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-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
and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signify a meere Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sense and not to doe so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the termes These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meere Presbyters * And least it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Ierusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopall and Apostolicall authority and so at Antioch as at Ierusalem where Iames and Iudas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But 2 ly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other countries as appears vers 4. So that although they were all Bishops wee might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplyed incumbency Thus farre then we are upon even termes the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meere Presbyters then Bishops in the proper sense 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his fare-well Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolicall for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witnesse and Trophimus of Arles in France Vbi supra for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premises we have a witnesse beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant eb Lib. 3. cap. 14. Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making hast to keep his Pentecost at Ierusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastorall supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of v. 18. ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage viz. in a collective sense not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travailes but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of v. 25. yee all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for S. Paul sent for him a litle before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at this meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolicall men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gajus and to the other Apostolicall men who had at least Episcopall authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Bishops alone or to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertaine by any intination of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more then probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practise of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it selfe when they were to leave a Church to fixe a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Ierusalem so long before in other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloudy field of Martyrdome was to be fought And the case was equall here for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds and he had actually plac'd a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equall provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either S. Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other sixe Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and S. Timothy had sate in Ephesus and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. Iohn writ his Revelation 6. Lastly that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appeares beyond all
signify all one thing 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of In 4. Ephes. Evangelists Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus S. Philip was one of the seaven commonly called Deacons and he was also a Presbyter and yet an Evangelist and yet a Presbyter in it's proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop or else why are Presbyters cry'd out against so bitterly in all cases for non-residence and yet nothing hinders but that S. Timothy as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together and then why not a Bishop too for why should a Deaconship or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more then a Bishoprick 3. Another acceptation of Evangelist is also in Eusebius Sed alii plurimi per idem Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37. tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant .... Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae .... animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant .... ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes .... Evangelistarum fungebantur officio They that planted the Gospell first in any Country they were Evangelists S. Timothy might be such a one and yet be a Bishop afterwards And so were some of this sort of Evangelists For so Eusebius Primaque apudeos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes atque ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant So that they first converted the Nation and then gouern'd the Church first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops and so was Austin the Monke that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert he was first our Evangelist and afterwards Bishop of Dover Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries as S. Chrysostome Lib. 10. tripart hist. cap. 5. Theodoret. in Scythia S. Trophimus S. Denis S. Marke and many more By the way only according to all these acceptations of the word Evangelist this office does not imply a perpetuall motion Evangelists many of them did travell but they were never the more Evangelists for that but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospell and thence they had their name 4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Oecumenius which are the only true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not alwaies * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules 1. Tim. 6. 14. was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sense neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming to wit to judgement But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopacy then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personall but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stirre there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostome so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be In Ephes. 4. true it makes all this discourse needlesse we were safe enough without it if it be false then it selfe we see is needlesse for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer 1. Reliqui te § 15. S. Titus at Crete Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete 2. His worke was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminall to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectify and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify 2. The next worke is Episcopall too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every Citty Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Citty by Citty that is Elders in severall Citties one in one Citty Many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops 1. In termes and expresse words To ordaine Elders in every Citty If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse That is the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Iohn Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolicall and that 's as much as Episcopall to be sure 3. S. Paul addes farther a Bishop must be blamelesse As THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward Titus 1. and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold saies our blessed Saviour himselfe and therefore not a meere Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE and BEATE his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to
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
the Kings of the Gentiles but as the sonne of man so must your regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers expresse the authority and regiment of Bishops * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius siae saith Origen And S. Hierom Episcopi Sacer dotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet S. Hierom homil 6. in Isai. himselfe writing to S. Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa * Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio S. Bernard lib. 10. de considerat It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chiefe the officers of which Ministration must governe and wee must obey They must governe not in a temporall regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a spirituall not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So S. Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse lib. 19. de civit Dei cap. 19. Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book Qui imperant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio confulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the Propheticall visions where the regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spirituall the other secular And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet saies Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou maist make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdomes by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiasticall rule or cheifty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sinne if it continues and no sinne if it lasts but for a weeke or is it lawfull to sinne and domineere and Lord it over their Brethren for a weeke together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetuall Dictators Calvin was perpetuall president and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and governe in causes Spirituall and Consistoriall and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sinne in Episcopacy to doe so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawfull here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineere and as they call it now a dayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to governe but if the Apostles may governe then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sonnes of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may doe the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easy to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre De Vnitat Eccles consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no waies pertinent to impugne Episcopall authority For inter se they might be equall and yet Superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so Christ said non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporall Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporall principalities as other men Bishops vt sic are not secular Princes must not seeke for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawfull for a Bishop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single acre is no more due to the Order then a Province but both these may be conjunct in the same person though still by vertue of Christs precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermixe the Kingdome and the Priesthood is to joyne things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that S. Peter when he speakes of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propunds her as an example to all married women in these words shee obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should doe so too And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allowes every woman to give to her husband a Mechanick a hard-handed artisan he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church those lights of Christendome whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholike Church Credat Apella 4. PASTOR and FATHER are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c Thy Father in all senses They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not onely in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is knowne * Adde to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13. used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certaine that Duke and Captaine Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greeke and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spirituall regiment and us'd words of secular honour to expresse it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet