the authority which is deferred unto those whom they call chuse and ordaine by particular imposition of hands of other more ancient Seniors to be their Seniors is the very same which the Bishops in ancient time had over other Ministers as may appeare to the full by a Description thereof and of all the ordinances of that Church which are put forth in a Book printed Anno 1633. with this title Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate Fratrum Bohemorum Whereunto I desire to remitte those who would know particulars THE ADDITION OF FRANCIS MASON unto his Defence of the Ministery of the Church of England wherein the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas is maintained by him against the ROMANISTS PHILODOX THough somewhat may be said for the Ministers of England yet for Luther and Calvin and their Disciples you can bring no shew nor shaddow of probability ORTHODOX That point is without the circle of our present subject which concerneth only the Ministery of England PHILOD I perceive you are afraid and would fayne fly the field indeed I cannot blame you it is a dangerous point Latet anguis in herbâ ORTHOD. The handling of a question of this nature requireth the particular knowledge of the estate of those Churches with the occurrences and occasions out of which their proceedings and actions did grow and that according to the severall circumstances of time persons and places appearing by Records In which respect I would willingly referre this point to the learned men living in the same Churches which are best acquainted with the particulars of their owne estate Notwithstanding least you should insult and triumph over our Brethren I am content to skirmish a little with you using for my chiefest target your owne testimonies as Iudas Macchabeus protected Israel with the sword of Apollonius 1. Maccab. 3.12 But the trumpets have already sounded to the encounter behold we enter the field expecting your fiery darts against the host of Israel PHIL. VNtill Protestants shew the lawfull vocation of their first head and spring Martin Luther they all being derived of him may be counted amongst the Acephali those ancient Heretiques even as the branch of an honourable house being stained the whole posterity after remaineth spotted ORTHOD. Are all the Pretestants derived from Martin Luther you know the contrary in the Churches of England Scotland Helvetia France and Flanders Neither can any of the Protestants be counted Acephali For those blaspheinous Heretiques opposing themselves against the Councell of Chalcedon maintained this damnable Heresy a Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 45. that there is but one nature in Christ whereas all wee doe most stedfastly beleive and stedfastly professe that Christ is God truly and Man perfectly one person inseparably and yet two natures distinctly God truly against the Arrians condemned in the first generall Councell Man perfectly against the Apolinarians condemned in the second generall Councell One person inseparably against the Nestorians condemned in the third generall Councell Two natures distinctly against the Eutychians condemned in the fourth generall Councell From which Heresies and all other the Protestants may be justified to be cleare and much clearer then your selves PHILOD THe Acephali were so called according to b Isid Origin lib. 8. cap. 5. Isidor because there could be found no head nor authour from whence they did spring Such are the Protestants therefore they may be all called Acephali ORTHOD. You said even now that our first head and spring was Martin Luther If you have found our head how can you call us Acephali PHILOD But who was Luthers head or whence did he spring he was a body without a head and a river without a spring ORTHOD. Did you not resemble him to a branch of an honourable house therefore if we may beleive you this branch hath a roote this body a head and this river a spring PHILOD Indeed he did spring frō the Church of Rome as he was a Priest but he was never Bishop and yet he tooke upon him to ordaine Ministers as though he had beene a Bishop Wherefore if you will grant that all ministeriall power must of necessity be derived from a Bishop as from a head then seeing Luther was no Bishop he was no head so all his ofspring are Acephali But if you deny this preheminence of Bishops then flying Scylla you fall into Charybdis and shunning the name of Acephali you become Aerians ORTHOD. Or rather if ministeriall power may be derived from a Presbyter in case of necessity then are they not Acephali if they acknowledge the preheminence of Bishops then are they not Aërians PHIL. VVHat was the