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
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
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 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
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
position is condemned by the a Sess 23. Can. 7. Councell of Trent not from the Episcopall considered alone and apart from the Priest-hood for the Bishoprick without the Priest-hood saith b Bellarm. de Sacram. Ordinis cap. 5. §. 16. Bellarmine is so farre from being a superiour order that in very deed it is nothing but a meere figment in the mind Wherefore I will anwere your question with these words in Gregory de Valentiâ c Gregor de Valentiâ to 4. d. 9. q. 1. p. 4. resp ad arg 1. Episcopum non per solam potestatem quam in Episcopali ordine accepit sed per illam simul per Sacerdotalem potestatem ordinare Sacerdotem A Bishop ordaineth Priests not by the power only which he received when hee was ordained Bishop but by his Episcopall Presbyteriall power joyned together which is agreeable to Bellarmine saying d Bellarm. de Sacram. ord cap. 5. §. 13. The entire Episcopall ordination ariseth from a double ordination and the entire and perfect Episcopall character which is an absolute perfect and independent power of conferring the sacraments of Confirmation and Order is not one simple quality but a thing composed of a double Character ORTHOD. THen you referre it only to the Sacrament and Character of order wherefore if it can bee proved out of your owne writers that every Presbyter hath as much as a Bishop of the Sacrament and Character of order you must confesse that every Presbyter hath intrinsecall power to give orders But this shall be proved by a world of witnesses all affirming in effect that which is added in Episcopall Consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is neither Sacrament of order nor imprinteth a Character To begin with the Schoolemen The Master of the Sentences saith e 4. Sent. dist 24. Cumque omnes spirituales sint c. Whereas all the seven orders are spirituall and sacred yet the Canons thinke that two only are called sacred orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so farre as we can reade had only these two and of these only wee have the Apostles precept For the Apostles ordained Bishops and Presbyters in every City we read also that Levits hee meaneth Deacons were ordained by the Apostles Thus hee affirmeth that the Primitive Church in the Apostles time had Bishops Priests and Deacons yet acknowledgeth but two sacred orders the Deaconship and the Priesthood And whereas he saith Ordo Episcoporum est quadripartitus the order of Bishops is branched into fowre parts it is certaine he taketh the word Order largely and improperly which may appeare because a little before he excludeth the Episcopall function from being an Order in these plaine and expresse termes Sunt alia quaedam non ordinum sed dignitatum vel officiorum nomina dignitatis simul officii nomen est Episcopus There be also other names not of Orders but of Dignities and offices yea a Bishop is a name both of Dignity and Office Bonaventure f 4. Sent. dist 24. q. 3. a. 2. Episcopatus desicit ab ordine c. The Episcopall function commeth short of an order because order is a seale that is a Character because a seale doth signify a Character and this Character is not imprinted in the Episcopall function a signe whereof is this that a Bishop cannot be consecrated unlesse he be a Priest and so of it selfe it doth not imprint a Character Moreover it faileth from being an Order because there is not given any new power but only the power of binding and loosing is inlarged And Episcopatus includit necessariò ordinem perfectissimum scilicèt Sacerdotium illi super addit eminentiam The Episcopall function includeth necessarily the most perfect order to wit the Priesthood and addeth unto it eminency Thomas Aquinas saith g Supplement 3 part q. 40. art 5. Ordo potest accipi dupliciter c. Order may be taken two wayes one way as it is a Sacrament and so as it is said before every order is ordered to the Sacrament of the Eucharist whereupon seeing a Bishop hath no more superiour power then a Priest in this respect the Bishoply function shall not be an order Order may be considered another way in that it is a certaine office in respect of certaine sacred actions and so seeing a Bishop hath power in Hierarchichall actions above a Priest in respect of the body Mysticall the Bishoply function shall be an Order Durandus h In 4. sent dist 24. q. 6. Dicendum est quòd Episcopatus seu ordinatio Episcopalis est Ordo Sacramentum non quidem praecisè distinctum à sacerdotio simplici sed ut est unum sacramentum cum ipso sicut perfectum imperfectum i. e. It is to be said that the Bishoply function or the Episcopall ordination is an order and a sacrament not truely and precisely distinct from the simple Priesthood but as it is one sacrament with the Priesthood even as perfect and imperfect Dominicus Soto i De Iustit Iure l. 10. q. 1. art 2. 4. sent dist 24. q. 2. art 3. Episcopatus non est sacramentum Ordinis est tamen Ordo hoc est Dignitas gradus altior sacerdotio cui eminentiora officia sunt annexa i. e. The Bishopship is not a sacrament of Order and yet it is an order that is a higher dignity and degree them Priesthood to which certaine eminent offices are annexed Richardus k In 4. sent dist 24. art 5. q. 2. Ordo dupliciter potest accipi uno modo pro gradu potestatis ordinatae mediatè vel immediatè ad consecrationem corporis vel sanguinis Christi alio modo pro quolibet gradu potestatis respectu quarumlibet actionum sacrarum Primo modo Ordo est sacramentum sic Episcopatus non est ordo c. i.e. Order may be taken two waies one way for the degree of an ordinate power mediatly or immediatly to the consecration of the body or blood of Christ another way for any degree of power in respect of certaine sacred actions In the first sense Order is a sacrament and so Episcopatus is not an order and before Non sunt nisi septem ordines in Ecclesiâ quod non esset verum si Episcopatus esset ordo i. e. There are but seven orders in the Church which would not be true if Episcopatus were an Order Aureolus doth argue l In 4. d. 24. q. 1. art 2. by proving that the Episcopall function is not another order distinct frō the Priesthood because then this order should be either superiour then a Priest or inferiour But it is neither so nor so Therefore it is no way an order The Minor is proved Because it is apparent that it cannot be an inferiour order because that which is inferiour is first taken and is presupposed to the superiour order But
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
to ordaine the Bishops that were under him which they gather out of those words of S. Paul unto him a Tit. 1.5 For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordaine Elders in every city as I had appointed thee Out of which M. Calvin collecteth this doctrine unto us for the generall b Discimus ex hoc loco non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros quin unus aliquis autoritate consilio praeesset Calvin in Tit. 1.5 We learne out of this place that there was not then such an equality betwixt the ministers of the Church but that there was some one who was president over the rest both in authority and in counsell and S. Chrysostom for the particular of Titus c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Tit. 1. homil 1. Had hee not been an approved man he would not have committed that whole Iland unto him he would not have commanded him to supply the things that were defective hee would not have committed unto him the judgement of so many Bishops if he had not had very great confidence in the man and B. Iewell upon him againe Having the government of many Bishops what may we call him but an Archbishop Which is not so much to be wondred at when we see that the Bishops of another Iland stick not and that without any controll to deduce the ordination of their Metropolitan from the Apostolick times in the face of the whole generall Councell of Ephesus For whereas the Patriarch of Antioch did claym an interest in the ordaining of the Metropolitan of Cyprus the Bishops of that Iland prescribed to the contrary that d A sanctis Apostolis nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquà m insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam Concil Ephcsin Act. 7. from the time of the holy Apostles it could never bee shewed that the Bishop of Antioch was ever present at any such ordination or did ever communicate the grace of ordination to that Iland and that the former Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of Cyprus Troilus Sabinus Epiphanius e Et nunc memorati Episcopi qui ante illos sanctissimi Episcopi qui à sanctis Aposlolis erant omnes ortho loxi ab his qui in Cypro conslituti sunt Ibid. and all the holy and orthodoxe Bishops which were before them ever since the holy Apostles were constituted by those which were in Cyprus and therefore desired that f Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum constitutionibus canonibus sanctissime magnae Synodi Nicaenae illaesa superior insidiis potentiâ permansit nostra Cypriorum synodus Ibid. as in the beginning from the times of the Apostles and by the constitutions and canons of the most holy and great Synod of Nice the Synod of the Cyprian Bishops remained untouched and superiour to privy underminings and open power so they might still bee continued in the possession of their ancient right Whereupon the Councell condemning the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch as g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. an innovation brought in against the Ecclesiasticall lawes and the canons of the holy Fathers did not only order that h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. the governours of the Churches which were in Cyprus should keep their owne right entire and inviolable according to the Canons of the holy Fathers and their ancient custome but also i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pauIo pòst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. for all other dioceses and provinces wheresoever that no Bishop should intrude himselfe into any other province which had not formerly and from the beginning been under him or his predecessours The beginning of which kind of subordination of many Bishops unto one chiefe if it were not to bee derived from Apostolicall right yet it is by Beza fetched k Neque verò magis existimandum est hunc externum ordinem fuisse initio humani generis Pagi enim ex familiis ex pagis urbes ex urbibus civitates ipsae suadente naturâ necessitate flagitante senfim coierunt aliis aliorum exemplum sequutis Bez. de divers gradib ministr contr Sarav cap. 24. § 4. from the same light of Nature and enforcement of Necessity whereby men were at first induced to enter into consociations subjected one unto another and by Bucer acknowledged to have l Atque hoc consentiebat legi Christi siebatque ex jure corporis Christi M. Bucer de vi