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
doe not find to suite with our owne humours the safest way will be to consult with Christ himself herein and heare what he delivereth in the cause These things saith he that hath the seven starres Revel III. 1. He owneth then we see these starres whatsoever they be and the mystery of them he thus further openeth unto his beloved Disciple The seven starres which thou sawest in my right hand are the Angels of the seven Churches Revel I. 20. From which words a learned man very much devoted to the now so highly admired Discipline deduceth this conclusion n Quanta igitur dignitas verorum Pastorum qui tum stellae sunt non in alio firmamento quà m in dextrâ Chrisli fixae tum Angeli Tho. Brightman in Apocalyps 1.20 How great therefore is the dignity of true Pastours who are both STARRES fixed in no other firmament then in the right hand of Christ and ANGELS He had considered well that in the Church of Ephesus one of the seven here pointed at there were many o Act. 20.17 28. PRESBYTERS whom the holy Ghost had made BISHOPS or Overseers over all that flock to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his owne bloud And withall he saw that by admitting one Angell there above the rest all as well p Iudg. 2.1 Hagg. 1.13 Matth. 11.18 extraordinary Prophets as q Malach. 2.7 ordinary Pastours being in their owne severall stations accounted Angels or Messengers of the Lord of Hosts hee should be forced also to acknowledge the eminency of one Bishop above the other Bishops that name being in those dayes r Philip. 1.1 1. Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.5 7. common unto all the Presbyters and to yield withall that such a one was to be esteemed as a starre fixed in no other firmament then in the right hand of Christ. To salve this therefore all the starres in every Church must bee presupposed to bee of one magnitude and though those starres which typified these Angels are said to be but seven yet the Angels themselves must be maintained to be farre more in number and in fine where our Saviour saith ſ Revel z. 1. unto the Angell of the Church of Ephesus write it must by no meanes be admitted that t Nec uni alicut Angelo mittuntur sed toti ut ita dicam Collegio Pastorum quiomnes hâc communi voce comprchenduntur Non enim un us erat Angelus Ephesi sed plures nec inter istos aliquls Princeos Brigheman in Apolyps 2 1. any one Angell should bee meant hereby but the whole Colledge of Pastors rather And all upon pretence of a poore shew of some shallow reasons that there was not one Angell of Ephesus but many and among them not any Principall Which wreasting of the plaine words of our Saviour is so extreame violent that M. Beza though every way as zealously affected to the advancement of the new Discipline as was the other could by no meanes digest it but ingenuously acknowledgeth the meaning of our Lords direction to have been this u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quem nimirùn opertuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per cum caereros Collegas toranque ade◠Ecclesiam Bez. in Apocalyps 2.1 To the Angell that is to the President as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his colleagues and the whole Church likewise And that there was then a standing President over the rest of the Pastors of Ephesus he the very same as learned x Conference with Hart c. 8 divis 3. Doctor Rainoldes addeth with him whom afterward the Fathers called Bishop may further be made manifest not only by the succession of the first Bishops of that Church but also by the cleare testimony of Ignatius who within no greater compasse of time then twelve yeares afterwards distinguisheth the singular and constant President thereof from the rest of the number of the Presbyters by appropriating the name of Bishop unto him As for the former we finde it openly declared in the generall Councell of Chalvedon by Leontius Bishop of Magnesia that y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalcedon Act. 11. from Timothie so from the daies of the Apostles there had been a continued succession of seven and twentie Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesau Of which number the Angell of the Church of Ephesus mentioned in the Revelation must needs be one whether it were Timothie himselfe as z Vid. Perer. in Apocalyps cap. 2. disp 2. Alcasar Prooem in cap. 2. 3. Apocal. notar 1. Petr. Halloix Notat in vit Polycarp c. 7. some conceive or one of his next Successours as others rather doe imagine For that Timothie had been sometime a Notandum est ex boc loco Timotheum in Ephesino Presbyterio tum fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. antistite ut vocat Iustinus Bez. Annotat. in 1. Tim. 5.19 Qui politiae causâ reliquis fratribus in coetu praeerat quem Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocat peculiariter dici Episcopus coepit Id. in Philip. 1.1 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the appellation that Iustin Martyr giveth unto him whom other of the Fathers doe peculiarly terme a Bishop or Antistes or President of the Ephesine Presbytery is confessed by Beza himselfe and that he was ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians we doe not only read in the subscription of the second Epistle to Timothie and the Ecclesiasticall History of b Euseb Hist lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius but also in two ancient Treatises concerning the Martyrdome of Timothie the one namelesse in the Library of c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Bicliot num 2.5 4. Photius the other bearing the name of d Polycrat de Martyrio Timothei inter Vitas Sanctorum edit Lovanil anno 1485. Polycrates even of that Polycrates who was not onely himselfe Bishop of this Church of Ephesus but borne also within six or seven and thirty yeares after S. Iohn wrote the fore-named Epistle unto the Angell of that Church as it appeareth by the yeares he was of when he wrote that Epistle unto Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he maketh mention of e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycrat Epist ad Victorem apud Euseb l. 5. Hist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven kinsmen of his who had beene Bishops he himselfe being the eight I come now to the testimony of Ignatius whom f Theodoret. in Dialogo 1. sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret and g Felix III. in Epist ad Zenonem Imp. recitat in V. Synodo Constantinopol Act. 1. tomo 2. Concilior pag. 220 edit Binii anno 1606 Felix Bishop of Rome and h Iohan Malela Antiochinus Chronic. lib. 10 M.S. Iohn the Chronographer of Antioch report to have been ordained Bishop of Antioch by S.
