THE Healing Attempt: Being a Representation OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Church of England, According to the Judgement of her Bishops unto the End of Q. Elizabeth's Reign.  
Humbly Tendered To the Consideration of the Thirty Commissionated for a Consult about ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS in Order to a Comprehension;  
And Published, In hopes of such a Moderation of Episcopacy, that the Power be kept within the Line of our First Reformers: and the Exercise of it reduced to the Model of Archbishop USHER.  
Mediocria firma.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1689.   

The Epistle to the Commissioners.  
Most Reverend, Right Reverend and Reverend,  
I Bless you all in the Name of the Lord, and Blessed be your Meeting this Day, and this Appointment for you to Sat about so Blessed a reconciling Work. I have but this short Grace to say, Blessed are the Peacemakers.  
When such a Choice of Persons is Congregated, and their Business Accommodation, the Tidings hereof to the poor Outed Shepherds should, methinks, be so affecting, as if the Angels were again upon the Wing, and singing over that Hymn, Glory be to God in the highest, in Earth Peace, and good will towards Men.  
Alas! How many Years have passed since the Reformation, wherein your Nonconformist Brethren have been a Loading, and their Burden increasing, and none of you that were willing, were able to ease them, when by the Artifice of the Papists, and the Higher Powers influenced by them, you were forced to bear the blame of those things which your Souls did abhor: And now is the time come when God hath sent us such a Nursing Father and Nursing Mother to his Church, as hath called you to the liberty of showing of what manner of spirit indeed you are. Blessed be his Name for it, and the ho●●es we have on that account. This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will be glad, and rejoice in it.  
I know indeed how hard of belief the most of our Brethren generally are that any good should be done for us by a Convocation or this Meeting. It is impossible (they are readier to say) that those— But Reverendly beloved, I am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany Salvation, though they thus speak. I am persuaded that even this will stimulate you to a greater earnestness to do them the more good (for such is Christianity), and that I shall not need to say any thing (not any more than in the Title) to put you on this grateful task, The same also which ye are forward to do: I have less need to be impertinent in offering Arguments to such Wits, which were to bring Water to the Spring: but this one thing I have need to do, which is, to beg of you that you will Pardon what is done, if in any thing the Author seems to presume, or to be more slender than he ought, for want of more time and search, or does in any regard offend. I will also beg of you more Two things; the One is, To take heed how you make more conditions necessary to us for Communion with you, than Christ requires of you for Communion with him: The Other is, That you do not Tantalise your Brethren, or Procrastinate that Kindness (whatsoever it is) which you intent towards those who are capable to receive it; For we must needs die, and are as water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: Neither doth God respect any person, yet doth he devise means that his banished be not expelled from him.  
A Friend to the Design and Substance of these Papers, J. H. Octob. 3. 1689.   

THE AUTHOR TO THE READER.  
THE Greatest thing in Controversy amongst Protestants is, Whether the Office of a Presbyter, and Bishop be, according to the Holy Scriptures, the same? and on a Just Determination of this Question depends the Peace of our Church.  
To affirm, That the Bishop and Presbyter are of different Orders, That the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of Bishops, That Ordination, only by Presbyters, is void and null, and that the Ordaining 'em again by Bishops is not Re-Ordination, destroys the Church State, not only of Dissenters, but of all other Protestants in the World, except of those in the Church of England, nulling their Ministry, Sacraments, and Discipline.  
A Comprehension therefore on these Terms is none at all; It's only an offer to Unite with Dissenters on their doing what is to them Impossible; They cannot Renounce their Ordination, nor Consent to the Destroying their own, nor the Church State of Reformed Protestants Abroad.  
But, lest the Impossibility they lie under be Interpreted a Peevish Humour, and Obstinacy in them, the Sentiments of the First-Reformers, in the Days of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, are Impartially Proposed and found to be exactly the same with theirs; and, what will, touching Matters of Church Government, Heal our Divisions.  
The Author could Descend lower than the last of Elizabeth; but there's no need on't, and he must acknowledge, that tho' a great many Eminent Writers, Learned Divines of the Church of England, asserted this Old Reformer's Principle; yet the Canons of James I. ran another way, and in his Reign the Learned were divided in their Opinions about the Office of Bishop and Presbyter; and so they are at this very time: However, it cannot be denied, that the First Reformers, adhered unto by Archbishop Usher, held the same, which the Dissenters have all along stiffly maintained, and have Antiquity on their side.  
The Learned Carleton is Positive, that the Power of Order by all Writers, that He could see, even of the Church of Rome, is understood to be Immediately from Christ, given to all Bishops and Priests, alike by their Consecration, and that in this there was no Difference between Papist and Protestant; whence it follows, that the Divesting the Parish Presbyter of the Pastoral Office is but a late Invention.  
Thus much He Asserts of that Power of Order which he distinguisheth from the Power of Jurisdiction, and includes in it the Power of Ordination.  
And although, according to the most taking Opinion amongst those, who seemed to be somewhat Zealous for Prelacy, the Power of Jurisdiction was peculiarly appropriated to the Bishop, yet this Jurisdiction following Orders, could never be so separated from it, but that there still remain some Convincing Instances of its belonging unto Presbyters.  
In the Case of a Bishop's Suspension, it's clear; I will only observe what is at this time most obvious.  
On the Suspension of the Archbishop of Canterbury, All Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Dean and Chapter, who are but Presbyters, as is daily Asserted in these words. Nos Johannes Tillotson Sacrae Theologiae Professor, Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis & Metropoliticae Christi Cant'. Et Ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum, ad quos Omnis, & omnimoda Jurisdictio Spiritualis, & Ecclessiastica,, quae ad Archiepiscopum Cant. pertinuit, nunc ratione Suspensionis, etc. dignoscitur pertinere.  
A Condescending to settle the Power of Orders, and Jurisdiction on Presbyters, as well as Bishops, according to the Learned Archbishop Usher's Model, will as to Matters of Church Government End the Controversy between the Moderate Episcopal, and Presbyterian.  
As to what relates unto Stinted-Forms of Prayer, the Judicious Mr. Clerkson, in his Excellent Discourse of Liturgies, having so Learnedly and fully discussed it, the Author need do no more than only Commend its Perusal to the Candid Reader, with an Assurance, that until it be cleared that Stinted Liturgies are Ancienter than that Learned Person Represents them to be, we shall be freed from a strict Imposition.   

THE Healing Attempt.  

The Introduction.  
THose, who are most sensible of the late Deliverance from the Dangers we were in of being overturned by the Papists, must be of an Opinion, that the many Divisions, amongst ourselves, had too great a hand in bringing on us what was the true Ground of our Danger; that we can never be perfectly free from the Fears of a Return, so long as our Breaches remain Uncured; and, that, it's absolutely necessary, that every one do his Part towards the Settlement of a lasting Union amongst Protestants, as the strongest Bulwark against Popery.  
Thus much I count is very manifest to every Considering Mind; for, at this time, Protestants, of all Persuasions, seem to be desirous of it.  
Although there are different Apprehensions about the Means of attaining it, as, whether by an Indulgence only; or, whether by Indulgence, and Comprehension, yet is there no doubt, that I know, about the Union itself; and seeing an Indulgence is already given, Extending Liberty of Conscience even to the Quakers, and a Bill of Comprehension is at this time on the Anvil, I will humbly offer my thoughts concerning it.  
That such as are only for an Indulgence will be angry with this Essay, is no other than I expect. However, the Arguments for a well-established Comprehension influencing me more than the Displeasure of any Party of Men on Earth, I am resolved in God's strength, to do the uttermost in me lieth towards the obtaining it.  
It is a Concernment for the Protestant Faith, the Salvation of Souls, the Glory of God, that puts me on this work; all which have been Endangered through that want of Powerful Preachers in Parish Churches, which hath been the Effect of our Divisions.  
I bless God, there are so many Faithful and Laborious Ministers in Public Places, and yet, considering how few these are in comparison of the Church's wants, I cannot but lament the Deplorable Condition of Thousands in this Nation, who on this occasion are like Eternally to Perish, and pray the Lord of the Harvest to Open the Door, that more Labourers may enter in, even men of the most Tender Consciences, who, no doubt. will be the most successful in their Ministry.  
In Queen Elizabeth's, and James the First's days, it so fell out, that a strict Injunction of Subscription Deprived the Church of the Labours of several Divines eminent for their Learning, Holiness of Life, and Conversation.  
Consult the Complaint, Presented to the Right Honourable the Lords of Her Majesty's Council, and their Lordship's Answer: The Copy of a Letter, written by a Gentleman in the Country to a Londoner, touching the Answer to the Archbishop's Articles: The Lamentable Complaint of the Commonalty by way of Supplication to the High Court of Parliament for a Learned Ministry, and you'll see, that for Nonconformity some of the most Conscientious, and Painful Preachers were brought to the Bar, Marshaled with the worst Malefactors, Indicted, Arraigned, Condemned, New Christened with the odious name of Puritan, Deprived, to the Advancement of Popery, Debauchery, Atheism, and to the great Declension of the Power of Godliness.  
A Disgracing those Ministers, that are sound in the Faith and Industrious in their Work, hath been one of the most successful Engines the Antichristian Party have used.  
The first Ten years of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, the Papists kept to our Churches, and if Saunders, and some others, had not with an unexpected success nicknamed some of the most Valiant Opposers of Popery, and Painful Preachers with the odious names of Puritan and Precisian, to the good liking of some amongst ourselves, they might have still continued their Communion with us.  
This is not the Observation of some Nonconformists only, 
The N. C. in their Complaint to the Queen's Council humbly advertise their Lordships, that the Adversary very cunningly new Christened them with an odious name of Puritan, that whilst they were occupied in the Defence of their Innocency the Adversary might have greater freedom to go about their hateful Treachery. Part of the Regist. pag. 129.  but of the Wise and Judicious Sir Robert Cotton, who assures us, that the Reason of the Papists separating from our Church, and returning to their old Apostasy, was not the Bull of Pius Quintus on the Bishop of London's Door (as the Lord Chief Justice Coke apprehended) or the forbearing to hang up Priests, but in conjunction with the Idleness and Insufficiency of many Teachers conspiring with the People's cold Zeal, Saunders his pinning the name of Puritan on some of the most Learned and courageous Protestants, gave life to that Faction.  
It was not (saith this Noble Baronet) the Bull of Pius Quintus on the Bishop of London's Doors, 
Posth. Cotton. p. 147, 148.  or the forbearing to hang up Priests, that have wrought this Apostasy, but the Idleness and Insufficiency of many Teachers, conspiring with the People's cold Zeal, that hath been the Contriver of this Web. Until the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, Recusants' name was scarcely known, the Reason was, because the Zeal, begotten in the time of the Marian Persecution, was yet fresh in Memory, and the late Persecutors were so amazed with the sudden alteration of Religion, that they could not choose but say, Digitus Dei est hîc. In those days there was an Emulation between the Clergy, and the Laity; and a strife arose whether of them should show themselves most affectionate to the Gospel: Ministers haunted the Houses of worthiest Men, where Jesuits now build their Tabernacles, and poor Country Churches were frequented with the best of the Shire, the Word of God was precious, Prayer and Preaching went hand in hand together, until Archbishop Grindal's Disgrace, and Hatfield's hard conceit of Prophesying, brought the flowing of those good Graces to a still water; the name of a Papist smelled rank even in their own Nostrils, and for pure shame to be accounted such they reforted duly both to our Churches, and Exercises; But when they saw their great Coryphaeus Saunders had slily pinned the name of Puritan upon the sleeves of the Protestants that encountered them with most Courage, and perceived that the Word was pleasing to some of our own side, they took heart at Grass, to set little by the Service of God, and Duty to their Sovereign— most Men grew to be frozen in Zeal and benumbed, that whosoever (as the worthy Lord Keeper Bacon observed in those days) pretended a little spark of Earnestness, he seemed no less than red fire hot, in comparison of the other. And as some far the worse for an ill Neighbour's sake dwelling beside them; so did it betid the Protestants, who, seeking to curb the the Papists, or reprove an idle Drone, were incontinently branded with the Ignominious note of Precisian, all which wind brought plenty of water to the Pope's Mill, and there will most Men grind where they see Appearance to be well served: So far Sir Robert Cotton.  
And as the disgracing Godly-Ministers by fastening the names of Puritan, Precisian, etc. on 'em, and the laying 'em aside from the public exercise of their Ministry, did in the Reign of Elizabeth give life to Popery, so 'twill still, and all those Protestant Ministers that are now denied entrance into the Parish Churches will be in disgrace amongst the People and their Ministry not half so successful amongst those that mostly need it.  
The wider therefore the Church Doors are made, the greater will be the number of Pious and Painful Preachers, the greater the Advantage on Truth's side, and the greater Discouragement on the other hand.  
But that the Door may be made wide enough to answer the desired End, seeing our Governors are inclined to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies, with some more offensive Impositions there is this one thing, to wit, The Ordering, and Declaring the Government of the Church to be now no other, but what it was held, and intended to be by the first Reformers, will, as I humbly apprehend, be the most Effectual Expedient of any else in the World.  
Some of our Clergy have Notions about Church-Government, very Dissonant from what the Gentry, and Parliament Men have, and the first Reformers heretofore had, and it's feared by some thinking Persons, that the Laws, yet in Being, have Established a Government in the Church, very different from what the Legislators, I mean, the King, the Temporal Lords and Commons generally designed.  
The Government settled in the Church by the first Reformers, and still supposed by our Gentry to continue, is consistent enough with the Church state of all other Protestants; but that, which is really Established by Law is Inconsistent with, and Destructive of it, driving many Learned Godly Protestant Divines from that Conformity which is at this time made necessary to the Exercise of their Ministry in Parish Churches.  
To clear thus much is (methinks) one of the most necessary things to be attempted, and the very next step to be taken towards the settling a Comprehension, which will be of validity with Judicious Men.  
What were the Sentiments of the First-Reformers about Episcopacy, and Church Government, during Queen Elizabeth's Reign, I will with the greatest impartiality declare, as near as possibly I can in their own words, and add some Arguments to show, that the most effectual way to settle such a Comprehension as will best secure the Protestant Religion, is the Forming and Framing the Government of the Church, according to the Sentiments of our First-Reformers; which in the Learned Archbishop usher's Reduction of Episcopacy, I take to be very happily copied out unto us.  
I will begin with those who lived in Henry the Eighth's days; for than began the Reformation.   