heresy of the Aërians c Ad Quodvult Deum Haeres 53. S. Austen declareth how Aērius being prevented of a Bishoprick for griefe thereof falling from the Church became an Arrian and broached new opinions One whereof was that there ought to be no difference betweene a Bishop and a Priest And doe not almost all the Lut herans and Calvinists teach the same For wherein doth a Bishop excell a Presbyter so much as in his Order and what is so proper to the excellent order as the power of Ordination Wherefore seeing they communicate this to a Presbyter they take away in effect all difference and so concurre with the Aërians ORTHOD. For the dispelling of this cloud let us first consider this Heresy and then examine this odious imputation This heresy consisted not in this that a Bishop and a Presbyter are of one order nor in this that a Presbyter in some causes may ordaine which points sundry of your selves doe maintaine as hereafter shall be declared following herein as they were verily perswaded Saint Ierome and others of the ancient Fathers who are very farre from being Aërians But what it was and wherein it consisteth we may learne of Epiphanius and Austen d Epiph. haeres 75. §. 3. Epiphanius describeth it in this manner What is said Aërius a Bishop to a Priest the one differeth nothing from the other For there is one order one honour and one dignity The Bishop imposeth hands so doth also the Priest The Bishop baptizeth so doth likewise the Priest The Bishop is a disposer of divine worship and the Priest is likewise The Bishop sitteth in the throne the Priest sitteth also By e Aug. ad Quod vult Deum haer 53. Austen thus Dicebant Presbyterum ab Episcopo nullâ differentiâ debere discerni i. The Aërians said that a Bishop ought to be distinguished from a Priest by no difference What meant Aerius when he said there ought to be no difference He could not meane that there ought to be none by the lawes of the Church for it is evident that they put a difference Therefore his meaning was that by the word of God there ought to be no difference So he controuled the preheminence of Bishops as contrary to the Scripture Wherein his owne position was false
subscribed and is likewise declared ſ Calvin ad Sadolet de Necessitate Reformandae Ecclesiae sub sin in his Epistle to Cardinall Sadolet where he protesteth that if the Bishops would so rule as to submit themselves to Christ then if their shall be any that shall not submit themselves to that Hierarchie reverently and with the greatest obedience that may be there is no kind of Anathema whereof they are not worthy Likewise in his Institutions t Id. Instltut lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 4. Quòd autem singulae Provinciae c. That every Province had one Arch-bishop amongst their Bishops and moreover that Patriarchs were appointed in the Nicene Councell which were superiour to Arch-bishops in order and dignity that belongeth to the preservation of Discipline And in his Epistles to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and the Bishop of London he giveth them most reverent and honourable titles PHILOD Doth not Beza in many places speak bitterly against Bishops ORTHOD. But he expoundeth himselfe that he meant the Popish Bishops only For having spoken against their tyranny he maketh this exception u Bez. de divers gradib minist contr Sarav cap. 21. §. 2. Neque tamen c. Yet we doe not therefore accuse all Bishops and Arch-bishops for what arrogancy were that Nay so as they doe imitate the examples of the old Bishops and indeavour as much as they can to reforme the house of God so miserably deformed according to the rule of Gods word why may we not acknowledge all of them now so called Arch-bishops and Bishops obay them and honour them with all reverence So farre are we from that which some object against us most falsely and impudently as though we took upon us to prescribe to any Church in any place our examples to be followed like unto those unwise men who account well of nothing but of that which they doe themselves And concerning the Bishops of England he saith thus x Id. ibid. cap. 18. §. 