usu S. Ministerii inter scripta ejus Anglicana pag. 565. been consentaneous to the law of Christ and to have been done by the right of the body of Christ and by all men must be confessed to be conformable to the patterne delivered by God unto Moses For having set apart the three families of the Levits for his owne service and constituted a chiefe as we have heard over every of them he placed immediatly over them all not Aaron the High Priest but Eleazar his son saying m Num. 3.32 Eleazar the sonne of Aaron the Priest shall bee chiefe over the chiefe of the Levites and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the Sanctuary In respect of which oversight as he hath by the Septuagint warrantably enough by the word of God given unto him the name of n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX Num. 4.16 a Bishop so the holy Ghost having vouchsafed to honour him with the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Iid. Num. 3.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President of the Presidents of the Levites none that without prejudice did take the matter into consideration would much stick to afford unto him the name of an Arch-bishop at least hee would be taught hereby to retaine that reverend opinion of the primitive Bishops of the Christian Church who so willingly submitted themselves not only to the Archiepiscopall but also to a Patriarchicall government which Calvin professed hee did that in all this they were farre from having a thought p Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab eā quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit Calvin Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 4. to devise another forme of Church-government then that which God had prescribed in his Word A GEOGRAPHICALL AND Historicall disquifition touching the Lydian or Proconsular Asia and the seven Metropoliticall Churches contained therein AS the lesser Asia now called Natolia or Anatolia was a part of the great and Asia properly so called a part of that lesser so the Lydian or Proconsular Asia was a parcell of that Asia which was properly so called For the fuller understanding whereof wee are to call to mind that the Romans having possessed themselves of the countryes which had formerly belonged unto the Pergamen
Residence were the Metropoles Concil Constantinop 1. can 2. which also the second Canon of the second generall Councell afore mentioned doth clearely import But I shall not thus satisfy you perhaps except the second point also be declared namely to whose Government the Churches of all other Provinces did belong Touching which I will tell you briefly what searching the best I could into the ancient Ordination and government both Civill and Ecclesiasticall of the Empire of Rome I have observed The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII Dioceses whereof VII belonged to the East Empire and VI. beside the Prefecture of the city of Rome before mentioned to the West Those XIII Dioceses together with that Prefecture contained among them CXX Provinces or thereabout so that to e-every Diocese belonged the administration of sundry Provinces Lastly every Province contained many Cities within their territories The Cities had for their Rulers those inferiour Iudges which in the Law are tearmed Defensores civitatum and their seats were the cities themselves to which all the Townes and Villages in their severall territories were to resort for justice The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsules or Consulares or Praesides or Correctores foure sundry appellations but almost all of equall authority and their seats were the chiefest cities or Metropoles of the Provinces of which in every Province there was one to which all the inferiour cities for judgement in matters of importance did resort Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs the Lievtenants called Vicarij and their seats were the Metropoles or principall cities of the Diocese whence the edicts of the Emperour or other Lawes were published and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocese and where the Praetorium and chiefe Tribunall for judgement was placed to determine the Appeales and minister justice as might be occasion to all the Provinces belonging to that jurisdiction And this was the disposition of the Roman Governours for to speake of the severall properties of these subordinate Rulers government were tedious and for our purpose needlesse And truly it is wonderfull how neerely and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this civill Ordination of the Roman Magistrates For first in every city as there was a Defensor civitatis for secular government so was there placed a Bishop for spirituall regiment in every city of the East and in every city of the West almost a severall Bishop whose jurisdiction extended but to the city and the places within the Territory of it for which cause the jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently knowne by no other name but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying not as many ignorant Novelists think a parish as now the word is taken that is the places or habitations neere a Church but the Townes and Villages neere a city all which together with the City the Bishop had in charge Secondly in every Province as there was a President so was there an Arch-Bishop and because his Seat was the principall City of the Province he was commonly knowne by the name of Metropolitan Lastly in every Diocese as there was a Lievetenant-Generall