confession cannot be meant in respect of order but the Episcopacy is by Divine right a superiour order to the Presbyterate * Adde to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Act. 20. And Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needes a proofe and this he Undertooke Now that they are so called must needes inferre an identity and a disparity in severall respects An identity at least of Names for else it had beene wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a businesse next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he meanes the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certaine if he stand to his owne principles This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in Iurisdiction I know not certainely which he meanes for his arguments conclude onely for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he meanes the first viz that of Names it is well enough there is no harme done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so farre as may be guess'd by his words a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction this must be consider'd distinctly 1. Then in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam viâ—ario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oeâ—umenius For truth is that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vulimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we doe and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the
true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not alwaies * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sense neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming to wit to judgement But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopacy then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personall but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stirre there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostome so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be true it makes all this discourse needlesse we were safe enough without it if it be false then it selfe we see is needlesse for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer 1. Reliqui te Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete 2. His worke was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminall to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectify and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify 2. The next worke is Episcopall too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every Citty Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Citty by Citty that is Elders in severall Citties one in one Citty Many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops 1. In termes and expresse words To ordaine Elders in every Citty If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse That is the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Iohn Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolicall and that 's as much as Episcopall to be sure 3. S. Paul addes farther a Bishop must be blamelesse AS THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold saies our blessed Saviour himselfe and therefore not a meere Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE and BEATE his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the hous-hold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordaine and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall hee take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordaine these Bishops in Citties is in order to coercitive jurisdiction because many unruly and vaine talkers were crept in vers 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolicall institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himselfe had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordayn'd these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his comming had not Episcopall power or coercitive jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordayn'd before his ordayning them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercitive jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his owne person for they that were there before his comming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not loose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordain'd For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest quà m ipse habet Howsoever it by then to be sure Titus had it in his owne person and then it followes Undeniably that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impcccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schisme and tumutuary factions without possibility of releife or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personall prerogative but a power to be succeded to he might ordaine others he had authority to doe it with the same power he had himselfe and therefore since he alone had this coërcion in his owne person so should his Successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his comming
Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carryes the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiasticall And againe Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher then all other power viz in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LOCO DEI. Doe all things in Vnity the Bishop being PRESIDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACER DOTUM imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Iurisdiction The Bishop is the PRINCE OF THE PRIESTS bearring the image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himselfe for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairely and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himselfe saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and dyed a Martyr and hath been honoured as holy Catholike by all posterity certainly these testimonyes must needs be of Great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the generall expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the refractary Deacon And VIGOR EPISCOPALIS and AUTHORITAS CATHEDRae are the the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoynes calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem a high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterij traditus ab Apostolis So S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of Mastership or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received faith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Councell of Sardis to the TOP or HEIGHT os Episcopacy APICES PRINCIPES OMNIUM so Optatus calls Bishops the CHEIFE and HEAD of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER OR HEIGHT of the Church The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo ordayn'd that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Church's pale so as the Bishop had in effâ—ct no Diocesse yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDâ—NCY according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Councell calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the PRELATE or PREFECT of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Councell of Carthage Commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that GOVERNES the Church in that place * And in the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath POWER OVER the affayrs of the Church * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat S. Sylvester the Bishop held the Reynes or the stearne of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose HONOR SUBLIMITAS Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopall Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò RECTORIBUS suis subdi dicuntur c The sheepe are delivered to Bishops as to RULERS and are made their Subjects And in the next chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis vt ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri vt cùm dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus .... actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent then the DIGNITY AND EMINENCE OF A BISHOP c. The other is of S. Hierome CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD EPISCOPUM PERTINET The care of the whole Church appertaines to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP to whom vnlesse an EMINENT and UNPARALELL'D POWER be given by all there will be as many Schismes as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of theÌ„ then the Bishop is SUPERIOUR IN A PEERELESSE AND INCOMPARABLE AUTHORITY and all the whole Diocesse are his subjects viz in regimine Spirituali BUT from words let us passe to things For the Faith and practise of Christendome requires obedience Universall obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin againe with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gaine by it for the more primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the comming of the Sonne of Man But to
after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries ' loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church-governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men and Ministers are joyned as assistants only and Counsellors but at Schaffhausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much but in the Huguenot Churches of France the Ministers doe all 3. In such cases where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory and confessedly of all sides there can be none in causes Courts Ecclesiasticall if there be no opinion of Religion no derivation from a divine authority there will be sure to be no obedience and indeed nothing but a certain publick calamitous irregularity For why should they obay Not for Conscience for there is no derivation from divine authority Not for feare for they have not the power of the sword 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keyes by Christ concredited to his Church for the binding and loosing delinquents and penitents respectively on earth then there is clearely a Court erected by Christ in his Church for here is the delegation of Iudges Tu Petrus vâ—s Apostoli whatsoever ye shall bind Here is a compulsory ligaveritis Here are the causes of which they take cognisance Quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Vniversall Iohn 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam in causes which are emergent from Christianity ut sic that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon But of this hereafter That Christ did in this place erect a Iurisdiction and establish a government besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers affirming that to S. Peter the Keys were given that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae ut quae solveret in terrâ sâ—luta essent in coelo scil ut ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem side atque correctione sanaretur So S. Austin And againe Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparâ—bilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae proceâ—â—osissima gubernacuâ—um ad ligandâ— solvenda peccatâ— claves regni coelorum primuâ— Apostolorum Petrus accepit Quoniam nec ille solus sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata S. Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing But not he alone but all the Church to wit all succession and ages of the Church Vniversa Ecclesia viz. in Pastoribus solis as S. Chrysostom In Episcopis Presbyteris as S. Ierome The whole Church as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters The same is affirmed by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Hilary Primasius and generally by the Fathers of the elder and Divines of the middle ages 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the sonne of Man commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch the Disciples asked
him speakest thou this parable to us or even to all And the Lord said who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season As if he had said I speak to You for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Masters absence You are by office and designation my stewards to feed my servants to governe my house 6. In Scripture and other writers to Feed and to Governe is all one when the office is either Politicall or Oeconomicall or Ecclesiasticall So he FED them with a faithfull and true heart and RULED them prudently with all his power And S. Peter joynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So does S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers or overseers in a flock Pastors It is ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripides calls the Governors and guides of Chariots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our blessed Saviour himselfe is called the Great sheapheard of our soules and that we may know the intentum of that compellation it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is therefore our sheapheard for he is our Bishop our Ruler and Overseer Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church it is also as certain he hath left Rulers they being both one in name in person in office But this is of a known truth to all that understand either lawes or languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo they that feed have the power of Princes and rulers the thing is an undoubted truth to most men but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it THis government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himselfe in traditione clavium in spiratione Spiritûs in missione in Pentecoste When Christ promised them the Keyes he promised them power to bind and loose when he breathed on them the holy Ghost he gave them that actually to which by the former promise they were intitled and in the octaves of the Passion he gave them the same authority which he had received from his Father and they were the faithfull and wise stewards whom the Lord made RULERS over his Houshold But I shall not labour much upon this Their founding all the Churches from Eastro West and so by being Fathers derived their authority from the nature of the thing their appointing rulers in every Church their Synodall decrees de Suffocato Sanguine and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia their excommunications of Hymeneus Alexander and the incestuous Corinthian their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things as S. Paul did of his subjects of Corinth and the Hebrews by precept Apostolicall their threatning the Pastorall rod their calling Synods and publick assemblies their ordering rites and ceremonies composing a Symbole as the tessera of Christianity their publick reprehension of delinquents and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction THis power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons For when the Great sheapheard had reduced his wandring sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to governe them so long as the wolfe might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem saeculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long agoe but vobiscum vâ—stri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetuall Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetuall regiment of the Church for then the Church should faile when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetuall assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in Materiâ censurae as delivering to Sathan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re Naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetuall assistance for then it had been done and still these signes should have followed them that believe But we see they doe not It followes then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remaine a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetuall assistance For since this perpetuall assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity a succession must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a helpe for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of â—ence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unlesse men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and Ordination have their sinnes pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all Question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these offices and therefore though in a very limited sence they may be called successores Apostolorum to wit in the power of Baptizing consecrating the Eucharist and Preaching an excellent example whereof though we have none in Scripture yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Combination of Apostles yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power
which now they have is by Apostolicall ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolicall institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it followes that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolicall or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolicall And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practise of Christendome not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyters have no Iurisdiction essentiall to their order but derivative only from Apostolicall preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithfull people from the Catholick communion without cause and without authority S. Iohn the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gajus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punish't his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination as Matthias succeeded Iudas who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Ierome affirme and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Iesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea diverse others of the 72 reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius others of the Fathers did governe the severall Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is cleare that he that receives no more power after the Apostles then he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It followes then since as will more fully appeare anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater then the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I meane not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Iurisdiction in the Apostolicall Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Iurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appeares from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Iurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolicall for the regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schismes and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coërcion was more necessary then at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary authority 2. Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetuall not so as to have all that which was personall and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine Authority for our government which we must contend to doe and doe it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did governe the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they fayl'd in the founding of the Church and the Church is not built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retayn'd or else we must be governned with an Unlawfull and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himselfe and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fayrest intimation I meane the seaven Angel-Presidents of the seaven Asian Churches If these seaven Angels were seaven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seaven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certaine that a Superiority of Iurisdiction was intended by Christ himselfe and given by him insomuch as he is the fountaine of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seaven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seaven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be suppos'd he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sunne of righteousnesse they had not else been Angels of light nor starres held in Christ's owne right hand This is certaine that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these starres and Angels The seaven starres are the Angells of the seaven Churches and the seaven Candlesticks are the seaven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a finall intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocesse with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs yet the personall direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seaven Candlesticks but to the seaven starres which are the Angels of the seaven Churches viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angell therefore is not cannot be mean't the whole Church 2. It is plaine that by the Angel is mean't the Governour of the Church 1. Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For
