Episcopall consecration is not presupposed to the Priestly ordination but rather the contrary And that it is not a superiour order is plaine because it hath no superiour act as it is distinguished against Priesthood which is apparent because the act of a Bishop as he differeth from Priesthood is to ordaine and the act of a Priest as he differeth from a Bishop is to make the body of Christ which is a better and more worthy act then to ordaine Peradventure it will be said that the Episcopall degree is worthier because it includes the Priestly order and besides this addeth somewhat else which is proper to it selfe and both these together are more worthy then the one by it selfe But it is otherwise because the Bishoply function is not here compared to the Priesthood in respect of that which they both include but precisely in respect of that whereby one differeth from another Therefore though the Episcopall function may be called an Order yet not distinct from the Priesthood because it is not referred to any act superiour to the act of Priesthood nor inferiour nor equall Hitherto Aureolus I need produce no more Shcoolemen upon the Master of the Sentences because m Navar. in Manuali c. 22. num 18. Navarrus saith there are only seven Orders according to the common opinion of Divines affirming that the first tonsure and the Bishoply function are not Orders but Offices Neither is this only a common but the more common opinion as witnesseth n In scrutinio Sacerdotali Tract 2. de Ordine Fabius Incarnatus Communior opinio est quod prima tonsura Ordo Episcopalis non sunt ordines i.e. It is the more common opinion that the first tonsure and Episcopall order are not Orders Where note by the way that phrase of speech The Episcopall Order is not an Order an Order and not an Order signifying that though men speaking vulgarly doe improperly call it an Order yet in his judgement to speake exactly it is not an Order PHILOD Surely the Canonists doe hold it an Order ORTHOD. First not all the Canonists for whereas o Dist 93. cap. Legimus Gratian brought in Saint Ierom word for word affirming that a Bishop and a Priest are the same the author of the Glosse hath these words Some say that in the first primitive Church the office of Bishops and Presbyters was common and the names were common but in the second primitive Church both names and offices began to be distinguished And againe A third sort say this advancing was made in respect of name and in respect of administration and in respect of certaine ministeries which belong only to the Episcopall office And the same author himselfe is of this opinion saying Before this advancing these names Bishops and Presbyters were altogether of the same signification and the administration was common because Churches were governed by the common advise of Presbyters And againe This advancing was made for a remedy against schisme as it is here said by Saint Ierom. That one should have the preheminence in regard of the name the administration and certaine sacraments which now are appropriated unto Bishops We must understand that when they distinguish the primitive Church into first and second they begin the first at the Ascension of Christ extending it to the time when the Apostles began to single out one Presbyter in every city and gave him preheminence above the rest In which time the office of Bishops and Presbyters is said to be common because those offices which are now appropriated unto Bishops were then in their judgement performed by Presbyters And those which hold that the office and administration were altogether common must needs hold them to be one order for an absolute identity of offices doth argue an absolute identity of order Secondly those Canonists which make nine orders doe not differ from the Schoolemen as witnesseth Bellarmine p Bellar. l. de Clericis cap. 11. sect ult In re non est dissensio There is no difference in the thing it selfe For the Divines doe only consider orders in relation to sacrifice in which respect a Bishop and a Presbyter are not distinguished but the Canonists consider them as they make an Hierarchy and therefore they rightly distinguish a Bishop from a Presbyter Wherefore howsoever they call it an order in respect of regiment yet they neither think it to be a Sacrament of Order nor to imprint a Character TO these we may adde a cloud of witnesses q Apud Binium Concil Tom. 4. Henry Kalteisen in his answere to the second article of the Bohemians in the Councell of Basill saith It is apparent that from the beginning of the legall Priesthood untill now there was alwaies a distinction of a Bishop from a Priest although they were after reckoned by the same name for their affinity which they have in authority because a Bishop excelleth a Priest only in jurisdiction or in the dignity of jurisdiction If only in the dignity of jurisdiction then not in order according to the judgement of Kalteisen who was a Dominican Frier and Professor of Divinity in the University of Collen and one of the Inquisitors against Heretiques whose Oration was lately set out by Henricus Canisius Professor of the sacred Canons at Ingolstad and inserted into the body of the Councells by Binius Tostatus r Tostat in Exod. 29. q. 18. p. 144. Sic est in consecrationibus c. So is it in the consecration of Bishops or of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a character seeing they are not orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiasticall preeminence And againe Non dicitur potestas Episcopalis character neque vocamus propriè Episcopatum Ordinem neque etiam sacramentum The Episcopall power is not called a character neither doe we call the Episcopall function properly an Order nor a Sacrament Armachanus ſ Armachan Summ. ad quaestion Armenorum l. 11. cap. 2.3 4 5 6. Episcopus in hujusmodi c. A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his order then every simple Priest although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed only by those men whom we call Bishops And againe Est etiam alia ratio c. There is also an other manifest reason because from the time of distinction of Churches and Parishes no 〈◊〉 man can law fully execute such things but only in those places in which he hath power of government which because simple Priests have not they cannot exercise the acts of it lawfully nor other sacramentall acts unlesse this be specially committed unto them by them which have authority in those places Which restraint of Priestly power was not in the Primitive Church This seemeth to me to be according to the holy Scripture Gerson t Gers de septem Sacramentis Supra Sacerdotium non est ordo superior imò nec Episcopatus nec Archie-piscopatus i. Above Priesthood
