Brerewood OXFORD Printed by LEON LICHFIELD Anno Dom. 1641. THE JUDGEMENT OF M. BUCER touching the Originall of BISHOPS And METROPOLITANS BY the perpetuall observation of the Churches M. Bucer de Regno Christi ad R. Edvardum VI. lib. 2. cap. 12. inter scripta ejusdem Anglicana pag. 67. even from the Apostles themselves we doe see that it seemed good to the holy Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the ordering of the Churches was chiefly committed some one should be appointed to have a singular charge of the Churches and the whole sacred Ministery who by that care and sollicitude had a presidency over all the rest For which cause the name of of Bishop was peculiarly attributed unto these chiefe governours of Churches although they ought to decree nothing without the counsell of the rest of the Presbyters who themselves also by reason of this common administration of the Churches have the name of Bishops in the Scriptures given unto them So we may see Idem de Animarum curâ officioque Pastor Eccles ibid. pag. 280. Act. 20.28 that by the ordinance of the holy Ghost the care of soules and the pastorall office ought to be imposed upon all the Presbyters of the Church in common And from hence S. Hierome did rightly collect that the Presbyters and Bishops office and charge was one and the same Hierome indeed writeth this withall that in the beginning of the Church those Presbyters tooke care of the Church and governed it by common counsell and that then at length one of the Presbyters was set over the rest and peculiarly called a Bishop when sects and heresies began to arise in the Church and every one laboured to advance his owne sect But it is not credible that this was so observed long nor in all Churches neither For as we have cleare testimonies out of the Fathers that were more ancient then Hierome in all the chiefe Churches from the Apostles times thus it was observed that the Episcopall office indeed was imposed upon all the Presbyters yet so notwithstanding that alwaies even in the times of the Apostles themselves one of the Presbyters was chosen and ordained to be a guide of this office and as it were a Prelate who went before all the rest and had the care of soules and administred the Episcopall office chiefly and in the highest degree Hence also our Lord Idem de vi usu S. ministerii explicat Cantabrigiae ann 1550. ibid. pag. 581. 582. when he would have his to be conjoyned and cohere one with another as members doe in the body he subjecteth every one of his unto others by whom as by members of a more ample and large power and efficacy hee might bee preserved moved and directed The same doth the holy Ghost command Eph. 5.21 Submit your selves one to another in the feare of God The holy Fathers therefore of old considering these things appointed such an order in the Clergy that all the rest of that rank should bee kept and governed by the singular care of the Presbytery and that among the Presbyters the Bishop as the Consul among the Senators of the Common-wealth should take upon him the chiefe care and custody as of the whole Church so specially of the whole order of the Clergy Such Bishops did they ordaine in all more populous Churches and to each of those Churches they commended those others that were more neare unto them in the smaller townes or villages And to that purpose would have each of the Presbyters and overseers of those Churches whom they called Chorepiscopi to be obedient to the Bishop and Presbytery that was next unto them whom those other prime Bishops did upon all occasions call together with the rest of their Clergy and informed them in the skill and diligence which was to bee used in the discharge of their function Now seeing it was Gods will that all his servants should mutually embrace and take care each of other as farre and wide as their ability could reach unto all Christians being but one body the holy Fathers did ordaine that the Bishops of every Province for all the nations subject to the Romans were now distributed into Provinces should meet together with the Presbyters and Deacons as oft as the need of the Churches did so require but constantly twice in the yeare that they might enquire touching Christs doctrine and discipline how it was administred and maintained in every Church and where they did find any thing faulty they might correct it but such things as they did find were right they might confirme and further And that these Synods might bee administred rightly and in due order they would have the Metropolitans take the charge both of congregating and moderating them to wit the Bishops of every Metropolis for so was the chiefe city of every Province called wherein was the Court of the supreme President And to this end they imposed upon these Metropolitan Bishops a kind of charge and care of all the Churches within their Province that if they did understand any thing were not rightly ordained or done either by the ministers