and had conversed with him in his youth and had often heard him teach And as it were great uncharitableness to suspect the truth of his narration in a matter of fact so we cannot think he could have been mistaken in a matter of that importance But whatever jealousie may fix upon Irenaeus there is no shadow of ground for suspecting either the veracity or good information of the Church of Smyrna who giving an account of his Martyrdom in an Epistle inserted by Euseb. in his History lib. 4. cap. 14. call him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna All that can be alledged against this is that in their stile Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same thing But the contrary of this is clear from Iranaeus who speaks always of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters and tho he sometimes call Bishops Presbyters yet he never calls Presbyters Bishops which is also the stile of these few Writers of that age who sometimes call Bishops Presbyters Eusebius tells from the testimony of the Church of Lions how he was first a Presbyter in Lions under Pothinus after whose Martyrdom he succeeded him in the Chair and died Bishop there And if we will hear himself lib. 3. cap. 3. when he is reckoning up the tradition of the Faith from the Apostles he deduceth it by all the Bishops who did sit in Rome from the Apostolick times whence two things will follow one that he judged there had been still Bishops in that Church The other that he looked on the Bishop as the chief depositary of the faith Further Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. sets down his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he chides him for excommunicating the Eastern Bishops and there he lays the whole blame upon Victor without sharing it among the Presbyters and also commends the former Bishops of Rome for their greater gentleness whereby it plainly appears that he judged that the power of discipline lay chiefly in the Bishops hands Polycrates also apud Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. vindicates the practice of their Church about the day of Easter not only from the example of the Apostles among them but of the seven Bishops who preceded him in his See From which we may not only infer that there was but one Bishop in a City from the days of the Apostles but that his authority was great since what they did passed for a precedent to their Successors And indeed the difference of Bishop and Presbyter is so evpress in Irenaeus that the most learned assertors of parity confess the change was begun before his time which was in the end of the second Century Now how this change could have been introduced when there was neither Council nor secular Prince to establish it when Churchmen were so pure Polycarp an Apostolical Man having died but about thirty years before besides many other Apostolical men who had long survived when the Church was in the fire of persecution and so less dross could be among them when there was no secular interest to bait them to it for on the contrary this subjected them to the first fury of the persecution seems strange And it is not easie to be imagined or believed how this could have been so suddenly received through all the Churches both Eastern and Western and that there was none to witness against it and that neither the sincerity of some Presbyters nor the pride of others should have moved them to appear for their priviledges against this Usurpation And how neither Heretick nor Schismatick save one and that about two hundred years after should have charged the Church with this on the contrary all of them having their own Bishops and how this Government continued in so peaceable possession through the succession of so many ages till of late that even fundamentals are brought under debate if this Superiority were either so criminal as some hold it to be or had not been introduced at least by some Apostolical men if not by the Apostles themselves will not be easily cleared In the next Century we have Tertullian speaking clearly of the difference of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons lib. de bapt Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae bonum Idem de praescript advers haer cap. 32. Caeterum si quae praescriptiones se audent inserere aetati Apostolicae ut ita videantur ab Apostolis traditae Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseverarent habuerit authorem antecessorem hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Ioanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum à Petro Clementem ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatu constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant confingant tale aliquid baeretici He also lib. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 5. saith Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem By which we see that he both judged Bishops to be of an Apostolical origene and that he counted them different from Presbyters A little after him was Clemens Alex. who 6. Strom. p. 667. speaking of the Constitution of the Christian Churches saith there were among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he thinks was taken from the Angelick glory and from their Oeconomy and administration We shall also find through all Cyprian his Epistles this disparity so clear that it cannot be denied that yet we find him as condescending as any Epist. 6. writing to his Clergy he saith Solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae pivata gerere sententia But even this looks like a yielding to a diminution of that plenitude of power to which he might have pretended Epist. 65. writing to Rogatian who had advised with him concerning a Deacon that had carried insolently toward him he writes Pro Episcopatûs vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem qua posses de illo statim vindicari and about the end Haec sunt enim initia baereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem CHRISTI ordinationem atque unitatem DEI rebellatur Likewise we find Epist. 31. written to Cyprian by the Clerus Romanus the Seat being then vacant what sense they had of the Bishop's power when they say Post excessum nobilissimae memoriae Fabiani nondum est Episcopus propter rerum temporum difficultates constitutus qui
omnia ist a moderatur eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum authoritate consilio habere rationem And if in any case we receive a testimony it should be from the mouth of those who can only pretend to be injured My next witness shall be Dionysius of Alexandria whose same and authority was inferiour to none of the age he lived in I do not bring his words to prove there were Bishops in the Church in his time since that is denied by none But to prove how full and absolute the authority of the Bishops was then and that the Presbyters were simply determined by their commands Great care was used to keep the Christian Assemblies pure and therefore such as fell in scandalous sins chiefly these who apostatised in the persecution were not admitted to the Communion of the faithful but after a long and heavy penitence And a question rising What should be done with those who died before they finished their penitence he in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome telling that signal story of Serapion shews that in his Diocese the Presbyters sent the Eucharist to the sick who desired it though they died before they had compleated their penitence and he adds how this was by his authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where from the stile of ◠Command given by him which was the rule of his Presbyters and the rest of that Epistle it is as clear as any matter of fact can be that the authority of Bishops over their Presbyters was then full absolute and undisputed If we will believe Eusebius who certainly hath been a diligent and great Collector as any of all the Ancients the whole Tract both of his History and Chronology runs fully in this strain and he gives us the Catalogues of the Bishops of the Patriarchal Sees from the days of the Apostles to his own time And tho it is not to be denied that he hath been too credulous in some instances yet it is hard to think he could have been mistaken in such a Tract of so many particulars And we see from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the power of Metropolitans over Bishops was then accounted by that Council an ancient Custom neither was there ever any opposition made to this before Aërius who upon that account is reckoned an Heretick by Epiph. lib. 3. haer 75. and also by Augustin ad Quod vult Deum haer 53. Epiphanius adds that he was an Arrian and gives the account of his Opinion in this matter thus Aërius being a Presbyter in Sebastia was offended when Eustathius was preferred before him to that Bishoprick and tho Eustathius took all ways to gain him and committed the Xenodochium that was there to his inspection yet AErius too deeply irritated at the preference said Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum nihil differt hic ab illo unus enim est honor unus ordo una dignitas Imponit munus Episcopus ita etiam Presbyter lavacrum dat Episcopus similiter Presbyter Dispensationem cultûs divini facit Episcopus facit Presbyter similiter sedet Episcopus in throno sedet etiam Presbyter By which he deceived many and had divers followers but it seems they have died with their Author for we hear no more of them Medina in the Council of Trent numbred with AErius Jerome Ambrose Augustine Chrysostom Theodoret Primasius and Sedulius as if they had been of the same mind wherein he certainly spoke rashly and was either ignorant or indeliberate We have already considered both Jerome and Ambrose or rather Hilary the Deacon their opinions in this matter All that is gathered from Augustine is Ep. ad Hieronymum where he saith Quanquam secundum honorem vocabulorum quae jam usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major fit multis tamen in rebus Augustino Hieronymus major est Whence some would infer that the difference of these was only in words and brought in but by custom But how thin and weak this is it being but a smooth Complement will appear to all especially if they set it in the balance with the great evidence that stands upon the other side Chrysostom hom II. on I Tim. when he is giving the reason why the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons without giving rules to Presbyters saith the reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after he taxeth what that little betwixt them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is far from saying that they were all one and that there ought to be no difference betwixt them Chrysost. also in his first Homily on the Phil. I. cap. on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Quid hoc rei est An unius Civitatis plures erunt Episcopi nullo modo Verum sic Presbyteros vocavit tunc enim nomina invicem communicabant Diaconus dicebatur Episcopus And there he shews that Bishop and Presbyter were taken promiscuously for which he cites that of Timothy's being ordained by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery which he saith is to be understood of Bishops Quia Presbyteri Episcopum non ordinassent And a little after Etiam Presbyteri olim appellabantur Episcopi Diaconi Christi Episcopi Christi unde nunc etiam multi Presbyteri Diaconi scribuntur Episcopi But he adds that in process of time each had their proper names appropriated to them OEcumeneus and Theophylact in this and all other things follow Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also Primasius who on I Tim. 3. gives the reason why the Presbyters are not named Eos in Episcoporum ordine comprehendit quia secundus imo pene unus est gradus Sedulius Scotus on the I. of Titus saith verbatim that which Jerome hath on the same place and so it is to be considered as all one with him on the matter But Theodoret's opinion is a little more perplext who on I Tim. tells that the same persons were called sometimes Presbyters sometimes Bishops but these who are now called Bishops were then called Apostles and that in the progress of time they left the name of Apostles and the name of Bishops was appropriated to them who were first called Apostles Thus he These words it seems dropped from him without consideration for there is no shadow of ground to believe it was so otherwise how came it that the Apostle gave no rules for them under that name But these words are sufficiently tossed by Petavius and Wallo Messalinus And thus far we have an ingenuous account of the various Sentiments of the Fathers about the disparity of Bishops and Presbyters The next thing in this Canon to be consider'd is what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is unquestionable that by this is understood Ordination by Imposition of hands for all the Ancients use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously But Criticks judge that by the former we are to understand
was first baptized and then ordained Bishop But Paulinus adds that after his Baptism he past in order through all the Ecclesiastical degrees and on the eighth day was ordained Bishop there Thus went the Synodical Elections but it was a great while before that even in the Elections of the Bishops of Rome the people were wholly barred from their priviledges And of all this see at large Antonius de Dominis lib. 3. de Repub. Eccles. cap. 3. Metropolitans were chosen by the Patriarchs and the Patriarchs by the Emperours but in some cases the Emperours took the Elections simply to themselves at other times they reserved only the ratification of them to themselves and so for a great while the Elections of the Bishops of Rome were to be ratified either by the Emperors of the East or by their Exarchs at Ravenna And after that Charles the Great assumed the Empire of the West it was decreed in a Synod at Rome that the Election of the Roman Bishop belonged to him and accordingly he was in possession of it though his Successors did simply slip from it Now the Elections are in the hands of the Canons and Prebends which is an art to make the Election go what way the Superior will But the Chapters chusing the Bishop was not known to the Ancients it belonging to the whole College of the Presbyters without distinction And all who desire the restitution of Church discipline think that the erecting of Provincial Synods and giving the power of electing Bishops to them is both the best method and most agreeable to all Antiquity A See was not to lie vacant over three months nor the ordination of a Bishop delayed except upon an inexcusable necessity otherwise the Metropolitan was liable to Censure Conc. Chalc. Can. 25. and in the Council of Sardice Can. 10. Osius proposed that none should be Bishop till he had passed through all the inferior degrees and had finished the Ministery of a Lector Deacon and Presbyter and to this all the Bishops there present gave their consent but by the instances already marked we see that this order was not universally observed Nov. 123. it is decreed that a Bishop be at least three months among the Clergy before he be ordained that he may be instructed in the Ecclesiastical Ministery and service Another Custom there had been of Bishops ordaining Successors for themselves so Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 26. or according to the Greek division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells how Theotecnus Bishop of Cesarea ordained Anatolius to be his Successor and that for some time they were both Bishops together In other places they did not ordain but only design their Successors Yet Augustin was ordained Bishop of Hippo by his Predecessor Valerius but he apologizes for this Epist. 110. and saith that he did not know that it was contrary to the Council of Nice which decreed that there should be but one Bishop at once in a City And from that Epistle we see it was ordinary for Bishops to design their Successors which was done to prevent the tumults were usually in Elections And Augustin tells us of a disorder which had been in a neighbor Town because the Bishop though he had designed his Successor yet had not published it Therefore he to evite that hazard designed Eradius to be his Successor to which all the people assented Yet lest this might have opened a door for Bishops to have transmitted their Sees to their kindred or Friends it was decreed in the Council of Antioch Can. 23. that any such designation of Successors made by Bishops should be declared null and that the Election of the Bishop should be in the hands of the Bishops of that Synod where the See lay There might be but one Bishop in a City for Unities sake yet sometimes there were Coadjutors so Nazianzen was Coadjutor to his Father And Augustin in his second Conference with the Donatists offered that if the Donatists overcame then they should yield their Bishopricks to them but if the Donatists were overcome by them and so should return to the community of the Church they should admit them to be conjunct Bishops with them So was the Schism in Antioch betwixt the Meletianists and the Paulianists setled that both should be Bishops together and all should obey him that survived to this they all agreed confirming it by Oath Yet Flavianus one of Miletus his disciples after his death got himself chosen Bishop but was in that condemned by all It is true that the Novatians in divers Sees had distinct Bishops but these were Schismaticks Yet in the beginning of Christianity it would appear that there were more Bishops in one place for Tertullian and Epiphanius assert that Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by S. Peter And yet all reckon Linus to have succeeded him So also Evodius is generally reckoned to be the first Bishop of Antioch thus Eusebius Origen and Ierome Yet Chrysostom and Theodoret say that Ignatius was ordained there by S. Peter If there be any authority in Clemens his Constitutions they offer a clear account of this that Evodius was appointed Bishop of the Circumcision and Ignatius Bishop of the Uncircumcision and that after Evodius's death both Churches grew in one The same also is applied to the difference about Linus and Clemens by others as if Linus had been Bishop of the Circumcision and Clemens of the Uncircumcision and that after Cletus's death they all grew in one and submitted to Clemens However it is clear that in every Church there was but one Bishop and accordingly was decreed Conc. Nic. Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which stile we see they guarded against the disorder of two Bishops in a City as a thing undoubtedly irregular which hath been accounted so before that time so that this of one Bishop in a City is not to be accounted an act of that Council but a reference to some former act or at least an universally received practice Yet the first succession of the Bishops of Rome tho always perplexed is much more so from the most learned Vossius his Observations in his Letter to Rivet subjoined to Doctor Pearson's Vindiciae of Ignatius his Epistles who from all the Manuscripts of Damasus his lives of the Popes informs us that S. Peter did ordain both Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome and after some enquiry into the matter he concludes that at first there were three Bishops in Rome at once Linus Cletus Anencletus In the next Succession he places Cletus Anencletus and Clemens but Anencletus surviving both the other sate alone at Rome after whom there was but one Bishop there Yet I know not if Damasus ought to have such authority that upon his testimony we are bound to believe a thing so different from the accounts given by elder and more unquestioned Writers All ambitus was condemned in Bishops but it seems that in Nazianzen's time it was too common For he in his Apologetick regrates how