CHAP. I. The Sense of our First Reformers in Henry the Eighth's Days.  
IN this King's Reign tindal, Lambert and Barnes, Men of good Learning, and blessed Martyrs, sealing the Truths they professed with their Blood, struggled strenuously for a Reformation of Church Government.  
tindal, looking on Corruptions in Discipline to be a principal occasion of that greater Deluge of Enormities in the Church, presseth for a Reduction of all things in the Discipline to the Apostolical Institution, and therefore makes Enquiry after those Officers, the Apostles Ordained in Christ's Church, and what their Offices were, and gives us an account of his Persuasion of it thus: Wherefore the Apostles following and obeying the Rule, 
tindal's Practice of Popish Prelates.  Doctrine and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Ordained in his Kingdom and Congregation TWO OFFICERS: one called after the Greek word Bishop, in English an Overseer, which same was called Priest after the Greek, Elder in English, because of his Age, Discretion, and Sadness; for he was as nigh as could be always an Elderly Man. And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plough of God's Word, and fed Christ's Flock, and tended them only, without looking to any other Business in the World. Another Officer they chose, and called him Deacon, after the Greek, a Minister in English, to Minister the Alms of the People unto the Poor, and Needy. For in the Congregation of Christ, love maketh every Man's Gifts and Goods common to the Necessity of his Neighbour— There is Presbyteros called an Elder by birth, 
tindal on the word Elder.  which same is called immediately a Bishop, or Overseer, to declare what Persons are meant,— They were called Elders, because of their Age, Gravity, etc. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices. And all that were called Elders, or Priests (if they so will) were called Bishops also, tho' they have divided the names now, which thing thou mayst evidently see by the first Chapter of Titus, and the twentieth of the Acts. Those Overseers, which we now call Bishops after the Greek word, were always biding in One place to Govern the Congregation there; But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor, and crept not into Orders till the Church grew rich.  
Lambert is of the same Opinion. As touching Priesthood (saith he) in the Primitive Church, 
Ach. Mon. Vol. 2.  when Virtue bore (as ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same) the most room, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons, that is to say, Ministers, as witnesseth besides Scripture, full apertly Jerome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul; whereas he faith, That those we call Priests, were all one and no other but Bishops, and the Bishops none other but Priests, Men ancient both in Age and Learning, so near as they could be chosen. Neither were they Institute, and chosen as they be now adays, with small regard of a Bishop, or his Officer, only apposing them, if they can construe a Collect.— To conclude, I say, the Order, or State of Priests, and Deacons was Ordained by God.  
The Sixth Article against Dr. Barnes was, That he declared himself thus. I will never believe, nor yet can I ever believe, that one Man may be by the Law of God a Bishop of two, or three Cities, yea, of an whole Country; for it is contrary to St. Paul, which saith, I have left thee behind, to set in every City a Bishop. And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi, you shall find in many that they be called Presbyteri.— I was (saith he) brought before my Lord Cardinal into his Gallery, and there he read all my Articles till he came to this, and there he stopped, and said, That this touched him, and therefore he asked me, if I thought it wrong that One Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him? Unto whom I answered, That I could no further go than to St. Paul's Text, which, set in every City a Bishop. Then asked he me, whether I thought it unright (seeing the Ordinance of the Church, that one Bishop should have so many Cities? I answered, that I knew no Ordinance of the Church, as concerning this thing, but St. Paul's Saying only? Nevertheless I did see a contrary Custom and Practice in the World, but I know not the original thereof. Then said He, There were divers Cities, some seven Miles, some six Miles long, and over them was there set but one Bishop, and of their Suburbs also; so likewise now a Bishop has also but one City to his Cathedral Church, and the Country about it as Suburbs to it. Methought this was far fetched, but I durst not deny it, because it was so great Authority, and of so Holy a Father, and so great a Divine. But this I dare say, that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture, nor yet by any Authority of Drs. nor yet by any Practice of the Apostles, and yet it must be true, because a Pillar of the Church has spoken it: But let us see what the Drs. say to mine Article. Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle, I have left thee behind, etc. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde, but he did enjoin, that every City should have his Proper Pastor, supposing, that by this means they should more diligently Oversee the People— Also Chrysostom on that same Text: He would not that a whole Country should be permitted unto One man, but He enjoined to every man his Cure, by that means he knew, that his Labour should be more easy, and the Subjects should be with more Diligence Governed, if the Teachers were not distract with the Governing of many Churches, but had Cure, and Charge of one Church only, etc. Methinks these be plain words, and able to move a man to speak as much as I did— But I, poor Man, must be an Heretic, there is no Remedy, you will have it so, and who is able to say nay? Not all Scripture, nor yet God Himself. So far these three Worthies.  
About this time the Notion of these blessed Martyrs found respect amongst those, that bore a great Figure in the Church. The Author of the True Difference between the Regal Power and the Ecclesiastical, gives countenance unto it, and at last Cranmer with many others fell in with it, and it became a Point established by Authority, as may be seen in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, where, after the Description given of the Office of Priests and Deacons, it's affirmed, That of these Two Orders only Scripture makes express mention, and that we may not mistake 'em, it's added, of these two Orders only, that is to say, Priests, and Deacons, Scripture makes express mention, and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer, and Imposition of hands. Besides, The Description they give of the Office of a Bishop or Priest, for when they speak of the Divine Institution, they make no distinction between 'em; it's thus: The Office consists in true Preaching and Teaching the Word of God unto the People, in Dispensing and Ministering the Sacraments, in Consecrating and Offering the blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, in losing and assoiling from Sin such Persons as be sorry and truly penitent for the same, and Excommunicating such as be guilty in manifest Crimes, and will not be reform otherwise, and finally in Praying for the whole Church of Christ, and especially for the Flock committed to them. Thus there are but two Orders only, that is to say, Priests and Deacons, no third Order; Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests, and their Office the same, and the Superiority of one above the other only by Humane Ordinance and Appointment. And whereas (say they) we have thus summarily declared what is the Office and Ministration which in Holy Scriptures has been committed to Bishops and Priests, and in what things it consisteth, as is afore rehearsed, we think it expedient and necessary, that all men should be advertised, and taught, that all such Lawful Power and Authority of any one Bishop [or Priest, for they are in the sense of these Great Divines the same] over another were, and be given them by the Consent, Ordinance, and Positive Laws of Men only, and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture. So far the Necessary Erudition.  
Thus in Henry the Eighth's days, the Bishop and Priest of the same Order according to the Scriptures, and their Office the same, the Difference therefore between 'em and the Government that is grounded thereupon by Prelatic Bishops, Archbishops, etc. is only by the Positive Laws of Men.  
In a Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests, subscribed by Thomas Cromwell, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and divers other Bishops, 
Consult the Addenda in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation, p. 321, etc.  Civilians, and Learned Men, it is thus Resolved. As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We will, That all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our People committed by us unto their Spiritual Charge. First, How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament, that beside the Civil Powers, and Governance of Kings and Princes, which is called in Scripture Potestas gladii, the Power of the Sword, there should be also continually in the Church Militant, certain other Ministers, or Officers, which should have Spiritual Power, Authority and Commission under Christ to Preach and Teach the Word of God unto his People, and to Dispense and Administer the Sacraments of God unto them; and by the same to confer and give the Grace of the Holy Ghost, to consecrate the blessed Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, to lose and absoile from Sin, all Persons which be duly penitent, and sorry for the same; to bind and Excommunicate such as be Guilty in manifest Crimes and Sins, and will not amend their defaults, to order and consecrate others in the same room, Order and Office whereunto they recalled & admitted themselves; and finally, to feed Christ's People like good Pastors and Rectors, as the Apostle calleth them, with their wholesome Doctrine▪ and by their continual Exhortations and Monitions to reduce them from Sin and Iniquity so much as in them lieth, and to bring them unto perfect Knowledge the perfect Love and Dread of God, and unto the perfect Charity of their Neighbours.— That this Office, this Power and Authority was committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain Persons only, that is to say, unto Priests, OR Bishops, whom they did Elect, call and admit thereunto by their Prayer, and Imposition of their hands.— And to the intent the Church of Christ should never be destituted of such Ministers as should have and execute the said Power of the Keys, it was also Ordained and Commanded by the Apostles, that the same Sacrament should be applied and ministered by the Bishops from time to time, unto such other Persons as had the Qualities which the Apostles very diligently descryve; as it appeareth evidently in the third Chapter of the first Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, and his Epistle unto Titus. And surely this is the whole Virtue and Efficacy, and the Cause also of the Institution of this Sacrament, as it is found in the New Testament; for albeit the Holy Fathers of the Church of Christ, with all those things which were commendable in the Temple of the Jews, did devise not only certain other Ceremonies than before rehearsed, as Tonsures, Rasures, Unctions, and such other Observances to be used in the Administration of the said Sacraments; but did also Institute certain Inferior Orders or Degrees, as Janitors, Lectors, Exorcists, Acolits, and Subdeacons; and deputed to every one of those certain Offices to execute in the Church, wherein they followed undoubtedly the Example and Rites used in the Old Testament; yet the Truth is, That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any Degrees, or Distinctions in Orders, but only of Deacons, OR Ministers, and of Priests, OR Bishops: Nor there is any word spoken of any other Ceremony used in the Conferring of this Sacrament; but only of Prayer, and the Imposition of the Bishop's hand.  
Thus the Power of Excommunication, and conferring Orders by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, as declared in the New Testament, belongs unto the Priest, which is the same with the Bishop; there being no Degrees or Distinctions in Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers; and Priests or Bishops, and consequently no Superiority therefore of a Bishop above a Priest to be found in the New Testament, during King Henry the Eighth's days.   

CHAP. II. The Judgement of the Reformers in Edward the Sixth's Days the same 'twas in Henry the Eighth's, holding no Difference by Divine Law between a Bishop and Presbyter.  
IN the First Year of Edward the Sixth's Reign, an Act of Parliament passed, sufficiently Declaring the Episcopal Orders as distinct from, and above that of the Presbyter, to be wholly from the Crown; for it was affirmed, That all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual, is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty, as Supreme Head of these Churches of England and Ireland.  
The Design of this Law, as Dr. Heylin has it, was to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order, 
Hist. Edw. 6. p. 51.  by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine Institution, and making them no other than the King's Ministers only, His Ecclesiastical Sheriffs (as a man might say) to execute his Will, and disperse his Mandates.  
Dr. Poynet Bishop of Winchester, in this King's Reign, in Answer unto a Book writ by Stephen Gardiner, tho' sent out under the Name of Dr. Martin, about the Marriage of Priests, doth sufficiently show that the Reformers in those days were great Approvers of Calvin's Notions about Church Government, and therefore willing to lay aside even the very Name Bishop, and make use of the Names [Superintendent, Minister, Senior, Elders, etc.] for these are his words. And further, whereas it pleaseth Martin, not only in this place, but also hereafter, to Jest at the Name [Superintendent,] he showeth himself bend to condemn all things that be good. Who knoweth not, that the Name [Bishop] hath so been abused, that when it was spoken, the People understood nothing else but a great Lord, that went in a white Rochet, with a wide shaved Crown, and that carrieth an Oil Box with him, wherewith he useth once in seven years, riding about to Confirm Children, etc. Now to bring the People from this abuse, what better means can be devised than to teach the People their Error by another word out of the Scriptures of the same signification, which thing by the term [Superintendent] would in time have been well brought to pass— The name [Bishop] spoken amongst the Unlearned, signified to them nothing less than a Preacher of God's Word, because there was not, nor is any thing more rare in any Order of Ecclesiastical Persons than to see a Bishop Preach.— I deny not, but the name [Bishop] may be well taken, but because the Evilness of the Abuse hath marred the Goodness of the Word, it cannot be denied but that it was not amiss to join for a time another word with it in his place, whereby to restore that abused word to his Right Signification.— Oh how the Papists would triumph over us, if they had like proof for the names (I say) of Pope, Cardinal, Canon, Prebendary, Monk, etc. as we, that profess Christ have for the maintenance of the terms and names (Superintendent, Minister, Seniors, Elders, Brethren,) and such like by us used.  
The Resolution Archbishop Cranmer gave to the Questions propounded by Edw. 6. approved by the Bishop of St. Asaph, Therleby, Redman and Cox, 
See Dr. Stillingflèet's MS.  makes it manifest, that these great Reformers owned not Episcopacy as a Distinct Order from Presbytery, of Divine Right, but only, as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better Governing the Church. In the Apostles time (says Cranmer) when there was no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of God's Word might be appointed, 
Resol. to Q. 9  nor Sins by the Sword corrected, there was no Remedy then for the Correction of Vice, or appointing of Ministers, but only the consent of Christien multitude by themselves, by an Uniform consent to follow the advice and persuasion of such Persons, whom God had most endued with the Spirit of wisdom and counsel.— Sometime the Apostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit, sent, or appointed Ministers of God's Word, sometime the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto.  
— The Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were not two distinct Things, 
Resol. to Q. 10.  but both one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Religion.— The People before Christian Princes were, 
Resol. to Q. 11.  commonly elected their Bishops and Priests.— In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or Priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture; 
Resol. to Q. 12.  for Election or appointing thereto is sufficient.  
Thus far that Excellent Person (saith a Reverend Divine of the Church of England) in whose Judgement nothing is more clear than his ascribing the particular Form of Government in the Church to the Determination of the Supreme Magistrate. 
The Divine Right of Forms of Church Government Examined, p. 390, etc.    

