The Healing Attempt, Chapter 5

The Healing Attempt · Chapter 5

p. 35CHAP. 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. p. 36unleſs 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 p. 37would 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 p. 38be 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.

p. 39Theſe 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 'tis 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 Laymen; A Power to be by way of Juriſdiction, a Pastor even to Pastors themſelves. Thoſe things incident unto the Biſhop's Office, which do properly make him a Biſhop, cannot be common unto him with other Pastors. Now even as Pastors, ſo likewiſe Biſhops being Principal Paſtors, a…e either at Large; or elſe with Restraint. At Large, when the ſubject of their Regiments is indefinite, and not tied to any certain Place; Biſhops with Reſtraint, are they whoſe Regiment p. 40over 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 deny not, but that there may be, yea, ſuch a Priority as maketh one man amongſt many a Principal Actor in thoſe things, whereunto ſundry of them muſt neceſſarily concur, ſo that the ſame be admitted only during the time of ſuch Actions, and no longer.—The Inequality they complain of is, That one Miniſter of the Word and Sacraments ſhould have a permanent Superiority above another, or in any ſort a Superiority of Power Mandatory, Judicial, and Coercive over other Miniſters.

Thus you ſee how far the old Noncons could go, and no farther, and immediately after, he tells us how much farther the Church of England at that time went; for, ſays he, By VsUs on the contrary ſide, Inequality, even ſuch Inequality, as unto Biſhops, being Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, is granted a Superiority Permanent above Miniſters; yea, a Permanent Superiority of Power Mandatory, Judicial and Coercive over them is maintained a thing Allowable, Lawful, and Good.

In two things Hooker differs from the old Noncons.

1. They make the Superiority, or Priority of Order to be but Temporary: Hooker makes it Permanent.

2. They deny the Biſhops having a Power over other Paſtors, that is, Mandatory, Judicial, and Coercive: Hooker affirms it.

There is one thing more to be enquired into, viz. whether He grants to Presbyters the Pastoral Office? He calls them p. 41Paſtors, and in his very definition of a Biſhop, makes the Biſhop to be a Paſtor of Paſtors (and of Presbyters) and he calls the Biſhop but Principal Paſtor, and makes him to have a Chiefty in Regiment above Presbyters; as if he held that the Presbyter had ſome, tho' not ſo great a ſhare in the Government; and out of Auſtin, That a Biſhop is a Presbyter Superior, and in ſeveral places a Biſhop is of a Higher Degree than a Presbyter. And altho' in his Third Book, he makes the Epiſcopal Office to be a part of Church Polity perpetual, as tho' the Epiſcopacy had been de jure Divino, and Immutable; yet in this Seventh Book, in clearing the ſenſe of St. Jerom, he is expreſly againſt the Immutability and Unchangeableneſs of the Biſhop's Superiority; as if he held it to be Apoſtolical in the ſame manner Biſhop Downame doth, of whom hereafter.

The words of St. Hierom, on which he puts his own Comment, are theſe. As therefore Presbyters do know, that the Cuſtom of the Church makes them ſubject to the Biſhop, which is ſet over them; ſo let Biſhops know, that Cuſtom rather than the Truth of any Ordinance of the Lord's maketh them greater than the rest, and that with Common Advice they ought to Govern the Church. To this Hooker replies, To clear the ſenſe of theſe words therefore: Laws, which the Church from the beginning univerſally hath obſerv'd were ſome delivered by Chriſt himſelf, with a Charge to keep them to the worlds End, as the Law of Baptizing, and adminiſtring the Holy Euchariſt; ſome brought in afterwards by the Apoſtles, yet not without the ſpecial Direction of the Holy Ghoſt, as occaſions did ariſe. Of this ſort are thoſe Apoſtolical Orders, and Laws, whereby Deacons, Widows, Virgins were firſt appointed in the Church.

