give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
thing their appointing Rulers in every Church their Synodal Decrees de suffocato Sanguine and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia their excommunications of Hymeneus and Alexander and the incestuous Corinthian their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things as Saint Paul did of his subjects of Corinth and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical their threatning the Pastoral rod their calling Synods and publick Assemblies their ordering Rites and Ceremonies composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity their publick reprehension of Delinquents and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction SECT III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate THIS Power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons For when the Great Shepherd had reduced his wandring Sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to govern them so long as the Wolf might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem seculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long ago but vobiscum vestri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetual Regiment of the Church for then the Church should fail when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in materiâ censurae as delivering to Satan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance for then it had been done and still these signs should have followed them that believe But we see they do not It follows then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetual assistance For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary Office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a help for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of sence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unless men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and ordination have their sins pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sons of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy SECT IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these Offices and therefore though in a very limited sence they may be called successores Apostolorum to wit in the power of Baptizing consecrating the Eucharist and Preaching an excellent example whereof though we have none in Scripture yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Combination of Apostles yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power and offices which are ordinary and perpetual are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signifie exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apostasie of Judas and Surrogation of Saint Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Apostolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the seventy is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelical prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousness Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith Saint Hierom herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by Saint Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians But this is no way unusual in Scripture For 2. Saint James the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle and yet he was not in the number of the twelve but he was Bishop of Jerusalem First That Saint James was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of Saint Paul But other Apostles saw I none save James the Lords Brother Secondly That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two James's The son of Alpheus and James the son of Zebedee the brother of John But neither of these was the James whom Saint Paul calls the Lords Brother And this Saint Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the Resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to James then to all the Apostles So that here Saint James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity than the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Hegesippus Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierom. Thirdly That Saint James was Bishop of Jerusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Gal. 2. even before Saint Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Gratiâ unus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus as S. Augustin yet in his own
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. John although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made James sirnamed the Just Bishop of Jerusalem and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. James also his Predecessor The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum c. Just as Anacletus before S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter James and Iohn were his Ordainers But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records S. Cyrill of Jerusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solum sed etiam Apostolis Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and again he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocess S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus There are many more testimonies to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Council of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself If by Ordinatus he means designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turn for the present But either in one sence or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó S. James had first the Episcopal chair for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we add what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it follows from the premisses and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have been But that this also was not a temporary business and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium Iacobi traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first Iames and next Simeon Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est SECT XIV S. Timothy at Ephesus THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture For S. Paul imposed hands on him that 's certain Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum By the laying on of my hands That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him First He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publick necessities of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional And when it was his cure was supplied by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife c. Thirdly S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young For a Bishop must be no striker But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City 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 plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie 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 drink and be drunk and beat 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 wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
wanting or amiss to silence vain prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordain elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithful for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already proved and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unless they could be their own superiours SECT XXI Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters BUT a Council or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they ruled without him This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom which I will set down here that we may leave the Sun without a cloud S. Jerome's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himself most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quâ—d facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordain a Bishop does which is a clear difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non faciat not non facit that a Priest may not must not do that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary and by actual indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and original right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had been quickly answered if the Question had only been de facto for the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters and this was by custom and in fact at least S. Hierome says it and the Bishop took so much power to himself that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complained of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference That then if Saint Hierome says true being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate * Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needs a proof and this he undertook Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects An identity at least of Names for else it had been wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a business next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certain if he stand to his own principles This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction I know not certainly which he means for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of Jurisdiction Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he means the first viz. that of Names it is well enough there is no harm done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so far as may be guessed by his words a parity and
most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms 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 properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest 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 Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas 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 secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical 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 witness and Trophimus of Arles in France for so it 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 premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities * 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 Pastoral 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 verse 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 voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye 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 Saint Paul sent for him a little 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 his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected 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 Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain by any intimation 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 than probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought And the case was equal here for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equal provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other six 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 Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a clear evidence that this nullity viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Jerome Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aerius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemned and branded for heresie and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring than positive and Canonical Sanction But now proceed The Council held in Trullo complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence and made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Council And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to do them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are named before viz. Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Council was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop used by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordain Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism but no fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordain him and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a ruled case and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church which was set down in the third Council of Carthage Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui Vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have been the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himself ordain many and then I am sure there is a sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Council the Council of Antioch the Council of Chalcedon and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem If thou speak saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordained him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars add this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them and were causes in conjunction But unless they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes and persons of Clergy-men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio Nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and 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 dispencer 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 himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop 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 himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far 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 travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer 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 only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor 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 dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we 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 lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs He intreats them pro dilectione because they loved him he Commands them pro religione by their religion for it was a piece of their religion to obey him and in him was the government of his Church else how could he have put the Presbyters and Deacons in substitution * Add to this It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks yet the Clergy did approve and examine the persons to be ordained and it being a thing of publick interest it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation and ministration too and for this S. Chrysostome was accused in Concilio nefario as the title of the edition of it expresses it that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church for so he ordained Celerinus so he ordained Optatus and Saturnus when himself was from his Church and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministration of the daily offices *** He did as much in jurisdiction too and censures for himself did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus and Repostus and Irene and Paula as appears in his 38 and 39 Epistles and tells Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by vertue of his Episcopal authority And the same power singly and solely he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution Vnus atque alius obnitente Plebe contradicente mea tamen facilitate suscepti sunt Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed but yet the absolution said to be his own act against the people and without the Clergy For he alone was the Judge insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresie that the Bishop was not obeyed Nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur and that one high Priest in a Church and Judge instead of Christ is not admitted So that the Bishop must be one and that one must be Judge and to acknowledge more in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresie Farther yet this Judicatory of the Bishop is independant and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus and again habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus The Bishop is Lord of his own actions and may do what seems good in his own eyes and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This general account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6th and 8th Epistles and indeed the whole Question But for the 18th Epistle there is something of peculiar answer For first it was a case of publick concernment and therefore he would so comply with the publick interest as to do it by publick council 2dly It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar Necessitas temporum facit ut non temerè pacem demus they are the first words of the next epistle which is of the same matter for if the lapsi had been easily and without a publick and solemn trial reconcil'd it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent and Martyrdom but seldom 3dly The common-council which S. Cyprian here said he would expect was the council of the Confessors to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publick assoyling of such penitents who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome So that this is evidently an act of positive and temporary discipline and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop so to be sure no advantage to the Presbyter * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered and that runs something higher tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ But from this we are fairly delivered by the title Cypriano Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus Caldonius salutem It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan and now what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so publick consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolical and so he did and no harm done to the present Question of the Bishops sole and independent power and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery who had nothing to do beyond ministery counsel and assistance 3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was there were not always a Colledge of Presbyters but only in the greatest Churches for sometime in the lesser Cities there were but two Esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini sint per Ecclesias unus in civitate Episcopus so S. Ambrose sometimes there was but one in a Church Post-humianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case Deinde qui unum Presbyterum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri The Church of Hippo had but one Valerius was the Bishop and Austin was the Priest and after him Austin was the Bishop and Eradius the Priest Sometimes not one as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited of a Church that hath never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died and once at Hippo they had none even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Judge alone I am sure he had but little company sometimes none at all 4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty and possibility of Scandal for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Concilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these Churches where Presbyters were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecutions and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism for a discontented spirit will hide it self and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus rather than not take complacence in an imaginary
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
Confirmation 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of laying on of hands meaneth Confirmation and not Absolution nor Ordination 10 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church 13 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 ss 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism 20. b. Friers Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation though they were but Presbyters 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation 25 26. b. The Ceremonies of it 24 25. b. Of the change made in us by it 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism 29. b. The reason was because few were then baptized but adult persons ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years 29 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled 32. b. Conscience That authority is most effectual which is seated there 160 § 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed Pref. to Discourse of Repentance The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration 781 n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention ibid. Consequent The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent 679 n. 62. Consignare Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church 20. b. Contrition A description of Contrition 829 n. 28 29. The efficacy of it in repentance 670 n. 61. What it is 821 n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act 829 n. 31. 1 Corinth Chap. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 58 § 9. and 11.29 Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained 218 § 8. and 898. and 6.12 expl 619 n. 23. and 10.23 ibid. and 2.14 expl 723 n. 53. and 785 n. 44. and 11.27 expl 814 n. 59. 2 Corinth Chap. 15.21 expl 712 n. 15. and 12.21 expl 803 n. 12. and 1.21 22. Now he which confirmeth us and hath anointed and sealed expl 28. b. Corporal Austerities Or penances 858 n. 111. They are not simply necessary ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance 846 n. 75. How they are to be used 846 847 n. 76 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary 847 n. 78 79. Covenant Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works 588 n. 7. Councils Presbyters had not the power of voting in them 136 § 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. Presbyters as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council Act. 15. p. 137 § 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained 147 § 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council 150 § 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past 290. c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself 267 § 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils 392 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council but in France and Germany none at all 392. General Councils not infallible 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding 393. How to know which are General Councils 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils who not 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. What if two parties call each their Council 395. How shall the decision be in a Council if the Bishops be divided in their opinions 395. Who hath power to call a general Council 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds ibid. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem mentioned Act. 15. p. 948 n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical 948 § 6. per tot Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one 991 n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation 986 987 988 989 ad fin sect Saint Augustine teacheth that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops 991 n. 8. The Roman Council under
calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Saint Peter did not act as having any superiority over the Apostles 310 c. 1. § 10. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Saint Peter in that power he had more then any other 310. Pope Victor and Pope Stephen were opposed by other Bishops 310. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. The Romanists teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. He hath power as the Romanists teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. He is to be obeyed according to their doctrine though he command Sin or forbid Vertue 345. He takes upon him to depose Princes that are not heretical 345. The greatness of the Pope's power 345. Sixtus Quintus did in an Oration in the Conclave solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry III. of France 346 c. 3. § 3. Of the Pope's confirming a General Council 395. A General Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's Confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing Hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Sixtus V. and some other Popes were Simoniacal 401. A Simoniacal Pope is no Pope ibid. An Heretical Pope is no Pope ibid. What Popes have been heretical 401 402. What Popes have been guilty of those crimes that disannul their authority 400 401 402. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of Faith 446 447. Of his Infallibility 995 § 7. per tot He the Romanists teach can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Roman Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgment was not esteemed infallible 453. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. An instance of a Pope's skill in the Bible 505. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. The same Pope that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion lawful 520. When the Pope excommunicated Saint Cyprian all Catholicks absolved him 957 n. 22. Some Papists hold that the Popedome is separable from the Bishoprick of Rome how then can he get any thing by the title of Succession 999. Divers ancient Bishops lived separate from the Communion of the Roman Pope 1002. The Bishops of Liguria and Istria renounced subjection to the Patriarchate of Rome and set up one of their own at Aquileia ibid. Divers Popes were Hereticks 1003. Possible Two senses of it 580 n. 34. Prayer The practice of the Heathens in their prayers and hymns to their gods 3 n. 11. Against them that deny all Set forms of Prayer 2 n. 6. seq Against those that allow any Set forms of prayer but those that are enjoyned by Authority 13 n. 51. Prescribed forms in publick are more for the edification of the Church then the other kind 14 n. 56. ad 65. The Lord's Prayer was given to be a Directory not onely for the matter of prayer but the manner or form too 19 n. 75. The Church hath the gift of Prayer and can exercise it in none but prescribed Forms 18 n. 69 70. Our Lord gave his Prayer to be not onely a Copy but a prescribed Form 19 n. 78. The practice of the Primitive Church in this matter 21 n. 86. Whether the Primitive Church did well in using publick prescribed Forms of Prayer and upon what grounds 25 n. 97. An answer to that Objection That Set forms limit the Spirit 30 n. 116. That Objection that Ministers may be allowed a liberty in their Prayers as well as their Sermons answered 32 n. 129. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. The Romanists teach that neither attention nor devotion are required in our prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. Of the Scripture and Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. A Pope gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Of Prayer as a fruit or act of Repentance 848 n. 80. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The opinion and practice of the ancient Church in the language of publick Prayers 303 304. The Papists corrupted the Imperial law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown tongue 304 c. 1. § 7. The authority of a Pope and General Council against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayer 328 c. 2. § 8. Prayer for the dead The Primitive Fathers that practised it did not think of Purgatory 501. Saint Augustine prayed for his dead Mother when he believed her to be a Saint in Heaven 501 502. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis proved to mean prayer and not thanksgiving onely 502. Instances out of the Latin Missal where prayers are made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers 512. Preach Presbyters in Africk by Law were not allowed to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyter Tit. 1.15 it signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. Presbyters in Jerusalem were something more then Presbyters in other Churches 97 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in these words in quo Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. In what sense it is true that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Apostles in Scripture styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never called Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop 98 § 31. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter 105 § 32. Photius was â—he first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The Bishop alone could
one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Jerom affirm and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius and others of the Fathers did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles than he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It follows then since as will more fully appear anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I mean not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appears from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coercion was more necessary than at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority 2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual not so as to have all that which was personal and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine authority for our government which we must contend to do and do it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they failed in the founding of the Church and the Church is built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained or else we must be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches If these seven Angels were seven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself and given by him insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be supposed he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness they had not else been Angels of light nor stars held in Christs own right hand This is certain that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angel therefore is not cannot be meant the whole Church 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church First Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and divers others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they watch for your Souls And the second of Apostles and Apostolick men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren for these men although they were but of the LXXII at first yet by this time were made Apostles and chief men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Went up and down confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirm the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no less than Episcopal or Apostolical and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and divers others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called His Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have known thy Ministery His office therefore was clerical it
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work of the most secret mystery greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counterpoise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would infer an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be served 1. Then whether power be greater of Ordaining Priests or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question possibly it may be of some danger because in comparing Gods ordinances there must certainly be a depression of one and whether that lights upon the right side or no yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God to do that which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing but however it is unprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fix it self upon any basis there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in several respects For since they are all in order to several ends that is productive of several effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect For example Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve Chastity and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism which does neither But * Baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs natural body as the Schools speak the other in order to his mystical body and so have their several excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fix that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they go both before and after one another Thus Wool and a Jewel are better than each other for wool is better for warmth and a jewel for ornament A frogg hath more sense in it than the Sun and yet the Sun shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more it is all that which makes the Priest and it is something more besides which makes the Bishop Indeed if the Bishop had it not and the Priest had it then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination the Priest would not only equal but excel the Bishop but because the Bishop hath that and ordination besides therefore he is higher both in Order and Dignity 4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power yet a lesser power than it superadded to the Bishops may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the son of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower than the Angels It was but a little lower and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis a little lower than the Bishop the Angel of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angel and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence they both discourse they have both election and freedom 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 real and eternal worth than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no less than specifical 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 do not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turn For all the world sees that to them that deny the real presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so in all sences and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more than 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 main Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the Laws of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impress of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independently as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answer It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent 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 dependent 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 ordain a Presbyter with a power that
himself hath not can he give what himself hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Vox est Aerii haeretici Vnus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broached by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanced by many of the Church of Rome SECT XXXII For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters As of Ordination FOR to clear the distinction of order it is evident in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition Apostolical The first and second Canons of Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop and one Bishop should ordain a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain a Bishop is S. Dionysius affirms Sacerdotem non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius To this we may add as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontifical 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 Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rural Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess they must not ordain Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is anothers Diocess and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopal Ordination at first but not Episcopal Jurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manus 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 countrey 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 Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more than 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 ordain any but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to do it if these should do it the City Presbyters who were often dispatched 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 than it did or that they might go beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Add to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not been their bridle The sum of the Canon is this With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might ordain for themselves had Episcopal ordination but without license 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 City Presbyters might not ordain neither with nor without license 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 unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catholick 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 practice Apostolical is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is clear 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 Episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church and exigence of Catholick custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of
Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and in the Imperial constitutions Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in commission or practice or penalty all this while I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffered to take it away This Council was held in the year 657 and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West but for almost 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtained that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they do but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice * I know not what can be said against it I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters If Bishops then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order which because it was as I observed before against the practice of Christendom will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius I answer that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one or the other for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordained was ordained but to be a Reader and that was no Order of Divine institution no gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore might be dispensed by one or more by Bishops or Presbyters and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost and of Divine ordinance and therefore this although I have seen it once pretended yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practice of Primitive Antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop What think we of the reformed Churches 1. For my part I know not what to think The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all that they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church we found these men zealous in it we thanked God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations not thinking what would follow upon our selves But now it is come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church than what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sin in us If they did ill from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands as appears by comparing the two Epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signifie a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the fouth Council of Carthage much less do it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity than erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else lose the being of a Church for want of Episcopal ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and great learning does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany England France and Italy that joyned in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would fain learn that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopal ordination as both their friends and their enemies bear
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a non-Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon And Vigor Episcopalis and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoyns calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis to the top or height of Episcopacy Apices Principes omnium so Optatus calls Bishops the Chief and Head of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prelate or Prefect of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Governs the Church in that place * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat Saint Sylvester the Bishop held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose Honor Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers and are made their Subjects and in the next Chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop c. * The other is of S. Hierom Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all there will be as many Schisms as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of them then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority and all the whole Diocess are his subjects viz. in regimine Spirituali SECT XXXV Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity BUT from words let us pass to things For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience Universal obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin again with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gain by it for the more Primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man But to our business S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis So the Latin of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye do you should attempt nothing without your Bishop And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo in nullo illi refragari It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop and in nothing to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam sic vos sine Episcopo nec Diaconus nec Laiconus nec Laicus Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium quod enim tale est Deo inimicum Here is obedience universal both in respect of things and persons and all this no less than absolutely necessary For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things saying of my self I can do nothing so nor you without your Bishop whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Layman Let nothing please you which the Bishop
great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their souls * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32 Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopal dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops SECT XXXVI Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coercion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coercion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him unless the Bishop that censured him be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Council only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops Si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Council with frivolous appeals and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemn him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop and the other of the Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a Priest or Deacon by his own Bishop if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exteras opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturb the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Judge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the Audientia Episcopalis The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the
and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sin of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiastical because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spiritual because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity for such things only are properly spiritual 5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arm either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part an external and an internal this is derived from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Judge of that or that the Bishops were not but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick who would not submit to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power It was so in the case of Aetiu◠the Arian and Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperor For all that the Prefect did or the Emperor in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholicks but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie for all his confident appeal and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personal delinquencies * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges though Delegates of the Emperor Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose in his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offered at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers and jurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance in stead of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops The Militia and the Politia are thine but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse That he would be pleased to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by Gods law they did appertain upon which intimation given the Bishops convened in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A Divine right to decide the Article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperor it is not lawful for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperor to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Council These are two distinct powers one from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