CHAP. III. Aley Bishop of Exeter, Pilkington Bishop of Durham, Jewel Bishop of Salisbury, Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury, of the same Opinion with tindal, Lambert, Barnes, and the Reformers in King Edward's Time.  
IN Queen Elizabeth's Reign, the first I find to mention any thing about the Office of Bishops and Priests, is Dr. Alley Bishop of Exeter, in his Miscellanea on his third Praelection, 
Alley 's Poor Man's Library, Tom. 1. pag. 95, 96.  read at Paul's in the Year 1560. on the word Bishops.  
What difference is between a Bishop and a Priest, St. Jerome writing ad Titum, doth declare, whose words be these: Idem est ergo Presbyter, qui Episcopus, etc. A Priest therefore is the same that a Bishop is. And before Schisms and Factions by the instinct of the Devil begun in Religion, and before it was said among the People, I am Paul's, I am Apollo's, I am of Cephas, the Churches were Governed with the Common Council of the Priests (or Elders.)  
But after that every one thought those whom he Baptised to be his, and not Christ's, it was decreed throughout the World, that one of the Priests or Elders should be chosen to be set over the rest, unto whom all the care (or charge) of the Church should appertain, and that the beginnings of Schisms should be taken away. Some do think, that it is not the sentence of the Scriptures, but ours, that a Bishop and Priest, (or Elder) are one thing, and they do also think the one to be a name of Age, and the other to be a name of Office. Let them read again the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Jesus Christ, to all the Saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippos, with the Bishops and Deacons, Grace and Peace be with you, etc. Philippi is one of the Cities of Macedonia. And truly there could not be many (as they are called) Bishops in one City. But because at that time they called those Bishops, which they did also call Priests (or Elders) therefore indifferently he spoke of Bishops, as of Priests (or Elders). It may yet seem doubtful to some, unless it be approved by other Testimonies. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written, that when the Apostle came to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus, and did call the Priests (or Elders) of the same Church, unto whom among other things he said thus, A Hand to yourselves, etc. And here mark you diligently, how that he calling the Priests or Elders of that one City of Ephesus, did afterwards call them Bishops, etc. And Peter which took his name of the firmness of his Faith, in his Epistle saith, I your fellow Elder do beseech the Elders that are among you, etc. Haec Hieronimus. These words are alleged, (saith Bishop Aley) that it may appear, Priests among the Elders, to have been even the same that Bishops were. But it grew by little and little, that the whole charge and care should be appointed to one Bishop within his Precinct, that the Seeds of Dissension might be utterly rooted out.  
In his Second Tome, 
P. 15.  the Bishop adds out of St. Jerom, Sicut Presbyteri, etc. Like as Priests do know themselves to be subject by the Custom of the Church, unto him which is made Ruler over them: So let the Bishops know, that they are greater than the Priests, rather by Custom, than by the verity of Dispensation given of the Lord. He saith also in another place, with the old Fathers, the Bishops were the same that the Priests were; for the name of one is the name of Dignity, and the other of Age and Time. So far Bishop Aley.  
The next I meet with is Pilkington, Bishop of Duresme, the Author of the Confutation of an Addition with an Apology, written, and cast in the Streets of West-Chester against the Causes of Burning Paul's Church in London, declared by the Bishop at Paul's Cross.  
The Bishop did at Paul's Cross Exhort the people to take the burning of Paul's to be a warning of a greater Plague to follow to the City of London, if amendment of Life be not had in all Estates, the Author of the Addition (a Papist, 
Histor. Q. Eliz. pag. 312.  notwithstanding what Heylin saith to the contrary, when he tells us that the Papists ascribe it to some practice of the Zuinglian Faction, out of their hatred unto all Solemnity and Decency in the Service of God, performed more punctually in that Church for Examples sake than in any other in the Kingdom) imputes it to the laying aside of the midnight Matins, forenoon Masses formerly had in the Church, and Anthems and Prayers in the Steeple.  
This Bishop, a Person of great Learning and good Temper, in Answer to this Paper, doth in the Sixth year of the Queen's Reign, thus express himself. Yet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words, when he saith, that the Government of the Church was committed to Bishops, as tho' they had received a Larger and Higher Commission from God, of Doctrine and Discipline than other. Lower Priests and Ministers have, and hereby might challenge a greater Prerogative. But this is to be understood, that the Privileges and Superiorities which Bishops have above other Ministers, are rather granted by Man, for maintaining of better Order and Quietness in Commonwealths, than Commanded by God in his Word. Ministers have better Knowledge and Utterance some than other; but their Ministry of Equal Dignity. God's Commission and Commandment is like, and indifferent to all, Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Prelate, by what name soever he be called— Saint Jerome in his Commentary on 1 Chap. Tit. says, that a Bishop and Priest is all One, and in his Epistle ad Evagrium he says, That the Bishop wheresoever he be, is of the same Power and Priesthood.— If they [the Papists] were not too much blinded in their own foolishness, they might see in the last Subsidy granted in the time of their own Reign, that they grant those to be their betters and above them, from whence they receive their Authority. The Parliament gives them and their Collectors Power to Suspend, Deprive and Interdict any Priest, that Pays not the Subsidy: In that doing they grant the Parliament to be above them, and from it to receive their Power.— I had not thought to have said so much on these his few words, and yet much more hangs on this their Opinion of claiming their Usurped Power above Princes and other Ministers.  
The Learned Bishop Jewel is of the same Mind with this Author, 
Apol. Par. 2. Ch. 5. Divis. 1. Ch. 6. Divis. 1.  and thus much he delivereth, not as his private Opinion, but as the sense of the Church of England,. Furthermore we say, That the Minister ought lawfully, duly, & orderly to be preferred to that Office of the Church of God, 
Ch. 6. Divis. 3. Ch. 7. Divis. 5.  and that no man hath power to wrest himself into the Holy Ministry at his own pleasure; That Christ hath given to his Minister's Power to bind, to lose, to open, to shut; That the Minister doth execute the Authority of binding and shutting, as often as he shutteth up the Gate of the Kingdom of Heaven against Unbelieving and Stubborn Persons, denouncing unto them God's Vengeance, and everlasting Punishment; or else when he doth quite shut them out from the bosom of the Church, by open Excommunication. Out of doubt, what Sentence soever the Minister of God shall give in this sort, God himself doth so well allow it, that, whatsoever here in Earth by their means is loosed and bound, God himself will lose and bind, and confirm the same in Heaven.— And seeing one word is given to all, and one only Key belongeth to all, we say, there is but one only Power of all Ministers, as concerning opening and shutting.  
At this time so much was given the Priest, that no room was left to make the Bishop of an Order distinct from him: The Keys belonged to all Ministers, to the Priest as well as Bishop.  
In the Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, 
Part. 2. Ch. 3. Divis. 5.  this Learned Bishop is more full and particular in his Assertions. In St. Jerom's time (saith he) there were Metropolitans, Archbishops, Archdeacon's, and others, but Christ appointed not these Distinctions of Orders from the beginning. These names are not found in all the Scriptures: This is the thing which we defend. St. Jerom saith, Sciant Episcopi, etc. Let Bishops understand, that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custom, than by Order of God's Truth.— Erasmus speaking of the times of Jerom, saith, that Id temporis idem erat Episcopus, Sacerdos, & Presbyter. These three names Bishop, Priest, Presbyter, at that time were all one.—  
To the Testimony of Jerom, the Bishop adds that of St. Austin, Epist. 19 saying, That the Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest, not by Authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of Honour, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.  
The Bishop in Defence of the Church of England, 
Part 2. Ch. 9 Divis. 1.  had affirmed, That against the Sacred Scripture, neither Law, nor Ordinance, nor any Custom ought to be heard, no, tho' Paul himself, or an Angel from Heaven should come, and teach the contrary.  
To this Harding replies, If all things necessary to Salvation be contained in the Scriptures, than whatever is not in them contained, the same is not necessary; if not necessary, why should we be laden with unnecessary Burdens? Then away with all Traditions at a Clap, be they never so Apostolic.— Remember you not what the most Renowned Fathers have said of the Necessity of Traditions?— If we go about to reject the Customs that be not set forth in Writing— we shall bring the Preaching of the Faith but to a bare name. For so they were taken for Heretics, who denied the Distinction of a Bishop, and a Priest, etc.  
Jewel rejoins, This [in the Margin] in an Untruth, for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerom, and other good men are condemned of Heresy.— But what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests and Bishops? thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition? or is it so horrible a Heresy as he makes it, to say, That by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop and a Priest are all One? or, knoweth he how far, and to whom he reacheth the name of an Heretic? Verily, Chrysostom saith, Between a Bishop and a Priest, in a manner there is no difference; St. Jerom saith somewhat in a rougher sort, I hear say, There is one become so peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops; whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us, that Priests and Bishops are all one. St. Austin saith, what is a Bishop but the first Priest, that is to say, the Highest Priest? so saith Saint Ambrose, There is but One Ordination of Priest and Bishop, for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is the first. All these and other Holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr. Harding's Advice, must be held for Heretics.  
Besides, as the Bishop is very express in his asserting a Bishop and Presbyter to be according to Christ's Institution all one; 
Part 6. Chap. 9 Divis. 1, & 2.  He is no less so in granting that the Bishop has received from the Prince the several Privileges he has above a Presbyter. I grant there be many special Privileges granted upon great and just Considerations of the mere favour of the Prince, that a Priest being found negligent, or otherwise offending in his Ministry, should be convinced and punished, not by the Temporal and Civil Magistrate, but by the Discretion of the Bishop.— Mr. Harding must remember that all these, and other like Privileges passed unto the Clergy from the Prince, and not from God; and proceed only of special Favour, and not of Right.  
Archbishop Whitgift in opposing Cartwright's Platform about the Government of the Church, asserted to be de Jure divino, distinguisheth between Spiritual and External Government, and saith, That the External Government hath both a Substance and Matter about which it is occupied, and also a Form to attain the same, consisting in certain Offices and Functions, and in the Names and Titles of them. The Substance and Matter of Government must indeed be taken out of the Word of God, and consisteth in these points: That the Word be truly taught, the Sacraments rightly administered, Virtue furthered, Vice repressed, and the Church kept in quietness and order: The Officers in the Church, whereby this Government is wrought, be not namely, and particularly expressed in the Scriptures, but in some points left to the Discretion and Liberty of the Church to be disposed according to the state of Times, Places, and Persons. Thus much in his Preface; conform to those who went before. The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and Reprehensions, etc. which belong to the Priest, is of God, the other Offices and Functions, which as he elsewhere has it, belong to the external Order and Policy of the Church, and consequently the Distinction between Bishop and Priest, 
Defence, Tract. c. 3. Diu. 38, 39, 40, 41.  and Superiority of a Bishop above a Priest, are only of humane Institution.  
More particularly, Cartwright contending for a sort of Discipline which is a Matter of Faith, and necessary to Salvation, the Archbishop distinguisheth between such things as are so necessary, that without them we cannot be saved, and such things as are so necessary, that without 'em, we cannot so well and conveniently be saved; and then adds, To be short, I confess, that in a Church collected together in one Place, and at Liberty, Government is necessary with the second kind of Necessity, but that any one kind of Government is so necessary, that without it, the Church cannot be saved, or, that it may not be altered into some other kind, thought to be more Expedient, I utterly deny; and the reasons that move me so to do, be these: The first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures, to the Church of Christ; which no doubt should have been done, if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church. Secondly, Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only; The true Preaching of the Word, and the right Administration of Sacraments:— So that notwithstanding, Government, or some kind of Government may be a part of the Church, touching the outward Form and Perfection of it; yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being, but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government; and therefore the kind of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation.— There is no certain kind of Government or Discipline prescribed to the Churches, but that the same may be altered, as the Profit of the Churches requires; and out of Gualters he saith, Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth, and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time, and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others, neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form.— I do deny, that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form, and kind of Government of the Church to be Perpetual, for all Times, Persons, and Places: without Alteration.— It is well known, 
Tract. 17. Chap. 2. Divis. 29.  that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time, and expressed in the Scriptures, neither is now, nor can, or aught to be observed, either touching the Persons, 
How then can the Government of the Church by Bîshops, Archbishops, etc. be Apostolical?  or the Functions.— We see manifestly, that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times, is, and hath been of necessity altered, and that it neither may nor can be revoked; whereby 'tis plain, that any one kind of External Government perpetually to be observed, is not where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church, but the charge thereof is left to the Magistrate, so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers, 
This was its like Universally▪ received by all the English Clergy in whitgift's time.  Neither do I know (saith the Archbishop) any Learned Man of a contrary Judgement.— Either we must admit another Form now of Governing the Church than was in the Apostles time, or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters.— I am persuaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Commonwealth; else how can you make the Prince Supreme Governor of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical?— If you therefore will have the Queen of England Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions, then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all, and every part of the same, and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs, as she doth the Commonwealth in Civil.  
Dr. Cousins, Chancellor to this Archbishop, in his Answer to the Abstract, 
Pag. 58.  asserts, That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline, neither is it necessary that they should, seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God. Dr. Low speaks to the same purpose, Complaint of the Church, No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word; 
P. 64, 66.  only general Rules laid down for it.  
Bishop Bridges; God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government, at least not so as to bind us.  
What is here mentioned of Cousins, Low, and Bishop Bridges, I have out of Dean Stillingfleet's Weapon Salve, and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about Whitaker, who, making his remarks on St. Hierom's teling us, 
Whitaker, De Ecles. Regimin. Contr. 4. q. 1. §. 29. p. 540. Col. 2.  That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men, long after the Apostles, as a Remedy against Schism, assures us, That it's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady, for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church; and this other of Bishop Morton, telling the Papists, That Power of Order, and of Jurisdiction, which they ascribe to Bishops, doth the jure divino belong to all other Presbyters and particularly, 
Morton 's Apol. Cath. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 55.  That [to Ordain] is the jus antiquum, the Ancient Right of Presbyters, in fine, That Dr. Laurence Humphrey, and Dr. Holland, 
Humf. against Campian. Jesuit. Part 2. p. 273.  both of them Doctors of the Chair in Oxford, did teach and maintain the same Doctrine; Holland in the Act, July 9 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Schoolmen, Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc.   

CHAP. IU. Dr. Willet 's Sentiments much the same with the foremention'd Bishops, The Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter as of Divine Right declured to be Popish, and opposed 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 numbered amongst those Worthies of the Church of England, 
Hall in his Noah 's Dove.  to whom he gives this Elegy, Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus. This Dr. in his Synopsis Papismi is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter, and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted.  
The grand Question under Debate is, 
Willet 's Synops. Papism. Contr. 5. Quest. 3. Concerning▪ the Clergy. Append.  Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers, be grounded upon the Law of God, and Institution of the Apostles?  
The Papists.  
Bellarmine (saith the Dr.) affirmeth, 
Lib. 1. De Clericis, c. 14.  That the Jurisdiction of Bishops, as now it standeth in their Church, and the Difference between them, and other Presbyters is, Jure Divino, grounded upon the Law of God, and of such necessity, that he holdeth the contrary to be Heresy; and those to be Heretics that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politic 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 aught to be Superior 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 Extreme 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 Judgement, Bishop Jewel against Harding, showeth 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, etc. according to the Names of Honour, which the Use or Custom of the Church hath obtained, 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, lieth 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 affirmed, 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 allegeth 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 enjoined unto all Churches; But this cannot, without prejudice of many Reformed Churches, be affirmed, which have no Bishops, tho' they have other Overseers in their stead— Wherefore I cannot conclude that this special Form of Ecclesiastical Government is absolutely prescribed in the Word: for then all those Churches, which have not that Prescript Form, whether of Bishops or other, should be condemned as Erroneous Churches. So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists, and us: They say, it is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope, and to Bishops and Archbishops under him, as necessarily prescribed in the Word; but so do not our Bishops and Archbishops, which is a not able difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church, and of the Reformed Churches.— Let every Church use that Form which best fitteth their state: In External Matters every Church is Free, not one bound to the Prescription of another; so they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word.— Now to conclude this whole Matter, and to speak distinctly of every Point, that it may appear how far this Difference in Ecclesiastical Functions is Divine, and wherein Humane: This I judge may safely without any Contradiction be affirmed, that in this Distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is some. what Apostolical, somewhat also Political.— First, In the calling of Bishops, as they are now Ordained 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 than 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 showeth, First, Apostles; Secondly, Prophets, etc. Secondly, there is somewhat Political, and that of two sorts, as touching the Polity Ecclesiastical, and Civil.  
To the Ecclesiastical Polity 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, etc. 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, Jerome saith, was committed to the Senate, or College of Presbyters, was afterward to avoid Schism, devolved to the Bishop.  
Fifthly, S. Ambrose saith, 
1 Tim. 3.  Episcopi & Presbyteri, etc. 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 Ordained 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 obtained from the Bishop, as it may appear Distinct. 95. c. 6. Qui non vult Presbyteros, etc. 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, etc.— 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 publicly without the Authority of the Bishop, let him be Excommunicated.  
Divers other Constitutions have been made in Ecclesiastical Polity 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 Bishoprics 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 Bishoprics, as that they are created Barons and made Lords of the Parliament-House here in England, have been bestowed by the Liberality of the Kings of this Realm, not yet above 400 years since.— Fourthly, The Judgement 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 showed, 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 the 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 reserved 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 chief, but solely and wholly to them appertaineth the Right of Consecrating, and giving Orders; so that the making the Bishop to be of a distinct Order from the Priest, and the denying the Priest to have a Power to Preach without the Bishop's Licence, or any hand in Ordination, Willet opposeth as Popish Doctrines representing the opposite Notions to have been then held by the Church of England.  
Hitherto the Government of the Church by Bishops, lays no claim to a Divine Right: On the contrary, it's generally asserted, that according to the Scriptures, the Priest and Bishop are the same, and that the superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter is only by Ecclesiastic 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 Queen's Reign, the Episcopal Government is affirmed to be Apostolical, and a Divine Institution; yet not to be de jure divine, and unalterable.  
Saravia about the two and thirtieth year of the Queen, professeth, 
* Hoc enim pacto fiet magis clarum, quid omnes Evangelii ministri inter se habeant commune & quid cuique ordini sit peculiar.— 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. Evangeliis Ministerium sit omnibus Pastoribus Ecclesiae concreditum; in hac tertia parte non parva. inter eos invenitur Inaequalitas propter diversos Authoritatis Gradus, quos primo Dominus statim ab initio, & postea Apostoli constituerunt.— p. 7. Primum ab ipso Domino Duos Gradus Evangelii ministrorum institutos videmus, quorum alter altero fuit superior, p. 25. Consensu totius Orbis Ecclesiarum probatur Episcoporum supra Presbyteros authoritas. Quod inde ab Apostolorum temporibus & patribus per universum terrarum Orbem factum ab omnibus Ecclesiis legimus usque. ad nostra tempora Canonem Apostolorum immutabilem esse judico, p. 44. c. 20.  That the general Nature of the Evangelical Ministry, common both to Bishops and Presbyters, containeth these three things. 

1. The Preaching of the Gospel.  
2. The Communication of the Sacraments.  
3. The Authority of Church Government;   and doth only plead, that in this last, the Power of Bishops and Presbyters is not equal; but the Bishop's Power is principal in Government. Whence arises a Diversity of Degrees, not of Orders between them, and thus much he affirms hath been held by the Fathers of the Church universally ever since the Apostles days, and therefore may well be looked on as an Unchangeable Canon of the Apostles.  
The Difference between Saravia and those who went before him lieth here.  
Whit gift, etc. Saravia. The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments divinely Instituted, and to continue to the End of the World; but no particular Form of Government left on Record in Scripture. The Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter according to St. Hierom, rather by Custom of the Church, than an Institution of Christ. Not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, but the Form of Government, instituted by the Lord himself, delivered by the Apostles, confirmed by the Observation of the Fathers ought to continue for ever. The Superiority in Degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter a Divine Institution, and that St. Hierom was in the same Error with Aerius. Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi Opinionem, consentaneam cum Aerio, & Dei verbo contrariam, p. 51.  
A Year or two after Saravia's Book came out, Bancroft (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury) publisheth a Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, as he calls his Book in the Preface, to which he saith, That we have a Church Government of our own, which is in my conscience truly Apostolical, and far to be preferred before any other that is received this day by any Reformed Church in Christendom. And elsewhere in the Book itself, 
P. 105.  The Apostles (saith he) having received the Promise of the Holy Ghost, after a short time dipersed themselves (by advice) into divers Regions; and there, by painful Preaching and Labouring in the Lord's Harvest, they planted, no doubt, very many Churches. As the number of Christians grew, and had their particular Assemblies and Meetings in many Cities and Countries within every one of their Circuits: they placed Pastors in every Congregation, they ordained certain Apostolical men, to be Chief Assisters unto them: whom they placed, some one in this particular Country, and some others in sundry Cities to have the Rule and Oversight under them, of the Churches there, and to redress and supply such wants as were needful! And they themselves (after a while, and as they grew in age, and escaped the Cruelty of Tyrants) remained for the most part in some Head City within their Compass, to oversee them all, both Church's 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 idly 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 soon put to Death, were (when they died) in the same case that Crete was, when Titus was sent thither, and had therefore as much need of a Titus as Crete had. Furthermore, who can be accounted to be well in his wits, that will imagine that Christ should ordain such an Authority, but for some Threescore years? especially, the same Causes continuing, why it was first instituted, that were before. Nay, I may boldly say, that there was greater need for the continuance of it afterward. For the Apostles having so great Power to work Miracles, and by their Prayers to procure from God such strange Executions of his Pleasure upon the contemptuous, as did fall upon Ananias and his Wife (and I doubt not but in like cases, sometimes upon some others) their Ruling and Commanding Authority, was not so necessary then, as it was afterwards, when the Power to work Miracles ceased.  
But what should I need to use many words in a matter so apparent? After the Death of the Apostles, and of their Assistants, viz. the Bishops placed by them, as is mentioned, the Ecclesiastical Histories, and the Ancient Fathers, have kept the Register of their Names, that succeeded sundry of them, and ruled the Churches after them, as they before had ruled them. Whereupon they were called from all Antiquity the Apostles, and Apostolical man's Successors. This Inequality in the Ministry of the Word hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers (none excepted) by all the General Councils, that ever were held in Christendom: and by all other Men of Learning (that ever I heard of) for many Hundred years after the Apostles time, saving that Aerius the Heretic, an ambitious Person, growing into great rage, for that he miss of a Bishopric, 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, Precedents, Provosts of Colleges. And in my Judgement, they may with as good Conscience be Governors of their Diocese, as we being Ministers, may be Governors of Colleges of Ministers. Neither do I think, that this was a late devised Policy. For I am persuaded, 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 persuaded that in other places some of that Order of Pastors and Teachers, which is Perpetual in the Church, even in the time of the Apostles had a Prelacy amongst their Brethren, and that this Pre-eminence is approved by our Saviour. And if we come any lower, tho' the word Episcopus, signify 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, etc. 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 fallen in time of Persecution, before the Bishop had advised of it, with them and others.  
Here than you have two for Oxford, touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers when they speak of Bishops. Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion, I mean Dr. Fulke, who in his Confutation of the Rhemish Notes upon the New Testament writeth thus, Amongst the Clergy for Order and seemly Government, there was always one Principal, to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied, which room Titus exercised in Creta; Timothy, in Ephesus; and others in other Places. Therefore altho' in the Scripture a Bishop, and an Elder is of one Order, and Authority in Preaching the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments (as Hierom doth often confess) yet in Government by ancient use of Speech, He is only called a Bishop, which is in the Scriptures called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 13.17. that is, Chief in Government, to whom the Ordination, or Consecration by Imposition of hands, was always Principally committed, and which most ancient Form of Government, when Aerius would take away, it was noted amongst his other Errors. Hitherto Dr. Fulke; so as hereby I trust it may appear to Master Cart-wright's Reproach, and to all their Shames that shall pretend any Authority from the ancient Fathers to impugn the Right Honourable and Lawful calling of Bishops, not Parsons in every Parish, but Bishops in their Dioceses and Provinces, appointed in the Apostles times, for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ.  
So far Rancroft, who introduceth these three great Men's Authority to countenance the Presidency, or Chiefty of the Bishop over Presbyters in Government, as Apostolical, tho' Fulke goes no higher than the Custom of the Church, agreeing with Jewel and Whit gift, and it must be observed, that they make not the Bishop to be a distinct Order from that of Presbyters, nor deny the Presbyters to be Pastors; nor affirm the Invalidity of the Presbyterial Ordination, only that the Ordination by Imposition of hands, was Principally committed to the Bishops; and as Archbishop Spotiswood reports, Bancroft held the Ordination only by Presbyters, to be valid and lawful. 
Histor. Church of Scotland, lit. 7. p. 514.  Spotiswood has it in these words, A Question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely, touching the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops; who, as he said, must first be Ordained Presbyters, as having received no Ordination from a Bishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, That thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed Lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any Lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches. This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated.   

