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
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
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