of the Churches or by the people they might admonish them thereof in time and if by their admonitions they could not amend it they might call together a Synod of the Bishops to correct it The Judgement of DOCTOR RAINOLDES touching the same VVHen a Act. 14.23 Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church b Tit. 1.5 through every City D. Rainold Conference with Hart in the end of the 3. and beginning of the 5. division c Act. 20.28 to * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to doe the duty of a Pastor to it feed the flock of Christ whereof the holy Ghost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better doe it by common counsell and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderatour of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had d Acts 20.17 sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chiefe whom our Saviour calleth e Rev. 2 1. the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers f 1. Cor. 4.1 common to all them who serve Christ in * Luk. 12.42 the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospell is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop g 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.7 Act. 20.28 so the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usuall language of the Fathers
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
the authority which is deferred unto those whom they call chuse and ordaine by particular imposition of hands of other more ancient Seniors to be their Seniors is the very same which the Bishops in ancient time had over other Ministers as may appeare to the full by a Description thereof and of all the ordinances of that Church which are put forth in a Book printed Anno 1633. with this title Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate Fratrum Bohemorum Whereunto I desire to remitte those who would know particulars THE ADDITION OF FRANCIS MASON unto his Defence of the Ministery of the Church of England wherein the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas is maintained by him against the ROMANISTS PHILODOX THough somewhat may be said for the Ministers of England yet for Luther and Calvin and their Disciples you can bring no shew nor shaddow of probability ORTHODOX That point is without the circle of our present subject which concerneth only the Ministery of England PHILOD I perceive you are afraid and would fayne fly the field indeed I cannot blame you it is a dangerous point Latet anguis in herbâ ORTHOD. The handling of a question of this nature requireth the particular knowledge of the estate of those Churches with the occurrences and occasions out of which their proceedings and actions did grow and that according to the severall circumstances of time persons and places appearing by Records In which respect I would willingly referre this point to the learned men living in the same Churches which are best acquainted with the particulars of their owne estate Notwithstanding least you should insult and triumph over our Brethren I am content to skirmish a little with you using for my chiefest target your owne testimonies as Iudas Macchabeus protected Israel with the sword of Apollonius 1. Maccab. 3.12 But the trumpets have already sounded to the encounter behold we enter the field expecting your fiery darts against the host of Israel PHIL. VNtill Protestants shew the lawfull vocation of their first head and spring Martin Luther they all being derived of him may be counted amongst the Acephali those ancient Heretiques even as the branch of an honourable house being stained the whole posterity after remaineth spotted ORTHOD. Are all the Pretestants derived from Martin Luther you know the contrary in the Churches of England Scotland Helvetia France and Flanders Neither can any of the Protestants be counted Acephali For those blaspheinous Heretiques opposing themselves against the Councell of Chalcedon maintained this damnable Heresy a Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 45. that there is but one nature in Christ whereas all wee doe most stedfastly beleive and stedfastly professe that Christ is God truly and Man perfectly one person inseparably and yet two natures distinctly God truly against the Arrians condemned in the first generall Councell Man perfectly against the Apolinarians condemned in the second generall Councell One person inseparably against the Nestorians condemned in the third generall Councell Two natures distinctly against the Eutychians condemned in the fourth generall Councell From which Heresies and all other the Protestants may be justified to be cleare and much clearer then your selves PHILOD THe Acephali were so called according to b Isid Origin lib. 8. cap. 5. Isidor because there could be found no head nor authour from whence they did spring Such are the Protestants therefore they may be all called Acephali ORTHOD. You said even now that our first head and spring was Martin Luther If you have found our head how can you call us Acephali PHILOD But who was Luthers head or whence did he spring he was a body without a head and a river without a spring ORTHOD. Did you not resemble him to a branch of an honourable house therefore if we may beleive you this branch hath a roote this body a head and this river a spring PHILOD Indeed he did spring frō the Church of Rome as he was a Priest but he was never Bishop and yet he tooke upon him to ordaine Ministers as though he had beene a Bishop Wherefore if you will grant that all ministeriall power must of necessity be derived from a Bishop as from a head then seeing Luther was no Bishop he was no head so all his ofspring are Acephali But if you deny this preheminence of Bishops then flying Scylla you fall into Charybdis and shunning the name of Acephali you become Aerians ORTHOD. Or rather if ministeriall power may be derived from a Presbyter in case of necessity then are they not Acephali if they acknowledge the preheminence of Bishops then are they not Aërians PHIL. VVHat was the heresy of the Aërians c Ad Quodvult Deum Haeres 53. S. Austen declareth how Aērius being prevented of a Bishoprick for griefe thereof falling from the Church became an Arrian and broached new opinions One whereof was that there ought to be no difference betweene a Bishop and a Priest And doe not almost all the Lut herans and Calvinists teach the same For wherein doth a Bishop excell a Presbyter so much as in his Order and what is so proper to the excellent order as the power of Ordination Wherefore seeing they communicate this to a Presbyter they take away in effect all difference and so concurre with the Aërians ORTHOD. For the dispelling of this cloud let us first consider this Heresy and then examine this odious imputation This heresy consisted not in this that a Bishop and a Presbyter are of one order nor in this that a Presbyter in some causes may ordaine which points sundry of your selves doe maintaine as hereafter shall be declared following herein as they were verily perswaded Saint Ierome and others of the ancient Fathers who are very farre from being Aërians But what it was and wherein it consisteth we may learne of Epiphanius and Austen d Epiph. haeres 75. §. 3. Epiphanius describeth it in this manner What is said Aërius a Bishop to a Priest the one differeth nothing from the other For there is one order one honour and one dignity The Bishop imposeth hands so doth also the Priest The Bishop baptizeth so doth likewise the Priest The Bishop is a disposer of divine worship and the Priest is likewise The Bishop sitteth in the throne the Priest sitteth also By e Aug. ad Quod vult Deum haer 53. Austen thus Dicebant Presbyterum ab Episcopo nullâ differentiâ debere discerni i. The Aërians said that a Bishop ought to be distinguished from a Priest by no difference What meant Aerius when he said there ought to be no difference He could not meane that there ought to be none by the lawes of the Church for it is evident that they put a difference Therefore his meaning was that by the word of God there ought to be no difference So he controuled the preheminence of Bishops as contrary to the Scripture Wherein his owne position was false
and contrary to the Scriptures which plentifully proves the preheminence of Bishops For though there were many Presbyters in Ephesus and Crete yet f 1 Tim. 1.3 lb. 5.19 Tit. 1.5 Saint Paul left Timothie at Ephesus and Titus at Crete to ordaine Presbyters to command them not to teach any other doctrine or if they did to put them to silence as also to examine witnesses and receive accusations And forasmuch as the end and use of their office was perpetuall therefore the function and office it selfe must likewise be perpetuall Which proveth that it was given to them as they were Bishops not as they were Evangelists Moreover the calling of Bishops is approved by the mouth of Christ himselfe when he adorned the seven Prelates of the seven Churches with the honourable title of Starres and Angells If they be Angells then are they Messengers of the Lord of Hosts If they be his Messengers then are they sent from him and their vocation by him authorised But what is their charge g Revel 2.9.14 15 20. to try false Apostles and not to suffer the doctrine of Balaam nor the doctrine of the Nicolaitans nor to permit the woman Iesabell to teach and seduce the people or to make them commit fornication and eat meate sacrificed to Idolls That is both to oversee the doctrine and discipline of the Church If this be their charge then in this God hath given them authority to amend what is amisse which authority is not given to many but to one Angell in every one Church of the seven Churches Why should that one be charged above the rest if he had not pastorall power besides the rest And he is called the Angell of the Church not of the people nor of the Presbyters but of the whole Church If he be the Angell of the whole Church then he hath pastorall authority over the whole Church and is armed with spirituall power to governe the same and to reforme abuses both in the Ministers and in the people Wherefore the opinion of Aërius concerning these Angells as contrary to the word of God is it selfe contrary unto it and in this sense justly censured for an Heresy Now let us see whether it can be imputed to Luther and Calvin It is confessed by h Tom. 4. Disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. sect 9. Gregory de Valentiâ that except the Anabaptists all the sectaries so it pleaseth him to stile the Protestants admit three degrees of Ministers to wit Bishops whom they call Superintendents Presbyters and Deacons Therefore by the testimony of your owne Iesuit they cannot be Aërïans And surely it is famously knowne to the world to be so in the reformed Churches of Denmarke Suevia and high Germany as also in Saxonie even at Wittenberge where Luther florished Concerning which thus writeth Iacobus Heerbrandus sometimes Divinity Reader at Tubinge i Heerbrand Loc. Com. de ministerio Ecclesiae pag. 699. Truly there ought to be degrees amongst the Ministers as with us in the Dutchey of Wittenberge there are Subdeacons Deacons Pastors speciall Superintendents and over them generall Superintendents How can they disallow the preheminence of Bishops seeing their Superintendents are nothing else but Bishops For when the name Bishop was growne odious by reason of abuses in the Popish Prelates they retaining the dignity it selfe changed the word Bishop into Superintendent which is equivalent in signification PHILOD If they allow the state of Bishops why then did they banish their Catholick Bishops ORTHOD. They banished the Popish Bishops not because they were Bishops but because they were Popish For first such as sought reformation intreated them to redresse abuses which they utterly refused Then the Magistrates were told that it was their duty to reforme the Church by the example of the godly Kings of Iudah which sundry of them did yet so that the Bishops might have kept their places if they would have favoured the Gospell of Christ as may appeare by the authors of the Augustane Confession k De Eccles Potestat The Bishops say they might easily retaine the obedience due unto them if they urged us not to keep those traditions which wee cannot keep with a good conscience And againe l Apolog. Confessionis Augustanae ad artic 14. de ordine Ecclesiastico We have often protested that wee doe heartily approve the Ecclesiasticall policy and degrees in the Church and so much as lieth in us doe desire to preserve them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so they would not compell us to doe against Gods commandements And againe m Ibid. Furthermore we doe protest and we would have it recorded that we would willingly preserve the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize over our Churches This our mind or desire shall excuse us with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed unto us that the authority of Bishops is overthrowne by us To the same effect speaketh George Prince Anhalt n Princeps Anhalt in Cōcion super Matth. 7. de falsis prophetis in Praefatione tit de Ordinations Would to God that as they carry the name and titles of Bishops so they would shew themselves to be Bishops of the Church would to God that as the book of Gospells is delivered them and laid upon their shoulders in their Ordination so they would teach doctrine according thereunto and would faithfully governe their Churches thereby O how willingly and with what joy of heart would we receive them for our Bishops and reverence them obey them and yeeld unto them their due jurisdiction and ordination I passe by other Colloquies at o Colloquium Wormaciense tit de personis Ecclesiasticis tit de abusibus Ecclesiarum emendandis Wormes and p Acta Colloq Ratisbon à Buceto edita tit de Ecclesiae hierarchico ordine paragr 7. Ratisbone wherein the degrees of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs are commended as profitable to preserve the unity of the Church Concerning which Melancthon writeth thus to Camerarius q Melancth ep ad Camerarium an 1530. By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull for us so to doe yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion And that they meane unfainedly as they speake may appeare by their dealing with Michael Sidonius r Historia Confess Augustanae per Chytraeum Whom they thrust out of his Bishoprick because of his Popery yet afterwards when he imbraced the Gospell advanced him againe to that Ecclesiasticall office So farre were those whom you call Lutherans from being Aërians PHILOD BVt what say you to Geneva those Cities that imbrace the Genevian Discipline ORTHOD. Their opinions are apparent by Calvine and Beza The judgement of Calvine is the same with the Augustane Confession to which he
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