and contrary to the Scriptures which plentifully proves the preheminence of Bishops For though there were many Presbyters in Ephesus and Crete yet f 1 Tim. 1.3 lb. 5.19 Tit. 1.5 Saint Paul left Timothie at Ephesus and Titus at Crete to ordaine Presbyters to command them not to teach any other doctrine or if they did to put them to silence as also to examine witnesses and receive accusations And forasmuch as the end and use of their office was perpetuall therefore the function and office it selfe must likewise be perpetuall Which proveth that it was given to them as they were Bishops not as they were Evangelists Moreover the calling of Bishops is approved by the mouth of Christ himselfe when he adorned the seven Prelates of the seven Churches with the honourable title of Starres and Angells If they be Angells then are they Messengers of the Lord of Hosts If they be his Messengers then are they sent from him and their vocation by him authorised But what is their charge g Revel 2.9.14 15 20. to try false Apostles and not to suffer the doctrine of Balaam nor the doctrine of the Nicolaitans nor to permit the woman Iesabell to teach and seduce the people or to make them commit fornication and eat meate sacrificed to Idolls That is both to oversee the doctrine and discipline of the Church If this be their charge then in this God hath given them authority to amend what is amisse which authority is not given to many but to one Angell in every one Church of the seven Churches Why should that one be charged above the rest if he had not pastorall power besides the rest And he is called the Angell of the Church not of the people nor of the Presbyters but of the whole Church If he be the Angell of the whole Church then he hath pastorall authority over the whole Church and is armed with spirituall power to governe the same and to reforme abuses both in the Ministers and in the people Wherefore the opinion of Aërius concerning these Angells as contrary to the word of God is it selfe contrary unto it and in this sense justly censured for an Heresy Now let us see whether it can be imputed to Luther and Calvin It is confessed by h Tom. 4. Disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. sect 9. Gregory de Valentiâ that except the Anabaptists all the sectaries so it pleaseth him to stile the Protestants admit three degrees of Ministers to wit Bishops whom they call Superintendents Presbyters and Deacons Therefore by the testimony of your owne Iesuit they cannot be Aërïans And surely it is famously knowne to the world to be so in the reformed Churches of Denmarke Suevia and high Germany as also in Saxonie even at Wittenberge where Luther florished Concerning which thus writeth Iacobus Heerbrandus sometimes Divinity Reader at Tubinge i Heerbrand Loc. Com. de ministerio Ecclesiae pag. 699. Truly there ought to be degrees amongst the Ministers as with us in the Dutchey of Wittenberge there are Subdeacons Deacons Pastors speciall Superintendents and over them generall Superintendents How can they disallow the preheminence of Bishops seeing their Superintendents are nothing else but Bishops For when the name Bishop was growne odious by reason of abuses in the Popish Prelates they retaining the dignity it selfe changed the word Bishop into Superintendent which is equivalent in signification PHILOD If they allow the state of Bishops why then did they banish their Catholick Bishops ORTHOD. They banished the Popish Bishops not because they were Bishops but because they were Popish For first such as sought reformation intreated them to redresse abuses which they utterly refused Then the Magistrates were told that it was their duty to reforme the Church by the example of the godly Kings of Iudah which sundry of them did yet so that the Bishops might have kept their places if they would have favoured the Gospell of Christ as may appeare by the authors of the Augustane Confession k De Eccles Potestat The Bishops say they might easily retaine the obedience due unto them if they urged us not to keep those traditions which wee cannot keep with a good conscience And againe l Apolog. Confessionis Augustanae ad artic 14. de ordine Ecclesiastico We have often protested that wee doe heartily approve the Ecclesiasticall policy and degrees in the Church and so much as lieth in us doe desire to preserve them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so they would not compell us to doe against Gods commandements And againe m Ibid. Furthermore we doe protest and we would have it recorded that we would willingly preserve the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize over our Churches This our mind or desire shall excuse us with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed unto us that the authority of Bishops is overthrowne by us To the same effect speaketh George Prince Anhalt n Princeps Anhalt in Cōcion super Matth. 7. de falsis prophetis in Praefatione tit de Ordinations Would to God that as they carry the name and titles of Bishops so they would shew themselves to be Bishops of the Church would to God that as the book of Gospells is delivered them and laid upon their shoulders in their Ordination so they would teach doctrine according thereunto and would faithfully governe their Churches thereby O how willingly and with what joy of heart would we receive them for our Bishops and reverence them obey them and yeeld unto them their due jurisdiction and ordination I passe by other Colloquies at o Colloquium Wormaciense tit de personis Ecclesiasticis tit de abusibus Ecclesiarum emendandis Wormes and p Acta Colloq Ratisbon à Buceto edita tit de Ecclesiae hierarchico ordine paragr 7. Ratisbone wherein the degrees of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs are commended as profitable to preserve the unity of the Church Concerning which Melancthon writeth thus to Camerarius q Melancth ep ad Camerarium an 1530. By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull for us so to doe yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion And that they meane unfainedly as they speake may appeare by their dealing with Michael Sidonius r Historia Confess Augustanae per Chytraeum Whom they thrust out of his Bishoprick because of his Popery yet afterwards when he imbraced the Gospell advanced him againe to that Ecclesiasticall office So farre were those whom you call Lutherans from being Aërians PHILOD BVt what say you to Geneva those Cities that imbrace the Genevian Discipline ORTHOD. Their opinions are apparent by Calvine and Beza The judgement of Calvine is the same with the Augustane Confession to which he
subscribed and is likewise declared ſ Calvin ad Sadolet de Necessitate Reformandae Ecclesiae sub sin in his Epistle to Cardinall Sadolet where he protesteth that if the Bishops would so rule as to submit themselves to Christ then if their shall be any that shall not submit themselves to that Hierarchie reverently and with the greatest obedience that may be there is no kind of Anathema whereof they are not worthy Likewise in his Institutions t Id. Instltut lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 4. Quòd autem singulae Provinciae c. That every Province had one Arch-bishop amongst their Bishops and moreover that Patriarchs were appointed in the Nicene Councell which were superiour to Arch-bishops in order and dignity that belongeth to the preservation of Discipline And in his Epistles to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and the Bishop of London he giveth them most reverent and honourable titles PHILOD Doth not Beza in many places speak bitterly against Bishops ORTHOD. But he expoundeth himselfe that he meant the Popish Bishops only For having spoken against their tyranny he maketh this exception u Bez. de divers gradib minist contr Sarav cap. 21. §. 2. Neque tamen c. Yet we doe not therefore accuse all Bishops and Arch-bishops for what arrogancy were that Nay so as they doe imitate the examples of the old Bishops and indeavour as much as they can to reforme the house of God so miserably deformed according to the rule of Gods word why may we not acknowledge all of them now so called Arch-bishops and Bishops obay them and honour them with all reverence So farre are we from that which some object against us most falsely and impudently as though we took upon us to prescribe to any Church in any place our examples to be followed like unto those unwise men who account well of nothing but of that which they doe themselves And concerning the Bishops of England he saith thus x Id. ibid. cap. 18. §. 