3. Quòd si nunc c. But if now the reformed Churches of England doe stand under propped with the authority of Bishops and Arch-bishops as it hapned to that Church in our memory that it had more of that sort not only famous Martyrs of God but also most excellent Pastors and Doctors fruatur sanèistâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua let her truely injoy this singular blessing of God which I wish may be perpetuall unto her By this you may see how farre these learned Divines did differ from Aërians For Aërius condemned the state of Bishops as contrary to the Scriptures these men commend it and pray that it may be perpetuall PHIL. HOwsoever you may put some nice difference between them and the Aërians you cannot maintaine their Ordination For what power is in a Presbyter to ordaine When Coluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria presumed to ordaine Presbyters and among the rest one Ischyras all his Ordinations were revised and made voyde by the a Epist Synod Alexandr in Apol. 2. Athanas Councell of Alexandria as witnesseth Athanasius Likewise when a certaine Bishop of Spaine imposing hands upon two to make them Deacons and upon a third to make him a Presbyter and being not able to read by reason of his sore eyes caused a Presbyter standing by to give the blessing that is to pronounce the words of Ordination though the Ordainer by reason of death escaped the censure yet the parties so ordained were deposed by the b Concil Hispalens II. cap. 5. Distinct 23. c. 14. Quorund Clericor second Councell of Hispalis If Luther were weyghed in this ballance the ordained should be deposed the ordainer censured and the ordinations voyded ORTHOD. It is one thing to be voyd according to the strictnesse of the Canon and another to bee simply voyd in the nature of the thing If a Bishop ordaine another mans Cleark it was pronounced voyd by the famous c Conc. Nicaen Can. 16. Councell of Nice Ordinations without Title were decreed to bee voyd by the great d Conc. Chalced can 6. Councell of Chalcedon The ordination of a Bishop without the consent of a Metropolitane was made voyd by the e Concil Braccar 2. c. 3. Dist 65. c. 2. Non debet c. 3. Episcopus non est Councell of Braccar Yet in all those according to your owne doctrine the Power is given the Character imprinted and consequently there is no nullity in the nature of the thing How then are they voyd in respect of Execution for Disciplines sake untill it please the Church otherwise to dispose PHILOD Then the ordinations of Luther are voyde if not in the nature of the thing yet at least in respect of Execution So that his ofspring either have no orders or they must surcease as though they had none For there is the same reason of him and Coluthus ORTHOD. Not so For it was well said of one of your Popes f Iohann VIII epist ad Anselm Lemovic 30. q. 1. Ad limina Inculpabile judicandum quod intulit necessitas That which necessity occasioned is not to be blamed Whereby you may learn that extraordinary causes of necessity are not to bee measured by ordinary rules Neither is Luther to bee paralleld with Coluthus or the Spanish Priest whose violations of the Canon were meerely voluntary Pope g Felix IV. epist 1. Vid. Gratian. 2. qu. 7. cap. Mutationes Scias item de Consecrat dist 1. cap. Sicut Felix may informe you Aliter tractandam necessitatis rationem aliter voluntatis PHILOD Was it not a case of necessity when the Bishop was blinde and could not read the words ORTHOD. No. for if hee had them not in his memory hee might have pronounced them after another or as now the Councell of Trent hath provided in the like cases he might have procured them to bee ordained by some other Bishops But Luthers case was indeed a case of necessity as hereafter shall be proved PHILOD If a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter were endued with intrinsecall power and ability to ordaine and were restrained from the execution of it only by the Church for Disciplines sake then peradventure his Ordinations might bee tolerable in case of invincible necessity But neither hath a Presbyter such power neither was this a case of necessity ORTHOD. FOr the better discussing the former point let me crave your resolution in this question to wit By what power a Bishop is intrinsecally enabled to give orders PHILOD All the power of a Bishop is either of Iurisdiction or of Order Now we hold that though the Pope take from him his Iurisdiction he may notwithstanding give orders if he will And albeit he sin in giving them yet they are true orders which proveth invincibly that the collation of orders is not from Iurisdiction But from what order not from the order of Priesthood alone for then every Presbyter should have power to give orders which
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
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
