the authority which is deferred unto those whom they call chuse and ordaine by particular imposition of hands of other more ancient Seniors to be their Seniors is the very same which the Bishops in ancient time had over other Ministers as may appeare to the full by a Description thereof and of all the ordinances of that Church which are put forth in a Book printed Anno 1633. with this title Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate Fratrum Bohemorum Whereunto I desire to remitte those who would know particulars THE ADDITION OF FRANCIS MASON unto his Defence of the Ministery of the Church of England wherein the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas is maintained by him against the ROMANISTS PHILODOX THough somewhat may be said for the Ministers of England yet for Luther and Calvin and their Disciples you can bring no shew nor shaddow of probability ORTHODOX That point is without the circle of our present subject which concerneth only the Ministery of England PHILOD I perceive you are afraid and would fayne fly the field indeed I cannot blame you it is a dangerous point Latet anguis in herbâ ORTHOD. The handling of a question of this nature requireth the particular knowledge of the estate of those Churches with the occurrences and occasions out of which their proceedings and actions did grow and that according to the severall circumstances of time persons and places appearing by Records In which respect I would willingly referre this point to the learned men living in the same Churches which are best acquainted with the particulars of their owne estate Notwithstanding least you should insult and triumph over our Brethren I am content to skirmish a little with you using for my chiefest target your owne testimonies as Iudas Macchabeus protected Israel with the sword of Apollonius 1. Maccab. 3.12 But the trumpets have already sounded to the encounter behold we enter the field expecting your fiery darts against the host of Israel PHIL. VNtill Protestants shew the lawfull vocation of their first head and spring Martin Luther they all being derived of him may be counted amongst the Acephali those ancient Heretiques even as the branch of an honourable house being stained the whole posterity after remaineth spotted ORTHOD. Are all the Pretestants derived from Martin Luther you know the contrary in the Churches of England Scotland Helvetia France and Flanders Neither can any of the Protestants be counted Acephali For those blaspheinous Heretiques opposing themselves against the Councell of Chalcedon maintained this damnable Heresy a Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 45. that there is but one nature in Christ whereas all wee doe most stedfastly beleive and stedfastly professe that Christ is God truly and Man perfectly one person inseparably and yet two natures distinctly God truly against the Arrians condemned in the first generall Councell Man perfectly against the Apolinarians condemned in the second generall Councell One person inseparably against the Nestorians condemned in the third generall Councell Two natures distinctly against the Eutychians condemned in the fourth generall Councell From which Heresies and all other the Protestants may be justified to be cleare and much clearer then your selves PHILOD THe Acephali were so called according to b Isid Origin lib. 8. cap. 5. Isidor because there could be found no head nor authour from whence they did spring Such are the Protestants therefore they may be all called Acephali ORTHOD. You said even now that our first head and spring was Martin Luther If you have found our head how can you call us Acephali PHILOD But who was Luthers head or whence did he spring he was a body without a head and a river without a spring ORTHOD. Did you not resemble him to a branch of an honourable house therefore if we may beleive you this branch hath a roote this body a head and this river a spring PHILOD Indeed he did spring frō the Church of Rome as he was a Priest but he was never Bishop and yet he tooke upon him to ordaine Ministers as though he had beene a Bishop Wherefore if you will grant that all ministeriall power must of necessity be derived from a Bishop as from a head then seeing Luther was no Bishop he was no head so all his ofspring are Acephali But if you deny this preheminence of Bishops then flying Scylla you fall into Charybdis and shunning the name of Acephali you become Aerians ORTHOD. Or rather if ministeriall power may be derived from a Presbyter in case of necessity then are they not Acephali if they acknowledge the preheminence of Bishops then are they not Aërians PHIL. VVHat was the heresy of the Aërians c Ad Quodvult Deum Haeres 53. S. Austen declareth how Aērius being prevented of a Bishoprick for griefe thereof falling from the Church became an Arrian and broached new opinions One whereof was that there ought to be no difference betweene a Bishop and a Priest And doe not almost all the Lut herans and Calvinists teach the same For wherein doth a Bishop excell a Presbyter so much as in his Order and what is so proper to the excellent order as the power of Ordination Wherefore seeing they communicate this to a Presbyter they take away in effect all difference and so concurre with the Aërians ORTHOD. For the dispelling of this cloud let us first consider this Heresy and then examine this odious imputation This heresy consisted not in this that a Bishop and a Presbyter are of one order nor in this that a Presbyter in some causes may ordaine which points sundry of your selves doe maintaine as hereafter shall be declared following herein as they were verily perswaded Saint Ierome and others of the ancient Fathers who are very farre from being Aërians But what it was and wherein it consisteth we may learne of Epiphanius and Austen d Epiph. haeres 75. §. 3. Epiphanius describeth it in this manner What is said Aërius a Bishop to a Priest the one differeth nothing from the other For there is one order one honour and one dignity The Bishop imposeth hands so doth also the Priest The Bishop baptizeth so doth likewise the Priest The Bishop is a disposer of divine worship and the Priest is likewise The Bishop sitteth in the throne the Priest sitteth also By e Aug. ad Quod vult Deum haer 53. Austen thus Dicebant Presbyterum ab Episcopo nullâ differentiâ debere discerni i. The Aërians said that a Bishop ought to be distinguished from a Priest by no difference What meant Aerius when he said there ought to be no difference He could not meane that there ought to be none by the lawes of the Church for it is evident that they put a difference Therefore his meaning was that by the word of God there ought to be no difference So he controuled the preheminence of Bishops as contrary to the Scripture Wherein his owne position was false