3. Quòd si nunc c. But if now the reformed Churches of England doe stand under propped with the authority of Bishops and Arch-bishops as it hapned to that Church in our memory that it had more of that sort not only famous Martyrs of God but also most excellent Pastors and Doctors fruatur sanèistâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua let her truely injoy this singular blessing of God which I wish may be perpetuall unto her By this you may see how farre these learned Divines did differ from Aërians For Aërius condemned the state of Bishops as contrary to the Scriptures these men commend it and pray that it may be perpetuall PHIL. HOwsoever you may put some nice difference between them and the Aërians you cannot maintaine their Ordination For what power is in a Presbyter to ordaine When Coluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria presumed to ordaine Presbyters and among the rest one Ischyras all his Ordinations were revised and made voyde by the a Epist Synod Alexandr in Apol. 2. Athanas Councell of Alexandria as witnesseth Athanasius Likewise when a certaine Bishop of Spaine imposing hands upon two to make them Deacons and upon a third to make him a Presbyter and being not able to read by reason of his sore eyes caused a Presbyter standing by to give the blessing that is to pronounce the words of Ordination though the Ordainer by reason of death escaped the censure yet the parties so ordained were deposed by the b Concil Hispalens II. cap. 5. Distinct 23. c. 14. Quorund Clericor second Councell of Hispalis If Luther were weyghed in this ballance the ordained should be deposed the ordainer censured and the ordinations voyded ORTHOD. It is one thing to be voyd according to the strictnesse of the Canon and another to bee simply voyd in the nature of the thing If a Bishop ordaine another mans Cleark it was pronounced voyd by the famous c Conc. Nicaen Can. 16. Councell of Nice Ordinations without Title were decreed to bee voyd by the great d Conc. Chalced can 6. Councell of Chalcedon The ordination of a Bishop without the consent of a Metropolitane was made voyd by the e Concil Braccar 2. c. 3. Dist 65. c. 2. Non debet c. 3. Episcopus non est Councell of Braccar Yet in all those according to your owne doctrine the Power is given the Character imprinted and consequently there is no nullity in the nature of the thing How then are they voyd in respect of Execution for Disciplines sake untill it please the Church otherwise to dispose PHILOD Then the ordinations of Luther are voyde if not in the nature of the thing yet at least in respect of Execution So that his ofspring either have no orders or they must surcease as though they had none For there is the same reason of him and Coluthus ORTHOD. Not so For it was well said of one of your Popes f Iohann VIII epist ad Anselm Lemovic 30. q. 1. Ad limina Inculpabile judicandum quod intulit necessitas That which necessity occasioned is not to be blamed Whereby you may learn that extraordinary causes of necessity are not to bee measured by ordinary rules Neither is Luther to bee paralleld with Coluthus or the Spanish Priest whose violations of the Canon were meerely voluntary Pope g Felix IV. epist 1. Vid. Gratian. 2. qu. 7. cap. Mutationes Scias item de Consecrat dist 1. cap. Sicut Felix may informe you Aliter tractandam necessitatis rationem aliter voluntatis PHILOD Was it not a case of necessity when the Bishop was blinde and could not read the words ORTHOD. No. for if hee had them not in his memory hee might have pronounced them after another or as now the Councell of Trent hath provided in the like cases he might have procured them to bee ordained by some other Bishops But Luthers case was indeed a case of necessity as hereafter shall be proved PHILOD If a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter were endued with intrinsecall power and ability to ordaine and were restrained from the execution of it only by the Church for Disciplines sake then peradventure his Ordinations might bee tolerable in case of invincible necessity But neither hath a Presbyter such power neither was this a case of necessity ORTHOD. FOr the better discussing the former point let me crave your resolution in this question to wit By what power a Bishop is intrinsecally enabled to give orders PHILOD All the power of a Bishop is either of Iurisdiction or of Order Now we hold that though the Pope take from him his Iurisdiction he may notwithstanding give orders if he will And albeit he sin in giving them yet they are true orders which proveth invincibly that the collation of orders is not from Iurisdiction But from what order not from the order of Priesthood alone for then every Presbyter should have power to give orders which
current Iudgement of your Church For those which deny this function to be an Order cannot with reason grant the ceremony whereby it is conferred to be properly Ordering PHILOD IF we should grant them to be one Order what could you conclude ORTHOD. You said before that the intrinsecall power of Ordaining proceeded not from Iurisdiction but only from Order Therefore if you grant that a Presbyter hath the same Order that a Bishop I will conclude that a Presbyter hath intrinsecall power to give Orders PHILOD That will not follow for howsoever they be one and the same Order yet they differ in degree Because there is a further extension of the character in Episcopall consecration which Extension produceth two effects First it makes it a sacrament for that ceremony which hath this spirituall and supernaturall effect really to extend a Character without doubt shall be a sacrament And though Bellarmine recalled his opinion that they were two distinct orders yet he still maintaineth that they are two distinct sacraments Secondly in inableth a Bishop to conferre the sacraments of Confirmation and Order which a Presbyter though he had the selfe same Order and Character cannot conferre because he wanteth this extension and in this respect is unperfect ORTHOD. I answere two things First that this opinion is contrary to your owne Church Secondly that it is contrary to it selfe Concerning the first you lay this downe as an undoubted Principle that the Ceremony wherein there is a reall extension of the Character is a sacrament But it is the common opinion of your owne Church that the Ceremony of Episcopall consecration is not a sacrament as hath been proved Therefore according to the common opinion of your owne Church in it there is no reall extension of the Character Concerning the second your Position is this that a Bishop and a Priest have but one Order and Character yet differ in Degrees because this Character is so extended in Episcopall consecration that it maketh a new proper and distinct Consecration which position is contrary to it selfe For if Episcopall consecration be a distinct sacrament what sacrament shall it be You must needs say the sacrament of Order But if it be a sacrament of Order distinct from Priesthood then it is a distinct Order So the latter part of your position is contrary to the first wherein they are said to be but one Order Againe if it be a new and distinct sacrament of Order then according to your own doctrine it must imprint a new and distinct character which is contrary to the first part of your Position where you say a Bishop and a Priest have