superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction THis power so delegated was not to expire with § 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing successors in the Apostolate their Persons For when the Great sheapheard had reduced his wandring sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to governe them so long as the wolfe might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem saeculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long agoe but vobiscum vestri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetuall Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetuall regiment of the Church for then the Church should faile when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetuall assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in Materiâ censurae as delivering to Sathan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re Naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetuall assistance for then it had been done and still these signes should have followed them that believe But we see they doe not It followes then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remaine a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetuall assistance For since this perpetuall assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity a succession must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a helpe for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of sence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unlesse men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and Ordination have their sinnes pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all Question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of § 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops 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 were ordinary and perpetuall are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name person David in the prediction of the Apostacy of Iudas and Surrogation of S. Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Astolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the 70. is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelicall prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith * In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17. S. Hierome herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himselfe calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthians But this is no waies unusuall in Scripture For 2. S. Iames 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 Ierusalem 1. That S. Iames was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of S. Paul But other Apostles saw I none 1. Galat. 19. save Iames the Lords Brother 1. That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two Iames's The sonne of Alpheus and Iames the sonne of Zebedee the Brother of Iohn But neither of these was the Iames whom S. Paul calls the Lords brother And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration 1. Corin. 15. of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to Iames then to all the Apostles So that here S. Iames is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity then the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of * Vide Carol. Bovium in const it Apost Schol. Hieron de Script Eccl in Jacobo in 1. Galat Epiphan haeres 78 79. Hegesippus * Vide Carol. Bovium in const it Apost Schol. Hieron de Script Eccl in Jacobo in 1. Galat Epiphan haeres 78 79. S. Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierome 3. That S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Galat. 2. even before S. Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Gratiâ unus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus as S. Austin yet in his own diocesse S. Iames had priority of Tract 124. in Iohan. order before him v. 9. And when 1 Iames 2 Cephas and 3 Iohn c. First Iames before Cephas i. e. S. Peter S. Iames also was president
those which doe 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 Apostolicall ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiasticall power and all the offices Now they in their ordayning assistant Ministers did not in every ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordayned some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clericall imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordain'd by imposition of hands to goe to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. Iohn and Iames and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publike designe or Grand imployment but the Apostolike men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolicall ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were onely a giving of partilar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolicall calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were onely a delivering of Iurisdiction when the persons ordayned had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of Acts 13. the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spirituall offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher then Apostolicall ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authoriz'd for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Iudas and Silas and diverse others who therefore were more then meere Presbyters as the word is now us'd * 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 atleast 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 clearely 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 ordaine 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 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 lesse to another that is onely of Apostolicall ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some onely a power to absolve to some onely to consecrate to some onely to baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had onely a power to baptize and preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture does not tell us * But if to some men they had onely given a power to use the Keyes or made them officers spirituall 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 necessary conjunction no more then 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 Preist 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 ordayn'd with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordayned 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 Apostolicall power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessity 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 perpetuall So that we have cleare evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetuall 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 doe succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scirpture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholike testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacy the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinary offices in which they were Superior to the 72 the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must cleare 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 dogmaticall resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alleaged 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 Apostolicall power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observeable 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
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 Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate Can. 1. 2. the paines as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint 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 both for their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewailes it but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui Lib. 1. ad Parmen tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant 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 themselves the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors The diversity of order is herefairely intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2 d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are foure sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithfull Laity And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii De vitâ August c. 4. licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next in descent in subordination the next under it So the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree Can. 29. and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Councell permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopall order but still the character remaines and the degree of it selfe is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred Lib. 7. c. 26. and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Inter dixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was Can. 3. Nicen. Concil a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordain'd a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Iulius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus Vincentius Presbyteriejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell saith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Lib. 3. tripart c. 2. Episcopi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus desiderabat Episcopatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desir'd a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Hist. tripart l. 11. c. 5. Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis faith S. Isidore Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12. But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles in the first tome of the Councells * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the Per Binium Paris preface to the book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 2. But wee shall see it better and by more reall probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this 1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy § 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree Can. 10. as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Councell of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordain'd Bishop but he that was firsta Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time Here there is clearely a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the Lib. 5. c. 8. same