it I do not say without leave but I say they had leave given them when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence as it is to this day when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge he also gives power hoc ipso of officiating in that place So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions then they were to have leave but this license was also temporary but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum and that was done in subsidium Muneris Episcopalis because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter but if he was present a new leave was necessary because as the power always was in the Bishop so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person himself if he listed might officiate All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter Valerius the Bishop being a Greek born and not well spoken in the Latin tongue and so unfit for publick orations Eidem Presbytero viz. to Austin potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem Consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesiarum He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter to preach in the Church even while himself was present indeed against the use and Custom of the African Churches And for this Act of his he suffered soundly in his report * For the case was thus In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresie the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all at least in the Mother Church and in the Bishops presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Socrates Thence came this Custom in the African Churches But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able and himself for want of Latin so unfit he gave leave to Austin to preach before him against the custom of the African Churches But he adds this reason for his excuse too it was not indeed the custom of Africa but it was of the Oriental Churches For so Possidonius proceeds Sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach Dummodo factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minime posse cernebat which determines us fully in the business For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices which shows the Presbyters in their several charges whether of temporary mission or fixt residence to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Solicitudinis to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess Against this it is objected out of S. Hierom and it is recorded by Gratian Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere Behold I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop So Gratian quotes it indeed but S. Hierome says the express contrary unless we all have false copies For in S. Hierome it is not Ecce ego dico but Nec ego dico He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop Indeed S. Hierom is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach nor to bless c. This perhaps it was not well done but this makes not against the former discourse for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages and multiplication of Christians and Parishes yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus to shew he did amiss because he would not give his Presbyters license * And this he also reprehends in his Epistle ad Nepotianum Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop that was an ill custom to wit as things then stood and it was mended presently after for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence but it was by license from their Ordinary For so Possidonius relates that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned Postea currente volante hujusmodi famâ bono praecedente exemplo accepta ab Episcopis potestate Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis populis tractare coeperunt verbum Dei By occasion of this precedent it came to pass that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Council of Vase Now if this evidence of Church practice be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome let him then first be reconciled to himself and then we are sure to be helped For in his dialogue against the Luciferians his words are these Cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi Because the Bishop hath an eminent power and this power is necessary thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave ** This whole discourse shews clearly not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction but that they have sole jurisdiction and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge SECT XXXVIII Reserving Church-goods to Episcopal dispensation ** DIVERS other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons as that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards at the Bishops So it is in the 41 Canon of the Apostles so it is in the Council of Gangra and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation without express delegation from the Bishop as appears in the seventh and eighth Canons and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council * And therefore when in success of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop of this
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self 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 sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess 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 in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City 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 Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel 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 Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure 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 Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit 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 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 always go together and also several Orders had several manners 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 several 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 certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
Patriarchat These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops Now then either Bishops were Parochial or no If no then they were Diocesan if yea then at least many of them were Diocesan for they had according to this rate many Parochial Bishops under them * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle but as now adays it is made the consideration of it is material to the main Question Only this I add That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge and no more and each of these towns had in them 170 families and were bound to have no more how should this man be confuted It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question by pretending that the Bishops were only Parochial not Diocesan and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest Most certainly themselves could not believe the allegation only they knew it would raise a dust But by Gods providence there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it SECT XLIV And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired ANOTHER consideration must here be interposed concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the several Churches For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution or Apostolical ordinance yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church for those men that call the Bishop a Pope are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too and to make every Diocess a Roman Consistory 1. Then the first thing we hear of Presbyters after Scripture I mean for of it I have already given account is from the testimony of S. Hierome Antequam studiain religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli c. communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Before factions arose in the Church the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches or after Bishops were appointed If before Bishops were appointed no hurt done the Presbyters might well rule in common before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the Diocess beside For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock until God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defailance in time of persecution and so were put to penance praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantisper sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur The Presbyters whom sede vacante he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop * But if S. Hierome means this saying of his after Bishops were fixt then his expression answers the allegation for it was but communi Consilio Presbyterorum the Judicium might be solely in the Bishop he was the Judge though the Presbyters were the counsellors For so himself adds that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth it was decreed in all the World ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret all the care of the Diocess was in the Bishop and therefore all the power for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters * And so S. Ignatius stiles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius The Bishop is the Ruler without him though all concurr'd yet nothing could be done nothing attempted The Bishop was Superiour in all power and authority He was to be obeyed in all things and contradicted in nothing The Bishops judgment was to sway and nothing must seem pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishops sentence this and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of is in Ignatius And now let their assistance and counsel extend as far as it will the Bishops authority is invulnerable But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierom's Sect. thither I refer the Reader 2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us if any man for of all the Bishops he did acts of the greatest condescention and seeming declination of Episcopal authority But let us see the worst Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere And again quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere And a third time Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectat praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in Materiâ juridicâ The sum whereof is this that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence and resolved to do nothing without their advice But then consider also it was statui apud me I have resolved with my self to do nothing without your Counsel It was no necessity ab extrà no duty no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty it was his own voluntary act 2. It was as well Diaconorum as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles Cyprianus Presbyteris ac Diaconis fratribus salutem So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common than the Deacons by any Divine Law or Catholick practice 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too and that will as well disturb the Jus Divinum of an independant Presbytery as of an independant Episcopacy But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian like Moses qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit ut solus possit praeesse populo seniores elegit to use S. Hierome's expression who when it was in his power alone to rule the people yet chose seventy Elders for assistants For as for S. Cyprian this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired For he shews what himself alone could do Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ religione quam satis novi his literis hortor mando c. I intreat and Command you vice meâ sungamini
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from St. Augustin and others also do from hence baptize Infants though with a less opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same form of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in form of words be exactly and per omnia alike appendant to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist If nisi quis renatus shall conclude against the Anabaptist for necessity of baptizing Infants as sure enough we say it does why shall not an equal nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole ages did follow their own principles where ever they led them and seeing that upon the same ground equal results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not do so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of Oral manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spiritual manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no means can understand And in these cases no external determiner can be pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecal to the words as Councils Traditions Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practice contrary to the present opinion as is plain by their communicating Infants by virtue of nisi comederitis 8. Fifthly I shall not need to urge the mysteriousness of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spiritual which are rather to be felt than discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publick consideration they will therefore be opposed because they run the same fortune with many other Questions that is not to be understood and so much the rather because their understanding that is the feeling such secrets of the Kingdom are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publick revelation but of the publick spirit privately working and in no man is a duty but in all that have it is a reward and is not necessary for all but given to some producing its operations not regularly but upon occasions personal necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation belief of particular salvation special influences and comforts coming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actual fervours and great complacencies in devotion spiritual joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtains of peace and eternity and antepasts of immortality But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries and it is hard for any man so to understand as to make others do so too that feel them not is cause that in â—any Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easie to be mistaken there is a necessity in forbearing one another and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery 9. Sixthly But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the terms and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determined by things accidental and extrinsecal they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extreamly disparate and sometimes contrary but very often of great variety And this very thing happens also in Scripture that if it were not in re sacrâ seriâ it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves several turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgment and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholly to a differing sence It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome is tibi dabo claves It was spoken to Peter and none else sometimes and therefore it concerns him and his Successours only the rest are to derive from him And yet if you question them for their Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution then tibi dabo claves comes in and that was spoken to S. Peter and in him to the whole College of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free souls from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keys are only for binding and loosing on Earth directly and in Heaven consequently and that Purgatory is a part of Hell or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell and so the Keys seem to have nothing to do with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keys shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keys shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councils to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Laws And if his Key of knowledge will not the Key of Authority shall and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all We have an instance in the single fancy of one man what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of Oravi pro te Petre Luke 22. for that place says Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither err personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did err personally might not err judicially and that the Roman Church might not err personally All this variety of sence is pretended by the fancy of one man to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture And what then in those thousands that are intricate So is done with pasce oves which a man would think were a Commission as innocent and guiltless of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himself Universal Bishop Pasces oves is his warrant Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes Pasce oves said Christ to Peter the second time If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorizing his subjects to kill him Pasce agnos said Christ the third time And pasce is doce and pasce is Impera and pasce is occide Now if others should take the same
Hereticks to death till they grew wanton with prosperity But when the reputation of the Governours was concerned when the interests of men were endangered when they had something to lose when they had built their estimation upon the credit of disputable Questions when they began to be jealous of other men when they over-valued themselves and their own Opinions when some persons invaded Bishopricks upon pretence of new Opinions then they as they thrived in the favour of Emperours and in the successe of their Disputes solicited the temporal power to banish to fine to imprison and to kill their adversaries 5. So that the case stands thus In the best times amongst the best men when there were fewer temporal ends to be served when Religion and the pure and simple designs of Christianity were onely to be promoted in those times and amongst such men no persecution was actual nor perswaded nor allowed towards disagreeing persons But as men had ends of their own and not of Christ as they receded from their duty and Religion from its purity as Christianity began to be compounded with interests and blended with temporal designs so men were persecuted for their Opinions This is most apparent if we consider when Persecution first came in and if we observe how it was checked by the holiest and the wisest persons 6. The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his followers who were condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus Which instance although Saint Hierom observes as a punishment and judgement for the crime of Heresie yet is of no use in the present Question because Maximus put some Christians of all sorts to death promiscuously Catholick and Heretick without choice and therefore the Priscillianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholicks as the Catholicks upon them 7. But when Vrsatus and Stacius two Bishops procured the Priscillianists death by the power they had at Court Saint Martin was so angry at them for their cruelty that he excommunicated them both And Saint Ambrose upon the same stock denied his communion to the Itaciani And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this Hoc modo says he homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati sunt The example was worse then the men If the men were hereticall the execution of them however was unchristian 8. But it was of more Authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated the Emperour and prevailed for the banishment of Arius Of this we can give no other account but that by the history of the time we see baseness enough and personal misdemeanour and factiousnesse of spirit in Arius to have deserved worse then banishment though the obliquity of his Opinion were not put into the balance which we have reason to believe was not so much as considered because Constantine gave toleration to differing Opinions and Arius himself was restored upon such conditions to his Countrey and Office which would not stand with the ends of the Catholicks if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of perswasions 9. I am still within the scene of Ecclesiasticall persons and am considering what the opinion of the learnedst and the holiest Prelates was concerning this great Question If we will believe Saint Austin who was a credible person no good man did allow it Nullis tamen bonis in Catholica hoc placet si usque ad mortem in quenquam licèt haereticum saeviatur This was Saint Austin's final opinion For he had first been of the mind that it was not honest to doe any violence to mis-perswaded persons and when upon an accident happening in Hippo he had altered and retracted that part of the opinion yet then also he excepted Death and would by no means have any mere Opinion made capital But for ought appears Saint Austin had greater reason to have retracted that retractation then his first opinion for his saying of nullis bonis placet was as true as the thing was reasonable it should be so Witnesse those known Testimonies of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius S. Hierom Severus Sulpitius Minutius Hilary Damascen Chrysostome Theophylact and Bernard and divers others whom the Reader may find quoted by the Archbishop of Spalato Lib. 8. de Rep. Eccl. c. 8. 10. Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversary nor contrary instances but in Atticus of CP Theodosius of Synada in Stacius and Vrsatus before reckoned Onely indeed some of the later Popes of Rome began to be busie and unmercifull but it was then when themselves were secure and their interests great and their temporal concernments highly considerable 11. For it is most true and not amisse to observe it that no man who was under the Ferula did ever think it lawfull to have Opinions forced or Hereticks put to death and yet many men who themselves have escaped the danger of a pile and a faggot have changed their opinion just as the case was altered that is as themselves were unconcerned in the suffering Petilian Parmenian and Gaudentius by no means would allow it lawfull for themselves were in danger and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanced but Gregory and †Leo Popes of Rome upon whose side the authority and advantages were thought it lawfull they should be punished and persecuted for themselves were unconcerned in the danger of suffering And therefore Saint Gregory commends the Exarch of Ravenna for forcing them who dissented from those men who called themselves the Church And there were some Divines in the lower Germany who upon great reasons spake against the tyranny of the Inquisition and restraining Prophesying who yet when they had shaken off the Spanish yoke began to persecute their brethren It was unjust in them in all men unreasonable and uncharitable and often increases the errour but never lessens the danger 12. But yet although the Church I mean in her distinct and Clerical capacity was against destroying or punishing difference in Opinion till the Popes of Rome did superseminate and perswade the contrary yet the Bishops did perswade the Emperours to make Laws against Hereticks and to punish disobedient persons with Fines with Imprisonment with Death and Banishment respectively This indeed calls us to a new account For the Churchmen might not proceed to bloud nor corporal inflictions but might they not deliver over to the Secular arm and perswade Temporal Princes to doe it For this I am to say that since it is notorious that the doctrine of the Clergy was against punishing Hereticks the Laws which were made by the Emperours against them might be for restraint of differing Religion in order to the preservation of the publick Peace which is too frequently violated by the division of Opinions But I am not certain whether that was alwaies the reason or whether or no some Bishops of the Court did