but one character Moreover if a Bishop be extended to a higher degree it should produce in him a more noble act then in a Presbyter But it was plentifully proved that the act of a Bishop is not more noble then the act of a Presbyter Therefore a Bishop hath it not in a higher degree Thus for all your striving and strugling you must be forced to confesse that it is neither a distinct Order nor a distinct Sacrament nor imprinteth a new character nor intendeth nor extendeth the old but is absolutely the same both in Nature and in Degree PHILOD What then doth a Bishop receive in his Consecration ORTHOD. Your owne Authors allready cited may teach you that he receiveth a sacred office an Eminency a Iurisdiction a Dignity a Degree of Ecclesiasticall preheminence PHILOD A degree Did you not deny that a Bishop hath any more excellency in degree then a Presbyter and will you now affirme it ORTHOD. He hath no higher degree in respect of intention or extension of the Character but he hath a higher degree that is a more excellent place in respect of Authority and Iurisdiction in spirituall Regiment Wherefore seeing a Presbyter is equall to a Bishop in the power of Order he hath equally intrinsecall power to give Orders which is confessed by sundry of your Divines RIchardus Armachanus p Armachan Summ. ad quaestion Armen lib. 11. c. 7. Episcopus in ejusmodi c. A Bishop in such things hath no more power in respect of his order then every simple Priest although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed only by those men whom we call Bishops Hugo de Sancto Victore q Hugo de Sacram. lib. 2. p. 3. c. 12. Summis ergo sacerdotibus c. The foresaid things among which was Ordination are reserved for the High-priests or Bishops in a singular manner least the very same authority of power should be challenged of all and should make the inferiour proud against their superiours and so should breed a scandall by dissolving the bond of Obedience Aureolus r Aureol l. 4. d. 24. art 2. Omnis forma ex quo est in actu c. Every forme in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it selfe in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate orders Why then doe they not celebrate them because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liherty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is remeved there is not given unto him any new soule Antonius de Rosellis ſ Anton. Rosell de potestate Imperatoris Papae part 4. c. 18. Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordaine indifferently and there arose schismes Peter with other Apostles restrained the power of the Character so that Presbyters might not indifferently confer all Sacraments but they reserved some to those whom they created in Cities and Provinces whom they called Bishops The Presbyteriall power was restrained and the office of the Character so that certaine things were reserved only to Bishops as Confirmation and Collation of Orders Whereupon when a Bishop is consocrated that restraint of Priestly Character is set at liberty the Sacraments which were forbidden the Priestly order and yet formerly belonging to the Priestly Order are enlarged Wherefore by the consecration of a Bishop there is not made the impression of a new Character but only the perfection of the Priestly character PHILOD THough all this were granted yet you were never the neerer for when the Apostles advanced Bishops the power of Presbyters was extinguished ORTHOD. It was restrained not utterly extinguished as the faculty of the flying of a bird when his wings are tied PHILOD Was the advancing of Bishops the restraint of Presbyters Then they were restrained jure divino because the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino ORTHOD. First if you meane by Iure divino that which is according to the Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to the Scripture Secondly if by Iure divino you
meane the ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be Iure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods spirit even by the spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by Iure divino you understand a Law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other forme of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be Iure divino PHILOD Whence commeth it then to be so generally received through the Christian World ORTHOD. The Apostles in their life time ordained many Bishops and left a faire patterne to posterity The Church following the commodiousnesse thereof imbraced it in all ages through the Christian World PHILOD If the wings of Presbyters were tied by the Church following therein the patterne of the Apostles who were directed by the spirit of God what authority had Luther to untie them ORTHOD. It was not voluntarie in him but a case of necessity PHILOD Neither was there any necessity neither can necessity authorise a man in a matter of this nature ORTHOD. I will prove both and in the first place consider the force of Necessity The Scripture declareth when the Priests were too few and not able to slay all the burnt offerings their brethren the Devites did help them till they had ended the work and untill other Priests were sanctified 2. Chron. 29.34 35. By which it appeareth that the Levites did help the Priests in case of necessity if not to offer yet at least to pull off the skinnes which pertained to the Priests office as witnesseth Nicolaus de Lyra saying t Lyran. in 2. Chron. c. 29. in c. 35. consimiliter Abulensis in 2. Chron. cap. 4. q. 13. Although the pulling off of skinnes belonged to the office of the Priests yet the Levites might in this helpe the Priests in necessity for many things were lawfull by reason of necessity which otherwise were not lawfull If of necessity then by proportion a Deacon may so farre intermeddle with the Presbyters office In which case of necessity a Presbyter commeth nearer to a Bishop then a Deacon to a Presbyter which are of diverse Orders ANd is not this your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that Confirmation of the baptized is proper to a Bishop proceeding from the Episcopall Character as well as Ordination and yet may be communicated to a Presbyter in case of necessity Concerning the first the Councell of Trent hath thus decreed u Concil Trident Sess 23. Can. 7. If any man shall say that Bishops are not superiour to Priests that they have not power to confirme and ordaine or that the power which they have is common to them with the Priests let him be accursed And Bellarmine saith that x Bellarm. de sacram confirmat c. 12. §. 16. ad argum 4. the Episcopall Character whether it be another from the Presbyteriall or the same more extended is an absolute perfect and independent power to confer the Sacraments of Confirmation and Order Concerning the second Bellarmine in his book of the Sacrament of Confirmation proveth at large that y Id. de sacram confirm cap. 12. sect 3. Extraordinariâ potestate possunt sect 15. extruordinariâ concessione possunt lib. de Clericis c. 15. §. 