THE Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion.-Canterbury. To the tenth; We think that the Apostles were Priests before they were Bishops; and that the Divine Power which made them Priests, ma ie them also Bishops; and altho their Ordination was not by all such Course as the Church now useth, yet that they had both Visible and Invisible Sanctification, we may gather of the Gospel, where it is written, Sicut misit me Pater vivens, et ego mitto vos: et cum hæc dixit, insufflavit in eos et dixit, accipite Spiritum Sanctum: Quorum remiseritis, &c. And we may well think, that then they were made Bishops, when they had only a Flock, but also Shepherds appointed to them to overlook, and a Governance committed to them by the Holy Ghost to oversee both; for the name of a Bishop, is not properly a name of Order, but a name of Office, signifying an Overseer. And altho the inferior Shepherds have also Cure to over-see their Flock, yet forsomuch as the Bishops Charge is also to oversee the Shepherds, the name of Overseer is given to the Bishops, and not to the other; and as they be in degree higher, so in their Consecration we find difference even from the Primitive Church.-York. To the tenth; I think the Bishops were first, and yet I think it is not of importance, whether the Priest then made the Bishop, or else the Bishop the Priest; considering (after the sentence of St. Jerome)" that in the beginning of the Church there was none (or if it were, very small) difference, between a Bishop and a Priest, especially touching the signification."-London. find in Scripture, That Christ being both a Priest and a Bishop, ordained his Apostles, who were both Priests and Bishops; and the same Apostles did afterwards ordain Bishops, and commanded them to ordain others.-Rochester. Christ made his Apostles Exorcists, as it appeareth in the 10. Mat. Deacons, Priests and Bishops, as partly there, and after, in the 20 of St. John, Quorum Remiseritis, &c. and where he said, Hoc facite in meam Commemorationem. In the Acts, Caterorum nemo audebat se conjungere illis. So that they were all these together; and so being according to the Ordinance of Christ, who had made after them 72 other Priests, as it appearetn in the 10 of St. Luke: They made and ordained also others the seven principal Deacons, as it is shewed in the 6 of the Acts; where it is said, That they praying laid their hands upon them. In the 13 of the Acts, certain there named at the commandment of the Holy Ghost, severed Saul and Barnabas to that God had taken them, Fasting, Praying, and laying their hands upon them; the which Saul, Ananias the Disciple had baptized, laying his hands upon him, that he might be replenished with the Holy Ghost. And Paul so made, ordained Timothy and Tite, willing them to do likewise as he had done, and appointed to be done from City to City. James was ordained the Bishop of Jerusalem, by Peter, John, and James. that Example otherwise we read not.-Carlile. So Incertus sum utri fuere priores, at si Apostoli in prima profectione Ordinati erant, apparet Episcopos fuisse priores, nempe Apostolos, nam postea designavit Christus alios septuaginta duos. Nec opinor absurdum esse, ut Sacerdos Episcopum Consecret, si Episcopus haberi non potest.—Dr. Robertson. Although by Scripture (as St.Hierome saith) Priests and Bishops be one, and therefore the one not before the other: Yet Bishops, as they be now, were after Priests, and therefore made of Priests -Dr. Cox. The Apostles were both Bishops and Priests, and they made Bishops, and Priests, as Titus and Timotheus made Priests. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter, Act. 1. Presbyteros qui in vobis sunt, obsecro et ego Compresbyter, 1 Pet. 5. And in the beginning of the Church, as well that word Episcopus as Presbyter, was common and attributed both to Bishops and Priests.-Dr. Day. Utrique primi a Deo facti, Apostoli, Episcopi; Septuaginta discipuli (ut conjectura ducor) Sacerdotes. Unde verisimile est Episcopos præcessisse, Apostoli enim prius vocati erant,-Dr. Oglethorp. They be of like beginning, and at the beginning were both one, as St. Hierome and other old Authors shew by the Scripture, whereof one made another indifferently.