CHAP. V The Learned Hooker, and Bishop Bilson's Opinion impartially stated, differing but little from Saravia and Bancroft.  
THE Learned and Judicious Hooker seems also to be of the same mind with Saravia and Bancroft, for in his Third Book, it's only Polity in the general, that in his Opinion is necessary to the several particular Churches;  
For, 
Lib. 3. Sect. 1. p. 66. Edit. 61.  (saith he) even the several Societies of Christian Men, unto every of which the name of a Church is given, with addition betokening severally, as the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, England, and so the rest, must be endued with correspondent general Properties belonging unto them, as they are Public 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 comprise 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 Public. Neither is any thing in this degree more necessary than Church Polity, which is a form of Ordering Public Spiritual Affairs of the Church of God.  
Thus Hooker looks on Polity to be necessary to the Church, and why necessary, but because God himself is the Author of it. It is not possible that any Form of Polity, much less of Polity Ecclesiastical should be good, 
Lib. 3. §. 2.  unless God himself be Author of it. Those things which are not of God (saith Tentullian) they can have no other than God's Adversary for their Author. Be it whatsoever in the Church of God, if it be not of God, we hate it.  
But then he distinguished between what is of God by the Law of Nature, and the Revelation made of the Divine Will in Scripture. Of God it must be either as those things sometimes were, which God supernaturally revealed, and so delivered them unto Moses for Government of the Commonwealth of Israel; or else as those things which Men find out by help of that Light which God hath given them unto that end. The very Law of Nature itself, 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 Controversy 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, show what one form of Policy ever was so; your own to be so taken out of Scripture, you'll 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 stopped, when you would plead against all other Forms besides your own; seeing the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry, may equally be consonant unto the general Axioms of the Scripture.  
After the most impartial Enquiry, this Learned Man's Judgement 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 complete 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 ourselves, 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 persuaded of nothing more than we are of this, that whether it be in matter of Speculation, or of Practice, no Untruth 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 confessed, 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 beforementioned. For so perfectly are those things taught, that nothing ever can need to be added, nothing ever cease to be necessary: These on the contrary side, as being of a far other nature and Quality, not so strictly nor everlastingly, commanded in Scripture, but that unto the complete 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 fallen 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 Public 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 aught to be in such case, at leastwise two sorts of Ecclesiastical Persons, the one subordinate unto the other, as to the Apostles in the beginning, and to Bishops always since, we find plainly both in Scripture, and in all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments have been.  
Moreover, it cannot enter into any man's conceit to think it lawful, that every man which listeth, should take upon him charge in the Church; and therefore a Solemn Admittance is of such necessity, that without it there can be no Church-Polity.  
These are the Principal and Perpetual parts in Ecclesiastical Polity.  
Thus much in the Third Book, where he looks on Church-Polity in the general and some special parts thereof, such as a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, and a Subordination of the Presbyter to the Bishop to be agreeable to the Word of God, but no complete 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 Public, 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 Public Actions, and those of Good Importance, are notwithstanding well, and fitly enough committed. From hence have grown those different Degrees of Magistrates, or Public 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 administering 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 over the Church is contained within some definite local compass, beyond which compass their Jurisdiction reacheth not; such therefore, we always mean, when we speak of that Regiment by Bishops, which we hold a thing most Lawful, Divine and Holy in the Church of Christ.  
But what doth He mean by Chiefty in Government? In answer unto this, he tells us how far the old Noncons went in the grant of an Inequality, and how much further He goeth. They which cannot brook (saith he) the Superiority which Bishops have, 
Sect. 3. p. 6.  do, notwithstanding themselves, admit that some kind of Difference and Inequality there may be lawfully amongst Ministers. Inequality touching Gifts and Graces they grant— Again, a Priority of Order they 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 Us 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 Pastors, 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 expressly 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 observed were some delivered by Christ himself, with a Charge to keep them to the world's End, as the Law of Baptising, and administering 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 satisfy not myself in my Judgement 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 of 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 Judgement 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 enjoin; 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 Deal 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 virtuous Bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true, and Heavenly Law can be showed, 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 Public 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 Superior 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 intimations 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 Bishoprics 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 Bishopric will make a Parsonage and a Diocese to be Ejusdem speciei, and whether Magnitude do not make a specific 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 Bishopric no larger than a Parsonage, and a Diocesan Bishopric, the Controversy 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 Bishoprics as there are considerable Parsonages, or Parishes endowed, 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 Hooker's Judgement 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 ways. The Power of Ordination is appropriated to the Bishop by the Church's 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 Bishop's Coadjutors. The Bishops and Presbyters who together with him governed the Church, are for the most part by Ignatius jointly mentioned; 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 valid; 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 Bishop's Coadjutors, Assistants, Advisers and Counsellors.  
The Learned Bilson, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, speaking of the Controversy between the Old Nonconformists and the Church of England, 
Perpetual Government of the Church.  expresseth himself in these words. Thus far we join, That to prevent Dissension and Confusion, there must needs, 
Epistle to the Reader.  even by God's Ordinance, be a Precedent, 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, Under and after the Law, we accept as Irrefutable, and lay it as the Groundwork 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, Administering 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 Succeeding, 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 shown 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 Brevity's sake, I often reduce to two Branches, which are Doctrine and Discipline, comprising in Doctrine the Dividing of the Word and Dispensing of the Sacraments, and referring the rest, I mean, the Public 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 Apostolic 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. Woe 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, etc. And likewise to all his Apostles, Whatsoever ye bind on Earth, 
P. 218.  etc.— It resteth in this place to be considered to whom those Keys were committed, whether Equally to all Presbyters, or Chief to Pastors, and Bishops. The like must be done for Imposition of Hands, whether that also pertained indifferently to all, or specially to Bishops.  
This is the State of the Point in Controversy; 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 chief and specially to Bishops: But whether the one or the other be affirmed, '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 chief 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 chief and specially. Now Conform hereunto the Learned Bilson saith, The Bishop then, or Precedent 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 Household, and Overseer of his Flock.— And touching the Presbyter's Power, 
P. 319.  He adds, That at first the Presbyters sat with the Bishop as Assessors, and Consenters, before Synods undertook such Causes; But after, when once Councils began to have the Hearing of Grievances, than sat the Presbyters with the Bishop only, as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgement— 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 that were Baptised, by Laying on their Hands, Dedication of Churches, etc. 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 Dissensions, 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 extreme 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, Heresy 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 show, 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?  
And 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 chief 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 Precedent. How far I join with you, you shall quickly perceive. To avoid Tumults and Dissensions, 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 Chief committed to his Charge that is the Leader, and Overseer of the rest: whom we call a Bishop. His Power I call a Moderation, and not a Domination; because the Wisdom of God hath likewise allowed and provided Christian means as well to Bridle him from wrongs, as to Direct him in Doubts. And whereas the Nonconformist tells him, that this is right the Power which they give to their Presbyteries; his Answer is, Did you not put Lay-Men instead of Pastors to be Presbyters, and make them Controulers, where they should be but Advisers, your Presbyteries might have some use in the Church of God; tho' far less now than when they first began. And amongst the many uses of Presbyteries, 
P. 307.  the Bishop is Positive," That at first, lest the Bishop's 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 Public 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 Bishop's consent and Licence, we praise the Wisdom of God's Church in suffering no Inferior 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 Elizabeth's Reign; namely, Alley Bishop of Exeter, Pilkington Bishop of Duresme, Jewel Bishop of Salisbury and Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, who held, that according to the Scriptures, there was no Difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop, that in Scripture account their Office and Powers were the same, and that the Apostles did not leave behind them any one kind of Church Government to be observed throughout all the Churches at all times. These were followed by Dr. Cousins, Dr. Low, and Bishop Bridges.  
The Learned Willet, in his Synopsis Papismi, a Book Published at least three or four times in Queen Elizabeth's Days, and afterwards by King James his Special Command, doth in most things agree with the Bishops, but now mentioned, 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 Judgements 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 looked on by these, as what ought to be. The Government of the Church with them is a Divine and Apostolical Institution, but not Unalterable. 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 Judgement with Him, 
P. 2.  doth solemnly Declare in these words, That although he holds the Calling of Bishops in respect of their first Institution, to be an Apostolical, and so a Divine Ordinance, yet that he doth not maintain it to be Divini Juris, as intending thereby, that it is Generally, Perpetually, and Immutably necessary, as though there could not be a True Church without it. And within a few Pages after this, He declares his Opinion to be the same with King James'; 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 Civil 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 Church, nor did any Great Men of the Church of England, in Queen Elizabeth's time, null the Ministry or Church State of the Reform 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 entertained about Episcopacy are such, as would (if the Government of the Church be at this time Framed 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 usher's Reduction of Episcopacy, I will with some Notes present it to the Reader's more Deliberate Consideration.   

CHAP. VI Archbishop Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy with some Notes on it. The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the Ancient Church; proposed in the year 1641. as an Expedient for the prevention of those Troubles, which afterwards did arise about the matter of Church-Government.  

Episcopal and Presbyterial Government Conjoined.  
BY Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments, 
The Book of Ordination.  and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same; And that they might the better understand what the Lord had commanded therein, 
Ibid. ex Act. 20.27, 28.  the Exhortation to St. Paul, to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination; Take heed unto yourselves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Rule the Congregation of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken in Mat. 2.6. Revel. 12.5. & 19.15.  which he hath purchased with his Blood.  

Notes.  
Thus it was in the Old Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons; but on the Restauration of Charles II. there were such Alterations made in the Books of Common Prayer and Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as do plainly show, that tho' heretofore the Presbyters had Power to Rule, yet now they have none.  
In the Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. 2. it is Declared, That the King's Majesty (according to his Declaration of 25. October, 1660.) granted his Commission under the Great Seal of England, to several Bishops, and other Divines, to Review the Book of Common Prayer, and to prepare such Alterations, and Additions, as they thought fit to offer: And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces of Canterbury and York, being by his Majesty called and Assembled, (and now sitting) his Majesty hath been pleased to Authorise and require the Precedents of the said Convocations, and other the Bishops, and Clergy of the same, to Review the said Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of the Form and Manner of the making and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; And that after mature Consideration, they should make such Additions, and Alterations in the said Books respectively, as to them should seem meet and convenient; And should Exhibit, and Present the same to his Majesty in Writing, for his further Allowance, or Confirmation; since which time, upon full and mature Deliberation, they, the said Precedents, Bishops, and Clergy of both Provinces, have accordingly Reviewed the said Books, and have made some Alterations, which they think fit to be inserted to the same, and have Exhibited and Presented the same unto his Majesty in Writing. All which his Majesty having duly considered, hath fully Approved and Allowed the same, and recommended to this present Parliament.  
The Books thus altered, were by this Parliament confirmed and established, and the Alterations such as make the Office of the Presbyter quite another thing than it was before; for tho' in the old Book of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, the Reading unto the Presbyters at the time of their Ordination, Acts 20.27, 28. did put it out of Doubt, that the Presbyters were vested with the Pastoral Office, having Power given 'em to Rule the Church; In the new Book this Exhortation is removed from the Presbyters Ordination unto the Consecration of Bishops, thereby manifestly Evincing the Pastoral Power to be taken from the Presbyter, and seated with the Bishop only, and accordingly the name [Pastor] which was in the old Book given unto the Presbyter, is in the new omitted, and in several places the word [Curate, or Priest] substituted in its stead; and whereas, in the old Book, the Presbyter was admitted [to the Ministry of Priesthood] in the new it's to the [Order] and Ministry of Priesthood, thereby making Priesthood an Order distinct from those of Deaconship and Episcopacy. In the Consecrating of Bishops in the Collect, to show what they mean by Bishop more than formerly, it's added by way of Explication to all Bishops [the Pastors of thy Church] and in the Prayer for the Bishop [Almighty God, etc.] in the old Book 'twas, Replenish him so with thy Truth— that He may faithfully serve thee in this Office to the Edifying of thy Church; in the new it is [to the well Governing thy Church.] And when the Archbishop and other Bishop's present, do lay their Hands on the Elected, and according to the old Book, were to say, [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] in the new it's added [for the Office and Work of a Bishop Now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands in the Name of the Father, etc.]  
Thus the Alterations by Law establshed do clearly show, that both the Name and Office of a Pastor is taken from the Presbyter, and transferred over to the Diocesan, who alone hath the Power of Ordering Priests and Deacons, and of Governing or Ruling the Church; whence it follows, that as there is but One Pastor in a Diocese, there is but one Church; That all Parish-Assemblies are but parts or parcels of this One single Church, under the Conduct and Government only of the Diocesan Bishop, their only Pastor; That all Ordinations by Presbyters are of no greater Validity than those by Deacons or Laymen; and therefore altho' Ordination is no more to be repeated than Baptism, yet those who have had their Ordination only by Presbyters, must be Ordained again, or not admitted unto any Benefice, nor allowed the Exercise of the Priestly Office, nor be esteemed Lawful Priests; so that as there is a vast Difference between Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Charles the Second, so between Queen Elizabeth's Law, and King Charles'. Q. Elizabeth's Act runs thus, That every Person under the Degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word and Sacraments, by reason of any other Form of Institution, Consecration, or Ordering, than the Form now used in the Reign of our most Gracious Sovereign Lady— shall— declare his Assent, and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the Profession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a Book Entitled, Articles, etc. [viz. 39 Articles]— upon pain, that every such Person which shall not subscribe, shall be (ipso facto) deprived, and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void, as if he had been naturally dead.  
King Charles his Law is thus, That no Parson, who now is Incumbent, and in the Possession of any Parsonage or Benefice, and who is not in Holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination, or shall not be before the said Feast-day of St. Bartholomew, Ordained Priest or Deacon, shall have, hold, or enjoy any Parsonage with Cure— but shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same, and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void, as if he had been naturally dead.  
Touching Persons ordained by any other Form than the Episcopal, a Subscription to the Articles was sufficient by 13 Eliz. c. 12. to Qualify them for Spiritual Promotion, and Whittingham's, whose Ordination was only by Presbyters abroad, was esteemed good, and he enjoyed his Benefice to the day of his death, as Traverse, in his Supplication to the Council, affirms: but tho' the Articles be subscribed unto by one having only an Ordination by Presbyters, he must be ordained by the Bishop, or not admitted to any Ecclesiastical Promotion; or if admitted, he is ipso facto deprived; and whoever consults the Book of Ordering Presbyters, will find that the whole of it plainly declares, that the former Odination of the Person thus re-ordained, was invalid and null, and that till now he was never of the Presbyters Office; for the Ordination of one never before ordained, and the Ordination of him who was formerly ordained by Presbyters, is the same.  
Whether I am right in these my Sentiments, I appeal to the Right Reverend and Reverend Bishops and others of the Dignified Clergy, who, with the greatest importunity, are desired to declare their Judgements in this Matter.  
To know what the Government of the Church of England is, that is by Archbishops, Bishops; and what is the Office of a Presbyter, what that of a Bishop, is a matter of extraordinary importance.  
If it be the same it was in Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth's days, which is the same with what the Learned Archbishop Usher was for, the greatest Bone of Contention between the Cons and Noncons will be removed farther. Every Parish-Presbyter will be granted to be a Pastor, vested with a Right to Rule the Church, (from whence, saith the Learned Archbishop, the name of Rector also was given unto him at first) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter to be only in Degree, and not in Order, as this Learned Primate ever held, as he saith in an Answer to an abusive Report, that went abroad of him: I have ever declared my Opinion to be (saith he) That Episcopus & Presbyter gradu tantum differunt, non Ordine, and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid; and Dr. Bernard in his Animadversions on the Archbishops' Opinion, asserts, That in this Judgement he was not singular; Dr. Davenant, that Pious and Learned Bishop of Salisbury, consents with him in it, 
Determinat. Q. 42.  produceth the Principal of the Schoolmen, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Gerson, Durand, etc. Episcopatus non est Ordo praecise distinctus à Sacerdotio simplici, etc. non est alia potestas Ordinis in Episcopis quàm Presbyteris, sed inest modo perfectiori. And declares it to be the general Opinion of Schoolmen, etc. And whereas the Primate saith, That in Cases of Necessity, where Bishops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid: Bishop Davenant concurs with him also, and produceth the Opinion of Richardus Armathanus (one of this Primate's Predecessors, and one of the most Learned men in his time) to be accordingly. To which divers others might be added, as in special Dr. Field sometimes Dean of Gloucester, in his Learned Book of the Church, where this Judgement of the Primate, 
Lib. 3. c. 39 & lib. 5. c. 27.  and the Concurrence of Bishop Davenant's, is largely confirmed. But that Book Entitled, The Defence of the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, maintained by Mr. Archdeacon Mason against the Romanists (who wrote also a Defence of Episcopacy, and of the Ministry of the Church of England) is fufficiently known, and I have been assured it was not only the Judgement of Bishop Overal, but that he had a Principal hand in it. He produceth many Testimonies, the Master of the Sentences, and most of the Schoolmen, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Durand, Dominicus Soto, Richardus Armachanus, Tostatus, Alphonsus à Castro, Gerson, Canisius to have affirmed the same; and at last quotes Medina, a Principal Bishop of the Council of Trent, who affirmed, That Jerom, Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact were of the same Judgement also. In a word, if the Ordination of Presbyters in such places where Bishops cannot be had, were not valid, the late Bishops of Scotland had a hard Task to maintain themselves to be Bishops, who were not Priests, for their Ordination was no other.  
What Dr. Bernard mentions about the Archbishop's dislike of the late presbyterians here in England, is not so much against their Exercising the Power, as the Manner of their Exercise, they did not add to the Imposition of Hands [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] nor so much as these words [Be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments, etc.] Moreover in the Close to the Reduction the Primate and Dr. Holdsworth aver, That the Suffragans, mentioned in the second Proposition, may lawfully use the Power both of Jurisdiction and Ordination according to the Word of God and the Practice of the Ancient Church, who yet are but the Chorepiscopi, of no other Order than the Presbyters, as hereafter I shall prove. A Declaring therefore thus much, namely, That the Presbyter is of the same Order, vested with the Power both of Order and Jurisdiction, and an entrusting them with the Exercise thereof, as in the second Proposition, will contribute very much towards a well Established Comprehension; And in Requital it's not to be doubted, but the Latitudinarian Nonconformist, of which there are a great number in this Kingdom, will readily yield to the Presidency of one Presbyter, for the sake of Union, to be over them, and close with what the Archbishop further adds.  
Archbishop.  
Of the many Elders, who in common Ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was one Precedent, whom our Saviour in his Epistle to this Church, in a peculiar manner styleth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus: 
Revel. 1.  and Ignatius in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, calleth the Bishop thereof. Betwixt the Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church, what an Harmonious Consent there was in the Ordering of the Church-Government, the same Ignatius doth fully declare, by the Presbytery, which St. Paul, understanding the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders, who then had a hand, 
1 Tim. 4.14.  not only in the Delivery of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the Administration of the Discipline of Christ: for further proof of which, we have that known Testimony of Tertullian in his general Apology for Christians. 
Ibidem etiam Exhortationes, Castigationes, & censura Divina; nam & judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu, summum summumque futuri Judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut à Communicatione Orationis, & Conventus & omnis sancti Commercii relegetur: president probati quique Seniores, honotem istum non pretio, sed Testimonio adepti. Tertul. Apologet. c. 39  In the Church are used Exhortations, Chastisements, and Divine Censure; for Judgement is given with great advice, as amongst those, who are certain they are in the sight of God, and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the Judgement which is to come, if any man have so offended, that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer, and of the Assembly, and of all Holy Fellowship. The Precedents that bear Rule therein, are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this Honour, not by Reward, but by good Report, who were no other (as he himself intimates elsewhere) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 
Nec de aliorum manibus quàm Praesidentium sumimus. Id. de Corona Militis, c. 3.   
For with the Bishop, who was the Chief Precedent (and therefore styled by the same Tertullian in another place 
* Dandi quidem Baptisini habet jus Summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi. Id. de Baptis. c. 17  Summus Sacerdos for distinction sake) the rest of the Dispenser's of the Word and Sacraments joined in the Common Government of the Church; and therefore, where in Matters of Ecclesiastical Judicature, Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the received Form of gathering together the Presbytery; 
Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium. Cornel. apud Cypr. Epist. 46.  of what persons that did consist, Cyprian sufficiently declareth, when he wisheth them to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy, 
Florentissimo illic clero tecum praesidenti. Cypr. Epist. 55. ad Cornel.  which there did Preside or Rule with him. The presence of the Clergy being thought to be so requisite in matters of Episcopal Audience, that in the fourth Council of Carthage, it was concluded, 
Ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum suorum, alioquin irrita crit sententia Episcopi, nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur. Concil. Carthag. IV. cap. 23.  That the Bishop might hear no man's cause without the Presence of the Clergy, and that otherwise the Bishop's Sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the Presence of the Clergy; which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of 
* Except. Egberti, c. 43.  Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times, and afterwards in the Body of the 
‖ 15. q. 7. c. nullus.  Canon Law itself.  
True it is, that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused, yet seeing it still professeth, that every Pastor hath a Right to Rule the Church (from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to Administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to Dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Restraint of the Exercise of that Right, proceedeth only from the Custom now received in this Realm, no man can doubt, but by another Law of the Land, this hindrance may be well removed; And this Ancient Form of Government by the united Suffrages of the Clergy, might be revived again; and with what little show of Alteration, the Synodical Conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded with the Presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province, the indifferent Reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing Propositions.    