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
Christi quà m ordinare To make the Body of Christ is a more noble act then to ordaine Durandus f Durand in 4. d. 24. q. 6. sect 9. Actus nobilior est consecrare corpus Christi quod pertinet ad Sacerdotem quà m ordinatio Ministri quod pertinet ad Episcopum nam secundus est propter primum It is a more noble act to consecrate the body of Christ which pertaineth to a Priest then to ordaine a Minister which pertaineth to a Bishop for the second is for the first Gerson g Gerson in Compendio Theolog. de Ordine Consecrare corpus Christi est excellentissimum humanorum officiorum to consecrate the body of Christ is the most excellent of humane offices and Bellarmine himselfe h Bellarm. de Sacramento Ordinis cap. 5 Summa potestas est posse consecrare Eucharistiam the highest power is to be able to consecrate the Eucharist PHILOD If one compare the Character or power which a Bishop hath from his last Consecration with the character which he hath from his Presbyteriall Ordination then his latter is greater in respect of intention because the highest power is to consecrate the Eucharist the former is greater in respect of Extention because it extendeth it selfe unto more things ORTHOD. The excellency of an Order dependeth not upon the variety of Objects but upon the excellency of the proper Act. Wherefore seeing that you grant the proper Act of Priesthood more excellent you must likewise grant that Priesthood is the most excellent Order Therefore the Episcopall function cannot be an order either superior or equall unto it And it was proved before that it cannot be an order inferiour So the conclusion followeth that it is not properly any sacred Order at all PHILOD The whole and entire Episcopall character is composed of a double character the first whereof is received when he is made Priest the other when he is made Bishop Now this whole and entire Episcopall character is more excellent then the Presbyteriall only because it includeth it and addeth another unto it ORTHOD. This doth not answere the point For the Argument framed according to the Question speaketh distinctly of that wherein the Bishop differeth from a Priest and compareth it with a Priesthood Your Answere is of a totum aggregatum which comprehendeth both Therefore it is not ad idem So the Conclusion remaineth firme as before that it is not an Order VVHich me thinks you should more willingly grant because Bellarmine your great Bellwether who first held that they were the same Order and afterward maintained the contrary is now in his old age returned to his former opinion What his judgement was in his former years may be seen in his book de Clericis where he saith that i Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 11. §. 4. Ecclesiasticall Orders are taken two waies properly and commonly Orders properly taken he calleth such as are conferred by a Bishop with a certaine sacred and solemne rite and are referred to the performance of some certaine ministery about the Divine sacrifice Orders commonly taken he calleth such as are any way dedicated to Divine offices though it be without relation to sacrifice which he exemplifieth in Monkes and Nunnes The proper Orders he affirmeth to be seven in number the chiefe whereof is Priesthood Concerning the difference of a Priest and a Bishop these are his words Et si Episcopus Presbyter distinguantur tamen quantum ad sacrificium idem omninò ministerium exhibent proinde unum Ordinem non duos faciunt i. Although a Bishop and a Presbyter be distinguished yet in respect of the sacrifice they performe alltogether the same ministery Therefore they make one order not two Yet in his book of the Sacrament of Order he affirmeth that k Id. de sacramento Ord. cap. 5. sect 11. 13. Episcopall Ordination is a Sacrament that a Bishop hath a new Character that Episcopatus is one Order with Priesthood in generall not in speciall that the Episcopall character is compounded of a double character and that two Sacraments are required to make a Bishop So here he holdeth it to be truly and properly a new Order a new Character a new Sacrament Notwithstanding now at length having put his last hand to his former workes of Controversies considering be like that this is contrary to the common tenent of your Church he retracteth and disclaimeth it in these words l Id. in Recognit pag. 89. Vbi dixi Episcopatum Presbyteratum esse unum Ordinem sed genere non specie paulo infrà Presbyteros Episcopos esse duas species Sacerdotum rectiùs dixissem esse unum Ordinem sed gradus diversos That is Whereas I said that Episcopatus and Presbyteratus are the same Order in generall not in speciall and a little after that Presbyters and Bishops are two species of Priests I might have said more rightly that they are one Order but divers degrees This is the finall judgement of your chiefest Champion PHILOD YOur owne Book of Orders calleth it an Order even in the first sentence of the Preface saying It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons ORTHOD. The Canonists affirme it to be an Order the Schoolemen deny it Yet m Id. in lib. de Clericis cap. 11. sect ult Bellarmine and n Sculting Bibliothecae catholicae tom 4. contra lib. 4. Calvini c. 9. §. 22. Scultingius avouch there is no difference betweene them Because the Canonists call it an Order in respect of Regiment the Schoolemen deny it as Order is a Sacrament In like manner because a Bishop is sanctified and set a part with Imposition of hands to publick employment in Ecclesiasticall Government the Church of England with your Canonists call it an Order and yet many deny with your Schoolemen that it is properly an Order as Deaconship and Priesthood To which you may the rather be induced because the Authors of the Book having spoken first of the Ordering of Deacons and then of Ordering of Priests when they come to the Forme of making Bishops they never call it Ordering but alwaies Consecrating PHILOD Surely the Fathers and Councells doe commonly call it Ordering shall there be Ordination and not an Order ORTHOD. They call it so largely and improperly as witnesseth Bonaventure o Bonavent in Sentent lib. 4. d. 24. part 2. art 2. q. 3. resp ad object Non ita propriè dicitur aliquis ordinari cùm promovetur in Episcopum ut cùm promovetur in sacerdotem sed magis propriè dicitur consecrari i. One is not so properly said to be Ordained when he is promoted to be Bishop as when he is promoted to be Priest but is more properly said to be cōsecrated Neither is this the opinion of Bonaventure alone but it is the common and