29. Confirmare baptisatos possunt Presbyteri ex dispensatione Presbyters may confirme by the Popes dispensation And whereas in his book of the Sacrament of Order he had let a word fall which might seeme to sound to the contrary he explaineth himselfe in his Recognitions in this manner z Id. in Recognit pag. 89. Whereas I said that only Bishops may confirme and ordaine and if inferiours attempt to doe those things they could effect nothing by ordinary powen my meaning was not to deny that which elsewhere I had affirmed that a Presbyter might confirme by Apostolicall dispensation PHILOD Very true for this he hath proved by many testimonies and among the rest by the Councell of Trent which therefore calleth a Bishop an ordinary Minister of Confirmation to insinuate that it may be performed by a Presbyter by extraordinary power ORTHOD. Then by Bellarmines own reason when Pope Eugenius in his decree for the Councell of Flerence affirmed that the ordinary minister of Ordination was a Bishop thereby insinuated that extraordinarily it might be done by a Presbyter PHILOD To confirme is an act of Order and this order is also in a Presbyter at least inchoate and imperfect Wherefore unlesse it be perfected by dispensation a Presbyter effecteth nothing by confirming but if it be perfected jam ex ipso suo charactere confirmabit he shall confirme by vertue of his owne Character ORTHOD. If the Character thus perfected enable him to performe the act of Confirmation why not of Ordination For the doctrine of your Church is that they both are proper to a Bishop both derived from the same Character both received at the same instant from the same persons in the same manner and by the same words and that the effect of both is to imprint a character and to give the holy Ghost Wherefore seeing you grant the power of Confirming is communicable to Presbyters you have no reason to deny them the like power of Ordaining YOur own learned men hold that not only a Presbyter but also a Lay-man may confirme by the Popes delegation Vid. Praepositum in Decret cap. Per. venit dist 95. The author of the Glosse saith Dicunt quidam c. Some say that the Pope may delegate this even to a Lay-man because he hath the fulnesse of power Videtur saith * Rosellus de potestate Imperatoris Papae part 4 c. 16. Rosellus quòd confirmatus c. It seemeth that a man confirmed though he be a Lay-man and not in orders seeing he hath received a Character by his Confirmation may give Character to another by the Popes mandate because a Lay man may handle even spirituall things by the Popes mandate especially because it was not specially appointed by Christ that only Bishops should confirme And that the most reverend Cardinall of Saba seemeth to hold this opinion Moreover Compostella and Sylvester are of mind that the Pope may commit these things even to a Lay man Hitherto Rosellus But if you hold this to be a private opinion yet by Bellarmine and sundry others of your owne side it is yeelded that a Presbyter is capable of this commission So the Author of the Glosse Vid. Gloss ad ca. Manus de Consecrat dist 5. verbo Irritum Panormitan ad ca. Quanto extra de Consuetud num 8. Dico quòd Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti non Laico sicut credo sic ex tali delegatione adminiculo habiti sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet imò quilibet
Ancient Fathers seem to be of minde that the same Forme should serve both So thinketh S. Cyprian l. 3. ep 9. ad Rogatianum So S. Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium Traditiones Apostolicae sumptae sunt de Veteri Testamento ad Nepotianum de vitâ Clericorum So St Leo. Ita veteris Testamenti sacramenta distinxit ut quaedam ex iis sicut erant condita Evangelicae eruditioni profutura decerperet ut quae dudùm fuerant consuetudines Iudaicae fierent observantiae Christianae So Rabanus de Institutione Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. They ground this their opinion upon that they see 1. That the Synagogue is called a Type or shadow and the Church the very image of the thing Heb. 10.1 2. That God himselfe saith of the Christian Church under the Gentiles that he will take of the Gentiles and make them Priests and Levits to himselfe Esai 66.21 there calling our Presbyters and Deacons by those Legall names 3. That there is an agreement in the Numbers XII Num. 1.16 and Luk. 9.1 LXX Num. 11.16 Luk 10.1 Names Angel Malach. 2.7 and Revel 1.10 And their often enterchange and indifferent using of Priest or Presbyter Levite or Deacon sheweth they presumed a correspence agreement between them Thus then Aaron should be answerable unto Christ Eleazar should be answerable unto Archbishop Princes of Priests should be answerable unto Bishops Priests should be answerable unto Presbyters Princes of Levits should be answerable unto Archdeacons Levits should be answerable unto Deacons Nethinims should be answerable unto Clerks and Sextons THE FORME OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT in the New Testament and first in the dayes of our Saviour CHRIST I. THe whole ministery of the New Testament was at the first invested in Christ alone He is termed our Apostle Hebr. 3.1 Prophet Deut. 18.15 Act. 3.22 Evangelist Esai 41.27 Bishop 1. Pet. 2.25 Doctor Mat. 23.10 Diaconus Rom. 15.8 II. When the Harvest was great Matth. 9.38 that his personall presence could not attend all he took unto him XII Apostles as the XII Patriarchs or XII * Exod. 15.27 Num. 33.9 Fountaines as S. Ierom or the XII Princes of the Tribes Num. 1. Gathering his Disciples Matth. 10.1 Choosing out of them Luk. 6.13 Whom he would Mark 3.13 Called them to him Luk. 6.13 Made them Mark 3.13 Named them Apostles Luk. 6.13 These he began to send Mark 6.7 Gave them in charge Mat. 10.1 and 11.1 To preach the Gospell Luk. 9.2 To Heal. Matth. 10.1 Luk. 9.2 To cast out Devills Matth. 10.1 Gave them power Mat. 10.1 Luk. 9.2 To take maintenance Matth. 10.10 To shake of the dust for a witnesse Matth. 10.14 So he sent them Matth. 10.5 Luk. 9.1 They went and preached Luk. 9.6 They returned and made relation what they had done Mark 6.30 taught Mark 6.30 III. After this when the Harvest grew Iogreat as that the XII sufficed not all Luk. 10.1 2. hee took unto him other LXX as the 70. Palme-trees Num. 33.9 the Fathers of Families Gen. 46. the Elders Num. 11 These he Declared Luk. 10.1 Sent by two and two into every City and place whither he himselfe would come Ib. Gave them power as to the Apost les to Take maintenance Luk. 10.7 Shake off the dust Luk. 10.11 Heale the sick Luk. 10.9 Preach Luk. 10.9 Tread upon Serpents and Scorpions and over all the power of the Enemy Luk. 10.19 These two Orders as me thinketh S. Paul Ephes 3.5 doth comprehend under the name of Apostles and Prophets by the LXX understanding Prophets as usually next to the Apostles he placeth Prophets ever 1. Cor. 12.28 Ephes 4.11 None of the Fathers ever doubted that these two were two severall Orders or Sorts nor that the Apostles were superiour to the LXX It appeareth also that the Apostles had in them power to forbid to preach Luk. 9.49 and that Matthias was exalted from the other Order to the Apostleship This was then the Order while Christ was upon the Earth I. Christ himselfe II. The XII whose successours were Bishops III. The LXX whose successours were Priests IV. The faithfull people or Disciples of whom 500. and more are mentioned in 1. Corinth 15.6 and CXX in Act. 1.15 The forme of go vernment used in the time of the APOSTLES Albeit Christ saith the people were as Sheep without a Shepheard Matth. 9.38 yet he tearmeth his Apostles Haruest men not Shepheards For while he was in person on Earth himselfe only was the Shepheard and they but Arietes gregis But at his departure he maketh them Shepheards Iohn 21.15 as they likewise at theirs 1. Pet. 5.2 Act. 20.28 Of the APOSTLES themselves and first of their Name Shelicha which is the Syrian name was the title of certaine Legats or Commissioners sent from the High Priest to visit the Iewes and their Synagogues which were dispersed in other Countries with authority to redrese things amisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greekes were Officers of great credit as by Herodotus and Demosthenes appeareth Secondly of their Forme what it is Not to have been with Christ all his time Acts 1.21 So were others moe Not to be sent immediately of Christ Gal. 1.1 So were the LXX Luk. 10. Not to be limited to no one place Matth. 