the guide of their consciences the instruments and conveyances of all the Blessings heaven uses to powre upon us by the ministration of the holy Gospell would they that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free and open communion with a Catholick Bishop would they have contested upon an aëry title and the imaginary priviledge of an honour which is farre lesse then their spirituall dignity but infinitely lesse then the burden and charge of the soules of all their Diocesse Charity thinks nothing too much and that love is but little that grutches at the good words a Bishoprick carries with it However let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spirituall heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginèm Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the PRINCE OF PRIESTS Now since honour and excellency are termes of mutuall relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so farre as they participate of God so farre they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impresse of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himselfe but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must doe him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Councell of Sardis speaking of the severall steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the HIGHEST HONOUR * Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans HONOREM CATHEDRAE potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanc'd him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chaire But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the order of Melchisedek yet he hath also the honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontifex sacro crismate perunctus incivitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High Priest ordained in the Citty viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be Deare and Precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fidelitèr existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat a Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christ's vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himselfe He that despiseth you despiseth mee If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order then the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what it done to the Bishop is farre more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odde one even this whether Christ be to be honour'd or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider wee that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Iewes and how highly Honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou MY LORD Elijah said Obed Edom to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take THY LORD from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schooles So it was then And in the New Testament we find a Prophet HONOURD every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given then was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation ANGELS and GOVERNOURS and FATHERS OF OUR FAITH and STARRS LIGHT OF THE WORLD the CROWNE OF THE CHURCH APOSTLES OF IESUS CHRIST nay GODS viz. to whom the word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly S. Hierom saith that when S. Paul called himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusti Caesaris Magister exercitâ—s Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have prooved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sonnes of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdome and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sonnes viz. faire honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdome for such a Kingdome they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and yet the best preferment from them to wit in a temporall Kingdome No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed doe exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you what shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord made ruler over his Houshold Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me Pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if S. Marke had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honourary appellative that was would have question'd him Highly for it But if we goe to the sense of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might
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
is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the maine Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the lawes of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impresse of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independantly as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answere It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independant as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependant on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordaine a Presbyter with a power that himselfe hath not can he give what himselfe hath not received I end this point with the saying of Epiphani us Vox est Aërii haretici unus est ordo Bpisoeperum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broach'd by Aërius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanc'd by many of the Church of Rome FOR to cleare the distinction of order it is evident in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of Orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affaire in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practise and tradition Astolicall The first and second Canons of the Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordaine a Bishop and one Bishop should ordaine a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordaine a Bishop is * S. Dionysius affirmes Sacerdotem non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was faine to goe to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius To this we may adde as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontificall book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Councell of Ancyra it is determin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rurall Bishops shall not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons in anothers diocesse without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rurall Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the diocesse they must not ordaine Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is anothers diocesse and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopall Ordination at first but not Episcopall Iurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopisunt consecrati tamen aportet eos modum proprtum retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies years not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyterâ— rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had country Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Châ—repiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distibutively to wit that each Country Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more then Village Priests and then this caution had been impertineâ—â— * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordaine any but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordaine to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordaine without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to doe it if these should doe it the Citty Presbyters who were often dispatch'd into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther then it did or that they might goe beyond it as well as the Châ—râ—piscâ—pi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Adde to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appeares in the thirteenth Canon of the Councell of Neo. Caesareâ— and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not beene their bridle The summe of the Canon is this With the Bishops licence the Chorepiscopi might ordaine for themselves had Episcopall ordination but without licence they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neâ—-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc perticulari not in order
but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the Citty Presbyters might not ordaine neither with nor without licence for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitat is unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res euim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practise Apostolicall is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is cleare for the illegality of a Presbytâ—r giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopall order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reâ—dâ—ndo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church and exigence of Catholike Custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of the Citty for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the Citty have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopall ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not doe it unlesse more be added to them for their want was more They not only want jurisdiction but something besides and that must needs be order * But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopall Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroaâ—hâ—â—â— upon the Bishops Diocesse and as they were but 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meere Presbyterate And this we find as soone as ever we heare that they had had Episcopall Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops in the end of the same Cahon we find it decreed de novo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chorepiscopus or Country Bishop must be ordayn'd by the Bishop of the Citie in whose jurisdiction he is which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter and no more And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries with the Bishop's License too but they never ordayn'd any to be Deâ—cons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing and therefore were gratiae Spiritûs Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and requir'd not the capacity of Episcopall Order to collate them for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost as all Orders properly so called are but might by humane dispensation be bestow'd as well as by humane Ordinance they had their first constitution ** The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Councell of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had beene Bishops of Citied but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices and by being traditors but in case they repented and were reconciled they had not indeed restiÌ„tution to their See but because they had the indelible character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopall Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended if they had made ordinations and of the other nothing pertinent for they also had the ordination and order of Bishops The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Councell as is to be seene in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria * But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Councell of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordain'd some Clerkes themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men 't is likely for quietnesse sake and to comply with the times would faine have had those Clerks received into Clericall communion but the Councell would by no meanes admitt that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bâ—lâ—amon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indecd But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eâ—tychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands â—n them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Entychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fveront c. Saith Balsamon intimating that it is a rul'd case and of publike interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordain'd of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dream'd onely he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordain'd by him could be no Priest nor any else of his ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyr as himselfe was reduc'd into laycommunion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischir as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so knowne a businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus who was another Bishop in the aire too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill These cases are so known I need not insist on them This onely In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacraments conferr'd by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to Minister
the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an Enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remaine under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitalls but extends it selfe to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c All they that transgresse this Constitution in ANY WAY not submitting to their Bishop let them be punish'd canonically So that now these generall expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their severall offices the Canon extends it's prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearely and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witnesse for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere aut signare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corpor is Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud in the presencè of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have faire evidence of this whole particular It is not lawfull to doe any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councells of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawfull to doe any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Councell of Carthage joynes them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to doe by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters doe what they are commanded to doe by God let him tell us if any man be greater then Christ viz whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters doe their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole diocesse he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feede the flock so the Canon of the Apostles so Ignatius so the Councell of Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocesse is in the Bishop and without the Bishop's admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not doe these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unlesse he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocesse being the Bishop's charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle least he be what S. Peter blam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocesse Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his oxdination but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions and did quoad hoc take him in partem sollicitudinis and concredit some part of his diocesse to his administration cum curâ animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocesse is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himselfe of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not devest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocesse so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocesse and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potest as minoris And though because the Bishop could not doe all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocesse therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himselfe looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a generall supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocesse there he being presenâ— might doe any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himselfe of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Councell of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his owne but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the starres which in the noon day have their own naturall light as much as in the night but appeare not shine not in the presence of the Sunne This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presbyters who as the Councell of Carthage's expression is are contrâ—rii honort Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own forme where God hath placed us and where wee were in the Primitive Church wee shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawfull to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The
converts And S. Marke was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted * But ordinarily the Apostles when they had converted a City or Nation then fix't Bishops upon their charge and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocesse But then this City or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocesse before it was a particular congregation yet it was part of the Apostles Diocesse and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively S. Paul was ordain'd by the Prophets at Antioch Apostle of the Uncircumcision All the Gentiles was his Diocesse and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted So that absolutely a diocesse was before a particular congregation But if a diocesse be taken collectively as now it is for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop then one must needes be before 20 and a particular congregation before a diocesse but then that particular congregation was not a parish in the present sense for it was not a part of a Diocesse taking a Diocesse for a collection of Parishes but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocesse and like a Graine of Mustard-seed that in time might and did grow up to a considerable height even to a necessity of distinguishing titles and parts of the Diocesse assigning severall parts to severall Priests 2. We see that the Primitive Bishops before the division of parishes had the City and Country and after the division of parishes had them all under his jurisdiction and ever even from the Apostles times had severall provinces some of them I meane within their limits and charges * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are under his Diocesse the Neighbour villages and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Councell of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ancient Canon of our fore fathers and yet it selfe is elder then three of the generall Councells and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers that the City and Villages should be subject to the Bishop surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan But a little before this was the Nicene Councell and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the old Customes be kept What are those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over ALL Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It was a good large Parish And yet this parish if we have a mind to call it so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the old custome of their forefathers and yet that was so early that S. Anthony was then alive who was borne in S. Irenaeus his time who was himselfe but second from the Apostles It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of even all Syria Caelesyria Mesopotamia and both the Ciliciae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop of Syria he calls himselfe in his epistle to the Romans and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Theodoret and besides all these his Successors in the Councell of Chalcedon had the two Phaeniciae and Arabia yeilded to them by composition These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes and would have taken up time enough to preambulate had that been then the guise of Christendome * But examples of this kind are infinite Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt Thebais Marcotis Libya Ammoniaca and Pent apolis saith S. Epiphanius And his predecessor Iulianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about Alexandria Either it was a Diocesse or at least a plurality * S. Chrysostome had Pontus Asia and all Thrace in his parish even as much as came to sixteen prefectures a faire bounds surely and so it was with all the Bishops a greater or a lesser Diocesse they had but all were Diocesan for they had severall parishes singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias saith Epiphanius in his epistle to Iohn of Ierusalem and in his book contra haereses Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates it aut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae * All Italy was the parish of Liberius saith Socrates Africa was S. Cyprians parish saith S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia But I rather believe if we examine their severall stories they will rather prove Metropolitans then meere parochians 3 ly The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordain'd in a Village Castle or Towne It was so decreed in the Councell of Laodicea before the first Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Villages or Countries Bishops must not be constituted And this was renewed in the Councell of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawfull to ordaine Bishops in Villages or little Townes to which one Presbyter is sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Bishops must ordaine Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been * So that this Canon does not make a new Constitution but perpetuates the old sanction Bishops ab antiquo were only ordain'd in great Citties and Presbyters to little Villages Who then was the Parish Curate the Bishop or the Priest The case is too apparent Onely here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Townes and therefore these Canons were not observed and Bishops might be and were parochiall as S. Gregory of Nazianzum Zoticus of Comana Maris in Dolicha The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Theodoret a little Towne This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochiall Bishops * But first suppose these had been parishes and these three parochiall Bishops it followes not that all were not those to be sure which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces and Kingdomes 2 ly It is a cleare case that Nazianzum though a small City yet was the seate of a Bishops throne so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour where it is accounted inter thronos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum is in the same account with Caesarea with Ephesus with Crete with Philippi and almost fourescore more * As for Zoticus he indeed came from Comana a Village towne for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith Nicephorus * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha it was indeed such a small Citty as Nazianzus was but that proves not but his Diocesse and territory was large
enough Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus His seat might usually be in a little Citty if it was one of those townes in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordain'd and yet the appurtenances of his Diocesse large and extended and too great for 100 Parish Priests 4 ly The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan not Parochiall for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visiters as the Councell of Laodicea calls them But what need such Suffragans such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish Indeed they might possibly have been needfull for the managing of a Citty-parish especially if a whole Citty was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochiall But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the country while the Bishop was resident in the Citty either the Bishops parish extended it selfe from Citty to Country and then it is all one with a Diocesse or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch describes their use and power Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias They were to governe the Churches delegated to their charge It seems they had many Churches under their provision and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars for so it followes in the Canon he must not ordaine any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitu◠Regio Without leave of the Bishop of the Citty to whom both himselfe and all the Country is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a Citty wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one Altar in every Church and ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Ierusalem which as Iosephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocesse as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a Citty and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hindred but that there might in a Citty be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may not every Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it selfe and all the Country therefore every parish-parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meere parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi was the Constitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a businesse that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearely that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was may easily be guessed by himselfe who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millaine * And therefore when Valerius as it was then sometimes used in severall Churches had ordain'd S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonicall and yet he was not ordain'd to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Agelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harme in it to this cause they were ordain'd to succeed not in conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schisme by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Faelix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should returne to his See on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied if plenty will doe it in S. Chrysostome Theodoret S. Hierom Oecumenius Optatus S. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole booke of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Prelatorum 6 ly Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochiall then these were at least diocesan by their owne argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainely and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE and esteeme him as their HEAD and doe NOTHING without his consent but those things that appertaine to their owne Diocesse And from hence the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch deriv'd their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae