Defense Doubts Hopes and Reasons for Refusal of the Oath Imposed, Part 3
3. Partic. As by right it ought to ſtand.
The 16. DOUBT. What this Right is,
16. Particular Doubt.by which the Government is meant to ſtand.
THE REASON.
BEcauſe there bee ſome, that thinke theſe words a limitation or reſtriction of the former: as if the meaning were, that we ought to approve of the eſtabliſhment of this Government, ſo farre as of right it ought to ſtand, and no further: but concerning that, they that framed the Oath, could make no doubt of any ones diſſent, and therefore in that ſenſe would call for none aſſurance upon Oath.
It is more conſonant to reaſon to conceive, that they meant to have an acknowledgement, not onelyonly that the Government de facto is indeed eſtabliſhed, but that de jure alſo, of right it ought to bee ſo; but then, Quo jure will be the Queſtion, whether the ſame, or a diverſe right? If the ſame, whether ſhall Biſhops come downe to Deanes and Archdeacons, and claime no better warrant for their dignity then they? or ſhall Deanes and Archdeacons advance the Tenure of their Authority as high as Biſhops doe, to claime their preheminence and power by divine right? that as in the caſe of the Boemians (concerning the uſe of the Communion cup, at the Councel ofſBaſilienſe concilium conceſſit Boe miae utriuſque ſpeciei uſum, modo faterentur id ſibi conce di ab Eccleſia, non autem ad hoc teneri divino jure. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sacram. in genere, c. 2. ſect. 2. Baſil, but more juſtly then ſo) may bee denied to them all, when under ſome other title, preheminence may be allowed unto them.
Some conceive the word Right was left at large in favour to Deponents, that there might be a latitude for ſuch as are of a ſcrupulous conſcience, to conceive ſuch right as they could beſt approve of: and eſpecially that right which agreeth to them all, to wit, a Poſitive and Eccleſiaſticall right by humane conſtitution or preſcription. But thoſe that have better meanes to know the minds of the Compoſers of the Canons, will have the Right diverſified, according to that to which it is applyed; as, that Biſhops ſtand by divine Right, the reſt by Right Eccleſiaſticall.
To this purpoſe we may bring in the ſaying of our Saviour, Lo, Lam with you to the end of the world, Mat. 28.20. which is not to be underſtood in perſon, but by aſſiſtance (for neither he, nor they his Apoſtles, to whom hee ſpake, were to bee in the world, untill the worlds end) and this aſſiſtance is divers: infallible, as to the Apoſtles, but ſufficient only to their ſucceſſors; ſo the Right may be conceived to be divine in reſpect of Biſhops; but humane to all the reſt. But of this tenet of divine Right, though it be held by verytThe Archb. that now is, in his Speech in the Starre-chamber. p. 6. Biſhop Hall in his late booke intitled Epiſcopacy by Divine right. great Prelates of our Church, and byuBiſh. Andrewes in his Anſwer to the 18. Chapter of Perrons Reply. p. 15. ſome ſaid to be the Doctrine of our Church, ſuch a Doctrine, and ſo fully delivered by the Apoſtles, That there is not the tenth part of the Plea for the Lords day from their writings, which Biſhops have for their Epiſcopacie (which compariſon, God willing, ſhall bee examined elſe-where) and thatxBiſh. Hall of Epiſcop. part. 2. p. 47. there be divers points of faith (weighty points) which have not ſo ſtrong evidence in yBiſh. Hall Ibid. part. 1. pag. 63.Scripture; ſo ſtrong evidence, that heaven may as ſoone fall, as that faile the Biſhops.
And though ſome (who have beene approved for their very great and faithfull labours in the Church, and for extraordinary zeale againſt all Popiſh opinions) havezWillet Synopſ. Papiſ. contro. 5. qu. 3. p. 277. acknowledged ſomewhat in the calling of Biſhops to bee Divine and Apoſtolicall; yet there is much ſaid on the contrary ſide: which, if it ſerve not to induce a deniall of that high and holy claime, may occaſion at leaſt a doubting thereof. And very doubtfull it was (in the Councell of Trent) by reaſon of the diverſity of opinions there propoſed: for though the ſuperiority of Biſhops over Presbyters wereaHiſt. of the Councell of Trent. l. 7. pag. 596. de facto confeſſed, de jure it was doubted, whether it werebIbid. p. 397. by a Divine, or by a Pontificall right; that is, whether by a right derived from the Scripture, or from the Pope? and we may adde (according to thecIbid. p. 606. Auguſtan confeſſion) or neither: for that alloweth no difference betwixt a Biſhop and a Presbyter, but by cuſtome and conſtitution Eccleſiaſticall; and ſo doubtfull was theirdIbid. p. 597. Tenure, that ſome (in that Councell) were willing to avoid the diſcuſſion of that doubt; and the chiefeſt of the Prelates (theeIbid. p. 638. Cardinall of Loraine) when he diſcourſed of that Queſtion, ſpake ſtill ambiguouſly; and at laſt concluded, That the Queſtion was boundleſſe: and though they made it more intricate, then with us it can bee, by their erroneous opinion of the Papall power and prelation over Biſhops (whereof we conceive no ſcruple at all, ſince wee reject it, as a Paradox in our Church) yet there is doubt for all that of the Authority of Biſhops by divine right; and juſt ground for that doubt: for
Firſt, SaintfPaulus in Epiſt. Presbyteri & Epiſcopi appellatione promiſcuè utitur, idque Chryſoſt. Auguſt. Hier. aliique annotarunt. Duaren. de miniſt. c. 7. fol. 8. So alſo Biſh Downham in his defence of his conſecrat. Serm. l. 1. c. 3. p. 64. Biſh. Hall in his booke of Epiſcopacie. part. 2. p. 10, 11, 20. Paul in his Epiſtles uſeth the words Biſhop and Preſbyter in a promiſcuous manner; as Chryſoſtome, Auguſt. Hierome, and others have obſerved: and all three have ſpoken ſomewhat to bring Presbyters neerer to an equality with Biſhops, then the Tenet of ſuch ſuperiority (by Divine Right) as is pleaded for, will admit: for, Chryſoſtome ſpeaking of Saint Pauls naming of Biſhops and Deacons, without mention of Presbyters: as to all the Saints which are at Philippi, with the Biſhops and Deacons, Phil. 1.1. giveth this reaſon of their omiſſion, Becauſe (ſaithgQuia ſcil. inter Epiſcopum & Preſbyterum intereſt fermè nihil; ſolâ quippe Ordinatione ſuperiores illi ſunt. Chryſ. in 1 Tim. 3. Hom. 11. tom. 4. col. 1485. he) there is in a manner no difference betwixt a Biſhop and a Presbyter: onelyonly in Ordination Biſhops have the *Not by Scripture, as is plain by 1 Tim. 4.14. but by humane conſtitution, or cuſtome.preheminence: the ſame ſaithhQuid facit (exceptâ Ordinatione) Epiſcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat. Hier. ad Evagr. tom. 2. pag. 334. Hierome in his Epiſtle to Evagrius; and commenting upon S. Pauls Epiſtle to Titus, iEpiſcopi noverint ſe magis conſuetudine, quàm diſpoſitionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris eſſe majores, & in commune debere Eccleſiam regere. Idem in Tit. 1.5. tom. 9. fol. 153. pag. 2.Hee would have Biſhops to know, that they are greater then Presbyters, rather by custome, then by truth of any conſtitution or diſpoſition of the Lord; and that they ought (in common) to govern the Church. SaintkSecundùm honorum vocabula quae jam Eccleſiae uſus obtinuit, Epiſcopatus Presbyterio major eſt. Aug. epiſt. 19. Auguſtine to the ſame purpoſe ſaith, That the phraſe of the Church makes Epiſcopacy greater then Presbytery, which Biſhop Jewell rendreth thus:lBiſh. Jewell in the defence of his Apol. part. 2. c. 3. pag. 101. The office of a Biſhop is above the office of a Prieſt (not by authority of Scriptures) but after the names of honour, which the cuſtome of the Church hath now obtained.