28.19 So were others Luk. 24.33 50. And S. Iames went no whither Not to be inspired of God so that they did not erre So were Marke and Luke Not to plant Churches So did Philip the Evangelist Act. 8. 5. Not to work signes and miracles So did Stephen Acts 6.8 and Philip. Acts 8.6 But over and above these and with these that eminent Authority or Iurisdiction which they had over all not only joyntly together but every one by himselfe I. Of imposing hands in Ordination Acts 6.6 Confirmatiō Act 8.17 18. II. Of Commanding the word of the Bench. Acts 4.18 and 5.28 1. Thess 4.11.2 Thess 3.6 12. Philem. 8. Coloss 4.10 1. Cor. 14.37 2. Peter 3.2 Titus 1.5.1 Cor. 7.6 17. and 11.34 16.1 III. Of Countermanding Luke 9.49 Acts 15.24 1. Tim. 2.12 IV. Of Censuring 1. Cor. 4.21.2 Cor. 13.10 Gal. 5.12 1. Tim. 1.20 1. Cor. 5.5 11. 2. Thess 3.14 Matth. 16.19 with 18.18 and Iohn 20.23 In this power it is that the Bishops succeed the Apostles Irenaelig lib. 3. tap 3. Tertull. de Praelig script Cyprian ad Florent 3.9 Epiphan Haeres 27. Romaefuerunt fuerunt primi Petrus Paulus Apostoli ijdem ac Episcopi Chrysost in Act. 3. Iacobus Episcopus Hierosolymitanus Hieronym epist. 85. 54. ad Marcellam de scriptorib Ecclesiast in Petro Iacobo Ambros in 1. Corinth 11. de Angelis in Ephes 4. Apostolis Angeli sunt OF DEACONS AT the beginning the whole weight of the Churches affayres lay upon the Apostles The distribution as well of the Sacrament Act. 2.42 as of the Oblations Act. 4.35 The Ordination Acts 6.6 The Government Acts 5.3 But upon occasion of the Greeks complaint whose widowes were not duly regarded in the dayly ministration
Isidorus de Patrib and Dorothei Synopsis To two of these Timothy and Titus the one at Ephesus the other at Crete Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. the Apostles imparted their owne Commission while they yet lived even the chiefe authority they had To appoint Priests Tit. 1.5 Hieron in eum locū To ordaine them by imposition of hands 1. Tim. 5.22 2. Tim. 2.2 To keep safe and preserve the Depositum 1. Tim. 6.14 20.2 Tim. 1.14 To command not to teach other things 1. Tim. 1.3 Tit. 3.9 2. Tim. 2.16 To receive Accusations 1. Tim. 5.19 21. To redresse or correct things amisse Tit. 1.5 To reject young Widowes 1. Tim. 5.11 To censure Hereticks and disordered persons Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 1. Tim 6.5 2. Tim. 3.5 And these after the Apostles deceased succeeded them in their charge of Government which was ordinary successive and perpetuall their extraordinary guifts of miracles and tongues ceasing with them So Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes Of the promiscuous use of their NAMES These were they whom posterity called Bishops But in the beginning regard was not had to distinction of Names The authority and power was ever distinct the name not restrained either in This or Other The Apostles were called Priests or Seniors 1. Pet. 5.1 Deacons or Ministers 1. Cor. 3.5 Teachers or Doctors 1. Tim. 2.7 Bishops or Overseers Acts 1.20 Prophets Acts 13.1 Revel 22.9 Evangelists 1. Cor. 9.16 The name of Apostle was enlarged and made common to more then the XII To Barnabas Act. 14.4 14. Andronicus Rom. 16.7 Epaphroditus Phil. 2.25 Titus and others 2. Cor. 8.23 Timothy Hieron in Cant. Chr. Euseb The Priests were called Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 Bishops Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.7 So Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Quid hoc an unius civitatis multi erant episcopi Nequaquà m sed Presbyteros isto nomine appellavit Tunc enim nomina adhuc erant communia Hierome Hîc episcopos Presbyteros intelligimus non enim in unâ urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent Theodoret Non fieri quidem poterat ut multi Episcopi essent unius civitat is pastores quo sit ut essent soli Presbyteri quos vocavit Episcopos in 1. Tim. 3. Eosdem olim vocabant Episcopos Presbyteros eos autem qui nunc vocantur Episcopi nominabant Apostolos Oecumenius Non quòd in unâ civitate multi essent Episcopi c. For in the Apostles absence in Churches new planted the oversight was in them till the Apostles ordained and sent them a Bishop either by reason of some schisme or for other causes The Bishops as the Ecclesiasticall History recounteth them were called Apostles Philip. 2.25 Evangelists 2. Tim. 4.5 Diaconi 1. Tim. 4.6 Priests 1. Tim. 5.17 For it is plaine by the epistle of Irenaeus to Victor in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 26. that they at the beginning were called Priests that in very truth and propriety of speech were Bishops And by Theodoret in 1. Tim. 3. that they which were Bishops were at the first called Apostles The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas was given by the Athenians to them which were sent to oversee the Cities that were under their jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name Episcopus was given among the Romans to him qui praeerat pani vaenalibus ad victum quotidianum ff de munerib honorib Cicere ad Atticum lib. 7. epist 10. Vult me Pompeius esse quem tota haec Campania maritima ora habeat Episcopum The name in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 41.34 seemeth to have relation to the second use for they were such as had charge of the graine laying up and selling under Ioseph The necessary use of the BISHOPS office and the charge committed to him The party who in the New Testament is called Episcopus is in the Old called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 109.8 with Act. 1.20 In a house or familie it is first affirmed of Ioseph Gen. 39.4 who had the oversight and government of the rest of the servants In a house there may be many servants which have places of charge but there is one that hath the charge of all that is Oeconomus the Steward So doe the Apostles terme thēselves 1. Cor. 4.1 and their office 1. Cor. 9.17 and their successours the Bishops Tit. 1.7 Vid. Hilar. in Matth. 24.45 In a flock Vid. Hierenym epist 4. ad Ruslicum cap. 6. epist 85. ad Evagrium the Pastour Ioh. 21.15 Act. 20.28 Mat. 25.32 1. Pet. 5.2 Ephes 4.11 In a Camp the Captaine Matth. 2.6 Hebr. 13.7 17 24. In a ship the Governour 1. Cor. 12.28 under whom others Act. 13.5 In the Common-wealth they be such as are set over Officers to hasten them forward and see they doe their duties as in 2. Chron. 34.12 and 31.13 Nehem. 11.22 and 12.42 So that what a Steward is in a house a Pastour in a flock a Captaine in a Camp a Master in a ship a Surveiour in an office That is a Bishop in the Ministerie Upon him lieth to take care of the Churches under him 2. Cor. 11.28 Philip. 2.20 1. Pet. 5.2 Concil Antiochen can 9. and for that end to visit them Act. 9.32 and 15.36 and to be observant Of that which is Well and orderly to confirme it Act. 15.41 Revel 3.2 Otherwise to redresse it Tit. 1.5 To him was committed I. Authority of ordeyning Tit. 1.5 and so of begetting Fathers Epiph. haeres 75. See Ambrose Theodoret and Oecumenius in 1. Timoth. 3. Damasus epist 3. Hierome epist 85. ad Evagr. Leo epist 88. Concil Ancyran can 12. al. 13. For though S. Paul should mention a Companie with him at the ordeyning of Timothie 1. Tim. 4.14 yet it followeth not but that he onely was the Ordeyner No more then that Christ is the onely Iudge although the XII shall sit with him on Thrones Luc. 22.30 II. Authority of enjoyning or forbidding 1. Tim. 1.3 Ignat. ad Magnesian Cyprian epist 39. III. Authority of holding Courts and receiving accusations 1. Tim. 5.19 1. Cor. 5.12 Revel 2.2 Augustin de opere monachor cap. 29. IV. Authority of correcting 1. Tim. 1.3 Tit. 1.5 Hieron contra Lucifer cap. 4. epist 53. ad Riparium Cyprian ep 38. ad Rogatianum V. Authority of appointing Fasts Tertullian advers Psychicos FINIS THE ORIGINALL OF BISHOPS AND METROPOLITANS briefely laid downe BY MARTIN BUCER sometimes Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Cambridge IOHN RAINOLDES late Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford IAMES VSSHER sometime Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Dublin afterward Arch-Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all IRELAND Whereunto is annexed A Geographicall and Historicall Disquisition touching the Lydian or Proconsular Asia and the seven Metropoliticall Churches contained in it by the said Arch-bishop of Armagh Together with A Declaration of the Patriarchicall Government of the ancient Church by Edward
the old Canon of Sardica for liberty of Appeales to the Romane Bishops no Provinces being by the Canon excepted or think that the Bishop of Iustiniana prima was subject to him because at the first erection of that primacy by Iustinian he was perhaps consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome But as this act was performed by the appointment of the Emperour so that Canon of Sardica so much stood on seemeth by the later and greater Councell of Chalcedon againe to be revoked and the order of Appealing otherwise restrained as you may read in the ninth Canon of that Councell And thus confessing my ignorance of the reasons of other mens irregular actions I end having wearied my selfe and dulled my pen perhaps to trouble you more then to satisfy you Yet this latter was my purpose and to take the trouble my selfe for your satisfaction Howsoever it fall out I doubt not but you will accept what is well written for my good wils sake to pleasure you who am not wont to write discourses of this kind to many men and pardon the imperfections and errors which may perhaps escape me because it was my intention to write the truth whereof I have no where wittingly failed and because my little leasure and little learning would not allow me on the suddaine to doe better FINIS THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATION Of the MINISERS of the REFORMED CHVRCHES BEYOND THE SEAS MAINtained against the Romanists BY FRANCIS MASON With A briefe Declaration premised thereunto of the severall Formes of Government received in those CHURCHES By IOHN DUREE OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Anno Dom. 1641. The severall formes of Gouernment received in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas IN the Church of Sweden the Government is committed to one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops whom formerly the King now the Regents of the kingdome doe appoint Yet some kind and forme of Election used by the Clergy doth goe along with that appointment The Bishops as Bishops have voyce in Parliament and with them so many of the inferiour Clergy as are from every Socken that is the name of a certaine number of Parishes deputed to appeare in Parliament together with such husbandmen as are usually sent thither in the name of a Socken The Bishops authority over the rest of the Clergy is to direct and order aswell in as out of publick meetings all Ecclesiasticall assayres according to the received constitutions of the Church And as they use not without counsell and knowledge of their Consistorialls to doe any thing of moment so if they think it expedient they may call a Synode of their Diocese and therein make such particular Constitutions as they shall think fit for their owne edification Their meanes and maintenance is answerable in some proportion to the place wherein they are set above others and so are by all respected and honoured as Fathers of the Church In Denmarck their authority is not so great yet they keep the name and place of Bishops and have maintenance somewhat answerable to their place They are appointed by the King for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall affayres with the consent of their Brethren in Confistory as Directours of Meetings and out of Meetings as peculiar Inspectors over the Church to receive complaints and provide that scandals may be taken out of the way In other Lutherane Churches as in Holstein Pomeren Mekelenburgh Brunswick Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburg East Friesland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany where Lutheranes beare rule as also in most of the great Imperiall Cities the Government of the Church belongeth to Superintendents who are called and put in place by the Princes in their owne Dominions and by the Magistrates in the great Cities They have a Priority over the rest of the Ministery and commonly in the Dominions of Princes there is an Ecclesiasticall Consistory made up of Clergy men and Counsellours of the state to oversee and direct the Superintendents in things which may be expedient To which Consistory also the Decision of hard matters incident when strife ariseth doth belong In the Diocese of Bremen the Arch-Bishop his Chancellour Court doth direct order all things in the name of his Highnesse But in Brunswick and Luneburgh besides the Generall Consistory and the particular Superintendents which are ordinarily amongst all the rest of the Lutheranes there bee others who are named Generales and Generalissimi Superintendentes whereof the former is subordinate unto the latter and both unto the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Consistory whereof the Generalissimus Superintendens and such others as the Prince doth appoint are members All these Superintendents are in place during life and are allowed maintenance in some proportion answerable to their priority of place above others In the Reformed Churches heretofore in the Palatinate the Government was administred by those whom they called Inspectores and Praepositi whose power was the same with that of the particular Superintendents amongst the Lutherans And above these Inspectores was the Ecclesiasticall Consistory made up of three Clergy men and three Counsellours of state with their President These the Prince named and to them in his name the ordering of all matters did belong In like manner in the Wetteraw in Hessen and in Anhalt they have still their Praepositos and Superintendentes with the same power and forme of Government which is already mentioned Now in Holland although their Presbyteriall or as they call it their Classicall Meetings are very frequent videlicèt every month and their Classicall Synodes every yeare yet they have of late found a necessity of erecting some officers to whom a more universall charge is committed then others have These they call Deputatos Synodi and are only temporary for some few yeares with a limited power These Deputies of the Synode have their peculiar Meetings by themselves upon severall incident occasions but chiefly at the time of every Provinciall Synode wherein they consult before hand how matters ought to be laid and proposed unto the Assemblies and then in the Meeting they have a peculiar place by themselves where they sit and concerning every thing which is to bee determined the Praeses of the Synode doth require of them first that they should open the matter unto the Assembly and declare their judgements of it before it be put to the Votes of the Multitude In Geneva and Helvetia the Eldest Ministers have the place before others and for the most part that authority and respect which in other Churches the Superintendents receive by speciall order and constitution these have by custome and tacite consent of their Brethren although at particular occasions of Meetings they chuse severall Presidents of the action The like is also in France where the Ministery of Paris party by reason of the Eminency of the place partly by reason of the guifts and endowments of the men ordinarily appointed to that place doth beare a great sway before all others But in Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia
there is no superiour order no not the function of a Bishop or Arch. bishop u Alphons in verbo Episcopus Alphonsus de Castro speaking of the Aërians saith thus Lectorem admonere decrevi c. I have determined to admonish the Reader that he doe not suppose that I so contradict the Heretiques in this behalfe that I think the Episcopall function to be an other order from the Priesthood Which I have therefore given you warning of because there are some which are of opinion that the Episcopall function doth differ from the Priesthood as the Priesthood doth differ from the Deaconship towit so that there should be an other character imprinted in the ordination of a Bishop then was in the ordination of a Priest x Fab. Incarnat in scrutinio Sacerdotali Fabius Incarnatus Dicitur impropriè Ordo ratione jurisdictionis sed tamen non est Sacramentum sed est quoddam sacramentale idcircò dignitas Episcopalis non est ordo imò praesupponit ordinem Sacerdotalem sed est ordinis Eminentia vel dignitas It is called an order improperly in respect of jurisdiction but notwithstanding it is not a Sacrament but as a certain Sacrament all thing Therefore the Episcopall dignity is not an order but rather it presupposeth the Sacerdotall Order but it is an eminence of order or dignity And againe How many holy orders are there I answere that there are the Orders of Subdeacon Deacon and Priest y Canis Catechism de sacrament Ordinis §. 4. Petrus Canisius a Spanish Iesuit asketh this question How many degrees doth the Sacrament of Order comprehend and answereth that it doth comprehend generally the lesser orders and the greater to wit foure lesser of the Doore-keepers Exorcists Readers and Acolytes and three greater of Subdeacons Deacons and Priests Which last he divideth into greater lesser but accounteth them both one Order as may appeare by these words Et quanquam quod ad Ordinis Sacramentum ad sacrificandi authoritatem attinet discrimen inter Episcopos Sacerdotes non sit tamen sunt illi Sacerdotibus multò excellentiores c. Although there be no difference betweene Bishops and Priests in regard of the sacrament of order and the authority of sacrificing yet Bishops are much more excellent This authority is the greater In Epistolâ dedicatoriâ because the book is set forth by the edict of the Emperour and commanded by the King of Spaine to be taught in the Low Countries both in Churches and in Schooles All this while have I said nothing of z Michael Medina de sacrorum hominum origine ac continentiâ lib. 1. cap. 5. Medina who was a principall Bishop of the Councell of Trent and affirmeth that Ierome Ambrose Austine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophylact are of the same opinion Omnes colligunt ideò aut Episcopos Presbyteros aut Presbyteros vocari Episcopos quòd una eademque res esset Episcopus Presbyter quantū ad Ordinis potestatem attinet All collect that therefore Bishops were called Priests or Priests Bishops because a Bishop and a Priest were one and the selfe same thing in respect of the power of Order Which places of the Fathers I doe not particularly produce because my purpose is only at this time to justify the Reformed Churches by the testimonies of your own Popish writers HItherto you have heard the judgement of particular persons now you shall see the judgement of the whole Church of Rome For the a Catechism Roman pars 2. §. 12. 26. Roman or Tridentine Catechisme set out by the decree of the Councell of Trent and by the commandement of Pius Quintus and therefore to be acknowledged as the doctrine of the whole Romane Church saith Docendum igitur erit hosce omnes ordines septenario numero contineri semperque it a à Catholicâ Ecclesiâ traditum esse quorum nomina haec sunt Ostiarius Lector Exorcista Acolythus Subdiaconus Diaconus Sacerdos i. Therefore it shall be fit to be taught that all those orders are comprehended within the number of seven and that it was alwaies so delivered by the Catholike Church the names whereof are these The Doore-keeper Lecturer Exorcist Acolyte Subdeacon Deacon and Priest Here is no mention of the Bishop and yet all orders are here comprehended Wherefore the Pope and Councell doe teach as the generall doctrine of the Catholike Church that the Episcopall office is no order distinct from the order of Priesthood PHILOD b Bellarmin de Sacrament Ordinis lib. 1. cap. 5. THey are one order in genere not in specie for so they are distinct orders ORTHOD. This is contrary to the streame of your owne Writers before alleadged who hold seven Orders the last whereof is Priesthood and doe not make the order of Priesthood to containe a speciall order but plainly exclude the Episcopall office from being an Order Some of whose Arguments I will produce whereunto let us see what you can answere You teach generally that the diversity of holy orders properly so called ariseth from distinct relations to the Eucharist But a Bishop in that he differeth from a Presbyter hath not any distinct relation to the Eucharist Therefore a Bishop in that he differeth from a Priest hath not a diverse order PHILOD c Bellarm. ibid. Though the Bishop and the Presbyter have the same power in consecrating of the Eucharist yet they participate it in diverse manners Wherfore it commeth to passe that they are two species Sacerdotum For the Presbyter in consecrating the Eucharist at least in respect of the use dependeth upon the Bishop who may forbid him to consecrate and suspend or command him to doe it in such a place in such a time in such a manner ORTHOD. This argueth jurisdiction over his Person not any more power or authority in consecrating nor any distinct relation to the Eucharist PHILOD A Bishop hath this power so that he may communicate it to others by imposition of hands which a Presbyter cannot doe ORTHOD. This is to begge the point in question Therefore if your Iesuits have no better objections the former Argument will stand impregnable An other of the Schoolemens Arguments may thus be framed If the Episcopall function be a distinct species of Order then this order is either inferior to the order of Priesthood or superior or equall But it is not inferior because then one should be made Bishop before he were a Priest which is absurd Neither is it a superior order for then it should be a more noble order then Priesthood and consequently performe a more noble act Which is contrary to the common judgement of your owne men d Bonav in 4. Sent. dist 24. part 2. art 2. q. 3. sect 3. Bonaventure calleth Priesthood ordinem perfectissimum the most perfect order Aureolus saith e Aureolus in 4. Sent. d. 24. q. 1. art 2. Nobilior actus est consicere Corpus