— Dr. Redmayn. Christ our chief Priest and Bishop, made his Apostles Priests and Bishops all at once; and they did likewise make others, some Priests, and some Bishops: and that the Priests in the Primitive Church made Bishops, I think no inconvenience; (as Jerome saith) in an Epist. ad Evagrium. Even like as Souldiers should choose one among themselves to be their Captain: So did Priests choose one of themselves to be their Bishop, for consideration of his learning, gravity, and good living, &c. and also for to avoid Schisms among themselves by them, that some might not draw People one way, and others another way, if they lacked one Head among them. -Dr. Edgeworth Christ was and is the great High Bishop, and made all his Apostles Bishops; and they made Bishops and Priests after him, and so hath it ever-more continued hitherto.-Dr. Symmons. I say, Christ made the Apostles first Priests, and then Bishops, and they by this Authority made both Priests and Bishops; but where there had been a Christian Prince, they would have desired his Authority to the same.-Dr. Tresham. To the Tenth. Dr. Leyghton. The Apostles were made of Christ Bishops and Priests, both at the first; and after them, Septuaginta duo Discipuli, were made Priests. -Dr. Coren. Con. Menevens. Therleby, Redmanus, Coxus, asserunt in initio eosdem fuisse Episcopos et Presbyteros. Londinens. Carliolens. Symons, putant Apostolos fuisse institutos Episcopos a Christo, et eos postea in stituisse alios Episcopos et Presbyteros, et 72 Presbyteros postea fuisse Ordinatos: Sic Oglethorpus, Eboracens. et Tresham aiunt Apostolos primo fuisse Presbyteros, deinde Episcopos, cum aliorum Presbyterorum credita esset illis cura. Robertsonus incertus est utri fuere priores, non absurdum tamen esse opinatur, ut Sacerdos consecret Episcopum, si Episcopus haberi non potest. Sic Londinens. Edgworth, Dayus, putant etiam Episcopos, ut vulgo de Episcopis loquimur, fuisse ante Presbyteros. Leightonus nihil Respondet. ture, and so may Princes and Governours also, and that by the authority of God committed to them, and the People also by their Election: for as we read that Bishops have done it, so Christian Emperors and Princes usually have done it, and the People before Christian Princes were, commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests.-Canterbury. To the eleventh; That a Bishop may make a Priest, may be deduced of Scripture; for so much as they have all Authority necessary for the ordering of Christ's Church, derived from the Apostles, who made Bishops and Priests, and not without Authority, as we have said before to the ninth Question; and that any other than Bishops or Priests may make a Priest, we neither find in Scripture nor out of Scripture.-York. To the eleventh, I think, that a Bishop duly appointed, hath authority, by Scripture, to make a Bishop, and also a Priest: because Christ being a Bishop did so make himself; and because alive, his Apostles did the like.-London. The Scripture sheweth by example, that a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest, albeit no Bishop being subject to a Christian Prince, may either give Orders or Excommunicate, or use any manner of Jurisdiction, or any part of his Authority without Commission from the King, who is suprem Head of that Church whereof he is a Member; but that any other Man may do it be sides a Bishop, I find no example, either in Scripture, or in Doctors.-Rochester. Agreement. In the tenth; Where it is asked, Whether Bishops or Priests were first? The Bishop of St. David, my Lord Elect of a Westminster, Dr. Cox, Dr. Redmayn, say, That, "at the beginning they were all one.' The Bishops of York, London, Rochester, Carlisle; Drs. Day, Tresham, Symmons, Oglethorp, be in other contrary Opinions. The Bishop of York, and Dr. Tresham, think, "That the Apostles first were Priests, and after were made Bishops, when the overseeing of other Priests was committed to them." My Lords of Duresme, London, Carlisle, Rochester, Dr. Symmons and Crayford, think, "That the Apostles first were Bishops, and they after made other Bishops and Priests." Dr. Coren and Oglethorp, say, "That the Apostles were made Bishops, and the 72 were after made Priests." Dr. Day thinks, "That Bishops, as they may be now-a-days called, were before Priests." My Lord of London, Drs. Edgworth and Robertson, think "it no inconvenience, if a Priest made a Bishop in that time." 11. Question. By what is said before, it appeareth, that creandi Sacerdotem, modo id Magistratus the Apostles, in the tenth Question, to make Bishops have authority, as is afore-said, of Dr. Cor. Bishops have authority by Scripture to ordain Bishops and Priests; Joh. 20. Hujus tim Presbyteros, Tit. 1. Act. 14.-Dr. Day. rei gratia reliqui te Crete ut constituas oppida Autoritas ordinandi Presbyteros data est Episcopis per verbum, nullisque aliis quos lego.-Dr. Oglethorpe. To the first part, I answer, Yea; for so it appeareth, Tit. 1. and 1 Tim. 5. with other places of Scripture. But whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest, I have not read, but by singular priviledg of God; as when Moses (whom divers Authors say was not a Priest) made Aaron a Priest. Truth it is, that the Office of a Godly Prince is to over-see the Church, and the Ministers A BISHOP may make a Priest by the Scrip- thereof; and to cause them to do their duty, Whether a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture, or no? And whether any other but only a Bishop can make a Priest? Answers. and also to appoint them special Charges and Offices in the Church, as may be most for the Glory of God, and edifying of the People: and thus we read of the good Kings in the Old Testament, David, Joas, Ezekias, Josias. But as for making, that is to say, Ordaining and Consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belongeth to the Office of a Bishop, as far as can be shewed by Scripture, or any Example, as I suppose from the beginning. Dr. Redmayn. A Bishop hath authority by Scripture to make a Priest, and that any other ever made a Priest since Christ's time I read not. Albeit Moses who was not anointed Priest, made Aaron Priest and Bishop, by a special Commission or Revelation from God, without which he would never so have done. Dr. Edgeworth. A Bishop placed by the Higher Powers, and admitted to minister, may make a Priest; and I have not read of any other that ever made Priests.-Dr. Symmons. I say, a Bishop hath authority by Scripture to make a Priest, and other than a Bishop, hath not power therein, but only in case of necessity. Dr. Tresham. To the eleventh; suppose that a Bishop hath authority of God, as his Minister, by Scripture to make a Priest; but he ought not to admit any man to be Priest, and consecrate him, or to appoint him unto any ministry in the Church, without the Prince's license and consent, in a Christian Region. And that any other Man hath authority to make a Priest by Scripture, I have not read, nor any example thereof. Dr. Leughton. A Bishop being licensed by his Prince and Supream Governour, hath authority to make a Priest by the Law of God. I do not read that any Priest hath been ordered by any other than a Bishop.-Dr. Coren. Con. Ad primam partem Quæstionis respondent omnes, et convenit omnibus præter Menevens. Episcopum habere autoritatem instituendi Presbyteros. Roffens. Leighton, Curren, Robertsonus, addunt, Modo Magistratus id permittat. Ad secundam partem Respondent Coxus et Tresham in necessitate concedi potestatem Ordinandi aliis. Eboracen. videtur omnino denegare aliis hanc autoritatem. Redmayn, Symmons, Robertson, Leighton, Thirleby, Curren. Roffen. Edgworth, Oglethorp, Carliolen. nusquam legerunt alios usos fuisse hac Potestate, quan quam (privilegio quodam) data sit Moysi, ut Redmanus arbitratur et Edgworth. Nihil respondent ad secundam partem Quæstionis Londinensis et Dayus. Agreement. In the eleventh; To the former part of the Question, the Bishop of St. Davids doth answer, That "Bishops have no authority to make Priests, without they be authorized of the Christian Prince." The others, all of them do say, That "they be authorized of God." Yet some of them, as the Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Curren, Leigh they cannot use ton, Robertson, add, That “ this authority without their Christian Prince doth permit them." To the second part, the answer of the Bishop of St. Davids is, That " Laymen have other-whiles made Priests." So doth Dr. Edgworth and Redman say, That Moses by a priviledg given him of God, made Aaron his Brother Priest." Dr. Tresham, Crayford, and Cox say, That “Laymen may make Priests in time of Necessity." The Bishops of York, Duresme, Rochester, Carlisle, Elect of Westminster, Dr. Curren, Leighton, Symmons, seem to deny this thing; for they say, "They find not, nor read not any such example.' 12. Question. Whether in the New Testament be required any In the New Testament, he that is ap pointed to be a Bishop, or a Priest, needeth no Consecration by the Scripture, for election, or appointing thereto is sufficient.Canterbury. To the twelfth Question; The Apostles ordained Priests by Imposition of the Hand with Fasting and Prayer; and so following their steps, we must needs think, that all the foresaid things be necessarily to be used by their Successors: and therefore we do also think, that Appointment only without visible Consecration and Invocation for the assist ance and power of the Holy Ghost, is neither convenient nor sufficient; for without the said Invocation, it beseemeth no Man to appoint to our Lord Ministers, as of his own authority: whereof we have example in the Acts of the Apostles; where we find, that when they were gathered to choose one in the place Judas, they appointed two of the Disciples, and commended the Election to our Lord, that he would choose which of them it pleased him, saying and praying, "Lord, thou knowest the hearts of all Men, show whether of these two thou dost choose to succeed in the place of Judas." And to this purpose in the Acts we read, Dixit Spiritus Sanctus, segregate mihi Barnabam, &c. And again, Quos posuit Spiritus Sanctus regere Ecclesiam Dei. And it appeareth also that in the Old Testament, in the ordering of Priests, there was both Visible and Invisible Sancti. fication; and therefore in the New Testament, where the Priesthood is above comparison higher than in the Old, we may not think that only appointment sufficeth without Sanctification, either Visible or Invisible.York. To the twelfth; I think Consecration of a Bishop and Priest be required, for that in the Old Law (being yet but a shadow and figure of the New) the Consecration was required, as appears Lev. viii. yet the truth of this I leave to those of higher Judgments.London. The Scripture speaketh, de Impositione manus et de Oratione: and of other manner of Consecrations, I find no mention in the New Testament expressly; but the Old Authors make mention also of Inunctions-Rochester. Upon this text of Paul to Timothy; Noli negligere gratiam quæ in te est, quæ data est tibi per Prophetiam cum Impositione manuum Presbyterii; St. Anselm saith, This " Grace to be the Gift of the Bishops Office, to the which God of his meer goodness had called and preferred him. The Prophecy (he saith) was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, by the which he knew what he had to do therein. The Imposition of the Hands is that by the which he was ordained and received that Office: And therefore (saith St. Paul) God is my Witness, that I have discharged my self, showing you as I ought to have done. Now look you well upon it whom that ye take to Orders, lest ye lose your self thereby.' "Let Bishops therefore, who (as saith St. Hierome) hath power to make Priests, consider well under what Law the order of Ecclesiastical Constitution is bounden: and let them not think those words of the Apostle to be his, but rather to be the words of Christ himself."-Carlile. Opinor requiri Consecrationem quandam, hoc est impositionem manuum, Orationem, jejunium, &c. tamen nusquam hoc munere fungi posse, nisi ubi Magistratus invitet, jubeat, aut permittat.-Dr. Robertson. By Scripture there is no Consecration of Bishops and Priests required, but only the appointing to the Office of a Priest, cum Impositione manuum.- Dr. Cox. Consecration of Bishops and Priests I read not in the New Testament, but Ordinatio per manuum Impositione cum Oratione is read there, as in the places above; and the only appointment, as I think, is not sufficient.