I.  
In every Parish the Rector, or incumbent Pastor, together with the Churchwardens and Sides-men, may every Week take notice of such as live scandalously in that Congregation, who are to receive such several Admonitions and Reproofs as the Quality of their Offence shall deserve: And if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they may be presented to the next monthly Synod, and in the mean time debarred by the Pastor from Access unto the Lord's Table.  

Notes.  
The Name Rector, which signifieth a Governor or Ruler, was anciently given in common to Prelates, Bishops, Abbots, and Parish-Presbyters, but chief to the Parish-Priest or Parson that had Cure of Souls, as DV FRESENE observes out of the Lombardian Laws, 
Rectores Ecclesiarum Praelati, Episcopi, Abbates Parochiarum Presbyteri in lege Longob. l. 3. tit. 1. Sect. 42. tit. 10. Sect. 4. In Capitularibus Carol. M. lib. 3. tit. 75. etc. Maxim Rector Ecclesiae qui vulgo Curio, seu Curitus, ut in Charta Alaman. 43. apud Goldastum. DV FRESNE Glos. in verb. Rector.  and Charles Great's Capitulars, and the Almain Charter.  
Lindwood also in his Provincial Constitution, declares the same; 
Communiter loquendo [per ipsorum Rectorum] intelligas de Rectoribus Ecclesiarum Parochialium. Potest etiam intelligi de omni Praelato Ecclesiae. Lindw. de Consu. c. nullus ver. nullus Rector, & ver. Ipsorum Rectorum.  and 
* Vid. Cowel's Interpreter, in Verb. Rector.  cowel affirms, That in our Common Law, Rector Ecclesioe Parochialis, is he that hath the Charge or Cure of a Parish-Church; qui tantum Jus in Ecclesia Parochiali habet, quantum Proelatus in Ecclesiâ Collegiatâ, That a Parson and Rector were anciently the same: So 
† Lib. 4. Tract. 5. ca pri.  Bracton, Sciendum quod Rectoribus Ecclesiarum Parochialium competit Assisa, qui institui sunt per Episcopos & Ordinarios, ut Personae. Lindwood holds the same: For, 
De Praesump. c. ne Lepra, Sect. quod si. ver. Personatus.  as he avers, That in aliquibus locis Rectores Ecclesiarum vocantur Personae, so he is as express, that haec dictio Personae, est vulgar Anglicorum, & ponitur pro Rectore Wat's. in his Glossary, observing the Word Personatus in Otho's Constitutions, delivered by Matthew Paris in Henry the Third's days, 
In quibus locis omnibus accipitur pro Rectoria, quam a Parsonage vocamus.  and in Pope Innocent's Letter to the Abbot of St. Alban, assures us, that it signifies a Rectory, and the Persona, or Parson, is the Rector. 
De Confess Personar. & Cleric. Quod in quodan. ver. Persona.  John de Athon in his Commentary on Otho's Constitutions on the Word Personae, saith, (i.e.) Rectores; loquitur enim secundum vulgar Anglicorum. Lindwood, 
It is also clear from anciently acknowledged rish-Church; and therefore  that Vicar's Perpetual were to be Rectors or Governors of the Paon the Constitution of Simon Langham, where it's Ordained, That Nullus Rector presume to sell those Tithes of his Church not yet received, 
Nullus Rector, supple vel Vicarius, ubi est Perpetuus De Consuet. c. Nullus Rector, ver. Nullus Rector.  before the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary, it must be understood also of Vicar's Perpetual: And John de Athon is very large in discussing, and positive in determining it: 
Credo respectu Rectorum Vicarium dici Intitulatum, respectu vero aliorum nominare debet Rectorem. Constit. Otho. de Instit. Vicarior. verb. ad. Vicar.  For, saith he, out of Innocent's Extrav. though if you consider a Vicar Perpetual, with respect to his Rector, whose Vicar he is, he is not called a Rector; yet if compared with others, he is a Rector.  
It's then very plain, That anciently every Parson and Vicar Perpetual, were called Rectors or Governors; and why? but because they were vested with a Right to Govern their Churches, notwithstanding which, it cannot now be inferred, that those who still bear the Name of Rector, are Governors of the Church; For the ancient Constitution of the Church is not only altered, whereby Parish Presbytens, Parsons, Rectors and Vicars Perpetual, have lost all their ancient Power of Ruling; but by reason of Impropriations, mere Laics, ever since the Statute of Dissolution, that took away Appropriations from the Church, have been Parsons and Rectors, but not Rulers of the Church.  
Sir Henry Spelman very Learnedly doth prove, 
Of Tithes, c. 29.  That after the Appropriations, the Parsonage still continues Spiritual, as well in the Eye of the Common Law, as of the Canon Law: for if it became Temporal by Appropriation, than were it within the Statute of Mortmain, and forfeited by that Act; and as it continues Spiritual, it must be made to a Spiritual Person, and not Temporal, Spiritual Things and Spiritual Men being Co-Relatives, that cannot in Reason be divorced. However, we see that, de facto, Laymen are possessed of these Spiritual Impropriations, and thereby are become the Parsons and Rectors; and the Ecclesiastical Incumbent, who hath the Cure of Souls, is his Vicar, who, although according to the Ancient Dialect, might be called Rector, when compared with others, yet not with respect to the Layman, the Parson or Rector of the Parish: He that hath the Parsonage or Rectory, is the Parson or Rector; and that is the Lay-Impropriator.  
Besides, according to what hath been offered in the first Note, it's plain, that now no Governing Power is left with the Parish-Presbyter; He is not only denied the Exercise of such a Power, but diversted of the Power itself; and if any of 'em have the Name of Rector left'em, it's vox & praeterea nihil.  
If in this I am mistaken, the Fathers of the Church are humbly desired to tell the World so; but whether I am mistaken or no, the restoring the Parish-Presbyters to the ancient Power of Rectors, and the Exercise of it, will be a great step towards the healing our Breaches, especially if what the ancient Chorepiscopi, whom I must again mention, who were but Presbyters, enjoyed, may be allowed them: Of whom, more in my Notes under the next Proposition.    

II.  
Whereas by a Statute in the Six and Twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth (revived in the First Year of Queen Elizabeth,) 
Ch. 14.  Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty Six several places of this Kingdom, the Number of them might very well be conformed unto the Number of the several Rural Deaneries, into which every Diocese is subdivided; which being done, the Suffragan supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi, might every Month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors, or incumbent Pastors within the Precinct, and according to the major part of their Voices, conclude all Matters that shall be brought into Debate before them.  