so was there a Primate seated also in the principall city of the Diocese as the Lievtenant was to whom the last determining of Appeales from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy and the soveraigne care of all the Diocese for sundry points of spirituall government did belong So that by this discourse it appeareth that 1. a Bishop in the ancient acception was the chiefe spirituall governour of a City 2. A Metropolitan chiefe of a Province 3. a Primate chiefe of a whole Diocese which was anciently a farre greater matter then a Province as containing the joynt administration of many Provinces although now it import a farre lesse jurisdiction even that Precinct which anciently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did Now of what Cities these Primates of the Dioceses were Bishops and what Provinces belonged to the jurisdiction of every one I could set downe but I should be long which I am loth to be loving a great deale better sparingnesse then prolixity of discourse and specially at this present when I have no leasure to spare But by this that I have already said of the number of the Dioceses you may see that there were XI Primates besides the III. Patriarchs for of the XIII Dioceses besides the Praefecture of the city of Rome which as before I said was administred by the Patriarch of Rome that of Egypt was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia and all the rest by the Primates Yet I must confesse that in Africa as it is to be seen in sundry of the African Councells the name of Primates and Metropolitans was promiscuously used for the superintendents of single Provinces although the just power and dignity of Primate belonged but to one among them all Now touching the power and jurisdiction of these Primates although it was no lesse then that of the Patriarchs the office being the same as you may see in Anacletus his epistles Anaclet epistol ad Episcop Ital. Gratian. Dist 99. and in Gratian and the name also of Patriarchs of the Dioceses being commonly given unto them by Iustinian yet the honour was somewhat lesse the Patriarchs ever having precedence and priority of place in Councells and that in a certaine order first Rome then Alexandria and then Antiochia But if you should aske me the reason why all these soveraigne Bishops being equall in power only three of them till the ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople and Ierusalem had obtained that title had the name of Patriarchs Gelas in Concil 1. Romano Gregor lib. 6. Ep. 37. ad Eulog I can yeild no better although I know some Bishops of Rome have pretended other then either because from these three cities above all others the Christian Religion was dispersed abroad among many nations in acknowledgement whereof Christians reverenced them as mother-Churches above all the rest or else for the great dignity of the cities themselves exceeding all other of the Roman Empire For first of Rome the Lady of the world there is no question Dio Chrysost in orat 32. ad Alexandrinos Aristid in orat de Romae laudib but she surpassed all the rest and of Alexandria Dion Chrysostomus and Aristides have recorded it to be the second as Iosephus also hath registred Antiochia for the third city of all the Empire And as for the Vnity of the Church the preservation whereof you suppose might be the finall cause of reducing all Christian countries under the Regiment of those three Patriarchs it was otherwise singularly provided for partly by the excellent subordination before touched of inferiour Clerks to Bishops in every City of Bishops to Metropolitans in every Province and of Metropolitans to Patriarchs or Primates in every Diocese and partly if the wounds and rents of the Church by
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
of Maerspurge very often professed and promised And againe this inconvenience that Presbyters should ordaine might be prevented if the parties to be ordained were not compelled to promise the upholding of evident abuses for unlesse that were required at their hands they would willingly receave ordination from Bishops which now they are constrained by a certaine necessity both to seeke and receave from other Ministers And as they could not obtaine ordination from your Popish Churches so neither by the same reason from the Greeke Church For b Bellarm. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. §. 22. Bellarmine denyeth it to be a Church because they were lawfully convicted in three full Councells at Lateran Lions and Florence of heresy and especially of the heresy about the proceeding of the Holy Ghost which to be a manifest heresy saith he both the Lutherans and the Calvinists doe confesse Wherefore seeing no Church will give orders but only to such persons as approve and embrace their doctrine therefore they could not with a safe conscience seeke to the Greeke Church whose doctrine they justly misliked Being thus excluded from the Greeke and the Latin from the East and the West what should be done It was the duty of Magistrates whose hearts the Lord had touched not to suffer false Prophets but to drive them away like wolves and to plant godly Preachers in their places But whence should they have them The Popish Priestes converted were like a few clusters in a great vintage or a few mariners in a great ship wherefore either there must be a new supply or the ship of Christ must be endangered And there was but one way for this supply to wit by Ordination Now the Bishops were so farre from yeelding it in any tolerable manner that they persecuted such as sought the reformation and branded them with schisme and heresy Wherefore it must either be devolved unto Presbyters or the Church of God must suffer most lamentable ruine and desolation And was not this a case of necessity I will conclude this point with a memorable saying of Waldensis worthy to be written in letters of gold c Vbi ista duo concurrunt in communitate Ecclesia scilicèt extrema non ulteriùs differendo necessitas ordinarii pastoris aut praesidis ad succurrendum desperata facultas quaerendus est extraordinarius pater priusquà m Christi Domini fabrica dissolvatur Thom. Waldens Doctrinal fidei tom 1. lib. 2. cap. 80. §. 