these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and diverse others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of Eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shewes that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërcion in causis Clericorum to be watchfull and strengthen the things that remaine as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they Watch for your Soules And the second of Apostles and Apostolike men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas and Silas confirm'd the Brethren for these men although they were but of the 72 at first yet by this time were made Apostles and cheife men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up and downe confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirme the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no lesse then Episcopall or Apostolicall and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocesse Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and diverse others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called his Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have knowne thy Ministery His office therefore was Clericall it was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charg'd with all 3. By the Angel is mean't a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personall delinquency or suppose personall excellencyes Adde to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seaven Churches had but seaven starres and these seaven starres were the Angels of the seaven Churches And if by seaven starres they may meane 70 times seaven starres for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one starre they must meane many starres and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as starres and no more Angels then Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seaven Churches into 7000 as every starre into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the Exigency of the thing it selfe these seaven Angels are by Antiquity called the seaven Governours or Bishops of the seaven Churches their very names are commemorated Vnto these seaven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equall number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and againe Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voyce of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Policarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himselfe an Angell of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it out of the Encyclicall Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angell to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had beene and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this booke written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. Iohn speakes of were such who had Iurisdiction over their whole Diocesse therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fix'd them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetuall and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personall mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairely pretended But yet
farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem sollicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolicall did give them power of administring Sacraments of absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem Ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolicall ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirme by the practise of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturbe us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nut riuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores posteà illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountaines and the 72 are the palmes that are nourished by the waters of those fountaines For though Christ also ordain'd the 72 yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the maine question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolicall authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doe not command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my selfe with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it selfe if we consider to whom he speakes it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉 might not they were no part of his Diocesse he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equall the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personall priviledges and in their universall jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedome of a Christian Bishop to whom the soules of all faithfull people were deare and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that Antiquity is clearely on this side is the next businesse For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only adde two more from Antiquity and so passe on to tradition Apostolicall 1. THE beliefe of the primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the 72 and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give faire evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis Er SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent eaquibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant ... quos SUCCESSORES relinquebant SUUM IPSORUM LOCUM MAGISTERII tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their severall Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolicall they are from their foundation and by their succession for Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still doe governe them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Iudicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence he that heareth you heareth mee Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Councell of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Councell in an assembly of Bishops and himselfe was a Bishop The Councell of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quenquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervalning their Bishops shewes the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii
suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminall and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already prooved and for the present it will sufficiently appeare in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unlesse they could be their own superiours BUt a Councell or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they rul'd without him * This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud S. Ierom's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quid facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordayne a Bishop does which is a cleare difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non FACIAT not non facit that a Priest may not must not doe that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Diocesse therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary by actuall indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and originall right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had beene quickly answered if the Question had onely beene de facto For the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Iurisdiction was greater then Presbyters and this was by custome and in fact at least S. Hierome saies it and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco palibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complain'd of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the onely difference That then if S. Hierome sayes true being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne
Church of Antioch but I doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sense the lessar Asia For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signify a meere Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sense and not to doe so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the termes These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meere Presbyters * And least it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Ierusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopall and Apostolicall authority and so at Antioch as at Ierusalem where Iames and Iudas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But 2 ly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other countries as appears vers 4. So that although they were all Bishops wee might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplyed incumbency Thus farre then we are upon even termes the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meere Presbyters then Bishops in the proper sense 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his fare-well Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolicall for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witnesse and Trophimus of Arles in France for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premises we have a witnesse beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convâ—catis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making hast to keep his Pentecost at Ierusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastorall supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of v. 18. ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage viz. in a collective sense not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travailes but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of v. 25. yee all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for S. Paul sent for him a litle before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at this meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolicall men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gajus and to the other Apostolicall men who had at least Episcopall authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches
without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Bishops alone or to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertaine by any intination of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more then probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practise of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it selfe when they were to leave a Church to fixe a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Ierusalem so long before in other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloudy field of Martyrdome was to be fought And the case was equall here for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds and he had actually plac'd a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equall provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either S. Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other sixe Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and S. Timothy had sate in Ephesus and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. Iohn writ his Revelation 6. Lastly that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appeares beyond all exception by S. Pauls first epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a commission given to the whole assembly and no more concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is v. 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himselfe He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall and pertaining to the publick regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angell of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fix't as in the case of the Corinthian
delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaën and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S. Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata alitèr composita res est quà m caperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it 's owne nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. Iohn and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to goe away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a businesse of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Doe you feed the flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sense Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater then all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councell at Ierusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse and Iurisdiction * 2 ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their owne hands in S. Hieromes time this is it which he saith is rather by custome then by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no law of God against the delegation of power Episcopall * As for the last words in the objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Debere is a Non sequitur unlesse this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments that is THEY OUGHT not by Gods law but in imitation of the practise Apostolicall to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were THEY OUGHT for many considerations and in Great cases not by the necessity of a Divine precept * And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have rul'd alone yet was content to take others to him and himselfe only to rule in chiefe Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needlesse now * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is I have and shall else where produce for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place of S. Chrysostome It is needlesse to repeat either the objection or answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument against an Evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party or to runne upon their owne Swords For either they are to be understood in the
all others whom himselfe in the next words points out by the description of their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Feed the flock of God as Bishops or being Bishops and overseers over it And that to rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny that had no rule at all * The meere Presbyters I deny not but are included in this admonition for as their office is involved in the Bishops office the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too so is his duty also in the Bishops so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knowes what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But againe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Iohn the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gajus the Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harme though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolicall men in the Colledge at Ierusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall men ruling men and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that rule well By Presbyters are meant Bishops to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus as appears in the former discourse The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one place expounds the other for they are both ad idem and speake of Elders of the same Church * 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops unlesse it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the Generall addresse which in all faire deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearely show that the confusion of names of Episcopus and Presbyter such as it is in Scripture is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture for the indistinction of offices for even the names in Scripture it selfe are so distinguished that a meere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop an Apostle is often called a Presbyter as in the instances above But we will consider those places of Scripture which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name to confusion of things and shew that they neither enterfere upon the maine Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ Iesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to choose this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to cleare it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could not be and yet * S. Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the * Church of Philippi and therefore must meane * meere Presbyters * so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superior order of the clergy Bishops and Priests and that he speaks plurally he may besides the Bishops in the Church comprehend under their name the Presbyters too for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office and order the inferiour under the superiour the lesser within the greater for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order and is not only inclusively in it but derivative from it the same name may comprehend both persons because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both And in this sense it is if it be at all that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops * 2. Why may not Bishops be understood properly For there is no necessity of admiitting that there were any meere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church It can neither be proved from Scripture not antiquity if it were denyed For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopall men as there were at Antioch might doe all that Presbyters could and much more And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply and a Bishop can it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter then that there was no Bishop And certainely it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be onely meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sense and yet no more Bishops in one Diocesse then one of a fixt residence for in that sense is S. Chrysostome and the fathers to be understood in their commentaries on this place affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop but then take this along that it was not then unusuall in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary residentiaries but of an Apostolicall and Episcopall authority as in the Churches of Ierusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it selfe If I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus Bitus Demas Polybius omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo unde haec vobis Scripsi saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon So that many Bishops we see might be at Philippi and many were actually there long after S. Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sense Because there could not be more Bishops then one in a Diocesse No By what law If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times that hinders not but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times If by a Law in the Apostles times then we have obtained the main question by the shift and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters And then let this objection be admitted how it will and doe its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had diverse Bishopricks under it and S. Paul writing to the Church of Philippi wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit and therefore might well salute many Bishops though writing to one Metropolis and this is the more probable if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopi◠Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose referres this clause of
Prototype calling him the Great Sheapherd and Bishop of our soules it hath obtayned in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some PASTORS AND TEACHERS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were setled Bishops fix't upon their severall Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those names which did designe temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome Thus farre the names were common viz. in the sense above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every order it 's owne Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be suppos'd at first for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificiall and imposed sense USE which is the Master of language must rule us in this affaire and USE is not contracted but in some processe and descent of time * For at first Christendome it selfe wanted a Name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christ'ned first in Antioch for they had their baptisme some yeares before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church BVt immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending 〈◊〉 Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the â—â—rch the Bishop in the present vulgar conceptâ—â—â—ome few examples I shal give insteed of Myriads 〈◊〉 Canons of the Apostles the word ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—shop is us'd 36 times in appropriation to him that 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ruler president of the Church above the Clergie and the Laity being 24 times expressely distinguish'd from Presbyter and in the other 14 having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and Ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentick by the Councell of Nice of Antioch 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councell of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councell of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councell of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS sometimes THE ECCLESIASTICALL CANONS sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolicall Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councell in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his preface to the worke of the Councells for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canons by the authority of Councells and have put them amongst the Canonicall Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephens time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephens time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copie elder then this and yet after the Originall to be sure shewes them to be of prime antiquity and they are mention'd by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who doe prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I referre the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the Citie of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphall by Gratian and some others viz. in the sense of the Church just as the wisdome of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most beleived to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all Question are so farre Canonicall as to be of undoubted Ecclesiasticall authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c So that here is the reall and exact distinction of dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imitators of the Angells who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himselfe in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much lesse an argument for the parity of offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldome confound the names yet distinguish the offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairely admitted for himselfe their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopall jurisdiction to rule the Church till hee being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done least the Church should not be only without a Father
but without a Guardian too yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent then Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the youth whom S. Iohn had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unlesse by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O EPISCOPE saith S. Iohn to him Tunc graviter suspirans SENIOR c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusuall so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopall power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supreame order of the Clergy was done with faire reason and designe For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and faire execution of its offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneâ—ation Rise up to the gray head and it transplants the honour and Reverence of age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meere supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saith S. Chrysostome Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sedbonum â—pus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum So S. Hierome It is not an honourable title but a good office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent vertues But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Grecè latinè senior interpretatur non pro atate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iulius Pollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angells and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church THE ANGEL for his excellency OF THE CHURCH for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the senses above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence THE BISHOP and in descent of time it came to passe that the compellation which was alwaies his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a faire precedent of it wee have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great sheapheard and Bishop of our soules The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by faire intimation it does more immediatly descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulnesse of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our soules * And besides this so faire a Copy besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have showne before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for S. Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the chaire of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and faire congruity of reason BVt the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers useing those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have bin given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the roome of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cùm Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so followes in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himselfe witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himselfe makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most Blessed and worthy PASTOR * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councell was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum PASTORES diversis è locis urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareâ Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres .... Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus .... Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerehat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the PASTORS and not only so but Presbyters were not called PASTORS for he proceedes sed Prebyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem .... convenerunt So that these were not under the generall appellative of Pastors * And the Councell of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certifi'd by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given vnto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle
Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptisme For in his 9 th Epistle he forbids Priests to anoynt baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of severall anoyntings and so S. Gregory expounds himselfe in this 9 th Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in fronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoynt baptised people twice once they might now that this permission of anoynting was that which was a ceremony of baptisme not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons * In the collection of the Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non SIGNET infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not signe infantes without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not signe them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptisme for the circumstant Canons doe expressly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptisme and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here wee see a consignation permitted to the presbyters in the Easterne Churches to be used in baptisme in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters but yet of no objection in case of confimation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Crosse and anealing Thus it is us'd in the first Arausican Councell for extreame Vnction which is there in case of extreame necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione CONSIGNARI placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreame Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancyed of any other consignation But I returne *** The first Councell of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum anto diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetch 't by the Deacons from the Bishop to be us'd in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Pascbae sayes the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publike baptismes so that it was to be us'd in baptisme And this sense