Notes.  
The Suffragans appointed to be erected in the Twenty Sixth Year of Henry the Eighth, were to be consecrated by the Archbishop, and Two other Bishops, or Suffragans, and by them admitted to the Episcopal Dighity; but yet were not to use, have, or execute any Jurisdiction or Episcopal Power or Authority within their said Sees, nor within any Diocese or place of this Realm, or elsewhere within the King's Dominions, but only such Jurisdiction, Power and Authority as shall be Licenced and Limited to them, to take, do, and execute by a Commission from the Bishop of the See in which he is a Suffragan; nor were they to use any Jurisdiction, Ordinary, or Episcopal Power otherwise, nor longer time than limited by such Commission.  
These were the Suffragans appointed to be erected by Henry the Eighth, who though Consecrated and Ordained to the Episcopal Dignity, yet must exercise no other Episcopal Power than was delegated to 'em by the Diocesan's Commission, which was a very precarious and uncertain thing. This Learned Archbishop doth therefore move, that instead of this sort of Suffragan, we might have men to supply the place of the ancient Chorepiscopi, who were not at first under such Limitations, though without Episcopal Consecrations, they were vested with the Powers and Authorities of City Bishops; and that they might be conformed to the Number of Rural Deaneries. A motion, which if closed with by the Church of England, would, no doubt, touching this part of the Controversy about the Government of the Church, heal the Division; and the Church in her Condescension herein, would conform unto an ancient Practice of the Church, recognised by all to be common, at least in the Third Century: For though Bishop Parker will not admit them to have been in the Church till the Fourth Century, because no mention of 'em in any Record before the Council of Ancyra sat, which (notwithstanding what Angelocrator avers, who would have it be after the Council of Nice, because Vitalis, Bishop of Antioch, the first named amongst the Bishops that sat in it, was not made a Bishop before the Year 331.) it's generally held to be in the Year 314. And it's not easy to imagine, that these Chorepiscopi could in so short a time spring out of Nothing, and arrive to that height they were at An. 314, or as others 308. Besides, there were several Chorepiscopi in the Council of Nice, that was but Ten or Twelve Years after this; and Rabanus Maurus Seven or Eight Hundred Years ago produced an Apostolical Argument to prove, that they were as ancient as City Bishops: For (says he) in the Book which Damasus the first wrote on the desire of Jerome the Presbyter, it's affirmed, That Linus and Cletus, by the Commandment of St. Peter, Ordained Presbyters, who yet succeeded him not in the Apostolical Chair, Clemens being by the Order of this blessed Apostle, made his Successor: And (saith Maurus) from hence it is, that the Chorepiscopi, as I suppose, had their Rise, and have ever since continued in the Catholic Church, who being Ordained, by their own Bishops, by their Commandment did Ordain Presbyters, Deacons, and other Inferior Degrees, and discharge all the other Offices belonging to Priesthood. So far Rabanus.  
They were but Presbyters, and yet did Ordain and Exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction.  
That they did at first exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction in the Country, is clear from the 13th Canon of the Council of Ancyra, which according to Zonaras and Balsaman is thus:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Exactly translated by Gentianus Hervetus, Chorepiscopos non ●icere Presbyteros, vel Diaconos Ordinare, sed nequeVrbis Presbyteros, nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit, in aliena Parochia. This, as Bishop Parker confesseth, is the most correct Copy; That it shall not be lawful for Country Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons, nor yet for City Presbyters, without the permission of their Bishop. Only he omits this material Expression. [in another Parish or Diocese]; which Words do greatly confound the Learned Archbishop of Paris, De Marca, who will therefore have the Greek Copy corrected: 
Quid est illud in aliena Paraeciâ, ac si Chorepiscopis libera esset Ordinatio. Presbyteri in sua Paraecia sine literis. De Marc. de Concord. Sacer. & Imper. l. 2. c. 14. Sect. 1, 2.  What is the meaning of these words, (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in alienae paroicia? as if it had been lawful forth Chorepiscopi to Ordain Presbyters in their own Precincts, without the leave of the City-Bishop. He will therefore have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in unaquâque Paraecia, which agrees not only with the Translation of Dionysius Exiguus, but with an ancient Copy in the Library at Oxford, 
P. 140.  as Thorndike of the Right of the Church, reports, who can make no Sense of De Marca's Emendation: For, says he, can the Reading of the last words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seem probable to Reasonable Persons? What Consequence of Sense is there in saying, unless Licence be granted in every Parish? Which is plain, when it is said, That the City-Presbyters do nothing in the Parish, that is in the Country or Diocese, without Authority by the Bishop's Letters. So far Thorndike, who is for the blotting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Zonara's and Balsanion's Copy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Copy at Oxford, and who agrees with De Marca, in adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Canon, and prefers Isidore Mercator's Translation before the Original Greek, and have it thus, Vicariis Episcoporum, quos, Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant, non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos Ordinare, sed nec Presbyteris Civitatis, sine Episcopi Praecepto, amplius aliquid Imperare, vel sine Autoritate Literarum ejus in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere: Whereby, contrary to all Rule, by Addition, Mutilation, etc. they impose a Sense directly contradicting the express Words of the Canon; which is done in so gross a manner, that Thorndike himself was compelled to acknowledge, 
Right of the Church, pag. 141, 142.  That for his part he doth not believe that we have the true Reading of this Canon in any Copy that he hath heard of or seen.  
But why is Thorndike, who is followed by Dr. Hammond and Bishop Parker, all differing from Queen Elizabeth's Old Episcopal Divines, so concerned to oppose the Universally Received Copies of Zonaras and Balsamon, but because, do they what they can, it may be easily inferred, that before the Council of Ancyra, the Chorepiscopi did ordain Presbyters, etc. that afterwards they might do it in their own Parishes without leave; in other Parishes with leave, or at least in their own Parishes with leave. Thus much is the Import of Zonara's Balsamon's, and the Oxford Copies, one of which must be received, notwithstanding any thing hitherto opposed unto 'em. The whole that Thorndike hath laid in against us, narrowly looked into, comes to nothing.  
The Reasons why our Copy is to be suspected, saith he, are these.  

1. In an Arabic Paraphrase now extant in the Oxford Library, there is nothing to be found of that Clause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. Isidore Mercator's Translation, which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches, before Dionysius Exiguus, wherewith that Copy agreed which Hervetus translated, as also Fulgentius his Breviate, which Pope Adrian the first followed, hath only this, Vicariis Episcoporum, quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant, etc. ut supra.  
3. Can the Reading of the last words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable, etc. ut supra.  
4. Seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for, by the Council of Laodicea, Cap. LVI. in the same Subject, it seems very probable, that this should be the provision which the Council of Ancyra intended, as all Ignatius his Epistles, and other Canon's Apost. XL. Arelat. XIX. express it.   
To all which I reply,  
1. The Greek Copy compared with Translations, having the Reputation of an Original, is not to be neglected, though in the Arabic Paraphrase the Clause about City Presbyters is omitted; for it might be either negligently or willingly done: Besides, if this Clause had never been in the Original, there still remains enough to carry our Point in that, as we shall hereafter prove the Chorepiscopi were but Presbyters, and yet by the other parts of this Canon had power to ordain both Presbyters and Deacons, at least with the permission of the City-Bishop.  
To the Second, touching Isidore's Translation, which differs from Hervetus' and Dionysius Exiguus', as well as from every Greek Copy, cannot be of strength enough to invalidate an Original, any more than the Vulgar, or any other Translation of the Bible, can blast the Reputation of the Originals either of the Old or New Testament.  
What hath been already urged about de Marca's disgust against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Thorndike's quarrel with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a sufficient Answer to his Third Argument: For if the Canon hath any meaning, be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or be there an Omission of this Expression, it cannot but be granted, that before this Council the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters and Deacons without the City-Bishop's leave, and afterwards with it.  
To the Fourth, that the Council of Laodicea did many Years after this make the same Provision, hath nothing of Argument in it to prove, That the Council of Ancyra did so, long before Laodicea's doing It now, seeing it's not by way of confirmation of an anteceding Decree, is a sufficient intimation, that Ancyra did it not.  
However, seeing Thorndike will provoke us to consult this 56th, or rather 57th Canon of Laodicea, to it we will go; which on a diligent search we find to run thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] say some, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] say others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hervetus renders it thus, Quod non oportet in vicis & pagis Episcopos constitui, sed Periodeutas; hoc est, Circumcursentores. Dionysius Exiguus, Quod non oporteat in Villulis vel in Agris Episcopos constitui, sed Visitores. Isidore Mercator thus, Non oportet in Villis & vicis Episcopos Ordinari, sed Visitatores; (i. e.) qui Circumeant, Constitui: No Bishops ought to be appointed in the Country Towns or Villages, but Visitors. Neither of these take notice of the Various Reading: for it may be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as well as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉], and so be thus translated: For the future there shall not be Ordained in Country Places any Bishops or Periodeutae, or Visitors, making the Periodeutae and Country Bishops the same; as De Marca, though he observes not this various Reading does, Vnde. Constanter asserere audeo eundem esse Chorepiscopum, & Periodeutum; and as the same De Marca further observes, these Periodeutae were only Presbyters, as in the 4th Action of the Council of Chalcedon, mention is made of Alexander, Presbyter, and Periodeuta, and in the 11th Action of Valentine, Presbyter, and Periodeuta; whence I infer, that it's clear from this and the following parts of the Canon, that till this Council, Presbyters were not so very much under the Power of the Bishops, but could act according to their own discretion, without consulting the City-Bishops. The Canon is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thus rendered by Hervetus, Eos autem qui prius constituti fuerunt, nihil agere sine ment Episcopi, qui est in Civitate, clearly enough insinuating, that until this Council the Chorepiscopi, the Periodeutae, who were but Presbyters, did act in the Country as they judged meet, without consulting the Bishop of the City; and it's well known, that their work was to Ordain Presbyters, Deacons, etc.  
Thus much may suffice to vindicate what we have drawn from the Council of Ancyra to establish the Power of the Chorepiscopi, who agreeably enough to the 13th Canon of this Council, might exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction in their own Precinct, without the leave of the City-Bishop, and with his Permission they might do so out of their own Charge, even in the City.  
To proceed, it's very clear that long after this time, yea, long after Damasus, this Severity against the Chorepiscopi, and Leo the Third's Attempt to suppress and banish them, when Charles the Great scent Arno Invavensis to know the mind of his Holiness about them, they continued in the Exercise of their Office, governing the Country-Churches, ordaining Presbyters, etc. And altho' Hincmarus, as Baluzius in de Marca out of Flodoardus his History observes, 
De Marca de Concord. lib. 2. c. 13, 14.  wrote bitterly against those City-Bishops that had 'em in their Dioceses, 
Fbodoard. Hist. Remenf. lib. 3. c. 29.  yet Rabanus Maurus pleads as warmly in their Defence, 
In Histor. Lansiaca apud Palladium, c 106. Legimus Elpidium Monachum Presbyterum ordinatum à Timotheo Chorepiscopo. Chorepiscopos in Ecclesiis vacantibus innuit Hugo Flaviniac. an. 776. & Bercarius in Hist. Episcop. Verdanensium, n. 13. Post hunc, Episcopatus istius Ecclesiae per 12. annos vacuus extitit, sed quidem servus Dei (Amalbertus nomine,) juxta morem illius temporis Chorepiscopus factus ipsam regebat Ecclesiam. For all these see Du Fresne's Glossary, ver. Chorepiscopus.  and they were continued in France and elsewhere. Elpidrus a Monk, was or dained Presbyter by Timothy a Country Bishop: Amalbertus, a Chorepiscopus, governed the Church of Verdun during a Vacancy of twelve years, consecrated Churches, confirmed Children, etc. as may be seen in Rudolphus his Life of Rabanus Maurus, and in De Marca.  
That the Chorepiscopi did exercise the Episcopal Power, altho' they were but Presbyters, may plainly be seen in the Decrees that were against 'em, interdicting their presuming so to do for time to come. 'Twas this that filled the Soul of Damasus 1. 
Vid. Epist. 5. Damasi 1. Prospero Numidiae primae sedis Episcopo, Leoni, reparato, etc.  with so much indignation against them, that they being but Presbyters, presumed to discharge the Episcopal Office: And for this very reason it was, that Leo the Third, in Answer unto the Question moved by Charles the Great, condemned them to Banishment, as may be seen in the select Ecclesiastical Capitula of Charles the Great, where it's very clear, that tho' the French Prelates mitigated somewhat of the Rigour of the Pope's severe Decree against them, yet concurred so far with him, as to Ordain that the Country-Bishops do no more enter on the Execution of the Episcopal Office, ita ut amplius nihil de Cpiscopali ministerio praesumerent; and they decreed, That no Country-Bishop presume, by Imposition of Hands, to give the Holy Ghost to any, or Consecrate any Priest, Levite, or Subdeacon. And tho' these Capitula do null and make void all the Ordinations and Consecrations of the Chorepiscopi, Nicholas the First doth ratify and confirm them, 
Vide. Epist. 15. Nichol. 1. Tit. 1.  as may be seen in his Epistle to Radolfus, and thus he did for the very Reason, the Capitula as well as Leo and Damasus, did damn them. Damasus says, that they are the same with Presbyters, because they are instituted according to the Form of the Seventy Disciples, who were never vested with Jura Episcopalia, 
Tit. 4. c. 3.  so Leo and the select Capitula of Charles the Great, the Chorepiscopi are not Chief Priests, nor Bishops, neither do any of the Episcopal Rights belong unto them, seeing they were instituted according to the Form of the Seventy; for which cause let no one say, 
Et ne alicui talis Ordinatio, vel Confirmatio, aut Consecratio Reiteratio esse videatur.  That when any of those who have been Ordained by the Chorepiscopi, are afterwards Ordained by the City-Bishop, that they were Re-ordained, but let 'em attend that Saying, Quod non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit, ut videntur iteratum. And Pope Nicholas 1. gives this as a Reason, why he judges their Ordination valid. The Chorepiscopi were such as the Seventy, sent out by our Lord Jesus, who without doubt were vested with the Episcopal Power.  
But tho' these Papal Determinations are different, yet they agree in witnessing to this Truth, That the Chorepiscopi exercised Episcopal Authority. De Marca proves the same out of the Arabian Canons, translated by Alfonsus Pisanus, and from the last words of the Canon of Antioch. Dr. Parker himself makes no doubt of it; for (says he) That these Chorepiscopi had the Character of Proper Bishops, 
Parker's Account, p. 154.  appears plainly from the tenth Canon of Antioch, that allows them to Ordain the inferior Officers of the Church.  
This of Bishop Parker doth exactly agree with the 55. Chapter of Nice, as translated out of Arabic by Turrianus the Jesuit. When the Chorepiscopus visits the Churches and Monasteries under his Power, let him gather together the Elders of Castles, and expound unto 'em the Holy Scriptures, and inquire whether they have any Sons or Daughters, and give order that they be brought unto him, that he may sign 'em, pray over them, impose Hands on 'em, bless and institute Ministers, that is, say the Notes on this Chapter, Lectores, Exorcistae, & Hypodiaconi.  
And that these Chorepiscopi were but of the same Order with Presbyters, and were not otherwise Bishops than as all other Presbyters are, is as clear; for their Ordination was by one Bishop only, not by three, and when they entered on the Exercise of the Episcopal Power, they had no new Consecration, as may be seen in the 54. Chapter of Nice, translated out of the Arabic, where Turrianus renders it thus: Et debet Episcopus [vid. Civitatis] recitare super electum [scil. Chorepiscopum] Orationem consuetam, 
Chorepiscopus non ordinabatur, sed per oraticnem benedicebatur.  & Benedicere illi, dareque illi nomina omnium Ecclesiarum & Monasteriorum qua sub Potestate ejus sunt. The Notes on this Chapter have it, that they were not consecrated anew to the Office of a Country-Bishop, but only by the Prayer of the City-Bishop blessed. Damasus 1. expressly affirms them to be but Presbyters, in these words; Quod ipsi iidem sunt qui & Presbyteri, sufficienter invenitur, quia ad formam & exemplum septuaginta inveniuntur prius instituti. The select Capitula of Charles the Great concurring with Leo the Third, 
Tit. 4. c. 3.  and speaking of the Episcopal Rights, say the same; Haec verò non à Presbyteris vel Chorepiscopis, qui ambo unius formae esse videntur.  
Besides, such were some of the Ancient Canons▪ decreeing that there should be but one Bishop in a Diocese; and he only in the City, that made it necessary for some of those who anciently would have the Bishops to be of an Order superior above Presbyters to hold that these Chorepiscopi, tho' they had the name of Bishop given 'em, and were vested with the Jura Episcopalia, were but Presbyters usurping on the Episcopal Office; so Damasus, Leo, and many French Bishops in Charles the Great's days; and it hath also put some later Writers, such as Bellarmine, Boverius in his Paraenetic Censure of de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato's Book de Rep. Eccles. and De Marco to fancy, that some, made Chorepiscopi, were formerly Consecrated to the Episcopal Dignity, and that others were but Presbyters; and thus by distinguishing the Office from the Person, they hoped to extricate themselves; but as Dr. Parker well observes, 
Pag. 158.  This is precariously said without any shadow of Pretence for it, but merely to salve his own Hypothesis.  
Others, 
Thorndike of Rights of Church. p. 146.  such as Thorndike, are driven to the Invention of another Distinction, which is between the Solemnity which an Act is executed with, and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudicial to any Power to do that by another, which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it. Some Acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this Distinction; as the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi, or Countrey-Bishops, mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons. Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops, because not Heads of a City-Church, which is the Apostolical Rule for Episcopal Churches. Thus Thorndike, who differs greatly from the generality of his Brethren, who hold, that though the Potestas Jurisdictionis may be delegated to one that is not a Bishop, yet the Potestas Ordinis cannot. However, it must be acknowledged, that there is a great difference between a Presbyter's Ordaining other Presbyters with the leave of the Bishop, and his doing it by a Power derived from the Bishop. One vested with a Power, may not be able to exercise it without the leave of another; and yet when he hath leave, he than exercises a Power inherent in himself, virtute officii. The Bishops themselves cannot exercise the Power of Orders without the leave of the Supreme Civil Magistrate; and now that they do exercise it, 'tis with his leave; but it does not therefore follow, that the Power of Orders is derived from the Supreme Magistrate to the Bishop.  
In the Council of Ancyra it's not said, That the Presbyter shall not Ordain Presbyters, unless the Bishop delegates unto him a Power enabling him so to do; but he shall not exercise this Power without the consent of the Bishop, which was enjoined by the Canon, to prevent Schisms and Divisions in the Church: So that I cannot see how this Distinction of Thorndike, so applauded by Dr. Parker, can help 'em.  
To press this yet further, Henry the Eighth's Suffragans were consecrated Bishops, and had the same Power virtute officii, that any other Bishop received at his Consecration, but may not exercise it unless by Commission from the City-Bishop. But when they did exercise the Episcopal Authority, was it by a Power received at their Consecration, and inherent in them, or by a Power derived unto 'em from the City-Bishop by Commission? 'Twas by the former, no doubt; why else were they consecrated? If then this Commission given by the City-Bishop to the Suffragan, limiting the Exercise of his Power, doth not infer, that the Suffragan did not act by a Derived Power, much less can these Words, [Let not the Chorepiscopus Ordain Presbyters or Deacons without the consent of the City-Bishop] imply, that the Chorepiscopus derived the Power of Ordaining from the City-Bishop. The Bishop of Lincoln can't Ordain Priests or Deacons in Westminster-Abby without the leave of the Dean of Westm●nster; and yet when the Bishop does Ordain any there with the Dean's leave, it's not, I presume, by any Power derived from the Dean that he does it, but by a Power inhering in himself; and the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import no other leave than this.  
If then these Chorepiscopi be conformed to the Number of Rural Deaneries, and the Rural Deans allowed to exercise the same Power the Chorepiscopi did in the ancient Church, 'twill afford great Relief to the Consciences of many Worthy Protestant Dissenting Ministers, without exposing the Church of England to the Reproach of Novelty. To return to the Archbishop's Reduction, which continues the Second Proposition thus.  
Archbishop.  
To this Synod the Rector and Churchwardens might present such impenitent persons as by Admonitions and Suspension from the Sacrament would not be reform, who if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible, the Sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived. Hitherto also all things that concerned the Parochial Ministers might be referred, whether they did touch their Doctrine or their Conversation, as also the Censure of all New Opinions, Heresies and Schisms which did arise within that Circuit, with liberty of Appeal, if need so require, unto the Diocesan Synod.   