The Parentheſis is his, brought in to make up the ſentence of Saint Auguſtine; and as now the diſtinction of Biſhops and Prieſts is received, it cannot (asmWillets Synopſ. papiſ. gener. controv. 93. q. 3. p. 273. ſome, who yet approve of Epiſcopall preheminence, have written) bee directly proved out of Scriptures: and whereasnArchb. Whitgifts anſwer to T. C. p. 384, 385 Archbiſhop Whitgift ſaith, the reaſon why Biſhops and Presbyters are taken for the ſame, is, becauſe every Biſhop is a Presbyter; but not on the contrary, every Presbyter a Biſhop: that reaſon for the Affirmative part is contradicted byoSee Niceph. hiſt. l. 12. c. 12. Gerſ. Bucer. diſſertat. de gubernat. Eccleſ. p. 27. Franc. Long. annot. in concil. p. 142. divers Inſtances; and for the Negative, it will not paſſe without exception, at leaſt for the Apoſtles time: of which SaintpIdem erat Presbyter qui Epiſcopus, antequam Diaboli inſtinctu ſtudia in religione fierent. Hier. ep. ad Tit. cap. 1. Hierome ſaith, that a Presbyter is the ſame with a Biſhop, and ſo was taken, untill by the Divels inſtinct ſome turned Religion into faction.
And thoughqEpiphan. haereſ. 75. l. 3. tom. 1. contra haereſ. p. 215. col. 1. Aerius (when his ambitious deſire to bee a Biſhop was diſappointed) in emulation and anger fell to contemptuous compariſons of Biſhops with Presbyters; and therefore was noted by Epiphanius in his Catalogue of Heretickes: and ſince himrMich. Medin. de contin. ſacr. homin. l. 1. c. 5. Michael Medina made it materiall hereſie, to deny the diſtinction of Divine Right betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters, and theſSi quis dixerit in Eccleſia Catholica non eſſe Hierarchiam divinâ ordinatione inſtitutam, quae conſtat ex Epiſcopis & Miniſtris, anathema ſit. Concil. Trid. ſeſ. 7. Can. 6. fol. 561. b. Councell of Trent formally decreed it, with an Anathema to thoſe that deny it. Yet was not Hierome (though a vehement Advocate in the behalfe of the Presbyteriall dignity) much leſſe Chryſoſtome and Auguſtine for ſuch ſayings as theſe ever taxed for hereſie. Nor istAltare Damaſc. p. 276, 277, 278, 279. See alſo primam Pet. Moulinaei epiſt. Epiſc. Winton. p. 161, 162. Aerius left without a probable Apologie, which may ſerve with ſome, not onelyonly to expunge his name out of the Catalogue ofuOne onelyonly branded Hereticke (i. Aerius) in ſo many hundred yeares oppoſed Epiſcopall government. Biſhop Hall of Epiſcopacy. part. 1. p. 66. Heretickes, but to enroll it in the Regiſter of Orthodox Doctors.
And for the Tridentine Decree, it is the leſſe to be regarded, becauſe wee may ſay, as Biſhop Jewel doth ofxAs for the words of Leo, his own authority in his own cauſe cannot be great. Biſh. Jewel defence Apol. part. 2. c. 3. pag. 101. Leo, The words of the Biſhops of that Councell are of no great weight, becauſe they make a Decree in their owne cauſe.
But Chryſoſtome and Auguſtine were Biſhops though Hierome was none; and yet they ſpake of Biſhops and Presbyters ſo equally as hath beene ſaid; and if untruly, indiſcreetly alſo: becauſe both againſt the truth, and themſelves. We may ſay the ſame of Biſhop Jewel, whoſe judgement is plaine againſt the opinion of Divine Right, by his expoſition of Saint Auguſtine fore-alledged. Beſides,yPanormitanus in quaeſtionibus ſuis ex mala interpretatione. Hier. negat hanc Divino Jure inter Epiſcopos & Presbyteros diſtinctionem. Franc. à Sancta Clara Apol. Epiſc. pag. 64. Panormitan andzFulv. Pacian. de probationib. l. 2. c. 28. fol 96. Pacianus (very famous men in their faculties; the one for a Canoniſt, the other for a Civilian, and divers more, to ſay nothing of theaChamier. tom. 2. l. 10. c. 6. pag. 350. learned men of the Reformed Churches in forraine parts) will not admit of any preheminence of a Biſhop above a Presbyter by Divine Right. All which wee alledge not to conteſt with the reverend Prelates in point of Authority, but to ſhew, that if an acknowledgement of Epiſcopall preheminence (as of Divine Right) bee required in this Canon (and by that wee have ſhewed, wee have cauſe to ſuppoſe it) it is too problematicall an opinion for ſuch confidence as ſhould accompany an Oath.
Of Archbiſhops.
Of Archbiſhops, though their Authority be greater, yet as touching the Tenure by Divine Right, our beliefe is leſſer: for they that hold Biſhops to bee ſuperiours to Presbyters by Divine Right (as the Apoſtles were ſuperiours to the 72. Diſciples) doe not for the moſt part (unleſſe they be Papiſts) allow of Archbiſhops in that ſacred Epiſcopacy; and even he, who was an Archbiſhop himſelfe, and highly advanced in print the Epiſcopall degree, hath out of Ignatius obſerved (and thereby affronted the Papall uſurpation) that the twelve were allbAbundè probavi Chriſtum ſuam Eccleſiam Apoſtolis omnibus aequè commendâſſe, eoſque ad hoc neceſſariâ poteſtare aequè omnes adornâſſe confentit. Ignat. epiſi. ad Philadelph. dum ad Apoſtolos veluti ad Presbyterium, Eccleſiae Collegium, recurri poſtulat; Collegium verò Ariſtocraticum nemo ignorat. Spalat. de Repub Eccleſ. lib. 1. c. 12. pag. 137. The Archbiſh. that now is ſaith the like of the Ariſtocraticall Government, and equality of the Apoſtles, and quoteth Bellarm. de Ro. Po. l. 1. c. 9. to the ſame purpoſe, making account his words are a confeſſion of the truth againſt his owne ſide. So in relat. of his conference. pag. 168, 200, 202, 380. See Biſhop Hall of Epiſcopacy. part. 2. pag. 13. equall as an Ariſtocraticall Colledge, no Prince or Monarch ruling over the reſt, as the Romaniſts pretend and aſſume in the name of St. Peter; wherein SaintcJam & illud conſidera, quàm Petrus agit omnia ex communi Diſcipulorum ſententia, nihil authoritate ſuâ, nihil cum Imperio. Chryſoſt. bom. 3. in Act. Apoſt. cap. 1. tom. 3. col. 459. Chryſoſtome is directly oppoſite unto them, obſerving how Saint Peter, in an aſſembly of the Diſciples, doth all by their common conſent, nothing by his owne authority, nothing in a lofty or a Lordly manner. For, that Authority (which they take up as Saint Peters right) his Maſter and ours thought too much for him, or any one man elſe; fore-ſeeing, as the Archbiſh. of Spalato noted,dSpalat. de Repub. Eccleſ. l. 1. c. 12. p. 138. That a Monarchy in a Church-man would bee apt to breake out into a tyrannie over the Church. And for the tenure of Archiepiſcopall authority, wee may beleeve BiſhopeBiſh Jewels defence of his Apolog part. 2. c. 3. diviſ. 5. pag. 110. Jewel, where hee ſaith in anſwer to Maſter Harding, that though Primates or Archbiſhops had authority over the inferiour Biſhops, yet they had it but by agreement and cuſtome, neither by Chriſt, nor by Peter, nor Paul, nor by any right of Gods Word.
Object. If it be objected (as by ſome it hath been) that though the Apoſtles had no Archbiſhops among themſelves (who had a priority of Order, and a majority of Rule above the reſt of that fundamentall Function:) yet (in reſpect of other Biſhops conſtituted by them) they were all Archbiſhops to thoſe that were under them; It may be anſwered,
Anſw. 1. That the right of Epiſcopacy hath not been ſo well cleared by Scripture, that it ſhould bee taken for an undoubted ground, whereon to erect an Archiepiſcopall power: for, there is ſo much difficulty and diſpute about that, as makes it to us uncapable of the aſſurance of an Oath.
Secondly, our Proteſtant Divines (when the Papiſts plead for Peters Epiſcopall, or Archiepiſcopall ſupremacy at Rome, to maintaine the uſurpations of the Pope upon all other Churches) anſwered that (as we conceive, according to the truth) that to bee a Biſhop, or Archbiſhop, and an Apoſtle, imports a repugnancy: for both Biſhops and Archbiſhops were confined to a certaine compaſſe for their Authority; but the Apoſtles were of an unlimited liberty and power, both for planting and governing Churches all over the world: wherein they had every one of them ſuch an equall and univerſall intereſt, thatfNon erat ea facta diviſio (ſcil. inter Apoſtolos) ut alter ab alterius abſtineret Apoſtolatu. Baron. Annal. tom. 1. an. 51. 27. col. 424. no Apoſtle had any part of the world to himſelfe, wherein the reſt had not an Apoſtolicall and Paſtorall right as well as he; which is not, nor can be ſo in Epiſcopall, or Archiepiſcopall callings.
Object. If the opinion ofgEſtius comment. in 1 Tim. 5.19. col. 809. Eſtius be interpoſed, viz. That Archiepiſcopacy was founded, when Timothy was made Biſhop of Epheſus, the Metropolis of Aſia, wherein he had hBiſh. Hall reckons 36. Biſhopricks under Epheſ. part. 2. p. 24.43. See Will. Synopſ. papiſ. controv. 5. in append. ad quaeſt. 3. p. 273.many Biſhops under his Juriſdiction: that (to ſay nothing of what is ſaid of the unbiſhoping of Timothy and Titus, in a particular booke of that title) being brought in without proofe, will bee as readilykDidoclau. Altare Damaſcen. pag. 175. denied by ſome, as it is eaſily affirmed by any: and if we ſhould ſay, that untill Pope Zepherinus (in the third Century) named himſelfe anlCent. 3. c. 10. col. 275. Archbiſhop, or untill the reigne of Conſtantine (as a very learnedmArchiepiſcopi & Patriarchae in uſum abierunt, quorum ante Conſtantini tempora altum ſilentium. Dan. Chamier. de oecumen. pontif. lib. 10. cap. 6. tom. 2. pag. 353.20. Writer hath obſerved) there is no mention of an Archbiſhop: it will not bee eaſie (perhaps) for any (by legitimate Teſtimony) to bring in an inſtance, to diſprove the obſervation in the Eaſterne Church; and for the Weſterne, it came later thither, as the Sun-ſetting cometh after the Sun-riſing. And Filaſacus a Divine of Paris ſaith,nFilaſac. de ſacr. ep. Anth. ch. 19. ſect. 1. Concil. Matiſc. 1. Can. 4. It is not uſed in theſe parts, untill the firſt Matiſcon Councell, ſcil. anno 587.
Which may bee to us the more probable, becauſe we have had experience (in our owne time of aoDoct. Saravia ſaith, the Aſſemblies of the Presbyterians are no Synods but Conventicles, becauſe he readeth not of any Synod without an Archbiſhop. Sarav. de Triplic. ep. q. 3. p. 90. principall point of now-Archiepiſcopall Government, the Preſidentſhip of a Provinciall Synod) without an Archbiſhop. So was it in the yeare 1603. when the Biſhop of London was Preſident of the Synod then aſſembled: Archbiſh.pArchb. Whitgifl in his reply to Maſter Cartwr. p. 310, 313, 427, 432. Whitgift (againſt Maſter Cartwright) endeavoureth to maintaine, That the office of an Archbiſhop was in uſe in the Apoſtles time, and by theirqCan. 33. (or 34. as ſome accompt) p. 470. Archb. Whitgi. appointment in an Apoſtolicall Canon; and thatrIbid. pag. 400. Titus was an Archbiſhop over Crete; andſPag. 470. Dionyſius Areopagita (the Scholar of S. Paul) Archbiſhop of Athens. But his proofes (as ſome of us upon examination have found them) are too low, and too flat for the height and compaſſe of the Arch of his Aſſeveration, eſpecially as applyed to the ſtate and authority of Archbiſhops in the Church of England, the prelation particularly, oppoſed by Maſter Cartwright, who (conceiving both the authority and title of an Archbiſhop by Scripture to belong peculiarly to Chriſt, and not finding the nametThe title Archbiſhop, is proper to Chriſt, as appeareth by Saint Peter, where he calleth him foreign, which is an Archſhepheard, or Archbiſhop; for Biſhop and Shepheard are all one. Ibid. p. 300. Archbiſhop there) taketh up the title Archſhepheard, 1 Pet. 5.4. as equivalent to it.
The greateſt Antiquity, and beſt Authority that wee find for that title, is that whichuArchb. Whitgifts reply to Maſt. Cartwr. pag. 323. ex Mr. Fox Martyrol. tom. 1. p. 146. Archbiſhop Whitgift citeth out of Maſter Fox, viz. That in the time of Eleutherius, an. 180. there were in Britaine 28. head Prieſts, which in the time of Paganiſme they called Flamines; and three Archprieſts among them, which were called Archiflamines, as Judges over the reſt: theſe 28. Flamines (upon the converſion of the Britains) were turned to 28. Biſhops, and the three Archiflamines to three Archbiſhops: which, if it be true, yet it is far below that which is alledged for the calling of Archbiſhops; and yet more ancient then honourable, for the conformity to Pagan preheminence.
Nor will it ſerve to ſay (as PopexEugen. 4. Epiſt. ad Epiſcop. Cantuarien. ait, Cardinalium nomen non fuiſſe in principio naſcentis Eccleſ. expreſſum, munus tamen & officium à B. Petro & ejus ſucceſſoribus evidenter crat inſtitutum. Fran. Long. annot. in 2. Concil. Rom. pag. 201. Eugenius the fourth ſaid of the name Cardinall) that though it were not expreſly mentioned in the beginning of the Chriſtian Church, yet the office was inſtituted by Saint Peter, and his ſucceſſours. For, not to inſiſt upon the name Cardinall, of which the ſaying of the Pope is an unprobable fiction, ſuperiority among Biſhops is to be reduced rather to a ſecular, then to a ſacred Originall. For our Archbiſhop of Canterbury that now is, ſaith,yArchb. Laud in his relat. of his confer. pag. 176. It was inſinuated, if not ordered, that honours of the Church ſhould follow honours of the State; as appeareth by the Canons of the Councell of zConcil. Chalced. Can. 9. & Act. 16.Chalcedon, and Antioch. It was thought fit therefore (though as SaintaCypr. de ſimplic. Praelat. Epiſcopatus unus eſt. Cyprian ſpeaks) there bee one Epiſcopacy, the calling of a Biſhop bee one and the ſame; that yet among Biſhops there ſhould be a certaine ſubor dination and ſubjection: the Empire therefore being caſt into ſeverall diviſions (which they then called Dioceſſes) every Dioceſſe contained ſeverall Provinces, every Province ſeverall Biſhops: the chiefe of a Dioceſſe in that large ſenſe was called foreign, and ſometimes a Patriarch, the chiefe of the Province a Metropolitan, next the Biſhops in their ſeverall Dioceſſes (as we now uſe the word.) Among theſe there was effectuall ſubjection grounded upon Canon, and poſitive Law, in their ſeverall Quarters; all the difference there was but Honorary, not Authoritative. So farre he; where, though he name the title Biſhop, Patriarch, and Metropolitan, hee doth not mention the title Archbiſhop.