This Anſwer to St. Hierom ſeemeth dangerous, I have qualified it as I may by addition of ſome words of reſtraint; yet I ſatisfie not my ſelf in my Judgment it would be altered. Now whereas Jerom, doth term the Government of Biſhops by reſtraint, an Apoſtolical Tradition, acknowledging thereby the ſame to have been the Apoſtles own Inſtitution, it may be demanded how theſe two will ſtand together; namely, That the Apoſtles by Divine Inſtinct, ſhould be as Jerom confeſſeth, the Authors of that Regiment, and yet the Cuſtom p. 42of the Church be accounted (for ſo by Jerom it may ſeem to be in this place accounted) the Chiefeſt prop that upholdeth the ſame? To this we anſwer, That as much as the whole Body of the Church, hath Power to ALTER with general conſent, and upon neceſſary occaſions, even the Poſitive Laws of the Apoſtles, if there be no Commandment to the contrary, and it manifeſtly appears to her, that change of times have clearly taken away the very reaſon of God's firſt Inſtitution as by ſundry Examples may be moſt clearly proved; what Laws the Univerſal Church might change, and doth not; if they have long continued without any alteration; it ſeemeth that St. Jerom aſcribeth the continuance of ſuch Poſitive Laws, tho' inſtituted by God himſelf, to the Judgment of the Church. For they which might Abrogate a Law, and do not, are properly ſaid to Uphold, to Eſtabliſh it, and to give it Being. The Regiment therefore, whereof Jerom ſpeaketh, being Poſitive, and conſequently not abſolutely neceſſary, but of a Changeable Nature, becauſe there is no Divine Voice, which in expreſs words forbiddeth it to be changed, He might imagine both that it came by the Apoſtles by very Divine Appointment at the firſt, and notwithſtanding after a ſort, ſaid to ſtand in force, rather by the Cuſtom of the Church, chooſing to continue it, than by the neceſſary conſtraint of any Commandment from the Word, requiring Perpetual Continuance thereof. Thus Hooker, who a little after ſays, Biſhops albeit they may avouch with Conformity of Truth, that their Authority hath thus deſcended even from the very Apoſtles themſelves; yet the Abſolute and Everlaſting continuance of it they cannot ſay that any Commandment of the Lord doth injoyn; And therefore muſt acknowledge, that the Church hath Power by Univerſal Conſent upon urgent cauſe to take it away, if thereunto ſhe be conſtrained through the Proud, Tyrannical, and unreformable Dealings of her Biſhops.— Wherefore leſt Biſhops forget themſelves, as if none on Earth had Authority to touch their States, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of Cuſtom, whereby the Church, having ſo long found it good to continue under the Regiment of her vertuous Biſhops, doth p. 43ſtill uphold, maintain, and honour them in that reſpect, than that any ſuch true, and Heavenly Law can be ſhewed, by the Evidence whereof it may of a Truth appear, That the Lord himſelf hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Biſhops, in what ſort ſoever they behave themſelves.

This Anſwer of the Learned Hooker makes it manifeſt, that tho' he held the Inſtitution of Epiſcopal Superiority to be Apoſtolical; yet he was not of Opinion that 'twas unalterable. And altho' he held it Apoſtolical, yet ſuggeſts as if there had been a Church Government inſtituted before the Epiſcopal took place. The Apoſtles of our Lord (ſays he) did according unto thoſe Directions, which were given them from above, erect Churches in all ſuch Cities as received the Word of Truth, the Goſpel of God: All Churches by them erected, received from them the ſame Faith, the ſame Sacraments, the ſame Form of Publick Regiment. The Form of Regiment eſtabliſhed by them at firſt was, That the Laity or People ſhould be ſubject unto a College of Eccleſiaſtical Perſons, which were in every ſuch City appointed for that purpoſe. Theſe in their Writings they term ſometime Presbyters, ſometimes Biſhops.—That in proceſs of time the Apoſtles appointed under them Biſhops, of an Order Superiour above Presbyters; the cauſe wherefore they did appoint under themſelves ſuch Biſhops as were not every where at the firſt, is ſaid to have been thoſe Strifes and Contentions, for remedy whereof, whether the Apoſtles alone did conclude of ſuch a Regiment, or elſe they, together with the whole Church, judging it a fit and needful Policy, did agree to receive it for a Cuſtom, no doubt but being eſtabliſhed by them, on whom the Holy Ghoſt was poured in ſo abundant meaſure for the ordering of Chriſt's Church, it had either Divine Appointment beforehand, or Divine Approbation afterwards.

This paſſage of Hooker, moves me to think he very much agreed with his moſt Reverend Metropolitan, Archbiſhop Whit gift, who vehemently aſſerts an actual change of Church Government in the Primitive Times, as well as the changeableneſs of it in all Ages of the Church. There are other p. 44intimations in this Learned Author, which oblige me to conclude that the Church of England was not in his days come to a ſteady Reſolution either about the Nature of a Particular Church infimae ſpeciei, or of the whole belonging to the Epiſcopal Office.

Touching the Nature of a Particular Church of the loweſt Rank, whether Parochial or Dioceſan, was not much with him; for ſpeaking of the Diſſimilitudes which in ſome reſpects are found to be between the preſent Biſhops, and the Biſhops in the Primitive times, he grants that many things there are in the State of Biſhops,Lib. 7. Sect. 2. p. 4. which the times have changed, ſaying, That many a Parſonage at this day is larger than ſome ancient Biſhopricks were.—To Men that have any part of Skill, what more evident and plain in Biſhops than that Augmentation and Diminution in their Precincts, Allowances, Privileges, and ſuch like, do make a Difference indeed; but no Eſſential Difference between one Biſhop and another. But a Learned Nonconformiſt aſſures us, That he ſhall try among other things, Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy, chap. 5. pag. 49.whether the Name of a Biſhoprick will make a Parſonage and a Dioceſs to be Ejuſdem ſpeciei, and whether Magnitude do not make a ſpecifick Difference between the Sea, and a Rivulet or a Glaſs of Water, or between a Ship and a Nutſhell. And I may add, that if there be no Eſſential Difference between a Biſhoprick no larger than a Parſonage, and a Dioceſan Biſhoprick, the Controverſie between the Church of England and generality of Nonconformiſts, may touching Church Government, be determined by ſuch Condeſcenſions made by the Church to the Diſſenters, as are ſhort of an Eſſential Alteration to Epiſcopacy. Let there be as many Biſhopricks as there are conſiderable Parſonages, or Pariſhes indowed, and a Proviſion made for the Presbyters who are to aſſiſt the Biſhops in the Government of theſe little Churches, and a Superiority of the Biſhop above the Presbyters, or a Chiefty in the Regiment will be no longer a bone of Contention.

As to what belongs to the Epiſcopal Function as Different from the Presbyters, it's held by ſome that Ordination, Confirmation and Juriſdiction, are proper to it; Let us ſee then p. 45Hooker's Judgment for the firſt Point, There may be (ſaith he) ſometimes very juſt and ſufficient Reaſons to all Ordination made without a Biſhop.Lib. 7. Sect. 14. pag. 37. The whole Church Viſible being the true-Original-Subject of all Power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Biſhops alone to Ordain: Howbeit, as the ordinary courſe is ordinarily in all things to be obſerved, ſo it may in ſome Caſes not unneceſſary, that we decline from the ordinary wayes. The Power of Ordination is appropriated to the Biſhop by the Churches Allowance and no otherwiſe, and the ſame Church allowing Presbyters to Ordain, their Ordination is Good, ſo that Ordination is not proper to a Biſhop quarto modo, for it doth not Convenire to him ſemper & ſoli; and therefore he adds in the next Page, That we are not ſimply without Exception to urge a lineal Deſcent of Power from the Apoſtles by continued ſucceſſion of Biſhops in every Effectual Ordination.Lib. 7. Sect. 6. pag. 14.

For the ſecond Point, I make not Confirmation part of that Power which hath always belonged only unto Biſhops; becauſe in ſome places the Custom was that Presbyters might alſo Confirm in the abſence of a Biſhop.

Touching the laſt Point, How Biſhops together with Presbyters have uſed to Govern the Churches under them:Lib. 7. Sect. 7. pag. 17. It is by Zonaras (ſaith he) ſomewhat plainly and at large declared, That the Biſhop had his Seat on high in the Church above the Reſidue, which were preſent; that a number of Presbyters did always there Aſſiſt him, and that in the Overſight of the People, thoſe Presbyters were after a ſort the Biſhops Coadjutors. The Biſhops and Presbyters who together with him governed the Church, are for the moſt part by Ignatius joyntly mention'd; They are Counſellors and Aſſiſtants of the Biſhop.

Thus this great Man grants: That tho' Government in general be neceſſary to the Church, yet no one particular kind of Government is ſo; That the Scriptures do not make the Epiſcopal Government unalterable; That the Power of conferring Orders, is not by a Divine Law ſo appropriate to the Biſhops, that in no caſe an Ordination by Presbyters can be p. 46valid; That the Church Viſible is the true-Original-Subject of all Power, and can alter the Government of the Church; That Confirmation is not eſſential to the Office of a Biſhop; That Presbyters have a ſhare in the Government; That the Difference between the Biſhop and Presbyter is in the Degree, the Biſhop having a Chiefty in the Government, and Presbyters the Biſhops Coadjutors, Aſſiſtants, Adviſers and Counſellors.

The Learned Bilſon, afterwards Biſhop of Winchester, ſpeaking of the Controverſie between the Old Nonconformiſts and the Church of England, Perpetual Government of the Church.expreſſeth himſelf in theſe words. Thus far we joyn, That to prevent Diſſention and Confuſion, there muſt needs,Epiſtle to the Reader. even by God's Ordinance, be a Preſident, or Ruler of every Presbytery; which Concluſion becauſe it is warranted by the Grounds of Nature, Reaſon and Truth, and hath the Example of the Church of God, before, Ʋnder and after the Law, we accept as Irrefutable, and lay it as the Ground-work of all that enſueth. But whether this Preſidentſhip did in the Apoſtles times, and by their Appointment go round by courſe to all the Paſtors and Teachers of every Presbytery, or were by Election committed to One choſen as the fitteſt to ſupply that Place ſo long as He diſcharged his Duty without blame, that is a main point betwixt us.—

But more particularly he adds, In the Apoſtles I obſerve four things needful for the firſt Founding and Erecting of the Church, and four other Points that muſt be Perpetual in the Church of Chriſt. Theſe are the Diſpenſing the Word, Adminiſtring the Sacraments, Impoſing of Hands, and guiding the Keys to ſhut or open the Kingdom of God. The firſt two muſt be general to all Paſtors and Presbyters of Chriſt's Church; but ſo do not the other two.—I have largely debated and made it plain, as well by the Scriptures as by other Ancient Writers paſt all Exception, there have always been ſelected ſome of greater Gifts than the Reſidue to ſucceed in the Apoſtles Places, to whom it belonged, both to moderate the Presbyters of each Church, and to take the ſpecial Charge of Impoſition of Hands, and this their Singularity in p. 47Succeeding, and Superiority in Ordaining, have been obſerved from the Apoſtles times as the Peculiar and Subſtantial marks of Epiſcopal Power and Calling.

"The Power of the Keys, and Right to Impoſe Hands (by which he always means the Power to Ordain Miniſters, and Excommunicate Sinners) belong unto the Biſhop, diſtinguiſhing "him from a Presbyter.

What the things are,Chap. 12. p. 208. which muſt abide for ever in the Church I ſhewed before; it ſhall ſuffice now to rehearſe them; namely, Power to Preach the Word, and Adminiſter the Sacraments, the Right uſe of the Keys, and Impoſition of Hands.—Theſe four parts for Brevities ſake, I often reduce to two Branches, which are Doctrine and Diſcipline, comprizing in Doctrine the Dividing of the Word and Diſpenſing of the Sacraments, and referring the reſt, I mean, the Publick uſe of the Keys, and Impoſition of Hands to the Diſcipline, or Regiment of the Church.

The Diſcipline and Government of the Church, (I mean the Power of the Keys, Ch. 12. p. 213.and Impoſing of Hands) are two parts of Apoſtolick Authority, which muſt remain in the Church for ever. Theſe Keys are double, the Key of Knowledge, annexed to the Word, the Key of Power referred to the Sacraments; Some late Writers by urging the one, aboliſh the other; howbeit, I ſee no ſufficient Reaſon to countervail the Scriptures and Fathers, that Defend, and Retain both. The Key of Knowledge muſt not be doubted of, our Saviour in expreſs words nameth it. Wo be to you Interpreters of the Law, for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge. The Key of Power ſtandeth in theſe words of Chriſt to Peter, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth; ſhall be bound in Heaven, &c. And likewiſe to all his Apoſtles, Whatſoever ye bind on Earth, P. 218.&c.—It reſteth in this place to be conſidered to whom thoſe Keys were committed, whether Equally to all Presbyters, or Chiefly to Paſtors, and Biſhops. The like muſt be done for Impoſition of Hands, whether that alſo pertain'd indifferently to all, or ſpecially to Biſhops.

p. 48This is the State of the Point in Controverſie; namely, Whether the Power of the Keys, and that of Impoſition of Hands belong Equally and Indifferently to all Presbyters, and Biſhops; or whether they do not belong chiefly and ſpecially to Biſhops: But whether the one or the other be affirm'd, 'twill unavoidably follow, that theſe Powers in a ſenſe belong to both. Thus much is ſuppoſed in the very ſtate of the Queſtion, which is not, whether theſe Powers do not at all belong to Presbyters, but whether they do belong ſo much to Presbyters as unto Biſhops, ſo that the holding them, to belong chiefly and ſpecially unto the Biſhop, implies, that they do, tho' in a leſſer Degree, belong unto Presbyters. They appertain both to the Presbyter and Biſhop, but not Equally, to the Biſhop chiefly and ſpecially. Now Conform hereunto the Learned Bilſon ſaith, The Biſhop then, or Preſident of the Presbyters (for I ſtand not on Names, Ch. 14. p. 293.while I diſcuſs their Powers) is by Chriſt's own Mouth pronounced to be the Angel of the Church; that is, the Chief Steward over God's Houſhold, and Overſeer of his Flock.—And touching the Presbyter's Power,P. 319. He adds, That at firſt the Presbyters ſate with the Biſhop as Aſſeſſors, and Conſenters, before Synods undertook ſuch Cauſes; But after, when once Councils began to have the Hearing of Grievances, then ſate the Presbyters with the Biſhop only, as Beholders and Adviſers of his Judgment—The Private uſe of the Keys in appointing Offenders upon the Acknowledging their Sins,P. 317. for a time to forbear the Lord's Table, we deny not to Presbyters.

However the Ambiguity of the Name of Biſhop, and Community of many things incident, and appertinent both to Biſhops and Presbyters, urged him to lay down certain Peculiar Marks and Parts of the Biſhop's Office, whereby they are always Diſtinguiſhed from Presbyters, and never Confounded with them, either in Scriptures, Councils or Fathers. There were many Prerogatives (ſays he) appropriate unto the Biſhop,Ch. 13. p. 244. by the Authority of the Canons and Cuſtom of the Church, ſuch as Reconciling of Penitents, Confirmation of Infants, and others p. 49that were Baptized, by Laying on their Hands, Dedication of Churches, &c. But the things Proper to Biſhops, which might not be Common to Presbyters, were Singularity in Succeeding, and Superiority in Ordaining. Theſe two, the Scriptures and Fathers reſerve only to Biſhops, they never Communicate them to Presbyters. The Singularity of one Paſtor in every place preſerveth the Peace and Unity of the Churches, and ſtoppeth Schiſms and Diſſentions, for which Cauſe they were firſt Ordained by the Apoſtles.246. This is a certain Rule to Diſtinguiſh Biſhops from Presbyters, the Presbyters were many in every City, of whom the Presbytery conſiſted. Biſhops were always Singular, that is, one in a City, and no more, except another intruded (which the Church of Chriſt counted a Schiſm) or elſe an Helper were given in reſpect of extream and feeble age; in which caſe the Power of the latter ceaſed in the preſence of the former. And this Singularity of one Paſtor in each place deſcended from the Apoſtles and their Scholars in all the famous Churches of the World by a Perpetual Chair of Succeſſion, and doth to this day continue; but where Abomination or Deſolation, I mean, Hereſie or Violence, interrupt it.—The ſecond aſſured ſign of Epiſcopal Power, is Impoſition of Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Biſhops, for as Pastors were to have ſome to aſſiſt them in their Charge, which were Presbyters, P. 248.ſo were they to have others to ſucceed them in their Places, which were Biſhops. And this Right by Impoſing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Biſhops in the Church of Chriſt; was at firſt derived from the Apoſtles unto Biſhops, and not unto Presbyters; and hath for theſe fifteen Hundred Years without Example or Inſtance to the contrary, till this our Age, remained in Biſhops, and not in Presbyters.—Jerom, where he retcheth the Presbyters Office to the uttermoſt, of purpoſe to ſhew, that he may do by the Word of God as much as the Biſhop, he excepteth this One Point as unlawful for Presbyters by the Scriptures. Quid facit Exceptâ Ordinatione, Epiſcopus, quod Presbyter non facit?

p. 50And whereas 'tis objected, That Impoſition of Hands was by the Presbytery, he anſwereth out of Chryſoſtom, that by the word Presbytery in that place of Scripture muſt be underſtood Biſhops, not Presbyters, becauſe Presbyters in the Apoſtles time did not impoſe Hands on a Biſhop.

All that we can ſay for the Power of Biſhops above Presbyters out of the Scriptures,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 p. 51the 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, p. 52Jewel 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 'twas eſteemed dangerous to the Civil Government to hold, that Church Government muſt now be the ſame 'twas in the Apoſtles days; yet it's 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 Ʋnalterable. 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 p. 53although 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' I hold the Government-Epiſcopal to be of Apoſtolical and Divine Inſtitution; yet not as Generally, Perpetually and Immutably neceſſary: He doth not hold it neceſſary in all Places, nor in all Ages, but to be changeable by Man; and if herein He and Bilſon accord, the Perpetuity Bilſon is for, will admit of a Change.

But whether Downame gives us Bilſon's Notion, when he ſtates his own, I will not contend, nor is it needful I ſhould; It's enough to my purpoſe, that the difference he placeth between a Biſhop and Presbyter is only in Degree, that Confirmation, and Excommunication belong unto Presbyters; and that Bilſon's Biſhop differs more from the Biſhops by Law Eſtabliſhed than from the Nonconformiſt Pariſh Presbyters.

Bancroft profeſſes to agree with Robinſon, Reynolds, and Fulk, who differed not from the Old Nonconformiſts, and Hooker never thought the Government of the Church to be in all Places and Ages neceſſarily the ſame; nor did he look on Biſhops to be of a Different Order from Presbyters, but to be of the ſame Order, differing only in Degree, the Biſhop having only a Chiefty of Power in the p. 54Church, nor did any Great Men of the Church of England, in Queen Elizabeths time, null the Miniſtry or Church State of the Reformed either in Scotland or beyond the Seas; They held their Churches to be true Churches, and their Government to be ſuch as agreed with the General Rules of God's Word, and tho' ſome eſteemed the Ordination only by Presbyters to be defective, yet did not judge it to be Invalid, but admitted thoſe who had their Ordination only from Presbyters abroad, to Eccleſiaſtical Promotions, on no other terms than their Subſcribing the Articles of Religion, which concern the Faith, and Doctrines of the Sacraments only.

Theſe Sentiments, which our firſt Reformers entertain'd about Epiſcopacy are ſuch, as would (if the Government of the Church be at this time Fram'd accordingly) contribute much to the Peace of the Church, and Healing our Diviſions; and ſeeing they are moſt admirably copied out unto us in the Learned Archbiſhop Ʋſher's Reduction of Epiſcopacy, I will with ſome Notes preſent it to the Reader's more Deliberate Conſideration.