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
West IIII. over whom was Hosa North IIII. over whom was Zechariah Over all these it seemeth Benajah the son of Iehoiada the Priest was the chiefe 1. Chron 27.5 Treasurers for the Revenues of the house of God 1. Ch. 26.20 for Cohath Shebuel of Moses ofspring Gershon Iehiel Merare Ahiah Things dedicated by vow Shelomith 1. Chron. 26.26 Over all the Porters was Chenaniah 1. Chr. 26.29 15.22 27. It is to be remembred that beside Zadok the High Priest and Ahimelech the second we finde mention of Hashabiah the son of Kemuel chiefe of the whole Tribe of Levi. 1. Chron. 27.17 So that there was One over the Ark Zadok The second over the Tabernacle Ahimelech The third over the Tribe Hashabiah As over the Levits Ministers Iehdeiah Iudges Chasabiah Officers Shemaiah Singers Heman Porters Chenaniah or Benaiah Agreeable to this forme we read that under Iosias there were three that is Hilkiah Zachariah and Iehiel 2. Chron. 35.8 and that the Levits had six over them 2. Chron. 35.9 Againe under Zedekiah that there were carried into Captivity Seraiah the chief Priest and Zephaniah the second Priest 2. King 25.18 Likewise under Ezekiah at the provision for the Levits portions there were ten of the Levits over whom was Cononiah and Shimei and so Kore over the voluntary offrings and six Levits under him 2. Chron. 31.12 13. c. The forme of government under NEHEMIAH OF whom and Esdras it is recorded that they did all according to Moses institution Ezr. 6.18 Nehem. 10.34 36. There was then Eliashib Nehem. 3.1 Seraiah 11.11 Zabdiel 11.14 The Courses were then but XXII Neh. 12.12 There was then Vzzi Neh. 11.22 Iezrahiah Neh. 12.42 Shallum 1. Chron. 9.17 Under Zabdiel at his hand Adaiah Nehem. 11. ver 12 13. Amasai Nehem. 11. ver 12 13. Vnder Vzzi Shemaiah Neh. 11.15 16. Shabbethai Heh 11.15 16. Iozabad Neh. 11.15 16. Vnder Iezrahiah Mattaniah Neh. 11.17 Bakbukiah Neh. 11.17 Abda Neh. 11.17 Vnder Shallum Akkub 1. Chron. 9.17 Talmon Nehem. 11.19 So that there was 1. The High Priest 2. The second third Overseers of the Priests 3. The Princes of the Priests 4. The Priests 5. The Overseer of the Levits 6. The Princes of the Levits 7. The Levits 8. The Heads of the Nethinims 9. The Nethinims of the Gibeonits Salomons servants A briefe Recapitulation of the degrees observed under the government of the Old Testament with an accommodation thereof unto the New Out of these we gather this Forme to have been I. Moses in whom was the supreme jurisdiction to visit Aaron Num. 3.10 II. Aaron the High Priest Levit. 21.20 Num. 35.28 Nehem. 3.1 Head 2. Chron. 19.11 Prince of the house of God 1. Chron. 9.11 III. Eleazar the second 2. King 25.18 Prelate of Prelats Num. 3.22 Chiefe Overseer or Bishop Ier. 20.1 At his hand It hamar IV. Prince of the Tribe 1. Chron. 27.17 V. Elizaphan Eliasaph Zuriel Prelats Num. 3.24 c. Overseers or Bishops Neh. 11.14 22. VI. In the XXIV Courses set by David The Princes of the Priests Ezr. 8.29 of God 1. Chr. 24.5 of the Sanctuary 1. Chr. 24.5 Elders of the Priests Ierem. 19.1 King 19.1 Heads of the Families 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nehem. 12.12 Chiefe Priests Act. 19.14 VII The Priests themselves Whether at Ierusalem or in the Countrey townes 2. Chron. 31.19 VIII The Overseer of the Levits Nehem. 11.22 IX The Princes of the Levits 1. Chron. 15.5 2. Chron. 35.9 Nehem. 12.22 X. The Head of the Levits Officers The Scribe The Singers 1. Chro. 16.5 Neh. 12.42 The Porters 1. Chron. 9.17 15.22 The Treasurers 1. Chron. 26.24 2. Chr. 31.12 XI The Levits themselves XII The Chief of the Nethinims Nehem. 11.21 XIII The Nethinims of the Gibeonits Ios 9.21 Salomons servants 1. King 9.21 Nehem. 7.60 It is not only requisite that things be done and that they be diligently done against sloth but that they be done continually and constantly To this end it is that God appoints Overseers 1. To urge others if they be slack 2. Chron. 24.5 34 13. 2 To keep them in course if they be well 2. Chr. 29.5 and 31.12 and 34.12.13 3. To punish if any be defective Ierem. 29.26 For which A power of Commanding was in the High Priest 1. Chron. 23.8 18. and 24.6 and 31.13 A power Iudiciall if they transgressed Deut 17.9 Zach 3.7 Ezech 44.24 Under paine of death Deut 17.12 Punishment in Prison and in the Stocks Ier 29.26 in the Gate of Benjamin Ier 20.2 Officers to Cite and Arrest Ioh. 7.32 Act 5.18 This Corporall To suspend from the Function Ezr 2.62 To excommunicate Ezr 10.8 Ioh. 9.22 and 12. 42. and 16.2 This Spirituall Why may not the like be for the government of the Church There is alleaged one only stop That the High Priest was a figure of Christ who being now come in the flesh the figure ceaseth no argument thence to be drawne For Answer whereunto we are to consider that I. This is the Anabaptists only shift That we are to have no Warres for the warres of the Iewes were but figures of our spirituall Battell No Magistrate for their Magistrates were but figures of our Ministers Pastors and Doctors and all by Christs comming abolished II. Christ being as well King as Priest was as well fore resembled by the Kings then as by the High Priest So that if his comming take away the one Type it must also the other If it be said there was in the King somewhat else beside the representation the like is and may bee truely said of the High Priest And that some such thing there was it is plaine by S. Paul who yeelded his obedience to the High Priest appearing before him and acknowledging him a Governour of the People Act. 23.5 that after the Type was expired Which had been meerely unlawfull if there had not remained in him somewhat besides the Figure III. There is no necessity we should presse Aaron For Eleazar being Princeps Principum that is having a saperiour authoritie over the Superiours of the Levits in Aarons life time was never by any in this point reputed a Type of Christ So that though Aaron be accounted such yet Eleazar will serve our purpose As also 2. Chron. 35.8 we read of three at once one only of which was the High Priest and a Type of Christ the rest were not Let them answer then to the other twaine who were Rulers or Chiefe over the House of God Why it may bee I. Out of Dic Ecclesiae the New Reformers tell us we are to fetch our pattern from the Iewes and therefore it seemes they are of opinion that one forme may serve both us and them II. Except there should be such a fashion of Government consisting of inequality I see not in the New Testament how any could perish in that contradiction of Gore which S. Iude affirmeth For his plea was for equalitie and against the preferring of Aaron aboue the rest III. The
both see the Apostles and conferred with them unto h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Eleutherius who when Irenaeus wrote had the charge of that Bishoprick in the twelfth place after the Apostles Concerning whom and the integrity which then continued in each other succession from the Apostles dayes Hegesippus who at the same time published his History of the Church saith thus i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesip apud Euseb lib. 4. hist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soter succeeded Anicetus and after him was Eleutherius Now in every succession and in every City all things so stand as the Law and the Prophets and our Lord doe preach When this k Cum Elcutherius vir sanctus Pontificatui Romanae Ecclesiae praeesset misit ad eum Lucius Britanncrum Rex epistolam obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur Et mox essectum piae poslulationis consecutus est su sceptamque fidem Britanni usque in tempora Diocletiani Principis inviolatam integramque quietâ pace servabant Bed hist ecclesiast Anglor lib 1. cap. 4. Eleutherius as our Bede relateth was Bishop of the Church of Rome Lucius King of the Brittaines sent an Epistle to him desiring that by his meanes he might be made Christian. Who presently obtained the effect of his pious request and the Brittaines kept the faith then received sound and undefiled in quiet peace untill the times of Dioclesian the Emperour By whose bloudy persecution the faith and discipline of our Brittish Churches was not yet so quite extinguished but that within ten yeares after and eleven before the first generall Councell of Nice three of our Bishops were present and subscribed unto the Councell of Arles l Tom. 1. Concilior Gall i.e. à Sirmondo edit pag 9. Eborius of Yorke Restitutus of London and Adelsius of Colchester called there Colonia Londinensium The first root of whose succession we must fetch beyond Elentherius and as high as S. Peter himselfe if it be true that he m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Metaphrast Commentar de Petro Paulo ad diem 29. lunii constituted Churches here and ordained Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in them as Symeon Metaphrastes relateth out of some part of n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Eusebius as it seemeth that is not come unto our hands But to returne unto the Angels of the seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation of S. Iohn by what hath been said it is