Did Dr. Richard Hooker teach that episcopacy was a separate order?

Taking from another thread, where it was said

I decided to read more of the Divine's opinions. Not having a hard copy I managed to find the quote here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=O84CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

The whole section 6 abounds in strong statements. To wit, a bishop excels a presbyter in the power of Order and Jurisdiction. Presbyters are denied to have any power to Ordain. And "bishops, having power to ordain, do by virtue thereof create Fathers to the people of God." Then there's the above quote, where those who equate the Orders of bishops and presbyters, viz. the Presbyterians are ridiculed. Would be interesting to know if any experts on Dr. Hooker can shed a little more light into his views.

 

I would be interested in learning more about Hooker's views on this as well Spherelink. Here is a link to an article you may have already seen that I feel is relevant:

http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/24/ask-an-anglican-can-there-be-a-church-without-a-bishop/

 

I had thought these ideas would be pretty non controversial in Anglicanism. Priests can't ordain, can they?

 

Not at all. It's an argument that the history books say some Evangelicals once made, though I can't really say I've understood it. So to answer your question, no.

Yeah he cites Dr. Hooker to the same purpose.

 

I've always believed that the church was comprised of two orders of bishops and deacons. I was catechized in a strongly Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian community a little over 20 years ago. We were told that priests derived from the order of bishops.

SirPalomides, I was surprised by your quote from an early divine arguing for priests as a third order.

 

Historically, that is true. The terms "bishop" and "presbyter" are used interchangeably in the New Testament. However, as the church grew, the office of presbyter emerged as a deputy for the bishop which eventually became a permanent part of the clergy. For the much greater part of Church history, priests have been a separate office from the bishops.

 

What do you think of the argument that it's the presbyters who were the foundational order and the bishops developed out of it?

Granted, Dr. Hooker argues against it here, but I did hear it made in conversations with my presbyterian colleagues.

 

Since the bishops have power to ordain and priests do not, it seems to me that the Presbyterians are wrong.

 

Hm, I hadn't thought of it like that. Wouldn't the presbyterians also say that they can ordain?