being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to signe with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is somthing clearer in the first Arausican Counsell Nullus ministrorum qui BAPTIZANDI recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with oyntment was us'd in baptisme and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Grogory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expressely forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practise of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more expresse and distinctive termes Presbyteris Chrismate baptizetos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a cleare permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptisme but he subjoynes a prohibition to Priests for doing it in confirmation non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregory's dispensation to be only in baptismall Chrisme read it Vt baptiz andos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needlesse to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretall now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these wee see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of cofirmation by many Councells and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denyed to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their owne opinion but witnesses of a Catholike practise and doe actually attest it as done by a Catholike consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produc'd of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation wee may conclude it to be a power Apostolicall in the Originall Episcopall in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher then that of a Presbyter and so declar'd by this instance of Catholike Practise THus farre I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and eares some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chinne but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Iurisdiction Others by all meanes would be thought to be quite thorough in behalfe of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this meanes they thinke to impaire their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is lesse and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction then now Men will endure to be granted or then themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in termes of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei
Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first leâ— the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminall but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop under paine of the Canon * I end this with the atâ—estation of the Councell of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP that other Bishop must by no meanes receive him into his communion Thus farre we have matter of publike right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge of the causes and persoâ—s of Clergy men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolicall-Canons of the Generall Councells of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councells of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cognisance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Ignatius calls them counsellors and assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mention'd in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmaticall resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspition * Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Dâ—â—cesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculam metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci 〈◊〉 memores â—ed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum coÌ„tumeliâ contemtu Praeposititotum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this caâ—eâ— S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them keepe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa cum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae
are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint credita multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our pretious soules may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution and these are of double cognisance the secular power and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencyes of Clergy-men who are both Clergy and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in severall ages upon the exigence of severall occasions and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the common-wealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiasticall because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIâ— are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuaus Lâ—â—ntius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait
is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Suo He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests So Theodoret. Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they haye supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state for that is truly a reformation id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debate the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower then a Diocesse it will bring the Priest lower then a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocesse or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the
and possibility of Scandall for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these Churches where Presbyteries were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecution and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not comply'd withall in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilisme for a discontented spirit will hide it selfe and take sanctuary in the reedes and mud of Nilus rather then not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge 2. As yet there had been scarse any Synods to determine cases of publike difficulty and what they could not receive from publike decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twise a yeare to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a yeare a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion then a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give generall rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of â—ome considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been when the frequency of Generall Councells and Provinciall Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretalls of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions hath made the personall assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity requir'd not their presence and Counsell their own necessity requir'd that they should attend their severall cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what followes For either they must have Presbyters ordain'd without a title which I am sure they have complain'd of these threescore years or else they must be forc'd to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrences of the Church unlesse either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constitute doe not aide him but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by Custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity fail'd and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I meane in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Ierusalem but they were not consulted in Church affaires matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to passe And thus it is to this day In our Mother Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the fowre generall Councells and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicisme and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so faire antiquity but however it was never otherwise then voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and Councell in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Councell of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordaine a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that hee that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling downe then in raising up It was wont alwaies to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution then its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull downe a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodall sentence and determination for so the Canon runnes qui profecto nec aâ— unâ— damnaâ—i nec unâ— judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiiâ— exuised praesantati SYNODALL 〈◊〉 quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determin'd in the Greekes Councell of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their owne Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of sixe Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must ALONE heare and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be claâ—â—cular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determind for Africa in the fourth Councell of Carthage Vt Episcopuâ— nullius causam audiat absque praescutiâ 〈…〉 alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nini praesentiâ Clericonum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept least the sentence should be
they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an ensigne of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that then for being called RABBI or MASTER or DOCTOR or FATHER What shall we think now May we not be called DOCTORS God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith S. Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the severall places of the Gospells and may no man be called MASTER or FATHER let an answer be thought upon for these and the same will serve for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporall principality as the issue of Christianity and an affixe of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we marke it our B. Saviour points it out himselfe The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporall regiment your Apostolate must be Spirituall They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatnesse doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the sonne of man so Christ saies expressely And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the sonne of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spirituall superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospell and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more then a politicall regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to Man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this wee know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessell That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticisme It is cleare that the forme of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the sonne of man so must your regiment be for sicut misi◠me Pater c. As my father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Imprey but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers expresse the authority and regiment of Bishops * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius siae saith Origen And S. Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet S. Hierom himselfe writing to S. Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa * Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chiefe the officers of which Ministration must governe and wee must obey They must governe not in a temporall regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a spirituall not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So S. Austin Nomen est operis non honor is ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book Qui imperant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio confulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the Propheticall visions where the regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spirituall the other secular And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet saies Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou maist make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdomes by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiasticall rule or cheifty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sinne if it continues and no sinne if it lasts but for a weeke or is it lawfull to sinne and domineere and Lord it over their Brethren for a weeke together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetuall Dictators Calvin was perpetuall president and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and governe in causes Spirituall and Consistoriall and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sinne in Episcopacy to doe so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawfull here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineere and as they call it now a dayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to governe but if the Apostles may governe then we
be long For since I have proved that the whole Diocesse is in curâ Episcopali and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty and yet that instant necessity and the publike act of Christendome hath ratified it that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are parishes in his Diocesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopall charge is no lesse then the act of all Christendome For it is evident at first Presbyters had no distinct cure at all but were in common assistant to the Bishop and were his emissaries for the gaining soules in Citty or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in law and conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith S. Denis he does not doe the offices of his order by himselfe onely but by others also for all the inferior orders doc so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendome in consent we have faire precedent in S. Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to doe it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sense of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffeted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Doe thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an expresse delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to S. Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on S. Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either S. Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdome Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters doe you feed the flock till God shall designe you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour * To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Councell Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis â—um esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seemes what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose S. Cyprian sent a playne commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vestrâ .... his literis hortor Mando vt vos ... VICE MEA FUNGAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you doe my office in the administration of the affayres of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Faelicissimus and fower more Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praeminere c vt qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personall declamatory clause in any Councell or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or lesse of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplexe and buisy dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopall function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Councell of Chalcedon might delegate to a steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Councell of Sevill forbid any lay-men to be stewards for the Church Elegimus vt vnusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum VICARIUM esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare VICARS OF BISHOPS the Canon allowes onely forbids lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c In one and the same office the law of God forbids to joyne men of disparate capacities This then would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of antiquity for it's Sanction * FOR although antiquity approves of Episcopall delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Bishop and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria So were Herculanus and Caldonius to S. Cyprian But they never delegated to any lay-man any part of their Episcopall power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money * Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut LAICALI PROCURATIONE administrandam elegerit .... non solùm a Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etià m Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affayres to LAY ADMINISTRATION he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Councell But the thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference
and judiciall contestation let it be ended before the PRIESTS For so S. Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some paralell constitution S. Hierome relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Iudges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories Presybter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwaies Clergy with him and all men else But for the mayne Question S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causâ fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare that Clergy-men must onely judge of Clergy-causes and this S. Ambrose there call's judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiasticall Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus farre S. Ambrose S. Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba president in the Nicene Councell said it was the abhomination of desolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affayres Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity * To these adde the Councell of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nat a contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants but the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must heare the cause but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict for so Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall Secular Iudges should have no interest SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostâ—â degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already § 36. and § 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of * Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure for to pretend such slight aëry imaginations against the constant knowne open Catholike practice and doctrine of the Church and history of all ages is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of lay-Elders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white and watry colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprison of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge antiquity for the men with whose Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would faine have beene it is knowne so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can doe no service in the present Question I am only to cleare this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either divine or humane but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasticall as they are unheard of in antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the lake of Gebenna and so to the place of the neerest denomination * The objection is from S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word doctrine especially they therefore all Elders doe not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Pauls sense not so much to doe one as to doe the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme and betook himselfe to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not S. Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to severall gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be