10. p. 82. 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 for ever 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 our selves 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 perswaded 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 Sect. 11. p. 90. 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 confess'd 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 compleat 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 faln 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 P. 92. are the Publick 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 begining 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 compleat 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 't is thus But to let go the Name Bishop and to come to the very Nature of that thing Lib. 7. Sect. 2. pag. 5. which is thereby signified in all kinds of Regiment whether Ecclesiastical or Civil as there are sundry Operations Publick so likewise great Inequality there is in the same Operations some being of Principal respect and therefore not fit to be dealt in by every one to whom Publick Actions and those of Good Importance are notwithstanding well and fitly enough committed From hence have grown those different Degrees of Magistrates or Publick 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 administring 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 Lay-men 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 aâ—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 Sect. 3. p. 6. 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
facit And whereas 't is 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 P. 299. 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 for ever The Power of Ruling the People is not solely but chiefly in the Bishop P. 304. 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 joyn with you you shall quickly perceive To avoid Tumults and Dissentions 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 tho' far less now than when they first began And amongst the many uses of Presbyteries P. 307. 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 any thing 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 Publick 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 P. 320. For our parts tho' 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 Inferiour 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 Honour 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 Elizabeths 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 Elizabeths Days and afterwards by King James his Special Command doth in most things agree with the Bishops but now mention'd and being more particular than they affirming out of Jerom That Confirmation and Ordination were appropriated to the Bishop rather for the Honour 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 some one 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 't was esteemed dangerous to the Civil Government to hold that Church Government must now be the same 't was in the Apostles days yet it 's look'd on by these as what ought to be The Government of the Church with them is a Divine and Apostolical Institution but not Vnalterable Bilson I confess says it is Perpetual and yet Bishop * Downame Defence of his Sermon p. 26. who most willingly and gladly professeth to consent in Judgment with Him P. 2. 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 Civill 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'