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busie man in anothers Diocess This and such Impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by Saint John himself as is intimated in Saint John's third Epistle written to his Gaius v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrel for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to do v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is clear this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal preheminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his design He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop SECT VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters BUT this Office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its Fountain from a Rock Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith Saint Luke He called his Disciples and out of them chose twelve and called them Apostles That was the first election Post haec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos That was his second election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them by two and two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their Names were written in Heaven We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own And so we do For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clerical commission by vertue of Christ's first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clerical offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts Others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Councel for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and Saint Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem these and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72. by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while SECT VII Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not THEN It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church and therefore to be committed to their Successors which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy The Law of God hath reserved the greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order First The Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations which the 72. did not the case is known Acts 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to chuse seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poor They did so and set them before the twelve Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72. who were there actually present and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministery for they were not now ordained to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councel of Constantinople calls them and that these were the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witness He sent other 72. to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the Widows And the same is intimated by Saint Chrysostom if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dignity had these seven here ordained Of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of Saint Chrysostom pro more suo adds this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seven was no less but even the dignity of Presbyters only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is clear that the 72. were present for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident they were not yet sent abroad they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affair vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them Secondly An instance parallel to this is in the imposition of hands upon Saint Paul and Barnabas in the first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Saul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while these men were ministring the Holy Ghost said to them separate me Barnabas and Saul They did so they fasted they prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed into Seleucia This is the story now let us make our best on 't Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands compleat and that was said to be done by the Holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch For they sent them away and yet the next words are so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost So that here was the thing done and that by the Prophets alone and that by the command of the Holy Ghost and said to be his act Well! but what were these Prophets They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch not such as Agabus and the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist Prophets of prediction extraordinary but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers and Ministers More than ordinary
Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi ordinis none of the twelve but such as Saint James and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and Saint Paul himself To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke for here it was that Saint Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters and therefore they imposed hands and they only And yet to make the business up compleat Saint Mark was amongst them but he imposed no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as Saint Paul himself was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist and one of the 72. Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were less than Prophets that is who were not more than meer Presbyters The sum is this Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne gens sit Vnius aetatis lest it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto and were commanded to do so and the 72. never did so therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy as the Church it self SECT VIII And Confirmation SECONDLY The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergy could not is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost Saint Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72. Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows yet he could not do this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For Saint Philip could and did do miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus Saint Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelve only but Apostolick men the other Apostles Saint Paul did it Saint Philip could not nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired First Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternal and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent he dyed suddenly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporal punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church and the power of the Keys is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith these miracles at first did confirm the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appears from these considerations First Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum the Holy Ghost in his stead and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father This was pertinent to all Christendom Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem so it was in the Prophecy For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to all them that are afar off even to as many as the Lord shall call So it was in the first accomplishing To all And this for ever for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you and he shall abide with you for ever for it was in subsidium to supply the comforts of his desired presence and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again Now then this promise being to be communicated to all and that for ever must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission or by 2. an ordinary Ministery Not the first for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
is most plentiful Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio dicit Petro c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops and the Church is built upon them and every action of the Church is to be governed by them and this is founded upon a Divine law Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contra nos audere Diaconi à quibus fiunt We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirms there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelical power did institute that calling for the modus of whose election it took such particular order S. Ignatius long before him speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Jesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearful thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceivable God For this contumely relates not to man but to God So S. Ignatius which could not be true were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them This is plain and dogmatical I would be loth to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speak half so much against us But it is a general resolve and no private opinion For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his ascension into Heaven he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops But long before him Hegesippus going to Rome and by the way calling in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit Prophetae indicaverunt Et Dominus Statuit All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed All things therefore both of doctrine and discipline and therefore the ordinations themselves too Further yet and it is worth observing there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated that the order of Bishops did come from God S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis certum a true and certain or indeleble character secundùm placitum Patris according to the will of God the Father And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit God from whom all good things do come did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop And again Honor igitur Fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares c. And a little after Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence and is by God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasce oves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have pastoral or Episcopal authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were divers others there present therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councils of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sextus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi
provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compellest me to shed tears Suaviter omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekly but yet so as to do his office to keep all in their several duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widows Give all these things in charge Command all to do their duty Command but not objurgate Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his Jurisdiction over Presbyters and people if he had had no Jurisdiction and coercive authority at all Nay and howsoever Saint Paul forbids Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it intimating upon great occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be but an urging or an exhortation is not all for S. Paul gives him coercive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger widows viz. à collegio viduarum ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae Over Presbyters for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters of which if he was not to take cognizance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminal That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power to take cognizance in causes criminal then for his punishing in such cases it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reprehend them publickly that is disgrace them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul is to call them to publick account that 's one part of the jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to examine Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give an account of ones life Idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad But the words in S. Paul will clear the business Let them that sin be publickly shamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may fear A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they fear to sin Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for fear of being punished Add to all this that here is in this Chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction an erection of a Judicatory and is all the way direction for his proceeding in cases criminal appears most evidently v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under publick test of witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing nothing for favour or partiality Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory than these mandates of S. Paul Lastly to make up his Episcopal function compleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders Lay hands suddenly on no man Sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri Nè facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem peccat enim si non probat sic ordinet Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est Haec Episcopus custodiens castum se exhibebit religioni cujus rei infuturo praemium consequetur So S. Ambrose upon the place who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops Consistory that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the Judicature and coercive Jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholick and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul Sed Lucas saith he in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat sicut Timothei Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus ab eo ordinatus praeficitur S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopal Office Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united concurrent testimony of S. Vincentius Tertullian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Oecumenius Epiphanius Primasius and S. Gregory As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aerius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one Docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus Presbyterum ne objurges c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus Who desires a multitude of testimonies though enough already have deposed in the cause besides the evidence of Scripture may to these add that saying of S. Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Theodoret calling him Episcopum Asianorum the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy which if it were not writ by S. Paul yet at least will prove a Primitive record and very ancient the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius S. Hierom S. Theophylact Isidore and Nicephorus And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause and though neither pertinent nor true yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity But do the work of an Evangelist saith S. Paul therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop No was not That 's hard But let us try however 1.
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sed bonum opus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title but a good Office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Julius â—ollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angels and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church the Angel for his excellency of the Church for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence the Bishop and in descent of time it came to pass that the compellation which was alwayes his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls * And besides this so fair a Copy besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the Prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have shewn before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for Saint Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and fair congruity of reason SECT XXV Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cum Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so follows in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most blessed and worthy Pastor * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis urbibus convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the Pastors and not only so but Presbyters were not called Pastors for he proceeds sed Presbyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem convenerunt So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincials be wanting he must be certified by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis sititis c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called Pastores magni Great Shepherds or Pastors * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui saith Theodoret They wept for the loss of their Pastor And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity Et Pastorem inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a Pastor a Bishop certainly for himself was a Priest and his commands we follow But I need not specifie any more particular instances I touch'd upon it before He that shall consider that to Bishops the Regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first and the Presbyters were but his Assistants in Cities and Villages and were admitted in partem soll citudinis first casually and cursorily and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided and endowed will easily see that this word Pastor must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intrusted first solely then in communication with others but alwayes principally * But now of late especially
chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch in quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum praecipuus Sacerdos Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Cesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae Sacerdotes Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecim annis Sacerdotio ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in Sacerdotium Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith Eusebius and the Bishop of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter says quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit Sacerdotem *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when Antistes Ecclesiae was the word Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greek and used for the Bishop by Justin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with Praelatus and praepositus Ecclesiae Antistes autem Sacerdos dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae supra se nullum habet saith S. Isidore *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called Primus Presbyter Nam Timotheum Episcopum à se creatum Presbyterum vocat quia Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called Primi Presbyteri that 's S. Ambrose his sence But S. Austin gives another Primi Presbyteri that is chief above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi Primus Presbyter h. e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words than is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus Primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros Primus est The Bishop is Primus Presbyter that is Primus Sacerdos h. e. Princeps est Sacerdotum so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus inter Presbyteros himself remaining a meer Presbyter but Princeps Presbyterorum for Primus Presbyter could not be Episcopus in another sence he is the chief not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sence lower than Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. John Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocess Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith Saint Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith Saint Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But Saint Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the several relations expressed in the several compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistitem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himself who had then been six years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum Primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unless there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochial and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops SECT XXVIII And these were a distinct Order from the rest BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher and this their distinction of names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent to the rest For first Bishops are by all antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... â—iderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made for both their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewails it but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ â—uerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops
the City for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not do it unless 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 Episcopal Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Bishops Diocess and as they were but Vicarii or visitatores Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meer Presbyterate And this we find as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 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 countrey Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City 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 Bishops License too but they never ordained any to be Deacons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghosts appointing and therefore were gratia Spiritus Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and required not the capacity of Episcopal 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 bestowed 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 Council of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had been 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 indeleble character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopal 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 Council as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Council of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men it is likely for quietness sake and to comply with the times would fain have had those Clerks received into Clerical communion but the Council would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily and indeed But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they were no Bishops that imposed hands on them and therefore the Clerks were not ordained 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 ruled case and of publick interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dreamed only he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest nor any else of his ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras himself was reduced into lay communion being deposed by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordained with Ischiras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so known a business 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters ordained by Maximus who was another Bishop in the air too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevil. These cases are so known I need not insist on them This only In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduced to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacramens conferred by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to minister but in the cases of the present instance the ordinations were pronounced as null to have bestowed nothing and to be merely imaginary * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title or in the Diocess of another Bishop as in the Council of Chalcedon of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter it was by positive constitution pronounced void and no more and therefore may be rescinded by the Countermand of an equal power A Council at most may do it and therefore without a Council a probable necessity will let us loose But to this the answer is evident 1. The expressions in the several cases are several and of diverse issue for in case of those nullities which are meerly Canonical they are expressed as then first made but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop they are only declared void ipso facto And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations the Canon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irritam Existimari manus impositionem to be esteemed as null that is not to have Canonical approbation but is not declared null in natura rei as it is in the foregoing instances 2. In the cases of Antioch and Chalcedon the degree is pro futuro which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made
clearly and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them Plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ Apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius and does not break him with his Apostolical rod that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of the Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Room * But their Grandfather was served no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consiliis nitebatur Cum vero eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonished the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserved it highly It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personal misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus Who was punished by Triferius the Bishop Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit ei relaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complained to the Council by the Council might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power * These are particular instances and made publick by acts conciliary intervening * But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allows I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonical penalty and so go on ad alia In the second Council of Carthage Alypius Episcopus dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means go unpunished The like is in the Council of Chalcedon the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemn and they have power to do what they please other faith than this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their own Bishops although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie and suspend them and sometimes depose them Nay they are bound to it Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet ne per plures serpant dira contagia separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound lest their infection scatter so S. Austin And therefore the fourth Council of Carthage commands Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church This is sufficient to shew to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publick disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should 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 feel a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and fair arguments of honour but was only in a meer spiritual estimate and ten thousand real disadvantages This will not be supposed 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 fair precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an Altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearly 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 and government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch and in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the most Reverend Bishops cried out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited Tertullian is something more particular and instances in Baptism 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 baptism Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So far 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 Apostolical ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harm done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate But the next words do of themselves make answer Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so says Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism Tertullian affirms 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 Episcopal license Whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority If any man shall make assemblies privately and out of the Church so despising the Church or shall do 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 and then the assembly is lawful And this thing was so known that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter aut dissimulantes audacter praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses do 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 Episcopal license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare ipse honori suo contrarius existit All the Bishop 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 Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remain 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 Hospitals but extends it self to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way not submitting to their Bishop Let them be punished Canonically So that now these general 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
several offices the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witness for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my Author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere aut signare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have fair evidence of this whole particular It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joyns them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ viz. whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters do their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole Diocess he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock so the Canon of the 1 Apostles so 2 Ignatius to the Council of 3 Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem solicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unless he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocess being the Bishops charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle lest he be what S. Peter blamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocess Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his ordination but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions and did quoad hoc take him in partem solicitudinis and concredit some part of his Diocess to his administration cum cura animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocess is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himself of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocess so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocess and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potestas minoris And though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocess therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocess there he being present might do any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himself of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Council of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his own but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the stars which in the noon-day have their own natural light as much as in the night but appear not shine not in the presence of the Sun This perhaps will seem uncouth in those Presbyters who as the Council of Carthage's expression is are contrarii honori Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own form where God hath placed us and where we were in the Primitive Church we shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute and indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawful to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runs praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same original to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Jurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Cities with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Cities the Presbyters preached and offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely they must not do any Clerical offices sine Episcopo unless the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fixt upon ordinary charges then it was only praesente Episcopo if the Bishop was present they might not officiate without leave For in his absence they might do
here it is considerable that at this surrogation of S. Matthias the Number of the persons present was but 120 of which eleven were Apostles and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters they make up 83 and then there remains but 37 of the Laity of which many were women which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle and whether they do or do not the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices so that let the worst come that is imaginable the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided and of a distinct or disagreeing interest * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will yet all this whole business was miraculous and extraordinary For though the Apostles named two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation And yet for all this it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots An non licebat ipsi Petro eligere licebat quidem maxime verum id non facit ne cui videretur gratificari Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs For all he had not as yet received the holy Ghost yet he had power himself to have compleated the election So S. Chrysostom So that now if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of publick testimony and extends it to a suffrage of formal choice his proofs of the divine authority are invalid there is no such thing can be deduced from thence and then this his complying so much with the people which hath been the fault of many a good man may be reckoned together with his rebaptization But truth is he means no more than suffrage of testimony viz. That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame and approved of before God and all the people and this is all the share they have in their election * And so indeed himself summs up the whole business and tells us of another jus Divinum too Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divinâ Apostolicâ observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fer◠apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quinque conveniant Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit It is most diligently to be observed for there is a Divine tradition and an Apostolical ordinance for it and it is used by us and almost by all Churches that all the Bishops of the Province assembled to the making of right ordinations and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation So that the Bishops were to make the formal election the people to give their judgment of approbation in this particular and so much as concern'd the exemplary piety and good life of him that was to be their Bishop Here we see in S. Cyprian is a jus Divinum for the Bishops chusing a Colleague or a Brother-Bishop as much as for the presence of the people and yet the presence was all And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony yet the election was clearly in the Bishops and that by Divine tradition and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian And thus it was in all Churches almost In Africa this was and so it continued till after S. Austins time particularly in the choice of Eradius his successor It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostom tells us It was so in Spain as S. Isidore tells us and in many other places that the people should be present and give acclamation and tumultuary approbation but to the formal election of the Clergy made by enumeration of votes and subscription the people never were admitted 5. Although that in times of persecution at first and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetned to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop if they did though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination Ne plebs in vita Episcopum non optatum aut contemnat aut oderit fiat minùs religiosa quà m convenit cui non licuerit habere quem voluit for so S. Leo expresses the cause yet the formality and right of proper election was in the Clergy and often so practised without any consent at all or intervening act of the people The right I say was in the Bishops so it was decreed in the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the Bishops of the Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must be confirmed and established by the Metropolitan No Presbyters here all this while no people * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Councils where the Fathers degraded some Bishops and themselves appointed others in their Rooms * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt They sent Basilius Bishop in his room saith Sozomen Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon Let Bassianus show that he was made Bishop of Ephesus by a Synod of Bishops and according to the accustomed Law The Law I shewed before even the Nicene Canon The Fathers of which Council sent a Synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria to tell them they had deposed Melitius from the office of a Bishop only left him the name but took from him all power Nullum verò omnimodò habere potestatem neque eligendi neque ordinandi c. Neither suffering him to chuse nor to ordain Clerks It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary placitos sibi eligere as the Epistle expresses it in the sequel to chuse whom they listed But the Council deposed Melitius and sent Alexander their Bishop and Patriarch to rule the Church again ** And particularly to come home to the case of the present question when Auxentius Bishop of Milaine was dead and the Bishops of the Province and the Clergy of the Church and the people of the City were assembled at the chusing of another the Emperor makes a speech to the Bishops only that they should be careful in their choice So that although the people were present Quibus pro fide religione etiam honor deferendus est as S. Cyprians phrase is To whom respect is to be had and fair complyings to be used so long as they are pious catholick and
them but Diocesan and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests do from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocess eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentius oportet ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith Against this if it be objected Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which is of general concernment must also be of general Scrutiny I answer it is true unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all and is handled by all not in diffusion but in representation For Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesiâ saith S. Cyprian the Church is in the Bishop viz. by representment and the Bishop is in the Church viz. as a Pilot in a ship or a Master in a family or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called in Eusebius conventus orbis terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils for I doubt not but they have souls too But however if this argument were concluding in it self yet it loses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council it was an old heretical trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut quisquam Judex resideat sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen eligat quem sequatur So may Presbyters be present so they may judge not for others but for themselves And so may the people be present and anciently were so and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by external sentence but internal conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision For although in the story of celebration of it we find no man giving sentence but Peter and James yet in Acts 16. they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees judged by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the less because Presbyter was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors And then secondly it is none at all because Paul and Barnabas are signally and by name reckoned as present in the Synod and one of them Prolocutor or else both So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty or where any is pretended And of this I have already given account * I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils It is a pretty pageant only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church against the exigence of Scripture which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to be tumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils The pretence is in the Synodal letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is says Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not Brethren that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Government and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be asked who then are meant by Elders if by Brethren S. Luke understands these Church-officers I answer that here is such variety that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren yet here are enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorising the decretal For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolical 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 do Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men are called in Scripture chief men among the brethren But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid amplius 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 says the Emperor must by no means
