Communionem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes ferijs pascalibus in minutissimas incisam partes convenientibus adse hominibus dederunt Quo temport quam quisque voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem Et proptere à quod quilibet quod si visum essct fidei insertum volebat quamplurima defectorum atque haereticorum turba exortaest It is a story worthy observation When any Bishop dyed they would have no other consecrated in succession and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them dyed But how then did they to baptize their Children Why they were faine to make shift and doe it without any Church-solemnity But how did they for the Holy Sacrament for that could not be consecrated without a Priest and he not ordain'd without a Bishop True but therefore they while they had a Bishop got a great deale of bread consecrated and kept a long time and when Easter came cutt it into small bitts or crummes rather to make it goe the farther and gave it to their people And must we doe so too God forbid But how did they when all that was gone For crummes would not last alwaies The story specifies it not but yet I suppose they then got a Bishop for their necessity to help them to some more Priests and some more crummes for I find the Councell of Sevill the Fathers saying Ingressus est ad nos quidem ex haeresi Can. 12. Acephalorum Episcopus They had then it seemes got a Bishop but this they would seldome have and never but when their necessity drave them to it But was this all the inconvenience of the want of Bishops No. For every man saith Nicephorus might doe what he list if he had a mind to it might put his fancy into the Creed and thence came innumerable troopes of Schismaticks and Hereticks So that this device was one simple heresie in the root but it was forty heresies in the fruit and branches clearely proving that want of Bishops is the cause of all Schisme recreant opiniōs that are imaginable I summe this up with the saying of S. Clement Epist. 3. the Disciple of S. Peter Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri c. tribus linguae non obtemperaverint non solùm infames sed extorres à regno Dei consortio fidelium ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ecclesiae alieni erunt All Priests and Clergy-men and People and Nations and Languages that doe not obey their Bishop shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here and of Heaven hereafter It runnes high but I cannot help it I doe but translate Ruffinus as he before translated S. Clement §. 48. And Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great Honour IT seemes then we must have Bishops But must we have Lord Bishops too That is the question now but such an one as the Primitive piety could never have imagined For could they to whom Bishops were placed in a right and a true light they who believed and saw them to be the Fathers of their soules the Guardian of their life and manners as King Edgar call'd S. Dunstan 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 imaginem 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 Can. 10. Graec. 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 Epist. 1. ad Iacobum 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 in civitate 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 desertur 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
enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it 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 Lib. 4. polit c. 15. 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 § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks 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 Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor 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 Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. 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 Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes 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 decrce 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 have 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 §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes 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
they have both election and freedome of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more reall and eternall worth then the Angelicall manner of moving so in an instant and those other formes and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no lesse then specificall If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection doe not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turne For all the world sees that to them that deny the reall presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopall men doe so in all senses and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more then in ordination Nay 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 Epiphanius Haeres 75. Vox est Aerii haeretici unus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broach'd by Aerius 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 § 32. For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters 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 As of Ordination 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 Eccles. hier c. 5. 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 Lib. 6. cap. 33. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. 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 Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is 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 Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had country Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively 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 impertinent * 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 Chorepiscopi 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-Caesarea 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 Neo-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 particulari 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 Civitatis unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res enim 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 Presbyter 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 reddendo 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 liter is 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 incroachment upon the Biships Diocesse and as they were but Vicarij or visitatores 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 Canon 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 Deacons 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 Cities 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 restitution 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 tripart hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret. * 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 Can 19. 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 Balsamon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indeed But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eutychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands on them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Eutychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt 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
have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feele a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and faire arguments of honour but was only in a meere spirituall estimate and ten thousand reall disadvantages This will not be suppos'd either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valere potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in heaven be faire precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper then this foundation of Catholick practise Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 32 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearely intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Councell of Antioch and in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ca. 5. Act. 4. All the most Reverend Bishops cryed out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolicall now cited * Tertullian is something De baptism more particular and instances in Baptisme Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptisme Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So farre the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolicall ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harme done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate But the next words doe of themselves make answer Otherwise lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can doe it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptisme conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to bee repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so saies Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawfull in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptisme Tertullian affirmes De coronâ milit c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom 11. in 1. Tim. S. Hieron dial adv Lucifer the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopall license whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Councell of Gangra forbidding conventicles Can. 6. expresses it with this intimation of Episcopall authority If any man shall make assemblies privately out of the Church so despising the Church or shall doe any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop then the assembly is lawfull * And this thing was so knowne that the Fathers of the second Councell of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to doe their offices without a Ca. 9. license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr aut dissimulantes audactèr praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domicilijs agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses doe offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling Implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopall license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluërit celebrare ipse honroi suo contrarius existit All the Bishops said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 8. part 2. Act. 14. 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 Presbyter is in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem Epist. 86. tingere aut fignare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec
32. conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt nullam se potestatem habere SED IUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councells I produce not as Iudges but as witnesses in the businesse for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it selfe so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Councell of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it selfe is almost 1100. years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense For so it was determin'd Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videatur Concil Carthag Graec. can 36. 38. 41. Balsam ibid. apologia 2. Iustini Martyris according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop ADde to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not goe to another Diocesse So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under paine of suspension or deposition § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse or to travell without leave of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would not returne when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Councell of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixe himselfe in the Diocesse of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed Vide Concil Epaun. c. 5. venet c. 10. in many other Synodall decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocesse is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy men might not travaile from Citty to Citty without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clericall subordination to their Bishop The Councell of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy Can. 41. man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travail without Canonicall or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition Can. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerke must not travaile without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law de consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Councell The same is in the Councell of a Can. 38. Agatho The Councell of b Can. 5. Venice adds a cēsure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Councell of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diacono Can. 6. sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Councell of Tourayne in France and the third Councell of Orleans attest the selfe same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased jurisdiction unlesse it be also remunerative the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but halfe a tye to indeare obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the primitive Church to make the Episcopall jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocesse to the higher Orders and neerer degrees of approximation to himselfe and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPISCOPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour Can. 31. in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not alwaies goe together and also severall Orders had severall manner of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon severall pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainely the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every Church and they passed thorough Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he saies of himselfe and Titus For this cause I SENT thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou shouldest oppoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordain'd them no man questions but he also APPOINTED THEM and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Titus V 5. as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolicall ordinance that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS Let there be halfe so much showne for the people and I will also indeavour to promote their interest **** There is onely one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widdowes * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of soules This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monyes it was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their owne right it was to satisfye the multitude it was to avoid scandall which in the dispensation of moneyes might easily arise it was in a temporary office it was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescrib'd them it was out of the number
Can. 17. Chalcedon and of Constantinople in †Can. 38. Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Common wealth viz. in her regiment and prefefecture * But in the moderne sense of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocesse as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himselfe or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of indeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocesse actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocesse was so much Iust as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocesse yet at first they had but a smal congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocesse I answere that a Diocesse was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of 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 forefathers 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 Can. 6. 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 lib. 5. ca. 23. all these his Successors in the Councell of Chalcedon had the two Phaeniciae and Arabia yeilded Action 7. to them by composition These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes and would have taken up time enough to perambulate had that been then the guise of Christendome * But examples of this kind are infinite Theodorus Bishop Epist. ad Leon 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres 68. of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt Thebais Mareotis Libya Ammoniaca and Pentapolis saith S. Epiphanius And his predecessor Iulianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop * Concil Chalced act 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about Alexandria Either it was a Diocesse or at least a plurality * †Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28. 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 Apud S. Hieron haeres 69. 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 Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom Cyprian Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud Euseb lib. ◠c. 22. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 56. In the Villages or Countries Bishops must not be constituted And this was renewed in the Councell of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 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 Cities 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 * Lib. y. c. 16. Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by †Lib. 5. cap. 4. 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 Ius Graecc-Rom p. 89. 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 Vide Baron An. Dom. 205 n. 27. Comana a Village towne for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith †Lib. 4. c. 25. 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 Gennad apud Hieron Iohan. de Trittenheim de script Eccles. 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 subjicitus 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 Epist. ad Philadelph 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 notevery 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 Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. 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 Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. 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 In 1. Cor. 12. 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 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan haeres 66. n. 6. Possidon in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. 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 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21 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 Lib. 4. cap. 15. note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. †Lib. 4. Epist. 2. 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