apparent that seven singular Bishops who were the constant Presidents over those Churches are pointed at under that name For other sure they could not be if all of them were cast into one mould and were of the same quality with Polycarpus the then Angell of the Church in Smyrna who without all question was such if any credit may bee given herein unto those that saw him and were well acquainted with him And as Tertullian in expresse termes affirmeth him to have been placed there by S. Iohn himselfe in the testimony before alledged out of his o Tertull. Praescript c. 32. Similiter Hieronymus in Catal. script Ecclesiast cap. 17. in Polycarpo Nicepherus lib. 3. Hist Ecclesiast cap. 2. Prescriptions so doth he else-where from the order of the succeeding Bishops not obscurely intimate that the rest of that number were to be referred unto the same descent p Habemus Ioannis alumnas Ecclesias Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion respuit ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Ioannem stabit auctorem Sic caeterarum generositas recognoscitur Tertulsian a lvers Marcion lib. 4. c. 5. We have saith he the Churches that were bred by Iohn For although Marcion doe reiect his Revelation yet the order of the Bishops reckoned up unto their originall will stand for Iohn to bee their Founder Neither doth the ancient Writer of the Martyrdome of Timothy mentioned by Photius meane any other by those seven Bishops whose assistance he saith S. Iohn did use after his returne from Patmos in the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians For q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Bibliothec. num 254. being revoked from his exile saith he by the sentence of Nerva he betook himselfe to the Metropolis of Ephesus and being assisted with the presence of SEVEN Bishops he tooke upon him the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians and continued preaching the word of piety untill the Empire of Trajan That he remained with the Ephesians and the rest of the brethren of Asia untill the dayes of Trajan and that during the time of his abode with them he published his Gospell is sufficiently witnessed by r Irenae advers heraes lib 2 cap. 39. item lib. 3. c. 1. 3. Irenaeus That upon his returne from the Iland after the death of Domitian hee applyed himselfe to the government of the Churches of Asia is confirmed likewise both by ſ Euseb lib. 3. hist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym in Catal. scrip Ecclesiast cap. 9. Eusebius and by t Hierom who further addeth that u Id. ibid. Praefar in Evangel Matthaei at the earnest intreaty of the Bishops of Asia he wrote there his Gospell And that he himselfe also being free from his banishment did ordaine Bishops in diverse Churches is clearely testified by Clement of Alexandria who lived in the next age after and delivereth it as a certaine truth which he had received from those who went before him and could not be farre from the time wherein the thing it selfe was acted x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexandrin in lib. de divite salvando qui falso Origenis nomine habeture editus ad calcem tomi 3. Commentariorum Michaelis Ghislerii Euseb hist lib. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When S. Iohn saith hee Domitian the Tyrant being dead removed from the Iland of Patmos unto Ephesus by the intreaty of some he went also unto the neighbouring nations in some places constituting Bishops in others founding whole Churches Among these neighbouring Churches was that of Hierapolis which had Papias placed y Euseb lib. 3 hist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron Catal. script Ecclesiast cap. 18. Chronic. ad ann Trajin◠2. Bishop therein That this man was z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenae advers haetes lib. 5. cap. 33. a hearer of S. Iohn and a companion of Polycarpus is testified by his owne Schollar a Irenaeus vir Apostolicorum temporum Papiae auditcris Evangelistae Iohannis discipulus Episcopus eccle sia Lugdunen sis Hieronym epist 29. ad Theodoram Irenaeus and that he conversed with b Hi sunt Presbyteri Apostolorum discipuli quorum Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 36. meminit the disciples of the Apostles and of Christ also he himself doth thus declare in the Proëme of the five bookes which he intituled A declaration of the words of the Lord. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita enim ex Graecis MSS. vetere
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
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