Pontifical book Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris septem Diacons ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis He divided the Parishes or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life Hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit coemiteria parochiásque dioeceses constituit Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit coemiterium viâ Salariâ 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis propter sepulturas Martyrum He made a Sepulture or coemitery for the burial of Martyrs and appointed 25 Titles or Parishes but he adds quasi Dioeceses as it had been Dioâ—esses that is distinct and limited to Presbyters as Diocesses were to Bishops and the use of Parishes which he subjoyns clears the business for he appointed them only propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum sepulturas for baptism and penance and burial for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes but in the Mother-Church Thus it was in the West * But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Mark 's time had several Churches in Alexandria Etiam de Ecclesiis quae apud eos sunt ita dicit Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus c. But even before this there were Bishops for in Rome there were four Bishops before any division of Parishes though S. Peter be reckoned for none And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop and before that time S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and in divers other places where Bishops were there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus's timâ— for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to several Parishes he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba and desires him to do so too in his Diocess as appears in his Epistle to him * For indeed necessity required it when the Christians multiplied and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cornelius called the Roman Christians a great and an innumerable people and did implere omnia as Tertullians phrase is filled all places and publick and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves and increased jealousies in others and their publick offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage then they were forced to divide congregations and assigned several Presbyters to their cure in subordination to the Bishop and so we see the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were At first in Rome there were none Evaristus made seven Dionysius made some more and Marcellus added 25 and in Optatus's time there were 40. Well then The case is thus Parishes were not divided at first therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's ordinance an independant body for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all neither absolute nor in dependance neither and then for the main issue since Bishops were before Parishes in the present sence the Bishops in that sence could not be Parochial * But which was first of a private congregation or a Diocess If a private congregation then a Bishop was at first fixt in a private congregation and so was a Parochial Bishop If a Diocess was first then the Question will be how a Diocess could be without Parishes for what is a Diocess but a jurisdiction over many Parishes * I answer it is true that Diocess and Parish are words used now in contradiction And now a Diocess is nothing but the multiplication of many Parishes Sed non fuit sic ab initio For at first a Diocess was the City and the Regio suburbicaria the neighbouring towns in which there was no distinction of Parishes That which was a Diocess in the secular sence that is a particular Province or division of secular prefecture that was the assignation of a Bishops charge Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Laodicea were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads of the Diocess saith Pliny meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment And it was so upon great reason for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth it was of less suspicion to the secular power while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the political as if of purpose to shew their mutual consistence and its own subordination ** And besides this there was in it a necessity for the subjects of another Province or Diocess could not either safely or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not ingage them but being all of one prefecture and Diocess the necessity of publick meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom And this which at first was a necessity in this case grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Council of Chalcedon and of Constantinople in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Commonwealth viz. in her regiment and prefecture * But in the modern sence of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocess as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocess actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocess was so much Just as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocess yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocess I answer that a Diocess was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts And S. Mark 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 fixt Bishops upon their charge and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocess But then this City or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocess before it was a particular congregation yet it was part of the Apostles Diocess and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively S. Paul was ordained by the prophets at Antioch Apostle of the Uncircumcision All the Gentiles was his Diocess and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted So that absolutely a diocess was
before a particular congregation But if a Diocess be taken collectively as now it is for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop then one must needs be before 20 and a particular congregation before a Diocess but then that particular congregation was not a parish in the present sence for it was not a part of a Diocess taking a Diocess for a collection of Parishes but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocess and like a Grain 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 Diocess assigning several parts to several 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 several provinces some of them I mean 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 Diocess and the Neighbour villages and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Council of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ancient Canon of our forefathers and yet it self is elder than three of the general Councils 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 Council 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 born in S. Irenaeus his time who was himself but second from the Apostles It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of even all Syria Caelosyria Mesopotamia and both the Ciliciae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Syria he calls himself in his Epistle to the Romans and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Theodoret and besides all these his Successors in the Council of Chalcedon had the two Phaeniciae and Arabia yielded to them by composition These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes and would have taken up time enough to preambulate had that been then the guise of Christendome But examples of this kind are infinite Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt Thebais Mareotis Libya Ammoniaca and Pentapolis saith S. Epiphanius And his predecessor Julinianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about Alexandria Either it was a Diocess or at least a plurality S. Chrysostome had Pontus Asia and all Thrace in his parish even as much as came to sixteen prefectures a fair bounds surely and so it was with all the Bishops a greater or a lesser Diocess they had but all were Diocesan for they had several parishes singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias saith Epiphanius in his Epistle to John of Jerusalem and in his book contra haereses Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates ita ut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae All Italy was the parish of Liberius saith Socrates Africa was S. Cyprians parish saith S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Bazil the great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia But I rather believe if we examine their several stories they will rather prove Metropolitans than meer parochians Thirdly The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordained in a Village Castle or Town It was so decreed in the Council of Laodicea before the first Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Villages or Countreys Bishops must not be constituted And this was renewed in the Council of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful to ordain Bishops in Villages or little Towns to which one Presbyter is sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Bishops must ordain 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 ordained in great Cities and Presbyters in little Villages Who then was the Parish Curate the Bishop or the Priest The case is too apparent Only here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Towns and therefore these Canons were not observed and Bishops might be and were parochial as S. Gregory of Nazianzum Zoticus of Comana Maris in Dolicha The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Theodoret a little Town This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochial Bishops * But first suppose these had been parishes and these three parochial Bishops it follows not that all were not those to be sure which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces and Kingdomes Secondly It is a clear case that Nazianzum though a small City yet was the seat of a Bishops throne so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour where it is accounted inter thronos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum and is in the same account with Caesarea with Ephesus with Crete with Philippi and almost fourscore more As for Zoticus he indeed came from Comana a Village town for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith a Nicephorus And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha it was indeed such a small City as Nazianzum was but that proves not but his Diocess and teritory was large enough Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus His seat might usually be in a little City if it was one of those towns in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordained and yet the appurtenances of his Diocess large and extended and too great for an hundred Parishâ—Priests Fourthly The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan not Parochial for they were institued to assist the Bishop in part of his Countrey-charge and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visiters as the Council of Laodicea calls them But what need such Suffragans such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish Indeed they might possibly have
been needful for the managing of a City-parish especially if a whole City was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the countrey while the Bishop was resident in the City either the Bishops parish extended it self from City to Countrey and then it is all one with a Diocess or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Council 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 govern 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 follows in the Canon he must not ordain any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitur regio Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself and all the countrey is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one altar in every Church and one Bishop together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Jerusalem which as Josephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocess as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a City and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hinder'd but that there might in a City be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may not every Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it self and all the Countrey therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meer parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint episcopi was the constitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance Is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearly that a Chuch that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent this one Church was may easily be guessed by himself who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millain * And therefore when Valerius as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained 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 Uncanonical and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Angelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harm in it to this cause they were ordained to succeed not in conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a note of Schism and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his Epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Felix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should return to his See on condition that Felix the Arrian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied if plenty will do it in S. Chrysostom Theodoret S. Hierom Oecumenius Optatus S. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Praelatorum 6. Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been Parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also Parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochial then these were at least Diocesan by their own argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35. Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainly and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopus gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their Primate and esteem him as their head and do nothing without his consent but those things that appertain to their own Diocess And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse Metropolitanum Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere c. The Bishops of every province must know that their Metropolitan-Bishop does take cure of all the province For this was an Apostolical Constitution saith S. Clement that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archslamines Archbishops Primates or Patriarchs should be placed qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia majora quoties necesse foret negotia in fide agitarent secundùm Dei voluntatem sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli definirent Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council as appears in the sixth Canon before cited Nay Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the Metropolitans that he had under him to the Council of Ephesus by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours so that it was a
security and revenge 2dly As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty and what they could not receive from publick decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion than a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been when the frequency of general Councils and provincial Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretals of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years or else they must be forced to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrencies of the Church unless either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constituted do not aid him but in all these cases the Presbyter is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity failed and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I mean in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Jerusalem but they were not consulted in Church affairs and matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass And thus it is to this day In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and counsel in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that he that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down than in raising up It was wont always to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution than its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodal sentence and determination for so the Canon runs qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui sed praesentati Synodali Judicio quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their own Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be clancular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept lest the sentence should be clandestine and so illegal but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi The Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy even by this Canon it self which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our process for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the main question SECT XLV So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self now from the same principles let us see what it is to
us And first Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary even to the being and constitution of a Church That runs high but we must follow our leaders S. Ignatius is express in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcopo sacerdotibus Qui vero foris est hic is est qui sine Episcopo Sacerdote Diacono quicquam agit ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam infideli deterior est He that is within the Altar that is within the communion of the Church he is pure for he obeys the Bishop and the Priests But he that is without that is does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel Necesse itaque est quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis It is necessary that what ever ye doe ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse than an Infidel The same also he affirms again Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi qui vero ab illo declinant cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur hi cum illis excidentur All they that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them If then we will be Christs servants we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop It is the condition of Christianity We are not Christians else So is the intimation of S. Ignatius As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Hence is it that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued so that the Church hath its being or constitution by Bishops and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit miror c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God I wonder any man should question it c. And therefore as in all buildings the foundation being gone the fabrick falls so if ye take away Bishops the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer be called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata pastori suo Grex adhaerens The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyned Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt c. As a Bishop is in the Church so the Church is in the Bishop and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good if they communicate in conventicles and forsake their Bishop And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident and zealous for a Bishop that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution than to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholick faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council and having considered of the command of the Tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos inveniebant promotione It was full of bravery and Christian sprite The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God rather than man and to consecrate Bishops in all places hoping the King would be appeased or if not yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome They did so Fit repente communis assumptio and they all strived who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might go to heaven though persecuted under the conduct of a Bishop they knew without him the ordinary passage was obstructed Pius the first Bishop of Rome and Martyr speaking of them that calumniate and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous they add saith he evil to evil and grow worse non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit in templum Dei Not considering that the Church of God doth consist or is establisht in Bishops and grows up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity SECT XLVI For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this business to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an unmatchable power be not given to him tot efficicientur schismata quot Sacerdotes So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved and we know that unity and being are of equal extent and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop then where there is no Bishop no pretence to a Church and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick For unity which the Fathers press so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos
when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell he did it to teach us a duty Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop * To these I add If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthronization Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae praeparatae ut Thronus speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne ** The sum of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our duties and their work deserves it Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formosi pedes Evangelizantium the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous and then much more of the chief Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos ut animas vestras diligatis ut quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c. Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more than amicitia that 's amongst Peers but love to our Betters is Reverence Obedience and high Estimate And if we have the one the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence I end this with the saying of Saint Ignatius Et vos decâ—t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem illi impertiri Reverentiam It is the will of God the Father that we should give all Reverence Honour or veneration to our Bishops SECT XLIX And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest WELL However things are now it was otherwise in the old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions and imployments of greatest trust For it was great consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors and great Dictators of faith and conscience should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination a Divine wisdom and interests of Conscience and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick which must be indulged to a private personal necessity But we have not Saint Paul's example only but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church Who are they The Clergy I am sure now adayes But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges For by least esteemed he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity they would most certainly have done very strange justice especially in such causes which they understand not No but set them to judge who by their office are Servants and Ministers of all and those are the Clergy who as Saint Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Jesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Jesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam Yea but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus Saint Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was to be the man though till then in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of ingagements in Rebus Saeculi So the sixth Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himself worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is general No worldly cares Not domestick But how if they come on him by Divine imposition or accident That 's nothing if he does not assume them that is by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sin But if he seeks it for it self it is ambition In this sence also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it self but the illness of the intention and this indeed she expresly forbids in her Canons Pervenit ad Sanctam