which was as well of the Sacrament as of the Oblations otherwise the Apostles would not have left out the mention of the Sacrament in Acts 6.4 they transferred that part upon the VII Deacons whom they had ordayned for distribution of the Sacrament not for Consecration Act. 6. 1. Tim. 3.12 13. Iustin. Apolog. 2. Ignatius ad Heronem Tertull de Baptismo Cyprian de lapsis lib. 3. epist 9. Chrysostom hom 83. in Matth. Hieron ep 48. ad Sabinianum contra Lucifer Ambros Offic lib. 1. cap. 41. Gregor 4.88 Concil Nicaen 1. can 14. OF EVANGELISTS THey grew upon occasion of the scattering of the Disciples by means of the persecution after the death of S. Stephen Acts 11.19 Of which number S. Philip is reckoned Acts 21.8 and diverse others Acts 11.19 of whom Eusebius maketh mention lib. 3. cap. 37. and lib. 5. cap. 10. Upon these was transferred that part of the Apostles function which consisted in preaching from place to place OF PRIESTS VVHen the Churches were in some sort planted by the preaching of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists that they might be continually watered and have a standing attendance the Apostles ordained Priests by imposition of hands in every Church Acts 14.23 and 11.30 and 21.18 And they made choyce of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more in use with the Greeks because it includeth an Embassie and that chiefly of Reconciliation which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressed by S. Paul in 2. Corinth 5.20 with Luke 14.32 OF BISHOPS LAst of all that the Churches thus planted and watered might so continue the Apostles ordained Overseers to have a generall care over the Churches in stead of themselves who first had the same which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 15.36 and containeth in it as a strengthning or establishing that which is already well Acts 14.22 and 15.41 Revel 3.2 so a rectifying or redressing if ought be defective or amisse Tit 1.5 These are called Acts 20.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Syrian that is Episcopi by S. Iohn Revel 1.20 the Angells of the Churches These were set over others both to rule and teach 1. Tim 5.17 1. Pet 5.2 Upon these was transferred the chiefe part of the Apostolick function The Oversight of the Church Power of Commanding Correcting Ordaining The occasion which caused the Apostles to appoint Bishops besides the patterne in the time of the Law seemeth to have been schismes Such as were in the Churches of Rome Rom. 16.17 Corinth 1. Cor. 1.11 and 3.3 4. Galatia Gal. 5.12 Ephesus Ephes 4.2 3. Philippi Phil. 4.2 Colossi Coloss 3.13 Thessalonica 2. Thess 3.11 The Hebrews Hebr. 13.9 Iam. 3.1 For which S. Cyprian S. Hierome and all the Fathers take the respect to one Governour to be an especiall remedy for which also see Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. § 2. This power even in the Apostles time was necessary Act. 5.5 15.13.11.2.11.10.46.14.11.8.13.5.11 13. For God chargeth not his Church with superfluous burdens Yet had they such graces as power of healing doing signes sundry languages c. that they of all other might seem best able to want it For by these graces they purchased both admiration and terrour sufficient for crediting their bare word in the whole Church If necessary then in their times that were so furnished much more in the ages ensuing when all those graces ceased and no meanes but it to keep things in order So that were it not apparant to have been in the Apostles yet the necessity of the times following destitute of these helps might enforce it Seeing then God hath no lesse care for the propagation and continuance of his Church then for the first setling or planting of it Eph. 4.13 it must needs follow that this power was not personall in the Apostles as tyed to them only but a power given to the Church and in them for their times resident but not ending with them as temporary but common to the ages after and continuing to whom it was more needfull then to them to represse schisme and to remedy other abuses So that the very same power at this day remaineth in the Church and shall to the Worlds end Of the PERSONS that executed these Offices I. ALbeit the Commission were generall over all Nations which was given to the XII yet was that generality only by permission not expresse mandatory Else should they have sinned that went not through all Nations Therefore howsoever the Commission was to all Nations yet was it left to their discretion how and in what sort they would dispose themselves as the Holy Ghost should direct them So that the partition Gal. 2.9 betwixt S. Peter and S. Paul was lawfull and good and no wayes derogatory to Ite praedicate Goe teach all nations Further the Ecclesiasticall History doth testify that they parted the Coasts and Countries of the world among them by common advise and so severed themselves Peter to Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Iohn to Asia Parthia Andrew to Scythia