-Dr. Day. Præter vocationem, ceu designationem externam, quæ vel a Principe fiat, vel a populo per electionem et suffragia, requiritur Ordinatio alia per manuum impositionem, idque per Verbum Dei.-Dr. Oglethorpe. Besides the appointing to the Office, it appeareth that in the Primitive Church, the Apostles used certain Consecration of the Ministers of the Church, by imposition of Hands and Prayer, Act vi. and with Fasting, Acts xiv. &c. The Office of Priesthood is too dangerous to set upon, when one is but appointed only: Therefore for the confirmation of their Faith, who take in hand such charge, and for the obtaining of farther Grace requisite in the same, Consecration was ordained by the Holy Ghost, and hath been always used from the beginning. Dr. Red The appointing to the Office per manuum Impositione, is in Scripture, and the Consecration of them hath of long time continued in the Church.-Dr. Symmons. There is a certain kind of Consecration required, which is imposition of the Bishops hands with Prayer, and the appointing only is not sufficient.-Dr. Tresham. To the twelfth; I suppose that there is a Consecration required, as by Imposition of Hands; for so we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles.-Dr. Leughton. In the New Testament is required to the making of a Bishop, Impositio manuum cum Oratione, which I take for Consecration, and Appointment unto the Office is not sufficient; for King David, 1 Chron. 24. did appoint 24 to be Bishops, who after were consecrated; so that both the Appointment and the Consecration be requisite.—Dr. Coren. Con. Respondent Eboracens. Londinens. Carliolens. Leighton, Tresham, Robertso nus, Edgeworth, Curren, Dayus, Oglethorp, Consecrationem esse requisitam. Redmanus ait eam receptam esse ab Apostolis, atque a Spiritu Sancto institutam ad conferendam gratiam. Dayus, Roffens, Symmons, aiunt Sacerdotium conferri per manuum impositionem, idq; ê Scripturis; Consecrationem vero diu receptam in Ecclesia: Coxus Institutionem cum manuum impositione sufficere, neq; per Scripturam requiri Consecrationem. Robertsonus addit supra alios nusquam hoc munere fungi posse quempiam, nisi ubi Magistratus invitet, jubeat aut permittat. Agreement. In the twelfth Question, where it is asked, Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop, or only appointing to the Office be sufficient? The Bishop of St. Davids saith, That "only the appointing." Dr. Cox, That "only appointing, cum manuum Impositione is sufficient without Consecration." The Bishops of York, London, Duresme, Carlisle, Drs. Day, Curren, Leighton, Tresham, Edgworth, Oglethorp, say, That "Consecration is requisite." Dr. Redmayn saith, That "Consecration hath been received from the Apostles time, and institute of the Holy Ghost to confer Grace." My Lord of Rochester, Dr. Day, and Symmons, say, That "Priesthood is given per manuum impositionem, and that by Scripture; and that Consecration bath of long time been received in the Church." Histories that witnesseth, that some Christian Princes, and other Laymen unconsecrate have done the same.-Canterbury. To the thirteenth; To the first part of this Question, touching Teaching and Preaching the Word of God in cases of such need; we think that Laymen not ordered, not only may, but must preach Christ and his Faith to Infidels, as they shall see opportunity to do the same, and must endeavour themselves to win the Miscreants to the Kingdom of God, if that they can; for as the Wise Man saith, "God hath given charge to every Man of his Neighbour; and the Scripture of God chargeth every Man to do all the good that he can to all Men And surely this is the highest Alms to draw Men from the Devil the Usurper, and bring them to God the very Owner. Wherefore in this Case every Man and Woman may be an Evangelist, and of this also we have example. But touching the second part, for cases of Necessity; As we neither find Scripture, nor Example, that will bear, that any Man, being himself no Priest, may make, that is to say, may give the Order of Priesthood to another, and authority therewith to minister in the said Order, and to use such Powers and Offices, as appertaineth to Priesthood grounded in the Gospel: So we find in such case of need, what hath been done in one of the ancient Writers; altho this authority to ordain, after form afore-mentioned, be not to Laymen expresly prohibited in Scripture; yet such a prohibition is implied, in that there is no such authority given to them, either in Scripture or otherways; for so much as no Man may use this or any other authority which cometh from the Holy Ghost, unless he hath either Commission grounded in Scripture, or else Authority by Tradition, and ancient use of Christ's Church universally received over all.-York. : To the thirteenth and fourteenth following; I think that necessity herein, might either be a sufficient Rule and Warrant to deter mine and order such Cases, considering that tempore necessitatis mulier baptizat, et Laicus idem facit, et audit confessionem: or else that God would inspire in the Princes heart, to provide the best and most handsome Remedy therein And hard were it peradventure to find such great necessity, but either in the train of the said Prince, or in the Regions adjoining thereunto, there might be had some Priests for the said purposes; or, finally, That the Prince himself, godlily inspired in that behalf, might, for so good purposes and intents, set forth the Act indeed, referring yet this thing to the better judgment of others. -London. To the thirteenth and fourteenth following; 1 never read these cases, neither in Scripture, nor in the Doctors, and therefore I cannot Answer unto them by Learning, but think this to be a good Answer for all such Questions, viz. Necessitas non habet Legem.-Rochester. K It is to he thought, that Christ may call, as it pleaseth him, inwardly, outwardly, or by both together. So that if no Priest might be had, it cannot be thought, but that a Christian Prince, with others learned, inwardly moved and called, might most charitably and godlily prosecute that same their Calling in the most acceptable Work, which is to bring People from the Devil to God, from Infidelity to true Faith, by whatsoever means God shall inspire.-Carlite. In hoc casu existimarem accersendos verbi et Sacramentorum, Ministros, si qui forent vicini; quin si nulli invenirentur, Principem illum Christianum haberemus pro Apostolo, tanquam missum a Deo, licet externo Sacramento non esset commendatus, quum Deus Sacramentis suis non sit alligatus.-Dr. Robertson. To the thirteenth, and fourteenth following; It is not against God's Law, that the Prince, and his learned temporal Men, may Preach and Teach, and in these cases of extream Necessity, make and institute Ministers.-Dr. Cox. In this case (as I think) the Prince and other temporal learned Men with him, may by God's Law, Teach and Preach the Word of God, and Baptise; and also (the same Necessity standing) elect and appoint Men to those Offices.-Dr. Day. In summa necessitate Baptizare et prædicare possunt et debent, hæc etenim duo necessaria sunt media ad salutem; at ordinare (ut conjectura ducor) non debent, sed aliunde Sacrificos accersire, quos si habere nequeant, Deus ipse (cujus negotium agitur,) vel oraculo admonebit, quid faciendum erit, vel necessitas ipsa (quæ sibi ipsi est Lex) modum Ordinandi suggeret ac suppeditabit.--Dr. Oglethorp. I think they might, in such case of Necessity; for in this case the Laymen made the whole Church there, and the authority of preaching and ministering the Sacraments, is given immediately to the Church; and the Church may appoint Ministers, as is thought convenient. There be two Stories good to be considered for this Question, which be written in the 10th Book of the History Ecclesiastick; the one of Frumentius, who preached in India, and was after made Priest and Bishop by Athanasius. And the other Story is of the King of the Iberians, of whom Ruffine the writer of the Story saith thus; Et nondum initiatus Sacris fit suæ gentis Apostolus. Yet nevertheless it is written there, That "an Ambassad was sent to Constantine the Emperor, that he would send them Priests for the further establishment of the Faith there."-Dr. Redmayn. The Prince and his temporal learned Men, might and ought, in that necessity, to instruct the People in the Faith of Christ, and to baptize them, ut idem rer sit et suæ gentis Apostolus, and these be sufficient for the Salvation of his Subjects. But as concerning |