Notes.  
It is not to be doubted, but that as soon as the Church of England grants unto the Presbyter the Exercise of the Episcopal Rights, they will be content that the Rural Dean, or Chorepiscopus hold his Synod of Parish-Pastors or Rectors within the Precincts of the Rural Deanery, and exercise as much Power as is here desired.    

III.  
The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the Year, as it should be thought most convenient. Therein all the Suffragans [i. e. Chorepiscopi,] and the rest of the Rectors, or incumbent Pastors (or a certain select number of every Deanery) within the Diocese might meet, with whose Consent, or the major part of them, all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e.) Superintendentes, unde & nomen Episcopi tractum est. Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Evagrium.  (call him whether you will) or in his absence by one of the Suffragans, whom he shall depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly.  
Here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration, and the Orders of the monthly Synods revised and (if need be) reform: And if here also any matter of Difficulty could not receive a full Determination, it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod.  

Notes.  
Dr. Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, pleads for the Word Superintendent, as much better than that of Bishop; and it is a word less offensive to the Presbyterians than the other is; and perhaps because the Archbishop found it so, he speaks so indifferently of the Name; and to give Reputation to the word Superintendent, refers us unto St. Jerome: But it's to be hoped, that the wiser of all Parties, when they have concerted the thing, will not quarrel about the Name, whether one or the other.    

iv  
The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans, and such other of the Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocese within the Province; the Archbishop of every Province might be the Moderator of this Meeting, (or in his room, some one of the Bishops appointed by him) and all Matters be ordered therein by common consent, as in the former Assemblies.  
This Synod might be held every Third Year; and if the Parliament do then sit, (according to the Act of a Triennial Parliament) both the Archbishops and Provincial Synods of the Land might join together, and make up a National Council: Wherein all Appeals from Inferior Synods might be received, all their Acts examined, and all Ecclesiastical Constitutions which concern the State of the whole Nation established.  
This Scheme of Church-Government, drawn up by this Learned Primate, as it is admirably adjusted to the several Tempers of Men of different Apprehensions about some things in Church-Government, so it is not in the least repugnant to any thing of Christ's Institution; for there is not ascribed unto any of the Synodical Conventions a proper Jurisdiction over any Parochial Church. That in Matters of greater moment, care be taken, that all things be done in every Parish by a general Consent, Concord and Agreement, is necessary; and to this end, that the Parish Rectors proceed not to Excommunication until they have consulted the Dean Rural's Synod; and that what is done by these Synods be examined by Bishops in a larger Assembly, and that by a larger again, until we come to a National, if the case so require.  
Though it be said, Let the Sentence of Excommunication be decreed against the obstinately Impenitent by the Synod, yet it may be understood thus, Let the Rector of the Parish consult the Synod, and there come to a Resolution and Determination with the consent of this Synod.  
Whoever will consult the Learned Writers of the Church of England, particularly Dr. Burnet, now Bishop of Salisbury, will see cause to conclude them to be against the Power and Jurisdiction of Councils: That they are rather for Concord than Regiment: That particular Churches, as to matters of Government, are independent on any Convention or College of other Bishops or Pastors whatsoever; that to this very end of securing the Power of the Diocesan or City-Bishop, the Diocesan Church is made a single Church, Infimae Speciei; and whatever Power, Authority or Jurisdiction belong unto a particular Church of the lowest Rank, they are affirmed to belong to the Diocesan Church; which Dr. Barrow hath endeavoured to prove to be independent: So that let the bounds of particular Churches be made Parochial, or of no larger extent than a Parish-Congregation, and the Parish-Minister be entrusted with Pastoral Power, to be exercised as abovementioned, 'twill of course follow, that what is now said to belong to a Diocesan, must be seated in the Parish-Church.  
There is not so much a Controversy between the Powers, Preeminences and Privileges of a particular Church, as about its Bounds and Limits. Reduce the Bounds of a particular Church to those of a Parish, and the Debate will be at an end as to this point.  
That the Primate by Chorepiscopi mean Presbyters vested with the Episcopal Rights, is manifest from what he and Dr. Holdsworth in the end of the Reduction thus assert:  
We are of the Judgement, That the Form of Government here proposed, is not in any Point repugnant to the Scripture; and that the Suffragans mentioned in the Second Proposition, may lawfully use the Power both of Jurisdiction and Ordination, according to the Word of God, and the Practice of the Ancient Church.  
Ja. Armachanus. Rich. Holdsworth.    

CHAP. VII. The Reasonableness of the Church of England's condescending to establish the Government proposed by Archbishop Usher in this Reduction.  
IF then the Government of the Church of England be declared to be the same held by the First Reformers, and by the Renowned Archbishop Usher, any Law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding.  
And the Subscription of Submission be only unto the Church-Government, as framed accordingly, there are many powerful Preachers (if not most of the Sober Godly) amongst the Dissenters will cheerfully enter into Parish-Churches, and be capacitated to exercise their Ministry in Public, whom the Multitude otherwise will never hear, nor be benefited by their Talents.  
The Allowance of this can do no hurt to the Bishops, unless the easing 'em of an intolerable burden, or discharging 'em of such Duties now incumbent on them, as are impossible to be performed by any.  
Besides, that hereby shall all the pious and conscientious Parish-Ministers be put upon the attending those Pastoral Duties which are enjoined them by the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to the right Guidance and Edification of the particular Churches committed to their Cure.  
And as hereby the Church of England will be enlarged and strengthened by the Accession of many Protestant Dissenters, great ease given the Bishops, without the least Diminution of their Temporal Emoluments and Honours; all Parish-Pastors allowed the Exercise of their Functions, as the Lord Christ commanded them. In like manner hereby,  
1. The Honour due to the First Reformers, that with their Blood, or other grievous Sufferings, sealed to the Truth of the Reformation, shall be maintained and restored. I must say restored, because the altering our Episcopal Government, and shaping it to the measure of the Canons of 1603, and since to the Act of Uniformity in Charles the Second Reign, hath made it so much another thing than what they held and defended, that we cannot entitle them to be the Assertors of it without Reproach, or a Vindication. The Episcopacy they were for, I say, was but of the same Alloy with the excellent Moderation of Archbishop Usher.  
2. This Primitive Government Restored, doth not in the least interfere, or clash with, but most effectually support the Ancient Regal Power in matters Ecclesiastical. But the Canonical Episcopacy advanced by Laud, and in its heights of Divine Right, established by Charles the Second, will on Examination be found to be held by some of the Clergy, as unalterable, to the great Diminution of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and the Power of Parliaments.  
3. This Government Restored, will give Countenance to the Protestant Reformed Churches abroad, as well as to the Churches of Dissenters at home, owning their Ministry and Sacraments, and holding Communion with them, as with true Gospel Churches of Christ: Whereas the Episcopacy Vnrestored, (our Nobles and Gentry of both Houses, having not been ware of it) does null their Church-State, destroying both their Ministry and Sacraments; and as that very Learned, but herein more dangerous man, Mr. Dodwell, will have it, puts 'em out of the common way of Salvation, and into the same deplorable Condition with the Heathen. They must be saved by an uncommon Prerogative, or not at all.  
I the rather insist on this Particular, because, since his present Majesty, the glorious Instrument of our Deliverance, hath been brought up, and continues in the Communion of these Foreign Reformed Churches, we lie under a special Obligatian of our declaring, that we hold Communion with them: And will it not be a surprising Consideration, (if there be any who have not yet reflected on it) that our Church owns the Ministry of the Church of Rome, and at the same time disowns the Ministry of the Reformed Churches, even of the Churches of which His Majesty is now a Member?  
4. This Government Restored will remove out of the way of those Dissenters who cannot do all that is necessary to their obtaining the Advantages of this Comprehension, the principal Blocks, which hinder their holding Communion with the Church of England.  
The Reason why these Dissenters cannot join with the Parish-Assemblies in the Established Worship, so far as I can guests, is not the bare use of a Liturgy, nor the neglect of Discipline, nor because there are some disorderly Members of their Communion, but because the Specific Nature of Christ's Instituted Churches are destroyed; the Parish-Ministers, who were Gospel-Pastors, deposed, and Church-Government made impracticable, by the erecting Diocesan Churches, one of which, composed of many Parishes, under the Government of one only Pastor, called the Diocesan Bishop, is made a particular Church of the lowest Rank, and substituting in the room of Parish-Pastors a New Order of Sub-half-Presbyters, affirming all that have been baptised and live within the Terriers or Boundaries of the Diocese, how ignorant or scandalous soever, to be sit Matter for an Instituted Church of Christ; and because of their setting up Forms of Prayer in opposition unto, and suppression of Spiritual and Free Prayer; the Corruptions in the Liturgy; and imposing, as Terms of Communion, such Ceremonies as are, in their Consciences, sinful.  
If therefore the desired Church-Government be settled, the Parish-Churches will be established as particular Churches of Christ's Institution, their Pastors Restored, Government made practicable, Disorders amended; and though some things remain in the Parishes which these men can't conform unto, yet they will own the Parishes thus Constituted and Reform, for true Churches, and admit their Members, if desired, unto Communion with them.  
THE END.    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
PLain Dealing: Being a Moderate general Review of the Scots Prelatical Clergies Proceed in the latter Reigns. With a Vindication of the present Proceed in Church-Affairs there. Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel.