The Healing Attempt, Chapter 4

The Healing Attempt · Chapter 4

p. 23CHAP. 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?

p. 24The 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 Ʋſe or Cuſtom p. 25of 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 p. 26by 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.

p. 27Fifthly, S. Ambroſe ſaith,1 Tim. 3.1 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 p. 28here 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.

p. 29Hitherto 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 cui que ordini ſit peculiare.—Ea vero in tres partes ego diſtribuo. Prima eſt. Evangelii Praedicatio…: 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 uſ que . 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.

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 p. 31while, 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. p. 32This 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 S…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 p. 33other 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 p. 34in Government by ancient uſe of Speech, He is only called a Biſhop, which is in the Scriptures called foreign, or foreign, 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.