Tontus Euxinus and Byzantium Philip to upper Asia and to Hierapolis Thomas to India Persia and the Magi. Bartholmew to Armenia Lycaonia Jndia citerior Matthew to Aethiopia Simeon to Mesopotamia Persia Aegypt Afrique Britany Thaddaeus to Arabia Idumaea Mesopotamia Matthias to Aethiopia II. Againe albeit their preaching was for the most ambulatory yet doe the same Histories witnesse that having setled Religion and brought the Church to some stay toward their end they betook themselves to residence in some one place diverse of them as S. Iames at Ierusalem Euseb lib. 2. cap. 1. Epiphan haer 66. Hierome S. Iohn at Ephesus Euseb lib. 3. cap. 26. Terturlian lib. 4. contra Marcion Hierome S. Peter first at Antioch and after at Rome Which places were more especially accompted their Sees and the Churches themselves after a more especiall manner were called Apostolick Sedes Apostolorum Augustin epist 42. Ecclesiae Apostolicae Tertullian III. Thirdly it is also plaine that the Apostles chose unto them as Helpers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers who were companions with them in their journies ministred unto them supplyed their absence in diverse Churches when they themselves were occasioned to depart Such were Apollos Act. 19.1 1. Cor. 3.6 Aquila Rom. 16.3 Archippus Philem. 2. Colos 4.17 Aristarchus Act. 20.4 Clemens Phil. 4.3 Crescens 2. Tim. 4.10 Demetrius 3. Iohn 12. Epaphras Colos 4.12 1.7 Philem. 24. Epaphroditus Ph. 2.23 Epaenetus Rom. 16.5 Erastus Act. 19.22 Gaius Act. 20.4 Iesus Iustus Col. 4.11 Iohn Mark. Act. 13.5 15.37 Philem. 24. Lucas Philem. 24. Col. 4.14 Secundus Act. 20.4 Silvanus 1. Pet. 5.12 1. Thess 1.1 2. Thess 1.1 Sopater Act. 20.4 Sosthenes 1. Cor. 1.1 Stephanas 1. Cor. 16.15 Timotheus Act. 19.22 20.4 Titus 2. Cor. 8.23 Trophimus Act. 20.4 Tychicus Act. 20.4 Vrbanus Rom. 16.9 Of whom Eusebius lib. 3. Hist cap. 4. Euthymius in tertium Iohannis
the old Canon of Sardica for liberty of Appeales to the Romane Bishops no Provinces being by the Canon excepted or think that the Bishop of Iustiniana prima was subject to him because at the first erection of that primacy by Iustinian he was perhaps consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome But as this act was performed by the appointment of the Emperour so that Canon of Sardica so much stood on seemeth by the later and greater Councell of Chalcedon againe to be revoked and the order of Appealing otherwise restrained as you may read in the ninth Canon of that Councell And thus confessing my ignorance of the reasons of other mens irregular actions I end having wearied my selfe and dulled my pen perhaps to trouble you more then to satisfy you Yet this latter was my purpose and to take the trouble my selfe for your satisfaction Howsoever it fall out I doubt not but you will accept what is well written for my good wils sake to pleasure you who am not wont to write discourses of this kind to many men and pardon the imperfections and errors which may perhaps escape me because it was my intention to write the truth whereof I have no where wittingly failed and because my little leasure and little learning would not allow me on the suddaine to doe better FINIS THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATION Of the MINISERS of the REFORMED CHVRCHES BEYOND THE SEAS MAINtained against the Romanists BY FRANCIS MASON With A briefe Declaration premised thereunto of the severall Formes of Government received in those CHURCHES By IOHN DUREE OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Anno Dom. 1641. The severall formes of Gouernment received in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas IN the Church of Sweden the Government is committed to one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops whom formerly the King now the Regents of the kingdome doe appoint Yet some kind and forme of Election used by the Clergy doth goe along with that appointment The Bishops as Bishops have voyce in Parliament and with them so many of the inferiour Clergy as are from every Socken that is the name of a certaine number of Parishes deputed to appeare in Parliament together with such husbandmen as are usually sent thither in the name of a Socken The Bishops authority over the rest of the Clergy is to direct and order aswell in as out of publick meetings all Ecclesiasticall assayres according to the received constitutions of the Church And as they use not without counsell and knowledge of their Consistorialls to doe any thing of moment so if they think it expedient they may call a Synode of their Diocese and therein make such particular Constitutions as they shall think fit for