praesumptionem malignantium cohibere It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes saith he their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaims them fit Instruments to promote the publick tranquillity of the Commonwealth They know how to comply with oppressed people to advance designs of peace and publick security It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom to mix influences of Religion with designs of State to make them have as much of the Dove as of the Serpent and by the advantage of their Religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God or of Religion is remaining * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel Isaiah Elisha Jojada Zacharias who were Priests and Prophets respectively and yet imployed in Princes Courts and Councels of Kings and adds this Vnum noveritis quia nisi familiares Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores immaniter ac intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis That 's most true If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary imployments the plowers would plow upon the Churches back and make long furrows * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing but I shall content my self with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to Policy and Religion by the imployment of Bishops in Princes Courts Istis mediantibis mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor admittitur clamor pauperum Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur relevatur pauperum indigentia firmatur in clero libertas pax in populis in monasteriis quies justitia liberè exercetur superbia opprimitur augetur Laicorum devotio religio fovetur diriguntur judicia c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councils then the rigour of the Laws is abated equity introduced the cry of the poor is heard their necessities are made known the liberties of the Church are conserved the peace of Kingdoms laboured for pride is depressed Religion increaseth the devotion of the Laity multiplies and Tribunals are made just and incorrupt and merciful Thus far Petrus Blesensis * These are the effects which though perhaps they do not alwayes fall out yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked for from the Clergy their principles and calling promises all this Et quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est ubi Dominus legis timetur meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt saith Saint Ambrose and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed But if personal defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of Saint Paul No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life For although this be spoken of all Christian people and concerns the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy yet nor one nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinderance to their own precise duty of Christianity And such things must be par'd away from the Fringes of the Laity as well as the long Robe of the Clergy But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function so far would it be from being hindered by the collateral intervening of a Lay-judicature I need not instance in any particulars for if the judging matters and questions of Religion be not left alone to them they may well be put into a temporal imployment to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing I have now done with this only intreating this to be considered Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis In all the sences of Common-law and external compulsory he is But if so then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Judges as Lay-Delegates For to be sure if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of medling with secular affairs there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affairs For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the world then the Laity are under the affairs of the Church or else if the Clergy be incapable of Lay-business because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affairs For the Church differs no more from the Commonwealth than the Commonwealth differs from the Church And now after all this suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a forreign Prince to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification if the Bishop refuse did he do the duty of a Subject If yea I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop ows to his Prince when he shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying and doing of his office to which he is obliged whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no then the Bishop was tyed to go and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment for no man can be bound to do a sin SECT L. And therefore were inforced to delegate the power and put others in substitution BUT then did not this imployment when the occasions were great and extraordinary force the Bishops to a temporary absence And what remedy was there for that For the Church is not to be left destitute that 's agreed on by all the Canons They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of that attended the Court and never visited their Churches or took care either of the cure of souls or of the Church possessions What then must be done The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power and offices to others though now adayes they are complain'd of for their care I say for their care For if they may intervene in secular affairs they may sometimes be absent and then they must delegate their power or leave the Church without a Curate *** But for this matter the account need not be long For since I have proved that the whole Diocess is in cura Episcopali and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty and yet that instant necessity and the publick act of Christendom hath ratified it that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are Parishes in his Diocess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge is no less than the act of all Christendom For it is evident at first Presbyters had no distinct cure at all but were in common assistant to the
be in more places than one if in two it may be in 2000 and then it may be every where for it is not limited and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite Against this so seemingly impossible at the very first sight and relying upon a similitude and analogy that is not far from blasphemy viz. that as God is in Heaven and yet on Earth eodem modo after the same manner is Christs body which words it cannot be easie to excuse against this I say although for the reasons alledged it be unnecessary to be disproved yet I have these things to oppose 1. The words of Scripture that affirm Christ to be in Heaven affirm also that he is gone from hence Now if Christs body not only could but must be every day in innumerable places on earth it would have been said that Christ is in Heaven but not that he is not here or that he is gone from hence 2. Surrexit non est hîc was the Angels discourse to the inquiring woman at the Sepulchre he is risen he is not here but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schools they would have denied the consequent he is risen and gone from hence but he may be here too And this indeed might have put the Angels to a distinction but the womens ignorance rendred them secure However S. Austin is dogmatical in this Article saying Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Christ as God is every where but in respect of his body he is determin'd to a particular residence in Heaven viz. at the right hand of God that is in the best seat and in the greatest eminency And in the thirtieth Treatise of S. John It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone but the truth is spread over all But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their Editions to corrupt the place And in stead of oportet have clapp'd in potest instead of must be have foisted in may be against the faith of the ancient Canonists and Scholasticks particularly Lombard Gratian Ivo Carnotensis Algerus Thomas Bonaventure Richardus Durand Biel Scotus Cassander and divers others To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. He could not converse with his Disciples in the flesh being ascended to his Father So Cassian Jesus Christ speaking on Earth cannot be in Heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead and Fulgentius argues it strongly If the body of Christ be a true body it must be contained in a particular place but this place is just so corrupted in their Editions as is that of S. Austin potest being substituted instead of oportet but this doctrine viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body and proper to God was affirmed by the Universality of Paris in a Synod under William their Bishop 1340 and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome it self that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in divers places 3. Thirdly The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension and of his coming from thence at his appearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words have an Antithesis the Heavens till then shall retain him but then he shall come from thence which were needless if he might be here and stay there too 4. When Christ said Me ye have not always and at another time Loe I am with you always to the end of the World It is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction Christ is with us by his Spirit but Christ is not with us in body but if his body be here too then there is no way of Substantial Real Presence in which those words can be true me ye have not always The Rhemists in their note upon this place say that when Christ said Me ye have not always he means ye have not me in the manner of a poor man needing relief that is Not me so as you have the poor But this is a trifle because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministery of Mary Magdalen as a poor man for it was a present for a Prince not a relief to necessity but a Regalo fit for so great a person and therefore if he were here at all after his departure he was capable of as noble an usage and an address fit to represent a Majesty or at least to express a love It was also done for his burying so Christ accepted it and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode But besides this if this could be the interpretation of those words then they did not at all signifie Christs leaving this world but only his changing his circumstance of fortune his outward dress and appendages of person which were a strange commentary upon Me ye have not always that is I shall be with you still but in a better condition but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sence of these words of Christ Loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis c. He spake of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here If he be here in person what need he to have sent his Vicar his holy Spirit in substitution especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church than he was in the days of his conversion in Palestine for then he was but in one assembly at once now he is in thousands every day If it be said because although he be here yet we see him not This is not sufficient for what matter is it whether we see him or no if we know him to be here if we feel him if we eat him if we worship him in presence natural and proper There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape A friend in the dark behind a curtain or to a blind man is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation or beheld with the eyes And then also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices and we no greater needs and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual secret and invisible our eyes are still without comfort and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him then so
place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at Dice and Cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by Gaming making their way to Heaven easier Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their dayes it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labour of love a religion of justice and piety and moral vertues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not requir'd of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem in Saint Chrysostom Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard The sence of these Fathers is this in the words of Saint Augustine God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil Questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor incurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceeded in the practice and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate SECT IV. THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardoned he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sence but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and
which Heaven is opened and that is the word and baptism at the first and ever after the holy Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord and all the parts of the Bishops and Priests advocation and intercession in holy prayers and offices 59. But as for the declarative absolution although it is rather an act of wisdom than of power it being true as S. Hierome said that as the Priests of the Law could only discern and neither cause nor remove leprosies so the Ministers of the Gospel when they retain or remit sins do but in the one judge how long we continue guilty and in the other declare when we are clear and free yet this very declaration is of great use and in many cases of great effect For as God did in the case of David give to the Prophet Nathan a particular special and extraordinary commission so to the Ministers of the Gospel he gives one that is ordinary and perpetual He had a prophetical evidence but these have a certainty of faith as to one of the propositions and as to the other some parts of humane experience to assure them 1. of Gods gracious pardon to the penitent and 2. of the sincerity of their repentance and therefore can with great effect minister to the comfort of sad and afflicted penitents This does declare the pardon upon observation of the just grounds and dispositions but the dispensation of Ecclesiastical Sacraments does really minister to it not only by consigning it but as instruments of the Divine appointment to convey proper mercies to worthily disposed persons 60. II. But the other great thing which I was to say in this Article is this That the judicial absolution of the Priest does effect no material event or change in the penitent as to the giving the pardon and therefore cannot be it which Christ intended in the giving those excellent powers of remitting and retaining sins Now upon this will the whole issue depend Does the Priest absolve him whom God condemns God is the supreme Judge and though we may minister to his judgment yet we cannot contradict it or can the Priest condemn him whom God absolves That also is impossible He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me and if God be with us who can be against us Or will not God pardon unless the Priest absolves us That may become a sad story For he may be malicious or ignorant or interested or covetous and desirous to serve his own ends upon the ruine of my soul and therefore God dispenses his mercies by more regular just and equal measures than the accidental sentences of unknowing or imprudent men If then the Priest ministers only to repentance by saying I absolve thee what is it that he effects For since Gods pardon does not go by his measures his must go by Gods measures and the effect of that will be this God works his own work in us and when his Minister observes the effects of the Divine grace he can and ought to publish and declare to all the purposes of comfort and institution that the person is absolved that is he is in the state of grace and Divine favour in which if he perseveres he shall be saved But all this while the work is supposed to be done before and if it be the Priest hath nothing left for him to do but to approve to warrant and to publish And the case in short is this 61. Either the sinner hath repented worthily or he hath not If he hath then God hath pardoned him already by vertue of all the promises Evangelical If he hath not repented worthily the Priest cannot ought not to absolve him and therefore can by this absolution effect no new thing The work is done before the Priestly absolution and therefore cannot depend upon it Against this no Sect of men opposes any thing that I know of excepting only the Roman Doctors who yet confess the argument of value if the penitent be contrite But they add this that there is an imperfect Contrition which by a distinct word they call Attrition which is a natural grief or a grief proceeding wholly from fear or smart and hath in it nothing of love and this they say does not justifie the man nor pardon the sin of it self But if this man come to the Priest and confess and be absolv'd that absolution makes this attrition to become contrition or which is all one it pardons the mans sins and though this imperfect penitent cannot hope for pardon upon the confidence of that indisposition yet by the Sacrament of Penance or Priestly absolution he may hope it and shall not be deceived 62. Indeed if this were true it were a great advantage to some persons who need it mightily But they are the worst sort of penitents and such which though they have been very bad yet now resolve not to be very good if they can any other way escape it and by this means the Priests power is highly advanc'd and to submit to it would be highly necessary to most men and safest to all But if this be not true then to hope it is a false confidence and of danger to the event of souls it is a nurse of carelesness and gives boldness to imperfect penitents and makes them to slacken their own piety because they look for security upon confidence of that which will be had without trouble or mortification even the Priests absolution This therefore I am to examine as being of very great concernment in the whole article of Repentance and promised to be considered in the beginning of this Paragraph SECT V. Attrition or the imperfect Repentance though with Absolution is not sufficient 63. BY Attrition they mean the most imperfect Repentance that is a sorrow proceeding from fear of Hell a sorrow not mingled with the love of God This sorrow newly begun they say is sufficient for pardon if the sins be confest and the party absolved by the Priest This indeed is a short process and very easie but if it be not effectual and valid the persons that rely upon it are miserably undone Here therefore I consider 64. I. Attrition being a word of the Schools not of the Scripture or of antiquity means what they please to have it and although they differ in assigning its definition yet it being the least and the worst part of repentance every action of any man that can in any sence be said to repent upon consideration of any the most affrighting threatnings in the Gospel cannot be denied to have attrition Now such a person who being scar'd comes to confess his sin may still retain his affections to it for nothing but love to God can take away his love from evil and if there be love in it it is Contrition not Attrition From these premises it follows that if the Priest can absolve him that is attrite he may pardon him who hath affections to sin still remaining that is one who
and cellars and retirements think that they being upon the defensive those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their enemies and therefore they cannot be secure unless the power of the one and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded and then the being restrained and made miserable endears the discontented persons mutually and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations King James of blessed memory in his Letters to the States of the Vnited Provinces dated 6. March 1613. thus wrote Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ ità ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros nè eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem tolerando in ista opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantia Eóque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint cum fidei Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like counsel in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Son Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessfull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert Duke of Savoy repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practice till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene who put her son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruel as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coals to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Justinian the Emperour A.D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I. at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an errour less material in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common Faith And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice changed his minde yet to tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the Secular power to be killed that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he died and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come And yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of Opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Justinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons But as yet it came not so far as Death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted onely to the Friers of his Order And if there be any force in Dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream who the night before Dominick was born dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his Disciples expound the dream it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in his Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom he so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresie and recanted and relapsed and recanted again and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died sicca morte his own natural death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his Judge which shews that at that time Rome was not come to so great heights of bloudshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any-where yet there were no executions for matter of Opinion known till the time of Henry the fourth who because he usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons but never the pure and chast dâ—signs of Christianity which admits no bloud but Christ's and the imitating bloud of Martyrs but knows nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring Children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unless so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny
Alphonsus à Castro says to the same purpose in the instance of Caelestine dissolving Marriages for Heresy Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ità ut illum errâsse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis Decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem titulo De conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi Lib. 1. adv haeres cap. 4. And therefore 't is a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chair though he may erre in his Closet and may maintain a false opinion even to his death For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion as all men naturally would or that if he were set in his Chair he would determine contrary to himself in his Study and therefore to represent it as possible they are fain to flie to a Miracle for which they have no colour neither instructions nor insinuation nor warrant nor promise besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for Heresy who may so easily even by setting himself in his Chair and reviewing his Theorems be cured it is also against a very great experience For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III. in a Council at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemned Peter Lombard of Heresy in a matter of great concernment no less then something about the Incarnation from which Sentence he was after 36 years abiding it absolved by Pope Innocent III. without repentance or dereliction of the Opinion Now if this Sentence was not a Cathedral Dictate as solemn and great as could be expected or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges who tell us that a particular Council with the Pope's confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption and is infallible and obliges all Christendome so Bellarmine And therefore he says that it is temerarium erroneum proximum haeresi to deny it But whether it be or not it is all one as to my purpose For it is certain that in a particular Council confirmed by the Pope if ever then and there the Pope sate himself in his Chair and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsely in this case But this is a device for which there is no Scripture no Tradition no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father Greek or Latine for above 1000 years after Christ and themselves when they list can acknowledge as much And therefore Bellarmine's saying I perceive is believed of them to be true That there are many things in the Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide And therefore Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificem says Almain And this serves their turns in every thing they do not like and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for something and that is that the matter of the Pope's Infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable that they do not believe it themselves Some of them clearly practised the contrary and although Pope Leo X. hath determined the Pope to be above a Council yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot erre in judgement do not also affirm that he cannot sin they are like enough to say so says he if the vicious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery Now for my own particular I am as confident and think it as certain that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine as that they do prevaricate the laws of Christian piety And therefore Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores that ascribe to him infallibility in judgment or interpretation of Scripture 17. But if themselves did believe it heartily what excuse is there in the world for the strange uncharitableness or supine negligence of the Popes that they do not set themselves in their Chair and write infallible Commentaries and determine all Controversies without errour and blast all Heresies with the word of their mouth declare what is and what is not de fide that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans and expound all Mysteries For it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends was also fitted with proportionable that is extraordinary personal abilities succeeding and derived upon the persons of all the Popes And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study nor writing explications of Scripture but might wholly attend to practicall Devotion and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings the distinguishing Opinions of their Orders and they might have a fine Church something like Fairy-land or Lucian's Kingdome in the Moon But if they say they cannot doe this when they list but when they are moved to it by the Spirit then we are never the nearer for so may the Bishop of Angoulesme write infallible Commentaries when the Holy Ghost moves him to it for I suppose his motions are not ineffectual but he will sufficiently assist us in performing of what he actually moves us to But among so many hundred Decrees which the Popes of Rome have made or confirmed and attested which is all one I would fain know in how many of them did the Holy Ghost assist them If they know it let them declare it that it may be certain which of their Decretals are de fide for as yet none of his own Church knows If they do not know then neither can we know it from them and then we are as uncertain as ever And besides the Holy Ghost may possibly move him and he by his ignorance of it may neglect so profitable a motion and then his promise of infallible assistance will be to very little purpose because it is with very much fallibility applicable to practice And therefore it is absolutely useless to any man or any Church because suppose it settled in Thesi that the Pope is infallible yet whether he will doe his duty and perform those conditions of being assisted which are required of him or whether he be a secret Simoniack for if he be he is ipso facto no Pope or whether he be a Bishop or Priest or a Christian being all uncertain every one of these depending upon the intention and power of the Baptizer or Ordainer which also are fallible because they depend upon the honesty and power of other men we cannot be infallibly certain of any Pope that he is infallible and therefore when our Questions are
this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters Innocentius III a great Canonist and of great authority gives a full evidence in this particular Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur quia per eam Spirituâ— Sanctus per augmentum datur robur Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere idest Episcopus conferre By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest that is the Bishop And therefore to the Question What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had the same Innocentius answers It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in operâ— veritas autem non subeat in essectu for it iâ— a mere shadow without truth or real effect when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion from whence Thomas of Walden says that Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times I have already I hope sufficiently declared what it was afterwards when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate per Pontificem verò in Fronte ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum in secunda quoque ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis scientiae virtutis venire in hominem declaretur Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret illustraret nunc in hominem ad hoc venit ut Signaculum fidei quod in fronte suscepit faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum suâ gratiâ confortatum intrepidè audacter coram Regibus Potestatibus hujus seculi portare ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head in Confirmation on the Forehead by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit with his seven-fold Gifts with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony but the Rites were ever distinguished and did not only signifie and declare but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd and gave in what circumstances they would chuse and new propositions entred and customs chang'd and deputations were made and the Bishops in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded it may be more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation it came to pass that new opinions were enterâ—ain'd and the Regulars the Friers and the Jesuits who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power from which they would fain have been wholly exempted publickly taught in England especially that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation For as Tertullian complain'd in his time Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi eoâ— necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines These men to serve ends destroyed the Article and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris and the Censure well defended by Hallier one of the Doctors of the Sorbon whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things But for the main It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis impositio manuum Episcoporum which our English word well expresses and perfectly retains the use we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children I shall no farther insist upon it only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law of a Minister ordinary and extraordinary all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery and disparks the inclosures and lays all in common and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God and relies upon a false Principle for in true Divinity and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment there can be none but the ordinary Minister I do not say that God is tied to this way he cannot be tied but by himself and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man But this I say That though God can make Ministers extraordinary yet Man cannot and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher which is the case of Confirmation by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church by which Bishops only the Successors of the Apostles were alone the Ministers of Confirmation and therefore if any man else usurp it let them answer it they do hurt indeed to themselves but no benefit to others to whom
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
it self I can only say what Secundus did to the wise Lupercus Quoties ad fastidium legentium deliciásque respicio intelligo nobis commendationem ex ipsa mediocritate libri petendam I can commend it because it is little and so not very troublesome And if it could have been written according to the worthiness of the Thing treated in it it would deserve so great a Patronage but because it is not it will therefore greatly need it but it can hope for it on no other account but because it is laid at the feet of a Princely Person who is Great and Good and one who not only is bound by Duty but by Choice hath obliged Himself to do advantages to any worthy Instrument of Religion But I have detain'd Your Grace so long in my Address that Your Pardon will be all the Favour which ought to be hop'd for by Your Grace's most Humble and Obliged Servant Jer. Dunensis A DISCOURSE OF CONFIRMATION THE INTRODVCTION NEXT to the Incarnation of the Son of God and the whole Oeconomy of our Redemption wrought by him in an admirable order and Conjugation of glorious Mercies the greatest thing that ever God did to the World is the giving to us the Holy Ghost and possibly this is the Consummation and Perfection of the other For in the work of Redemption Christ indeed made a new World we are wholly a new Creation and we must be so and therefore when S. John began the Narrative of the Gospel he began in a manner and style very like to Moses in his History of the first Creation In the beginning was the Word c. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made But as in the Creation the Matter was first there were indeed Heavens and Earth and Waters but all this was rude and without form till the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters So it is in the new Creation We are a new Mass redeem'd with the bloud of Christ rescued from an evil portion and made Candidates of Heaven and Immortality but we are but an Embryo in the regeneration until the Spirit of God enlivens us and moves again upon the waters and then every subsequent motion and operation is from the Spirit of God We cannot say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost By him we live in him we walk by his aids we pray by his emotions we desire we breath and sigh and groan by him he helps us in all our infirmities and he gives us all our strengths he reveals mysteries to us and teaches us all our duties he stirs us up to holy desires and he actuates those desires he makes us to will and to do of his good pleasure For the Spirit of God is that in our Spiritual life that a Man's Soul is in his Natural without it we are but a dead and liveless trunk But then as a Man's Soul in proportion to the several Operations of Life obtains several appellatives it is Vegetative and Nutritive Sensitive and Intellective according as it operates So is the Spirit of God He is the Spirit of Regeneration in Baptism of Renovation in Repentance the Spirit of Love and the Spirit of holy Fear the Searcher of the hearts and the Spirit of Discerning the Spirit of Wisdom and the Spirit of Prayer In one mystery he illuminates and in another he feeds us he begins in one and finishes and perfects in another It is the same Spirit working divers Operations For he is all this now reckoned and he is every thing else that is the Principle of Good unto us he is the Beginning and the Progression the Consummation and Perfection of us all and yet every work of his is perfect in its kind and in order to his own designation and from the beginning to the end is Perfection all the way Justifying and Sanctifying Grace is the proper entitative Product in all but it hath divers appellatives and connotations in the several rites and yet even then also because of the identity of the Principle the similitude and general consonancy in the Effect the same appellative is given and the same effect imputed to more than one and yet none of them can be omitted when the great Master of the Family hath blessed it and given it institution Thus S. Dionys calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfection of the Divine birth and yet the baptized person must receive other mysteries which are more signally perfective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confirmation is yet more perfective and is properly the perfection of Baptism By Baptism we are Heirs and are adopted to the inheritance of Sons admitted to the Covenant of Repentance and engag'd to live a good Life yet this is but the solemnity of the Covenant which must pass into after-acts by other influences of the same Divine principle Until we receive the spirit of Obsignation or Confirmation we are but babes in Christ in the meanest sence Infants that can do nothing that cannot speak that cannot resist any violence expos'd to every rudeness and perishing by every Temptation But therefore as God at first appointed us a ministery of a new birth so also hath he given to his Church the consequent Ministery of a new strength The Spirit mov'd a little upon the waters of Baptism and gave us the Principles of Life but in Confirmation he makes us able to move our selves In the first he is the Spirit of Life but in this he is the Spirit of Strength and Motion Baptisma est nativitas Vnguentum verò est nobis actionis instar motûs said Cabasilas In Baptism we are intitled to the inheritance but because we are in our Infancy and minority the Father gives unto his Sons a Tutor a Guardian and a Teacher in Confirmation said Rupertus that as we are baptized into the Death and Resurrection of Christ so in Confirmation we may be renewed in the Inner man and strengthned in all our Holy vows and purposes by the Holy Ghost ministred according to God's Ordinance The Holy Rite of Confirmation is a Divine Ordinance and it produces Divine Effects and is ministred by Divine Persons that is by those whom God hath sanctified and separated to this ministration At first all that were baptiz'd were also confirm'd and ever since all good people that have understood it have been very zealous for it and time was in England even since the first beginnings of the Reformation when Confirmation had been less carefully ministred for about six years when the people had their first opportunities of it restor'd they ran to it in so great numbers that Churches and Church-yards would not hold them insomuch that I have read that the Bishop of Chester was forc'd to impose hands on the people in the Fields and was so oppressed with multitudes that he had almost been trode to death by the people and had died with the throng
if he had not been rescued by the Civil Power But men have too much neglected all the ministeries of Grace and this most especially and have not given themselves to a right understanding of it and so neglected it yet more But because the prejudice which these parts of the Christian Church have suffered for want of it is very great as will appear by enumeration of the many and great Blessings consequent to it I am not without hope that it may be a service acceptable to God and an useful ministery to the Souls of my Charges if by instructing them that know not and exhorting them that know I set forward the practice of this Holy Rite and give reasons why the people ought to love it and to desire it and how they are to understand and practise it and consequently with what dutious affections they are to relate to those persons whom God hath in so special and signal manner made to be for their good and eternal benefit the Ministers of the Spirit and Salvation S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias my Predecessor in the See of Down and Connor reports that it was the care of that good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese where it had been long neglected and gone into desuetude It being too much our case in Ireland I find the same necessity and am oblig'd to the same procedure for the same reason and in pursuance of so excellent an example Hoc enim est Evangelizare Christum said S. Austin non tantùm docere quae sunt dicenda de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad compagem corporis Christi For this is to preach the Gospel not only to teach those things which are to be said of Christ but those also which are to be observed by every one who desires to be confederated into the Society of the Body of Christ which is his Church that is not only the doctrines of good Life but the Mysteries of Godliness and the Rituals of Religion which issue from a Divine fountain are to be declar'd by him who would fully preach the Gospel In order to which performance I shall declare 1. The Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation 2. That this Rite was to be a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministration 3. That it was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Churches 4. That this Rite was appropriate to the Ministery of Bishops 5. That Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's hands did make the whole Ritual and though other things were added yet they were not necessary or any thing of the Institution 6. That many great Graces and Blessings were consequent to the worthy reception and due ministration of it 7. I shall add something of the manner of Preparation to it and Reception of it SECT I. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation IN the Church of Rome they have determin'd Confirmation to be a Sacrament proprii nominis properly and really and yet their Doctors have some of them at least been paulò iniquiores a little unequal and unjust to their proposition insomuch that from themselves we have had the greatest opposition in this Article Bonacina and Henriquez allow the proposition but make the Sacrament to be so unnecessary that a little excuse may justifie the omission and almost neglect of it And Loemelius and Daniel à Jesu and generally the English Jesuits have to serve some ends of their own Family and Order disputed it almost into contempt that by representing it as unnecessary they might do all the ministeries Ecclesiastical in England without the assistance of Bishops their Superiors whom they therefore love not because they are so But the Theological Faculty of Paris have condemn'd their Doctrine as temerarious and savouring of Heresie and in the later Schools have approv'd rather the Doctrine of Gamachaeus Estius Kellison and Bellarmine who indeed do follow the Doctrine of the most Eminent persons in the Ancient School Richard of Armagh Scotus Hugo Cavalli and Gerson the Learned Chancellor of Paris who following the Old Roman order Amalarius and Albinus do all teach Confirmation to be of great and pious Use of Divine Original and to many purposes necessary according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church Whether Confirmation be a Sacrament of no is of no use to dispute and if it be disputed it can never be prov'd to be so as Baptism and the Lord's Supper that is as generally necessary to Salvation but though it be no Sacrament it cannot follow that it is not of very great Use and holiness and as a Man is never the less tied to Repentance though it be no Sacrament so neither is he ever the less oblig'd to receive Confirmation though it be as it ought acknowledg'd to be of an Use and Nature inferior to the two Sacraments of Divine direct and immediate institution It is certain that the Fathers in a large Symbolical and general sence call it a Sacrament but mean not the same thing by that word when they apply it to Confirmation as they do when they apply it to Baptism and the Lord's Supper That it is an excellent and Divine Ordinance to purposes Spiritual that it comes from God and ministers in our way to God that is all we are concern'd to inquire after and this I shall endeavour to prove not only against the Jesuits but against all Opponents of what side soever My First Argument from Scripture is what I learn from Optatus and S. Cyril Optatus writing against the Donatists hath these words Christ descended into the water not that in him who is God was any thing that could be made cleaner but that the water was to precede the future Vnction for the initiating and ordaining and fulfilling the mysteries of Baptism He was wash'd when he was in the hands of John then followed the order of the mystery and the Father finish'd what the Son did ask and what the Holy Ghost declar'd The Heavens were open'd God the Father anointed him the Spiritual Vnction presently descended in the likeness of a Dove and sate upon his head and was spred all over him and he was called the Christ when he was the anointed of the Father To whom also lest Imposition of hands should seem to be wanting the voice of God was heard from the cloud saying This is my Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him That which Optatus says is this that upon and in Christ's person Baptism Confirmation and Ordination were consecrated and first appointed He was Baptized by S. John he was Confirm'd by the Holy Spirit and anointed with Spiritual Unction in order to that great work of obedience to his Father's will and he was Consecrated by the voice of God from Heaven In all things Christ is the Head and the