« PoprzedniaDalej »
And from the Fathers, $ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.
p..104 And from the Discipline of the Primitive Church, 46.
p. 119 The Popish Schoolmen and, Canonists the first after
Aerius that maintained Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order,
From them Luther learned his Notion of the Identity
of Bijbop and Presbyter, and tho' but a Presbyter himself, took upon him to consecratė Bishops. And his Followers have afted upon the same Principle to this Day, | 47
About the same time Zuinglius, and after him Cal
vin, maintained the same Notion. And extended it so far as to make Ordination it self unnecessary, S 48.
The Opinion of the Divines of the Church of England
before the Restoration of King Charles II. concerning the Necessity of Episcopacy, considered. The first Temporal Princes that embraced the Reformation sacrilegions, 49.
But less sacrilegiows in England than in other Coun
tries, whereby Episcopacy hus been preserved amongst ws, 50.
Obječtions made by Calvinists and Papists against the Episcopal Succession in the Church of England,
First objection of the Calvinists, that we derive our Orders from the Church of Rome, answered $ 52.
p. 147 Second
Second Obje&tion of the Calvinifts, that the Roman
Succession is not clear and indisputable, answered, $ 53, 54.
p. 150 First Objection of the Romanists against our Form of Ordination answered, 955.
p. 155 Second Objection, that our first reformed Bishops. un
der Queen Elizabeth were consecrated by Lay-men, answered. And Archbishop Parker, with the other Bishops in the beginning of that Reign, proved to have been regularly and canonically confecrated by trué Bishops, $ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66.
A short Conclusion of this Subject, S 67.
Τ Η Ε
HE Second Point which has been char
ged as favouring of Popery, and which I therefore thought fit to speak of in
my Vindication, is the Divine Right of Episcopacy, and the Necessity of an Episcopal Commission to the valid Administration of the Sacraments. This was also a Principle of Doctrine unanimously held by the whole Church at the Time of the Council of Nice, it was then esteemed a fundamental Principle, without which no Church could fubfift, and therefore if ever the several Sects of Christians shall be hereafter united, this Principle must be admitted. And indeed the Church of England does very plainly hold and maintain this Principle. For (a) the declares that it is not
(#) Art. 23,
lawful for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick preaching or ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this Work by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard. From hence it is evident that the Church of England efteems a Commission to be absolutely necessary to the valid Ministration of the Word and Sacraments: declaring that every one has not a Right to take this Office
upon him till he is called and sent. Also that it is not every Body that can send, but only such as have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation or Church._I fay, Congregation or Church, because at that Time when these Articles were framed, the Words Congregation and Church were perfectly synonymous,and signified the same thing, tho' now we have commonly another Notion of them, and suppose the Word Church to be of a Jarger Signification than the Word Congregation; in the former we include not only one particular Assembly of Men met together in one place for Divine Worship, but many such Assemblies likewise, thus we say the English Church, the Greek Church, the Roman Church, and the Catholick Church; but the latter we confine to a particular Assembly, thus we would say the Congregation at St. Pauls, the Congregation at Westminster-Abbey, the Congregation in this or that Parish Church; but we would not say the English Congregation, the Greek Congregation, or the Roman Congregation, when we fpeak of any of those. Churches at large, nor would we say the Catholick Congregation when we speak of the Catholick Church. But thefe Two Words had not these different Senses or Significations at the Time when these Thirty Nine Arti
cles were drawn up and confirmed: The Words Church and Congregation were then perfectly convertible, and had the same Signification in every respect, as we may in part learn from the next Article, where what is called the Congregation in che Title of the Article, is called the Church in the Body of the Article: But this is more fully feen in the Translation of the Bible then used. There our Saviour says (b). Thou art Peter, and ön this Rock I will build my CONGREGATION. It is plain that by the Word Congregation is here understood the Catholick or Universal Church which Christ founded, and not any one particular Afsembly of Men met together in one place. Again (c) it is said, The Lord added to the CONGREGATION such as should be saved. And (d) Saul made Havock of the CONGREGATION. (e) Herod the King stretched forth his Hands to vex certain of the CONGREGATION, (f) And hath made him (that is Christ) above all things, the Head of the CongreGATION, which is his Body. Now in all these Places the Word Congregation must fignify as much as the Word Church in its largest Extent. For the Lord did not add to one single Afsembly of Men met in one Place, but to the whole Society of Christians : Saul did not perfecute, nòr Hérod vex one particular Meeting of Believers, but the whole Body wherefoever dispersed, and Saul particularly carried his Persecution from Ferusalem to Damascus, that is, from one Province to another, and it is certain the Christians of several Provinces must have diftin& Assemblies for Religious Worship, and could not meet together in one place. So also Christ is noe the Head of one particular Assembly met in the
(6) Matth. xvi. 18.
(0) Aas ii. 47; (e) A&s xii, i. (f) Eph. i. 22, 236
(d) Aas viii. 3.