And though hee grant, thatbArchb. Laud ubi ſupra. pag. 168. the Church of Rome hath had, and hath yet a more powerfull principality, then any other Church; yet he ſaith, ſhee hath not that power from Chriſt. The Romane Patriarch by Eccleſiaſticall conſtitutions (ſaith hee) might perhaps have a primacy of order; but for principality of power they were all equall, as the Apoſtles were before them: and hee might have ſaid ſo much as well of Biſhops, as of Patriarchs; for, except for Eccleſiaſticall Conſtitutions, and poſitive Lawes, they are not ſubordinate one to another: neither the authority nor title then of Metropolitan or Archbiſhop is taken to bee ſo ancient, or warrantable by the Word of God, as that of the Biſhops, in the judgement of ſuch as are the deareſt friends to Prelaticall dignity. Yet, as wee deny not, but that an inequality betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters is (ascInaequalitatem inter Epiſcopum & Presbyterum eſſe vetuſtiſſimam, & vicinam Apoſtolorum temporibus ultrò fatemur. Fr. Chamier. de oecumen. pontif. l. 10. c. 6. tom. 2. p. 85.3. col. 2. Chamier confeſſeth) moſt ancient, and very neere the Apoſtles times; ſo wee yeeld it as probable, that Archbiſhops are very ancient alſo, and as certaine, that there have been, and are very many, as worthy to be Archbiſhops, as others to be Biſhops: and that there have been of that elevation men of as eminent deſert for learning and devotion, both in ancient and later times, as any that have lived in the ſame Ages with them; but in regard of more doubt of their Authenticke tenure, then of that of Biſhops (though that alſo bee very much doubted of) wee have the leſſe heart to ſweare to Archiepiſcopall preheminence.
Object. If it bee ſaid, thatdArchb. Whitgift in his defence of the anſw. to the Admon. p. 386. Archbiſhops were ſet up for the keeping out of Schiſme among Biſhops, as Biſhops for that end were ſet over Presbyters, we doe not gainſay it; but ſay, that our Doubt is not now of the politicke end, but of the originall right of their exaltation: and withall we may note, that this Argument, drawne from the prevention of Schiſme, may climbe too high, and indeed it hath done ſo; for, at the next ſtep, it lifteth up Patriarchs above Archbiſhops; and at the next after that, a Pope above Patriarchs: and all this upon the ſame pretence of preventing of Schiſme; but the further it hath advanced, the worſe it hath ſucceeded for the welfare of the Church, both in reſpect of Hereſie and Schiſme: for Bellarmine ſaith,eOmnes Eccleſiae Patriarchales (praeter Romanam) habuerunt per longa tempora manifeſtos Haereticos. Bel. de notis Eccl. 4. not. 5. c. 8. p. 74. All the Patriarchall Churches (except the Romane) for a long time have had Biſhops which were manifeſt Heretickes.
If his obſervation be as true for the moſt (which for a great part we may beleeve, though we dare not take it upon his bare word) as his exception is falſe for the Romane Patriarch: for he is the moſt Hereticall and Schiſmaticall Prelate in the world, wee can have no great confidence in the end [the keeping out of Schiſme] unleſſe the meanes, the raiſing up of Biſhops to that height, be found to bee warranted by the Word of God; yet wee make great difference betwixt the Popes claime of univerſall and unlimited Supremacy upon this ground, and that of Archbiſhops and Patriarchs confined within the reach, and under the checke and reſtraint of a temporall Potentate.
For the other offices of Government named in the Oath, or involved in the &c. there is none that pleadeth a Divine Right; and we may ſay of moſt of them, asfBiſh. Downh. in the defence of his conſecr. Serm. l. 1. c. 8. pag. 185. Biſhop Downham doth of ſome of them, As for ordinary Vicars (that is, Vicars which are Eccleſiaſticall Judges in ordinary) Chancellours, or Commiſſaries (ſcil. of the Laity) the Biſhops in theſe times (i. of Saint Auguſtine and Ambroſe) had none, not ſo much as the Steward of the Church might bee a Lay-man. They neither did then, nor rightly could they claime a Divine and Apoſtolicall right for their callings: which wee may the rather ſay, for the ſaying of Anacletus, who (about the yeare 103. being Biſhop of Rome) hath in one of his Epiſtles written, That there were but two orders ordained by our Saviour, viz. of Biſhops and Prieſts, nor were any more either orders or degrees, either appointed by God, or taught by the Apoſtles: whereof though many doubt, in regard of that he affirmeth of the originall of Biſhops; yet they will eaſily aſſent to his deniall of the reſt, and what their right is, either by cuſtome, or humane conſtitution, we are very doubtfull: and, while we doubt, we dare not ſweare.