their owne edification Their meanes and maintenance is answerable in some proportion to the place wherein they are set above others and so are by all respected and honoured as Fathers of the Church In Denmarck their authority is not so great yet they keep the name and place of Bishops and have maintenance somewhat answerable to their place They are appointed by the King for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall affayres with the consent of their Brethren in Confistory as Directours of Meetings and out of Meetings as peculiar Inspectors over the Church to receive complaints and provide that scandals may be taken out of the way In other Lutherane Churches as in Holstein Pomeren Mekelenburgh Brunswick Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburg East Friesland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany where Lutheranes beare rule as also in most of the great Imperiall Cities the Government of the Church belongeth to Superintendents who are called and put in place by the Princes in their owne Dominions and by the Magistrates in the great Cities They have a Priority over the rest of the Ministery and commonly in the Dominions of Princes there is an Ecclesiasticall Consistory made up of Clergy men and Counsellours of the state to oversee and direct the Superintendents in things which may be expedient To which Consistory also the Decision of hard matters incident when strife ariseth doth belong In the Diocese of Bremen the Arch-Bishop his Chancellour Court doth direct order all things in the name of his Highnesse But in Brunswick and Luneburgh besides the Generall Consistory and the particular Superintendents which are ordinarily amongst all the rest of the Lutheranes there bee others who are named Generales and Generalissimi Superintendentes whereof the former is subordinate unto the latter and both unto the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Consistory whereof the Generalissimus Superintendens and such others as the Prince doth appoint are members All these Superintendents are in place during life and are allowed maintenance in some proportion answerable to their priority of place above others In the Reformed Churches heretofore in the Palatinate the Government was administred by those whom they called Inspectores and Praepositi whose power was the same with that of the particular Superintendents amongst the Lutherans And above these Inspectores was the Ecclesiasticall Consistory made up of three Clergy men and three Counsellours of state with their President These the Prince named and to them in his name the ordering of all matters did belong In like manner in the Wetteraw in Hessen and in Anhalt they have still their Praepositos and Superintendentes with the same power and forme of Government which is already mentioned Now in Holland although their Presbyteriall or as they call it their Classicall Meetings are very frequent videlicèt every month and their Classicall Synodes every yeare yet they have of late found a necessity of erecting some officers to whom a more universall charge is committed then others have These they call Deputatos Synodi and are only temporary for some few yeares with a limited power These Deputies of the Synode have their peculiar Meetings by themselves upon severall incident occasions but chiefly at the time of every Provinciall Synode wherein they consult before hand how matters ought to be laid and proposed unto the Assemblies and then in the Meeting they have a peculiar place by themselves where they sit and concerning every thing which is to bee determined the Praeses of the Synode doth require of them first that they should open the matter unto the Assembly and declare their judgements of it before it be put to the Votes of the Multitude In Geneva and Helvetia the Eldest Ministers have the place before others and for the most part that authority and respect which in other Churches the Superintendents receive by speciall order and constitution these have by custome and tacite consent of their Brethren although at particular occasions of Meetings they chuse severall Presidents of the action The like is also in France where the Ministery of Paris party by reason of the Eminency of the place partly by reason of the guifts and endowments of the men ordinarily appointed to that place doth beare a great sway before all others But in Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia
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
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
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
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