2. When these two things doe meet in the state of the Church to wit extream necessity admitting no delay the hopelesse want of ability to yeeld releefe in the ordinary Pastor or guide we must seeke an extraordinary Father before the fabrick of the Lord Iesus be dissolved PHILOD SVppose that ordination might be devolved to Presbyters in case of necessity yet the necessity ceasing such extraordinary courses should likewise cease Why then doe they continue their former practise why doe they not now seeke to receave their orders from Protestant Bishops ORTHOD. The Churches of Germany need not to seek to forraine Bishops because they have Superintendents or Bishops among themselves And as for other places which embrace the discipline of Geneva they also have Bishops in effect for two things of all other are most proper to Bishops 1. Singularity in succeeding because though there be many Presbyters in a Church yet above the rest there is one Starre one Angell of whose unity depends the unity of the Church and therefore when he dieth another must succeed in the like singularity 2. Superiority in ordaining because ever since the Apostles times these Starres and Angells have been invested with the power of ordination which they might performe without Presbyters but Presbyters might not regularly performe without them Now in these reformed Churches the President of each Presbytery is their Starre or Angell indued with both properties Concerning the first Beza saith d Bez. de divers gradib mmistr contr Sarav cap. 23. §. 25. Essentiale fuit in eo de quo hîc agimus quòd ex Dei ordinatione perpetuâ necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit cum eo quod ipsi divinitùs attributum est jure This was essentiall in the matter we have in hand that by Gods perpetuall ordinance it hath been is and shall bee needfull that some one in the Presbytery which is first both in place and dignity should have the preheminence in ruling of every action with that right which is given him from God Therefore concerning the second whereas the Presbytery consisteth partly of Ministers partly of Lay-men their Lay-presbyters are wholly excluded from Ordination for e Non liquidò constat an quum aliquis consecrandas erat minister omnes soliti fuerunt manum imponere ejas capiti an unus duntaxat loco nomine omnium Imò huc magis inclinat conjectura unum tantùm fuisse qui manut imponeret Calvin in 2. Tim. 1.6 Hoe postremò habendum est non universam multitudinem manus imposuisse suis ministris sed solos Pastores Id. in Institut l. b. 4. cap. 3. §. 16. Calvin teacheth that in the Apostolick times only Pastors imposed hands neither is it lawfull for every Pastor in the Presbytery to execute this office but it is reserved to him who is first both in place and dignity having preheminence in every action and consequently in Ordination Wherefore though that he doe it not by his sole authority but with common consent neither hath the name of a Bishop or such ample titles annexed as godly Princes have thought fit for the honour of the place because these things are not sutable with popular estates delighting in equality yet he hath the substance of the office it selfe which he exerciseth not in one only particular parish but in the City Suburbs and the territories thereof containing sundry Parishes as for example at Geneva XXIIII or there about Wherefore seeing a Bishop and a Presbyter doe not differ in order but only in preheminence and jurisdiction as your selves acknowledge and seeing Calvin and Beza had the order of Priesthood which is the highest order in the Church of God and were lawfully chosen the one after the other to a place of eminency and indued with jurisdiction derived unto them from the whole Church wherein they lived you cannot with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopall office And wherein soever their Discipline is defective we wish them even in the bowels of Christ Iesus by all possible meanes to redresse and reforme it and to conforme themselves to the ancient custome of the Church of Christ which hath continued from the Apostles time that so they may remove all opinion of singularity and stop the mouth of malice it selfe Thus much concerning the Ministers of other reformed Churches wherein if you will not believe us disputing for the lawfulnesse of their calling yet you must give us leave to believe God himselfe from heaven approving their ministery by powring downe a blessing upon their labours Blesse them still O Lord and blesse us and make all our Ministery faithfull fruitfull and effectuall to the comfort of our own Consciences the advancing of thy Kingdome the joy of thy little flock and to the recalling of those lost sheepe which as yet wander in the wildernesse of the Church of Rome or elsewhere that so it may be powerfull by thy Spirit to the salvation of many thousand soules AMEN FINIS