they have both election and freedome of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more reall and eternall worth then the Angelicall manner of moving so in an instant and those other formes and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no lesse then specificall If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection doe not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turne For all the world sees that to them that deny the reall presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopall men doe so in all senses and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more then in ordination Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the maine Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the lawes of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impresse of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independantly as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answere It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independant as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependant on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordaine a Presbyter with a power that himselfe hath not can he give what himselfe hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Haeres 75. Vox est Aerii haeretici unus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broach'd by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanc'd by many of the Church of Rome FOR to cleare the distinction of order it is evident § 32. For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of Orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affaire in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practise and tradition Astolicall As of Ordination The first and second Canons of the Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordaine a Bishop and one Bishop should ordaine a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordaine a Bishop is * S. Dionysius affirmes Sacerdotem Eccles. hier c. 5. non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was faine to goe to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius * To Lib. 6. cap. 33. this we may adde as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontificall book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Councell of Ancyra it is determin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. That Rurall Bishops shall not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons in anothers diocesse without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rurall Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the diocesse they must not ordaine Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is anothers diocesse and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopall Ordination at first but not Episcopall Iurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had country Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively to wit that each Country Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more then Village Priests and then this caution had been impertinent * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordaine any but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordaine to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not
ordaine without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to doe it if these should doe it the Citty Presbyters who were often dispatch'd into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther then it did or that they might goe beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Adde to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appeares in the thirteenth Canon of the Councell of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not beene their bridle The summe of the Canon is this With the Bishops licence the Chorepiscopi might ordaine for themselves had Episcopall ordination but without licence they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc particulari not in order but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the Citty Presbyters might not ordaine neither with nor without licence for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitatis unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practise Apostolicall is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is cleare for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopall order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church and exigence of Catholike Custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of the Citty for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in liter is Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the Citty have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopall ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not doe it unlesse more be added to them for their want was more They not only want jurisdiction but something besides and that must needs be order * But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopall Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Biships Diocesse and as they were but Vicarij or visitatores Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meere Presbyterate And this we find as soone as ever we heare that they had had Episcopall Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops in the end of the same Canon we find it decreed de novo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chorepiscopus or Country Bishop must be ordayn'd by the Bishop of the Citie in whose jurisdiction he is which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter and no more And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries with the Bishop's License too but they never ordayn'd any to be Deacons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing and therefore were gratiae Spiritûs Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and requir'd not the capacity of Episcopall Order to collate them for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost as all Orders properly so called are but might by humane dispensation be bestow'd as well as by humane Ordinance they had their first constitution * * The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Councell of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had beene Bishops of Cities but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices and by being traditors but in case they repented and were reconciled they had not indeed restitution to their See but because they had the indelible character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopall Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended if they had made ordinations and of the other nothing pertinent for they also had the ordination and order of Bishops The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Councell as is to be seene in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria tripart hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret. * But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Councell Can 19. of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordain'd some Clerkes themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men 't is likely for quietnesse sake and to comply with the times would faine have had those Clerks received into Clericall communion but the Councell would by no meanes admitt that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indeed But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eutychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands on them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Eutychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt c. Saith Balsamon intimating that it is a rul'd case and of publike interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordain'd of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dream'd onely he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordain'd by him could be no Priest nor any else of his
Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needlesse to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretall now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these wee see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of cofirmation by many Councells and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denyed to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their owne opinion but witnesses of a Catholike practise and doe actually attest it as done by a Catholike consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produc'd of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation wee may conclude it to be a power Apostolicall in the Originall Episcopall in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher then that of a Presbyter and so declar'd by this instance of Catholike Practise THus farre I hope we are right But I call to § 34. And jurisdiction mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and eares some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chinne but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Iurisdiction Others by all meanes would be thought to be quite thorough in behalfe of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this meanes they thinke to impaire their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is lesse and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction then now Men will endure to be granted or then themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in termes of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carryes the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiasticall And againe Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is quiomni Prineipatu potestate superior Epist. ad Trallian est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher then all other power viz in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LOCO DEI. Doe all things in Vnity the Bishop being PRESIDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACERDOTUM imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Iurisdiction The Bishop is the PRINCE OF THE PRIESTS bearring the image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himselfe for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairely and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himselfe saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and dyed a Martyr and hath been honoured as holy Catholike by all posterity certainly these testimonyes must needs be of Great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the generall expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute lib. 3. epist. 9. the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the refractary Deacon And VIGOR EPISCOPALIS and AUTHORITAS CATHEDRae are the the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoynes calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem a high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterij traditus ab Apostolis So S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of Mastership lib. 4. cap. 63. or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Can. 10. Councell of Sardis to the TOP or HEIGHT of Episcopacy APICES PRINCIPES OMNIUM so Optatus calls Bishops the CHEIFE aud HEAD of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum lib. 2. adv Parmen Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in Ierem. TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER ORHEIGHT of the Church The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo ordayn'd that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Church's pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocesse yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDENCY according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Councell calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the PRELATE or PREFECT of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Councell of Carthage Commanding that the convert Can. 69. Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that GOVERNES the Church in that place * And in the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 25. The Bishop hath POWER OVER the affayrs of the Church * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat S. Sylvester the
let it rest upon * Apologiae pro Ignatio Vedelius a man who is no waies to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. Eusebius b De Script Eccles. S. Hierome and c Apud Eusebquem Latine reddidit Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for naturall and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should doe well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affaire and see what is gotten in the bargaine For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gaine by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Iurisdiction But as yet I am in the generall demonstration of obedience The Councell of Laodicea having specified some Can. 56. particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summes them up thus * Idem videre est apud Damasum Epist. de Chorepiscopis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them doe nothing without the precept and counsell of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Councell is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum Can. 19. nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere saies the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Councell according to the Latine of Isidore The same thing is in the first Councell of Toledo the very Can. 20. same words for which I cited the first Councell of Arles viz. That Presbyters doe nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop * Esto SUBIECTUS Epist. ad Nepotian PONTIFICI Tuo quasi animae parentemsuscipe It is the counsell of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soule I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men God hath intrusted the soules of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiasticall orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spirituall with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must governe the Church or else the Clergy must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition then a tyranny To say that the Laity should governe the Church when all Ecclesiasticall Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it saies for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who are called so * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spirituall are inferior to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soule be rul'd by them with whom their Soules are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councells and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chiefe and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance but ever in subordination to the Bishop the Laity must obey de integro For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them But for the maine S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Iames translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this businesse up compleat all these authorities of great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those severall Churches respectively but meere derivations from tradition Apostolicall for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 th Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their soules * And if a Presbyter shall contemne his owne 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 Episcopall 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 governe and give them lawes It was particularly instanc'd in the case of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these Lawes so he reckoning up the extent Lib. 5. cap. 28. of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops § 36. Appointing them to be Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity THe Bishops were Ecclesiasticall Iudges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spirituall I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for soules they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coërcion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coërcion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 33. 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 vnlesse the BISHOP THAT CENSUR'D HIM be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Councell only
it is Can. 5. permitted that any one may appeale to a Synod of BISHOPS si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himselfe wrong'd 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 ut 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 UISUM FUERIT humaniorum 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 owne 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 firme and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speakes indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocesse and jurisdiction The fourth Councell of Carthage gives in expresse termes the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop Can. 59. calling ayd from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractary 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 Clergy-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Councell with frivolous appeales and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemne him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Councell of Antioch is yet more particular in it's Sanction for this affayre intimating a cleare distinction of proceeding in the causes of a Bishop and the other of Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. 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 OWNE BISHOP if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopelesse of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Iudge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firme omnimodò 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 ..... Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appeare at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturbe the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Adde to this the first Canon of the same Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c If any one be excommunicate by his owne 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 Iudge 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 Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9. If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminall but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop under paine of the Canon * I end this with the at estation of the Councell of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or Can. 13. 14. of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP that other Bishop must by no meanes receive him into his communion Thus farre we have matter of publike right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge of the causes and 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 Apostolicall Canons of the Generall Councells of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councells of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cognisance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them counsellors and assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mention'd in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmaticall resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspition * Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing Epist. 10. to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was
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 sub ditorum 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 alwaies was in the Bishop so now the execution also did returne to him when he was there in person himselfe 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 borne and not well spoken in the Latin tongue and so unfit for publike 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 himselfe was present indeed against the VSE and CUSTOME 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 heresy 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 Lib. 5. c. 22. Thence came this Custome in the African Churches But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able and himselfe for want of Latin so unfit he gave leave to Austin to preach before him against the Custome of the African Churches But he addes this reason for his excuse too it was not indeed the custome of Africa but it was of the Orientall Churches For so Possidonius proceeds sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens in the Levant it was usuall for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat which determines us fully in the businesse For this leave to doe offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himselfe could not fulfill the offices which showes the Presbyters in their severall charges whether of temporary mission or fixtt residence to be but Delegates and Viears of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocesse Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome and Ad 〈◊〉 Narbon dist 95. can Ecce ego 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 saies the expresse contrary unlesse 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 lawfull for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop Indeed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach nor to blesse 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 cleare 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 show he did amisse 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 custome 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 Posteà currente volante hujusmodi famâ bono praecedente exemplo ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei By occasion of this precedent it came to passe that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence having first obtain'd faculty from the Bishop so to doe And a little after it became a custome from a generall faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Councell of Vase Can. 12. Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome let him then first be reconciled to himselfe and then we are sure to be help'd For in his dialogue against the Luciferians his words are these Cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potest as 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 showes clearely not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction but that they have sole jurisdiction and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge ** § 38. Reserving Church goods to Episcopall 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 Councell of Gangra and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation without expresse delegation from the Bishop as appears in the seventh and eight Canons and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Councell * And therefore when in successe 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 Councell of Toledo complains and makes remedy An. Dom. 589. commanding ut omnia SECUNDUM CONSTITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is reniewed in the fourth Councell of Toledo Noverint autem Cap.
office of power and great authority p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendome p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supream Church Officer p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him onely the Pastor of the Church p. 145 26 And Doctor p. 149 27 And Pontifex And Sacerdos p. 150 28 And these were a distinct order from the rest p. 156 29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree p. 160 30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation p. 198 34 Power of Iurisdiction p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 35 Vniversall obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopall license p. 251 38 Church-goods reserved to Episcopal dispensatiō 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Dioces or to travell without leave of the Bishop p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased p. 267 41 Bishops onely did vote in Councels and neither Presbyters nor People p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks p. 292 43 The Bishops Iurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes p. 295 44 Their Iurisdiction was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary p. 323 46 They are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop p. 327 47 And Hereticks p. 329 48 Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great honour p. 335 49 And trusted with affaires of Secular interest p. 351 50 And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church p. 375 ERRATA PAg. 21. line 8. insert except S. John Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters read Bishops Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy insert c. l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers OF THE Sacred Order and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION APOSTOLICALL TRADITION Catholick practise c. IN all those accursed machinations which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church Inimicus homo that old superseminator of heresies and crude mischiefes hath indeavoured to be curiously compendious and with Tarquin's device put are summ a papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium The Priests but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all Tolleimpios Polycarpus requiratur Away with these pedling persecutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lay the axe at the root of the tree Insomuch that in Rome from S. Peter and S. Paul to S. Sylvester thirty three Bishops of Rome in immediate succession suffered an Honourable and glorious Martyrdome unlesse * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur Saith Platina but that is wholly uncertaine Meltiades be perhaps excepted whom Eusebius and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius Conteret caput ejus was the glorious promise Christ should break the Divell's head and though the Divell 's active part of the Duell was farre lesse yet he would venture at that too even to strike at the heads of the Church capita vicaria for the head of all was past his striking now And this I say he offered to doe by Martyrdome but that insteed of breaking crown'd them His next onset was by Iulian and occidere Presbyterium that was his Province To shut up publick Schooles to force Christians to ignorance to impoverish and disgrace the Clergy to make them vile and dishonourable these were his arts and he did the Divell more service in this finenesse of undermining then all the open battery of the ten great Rammes of persecution But this would not take For that which is without cannot defile a man So it is in the Church too Cedunt in bonum all violences ab extrà But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces reunited them at Nice at Constantinople at Ephesus at Chalcedon at Carthage at Rome and in every famous place of Christendome and by God's goodnesse and the Bishops industry Catholick religion was conserved in Vnity and integrity Well! however it is Antichrist must come at last and the great Apostacy foretold must be and this not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity When ye heare of warres and rumors of warres be not afraid said our B. Saviour the end is not yet It is not warre that will doe this great work of destruction for then it might have been done long ' ere now What then will doe it We shall know when we see it In the meane time when we shall find a new device of which indeed the platforme was laid in Aërius and the Acephali brought to a good possibility of compleating a thing that whosoever shall heare his ears shall tingle an abhomination of desolation standing where it ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the praeparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostacy For if Antichrist shall exalt himselfe above all that is called God and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such Dii vocati Dii facti I think we have great reason to be suspitious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very neer conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concernes will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdome by which he governes all Christendome so themselves have taught us so that in case it be proved that Episcopacy is that government then they to use their own expressions throw Christ out of his Kingdome and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our feares in this and all things else may be vaine that what we feare may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and praeparatory to the great Apostacy I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of 1. times for now after that
Whence it is evident that then it was the beliefe of Christendome that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministery given to faithfull people after Baptisme but only by Apostolicall or Episcopall consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendome was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could doe it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is cleare that S. Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministeriall giving of the holy Ghost but the Apostles must goe to doe it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought de facto alwaies was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwaies be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to doe it that is an office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never doe it and this is it which we call Episcopacy 3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole § 9. And Superiority of Iurisdiction Church each Apostle respectively of his severall Diocesse when he would fixe his chaire had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christs donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater Iohn 20. 21. sic ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententiae Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis Lib. 7. de baptism Contra Donatist c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian de Unit. Eccles. S. Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 12. c. 55. ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Councell 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 Aërius 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 appeares in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordaine Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Ierusalem 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 enimies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopall preheminence over Presbyters as will appeare 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 bee proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them severall commissions and parts of the office Apostolicall all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders Truth is if we change the scene of warre 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 then for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clericall Ephes. 4. 1. Corinth 12. offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other members of the induction are of guifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must inferre many more orders then 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 guift 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 alwaies 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 Apostolicall only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolicall alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a lesse 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 Apostolicall ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolicall institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it followes that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolicall or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolicall And that I say truth besides that
there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practise of Christendome not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyters have no Iurisdiction essentiall to their order but derivative only from Apostolicall preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithfull people from the Catholick communion without cause and without authority S. Iohn the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gajus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punish't his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination as Matthias succeeded Iudas who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as a Lib. 1. hist. c 12. l. 2. c. 9. Eusebius b Haeres 20. Epiphanius and c De script Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l. 4. c. 63. Tertul de praescript S. Ierome affirme and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Iesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea diverse others of the 72 reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius others of the Fathers did governe the severall Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is cleare that he that receives no more power after the Apostles then he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It followes then since as will more fully appeare anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater then the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I meane not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Iurisdiction in the Apostolicall Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Iurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appeares from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Iurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolicall for the regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schismes and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coërcion was more necessary then at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary authority 2. Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetuall not so as to have * Ut puta viduarum collegium Diaconorum coenobium fidelium c all that which was personall and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine Authority for our government which we must contend to doe and doe it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did governe the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they fayl'd in the founding of the Church and the Church is not built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retayn'd or else we must be governned with an Unlawfull and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himselfe and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fayrest intimation I meane the seaven Angel-Presidents of the seaven Asian Churches If these seaven Angels were seaven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seaven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certaine that a Superiority of Iurisdiction was intended by Christ himselfe and given by him insomuch as he is the fountaine of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seaven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seaven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be suppos'd he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sunne of righteousnesse they had not else been Angels of light nor starres held in Christ's owne right hand This is certaine that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these starres and Angels The seaven starres are the Angells of the seaven Revel 1. vers 20. Churches and the seaven Candlesticks are the seaven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a finall intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocesse with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs yet the personall direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seaven Candlesticks but to the seaven starres which are the Angels of the seaven Churches viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angell therefore is not cannot be mean't the whole Church 2. It is plaine that by the Angel is mean't the Governour of the Church 1. Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and diverse others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of Eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shewes that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to
first the Episcopall chayre 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 adde 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 sense of Scripture and the Catholike Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it followes from the premises and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs owne designation and ordination Apostolicall made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolicall concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have beene But that this also was not a temporary businesse and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the S. Simeon to be his successor first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appeares by the ordination of S. Simeon the sonne of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium lacobi .... traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. 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 lib 4. cap. 22. .... electione divinâ Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordayn'd Bishop by a Divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first haeres 66. Iames and next Simeon qui sub Trajano crucifixus est THe next Bishop we find ordayn'd by the Apostles § 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordayn'd by an Apostle appeares in Scripture For S. Paul impos'd hands on him that 's certayne 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 2. Tim. 1. 6. offices concredited to him 1. He was to be * 1. Tim. 1. 3. resident at Ephesus And although for the publike necessityes of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he liv'd and dyed as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasionall and when it was his Cure was supplyed 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 Episcopall deportment as is plaine A Bishop must be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. 1. Tim. 3. 3. 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 1. Tim. 5. 1. 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 provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compellest me to shed teares Suavitèr omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekely but yet so as to doe his office to keep all in their severall duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widdowes Give all these things in charge Command all to doe 1. Tim. 5. 7. 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 haeres 7 5. 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 coercitive authority at all Nay and howsoever S. Paul forbids to 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 2. Tim. 4. 2. is not all for S. Paul gives him coercitive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widdowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger Widdowes 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 cognisance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation in foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminall That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminall then for his punishing in such causes it followes in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 5. 20. Reprehend them publikely that is disgrace them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecorus .... 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad γ. 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 one's life idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. c. Iliad But the words in S. Paul will cleare this businesse Let them that sinne be publikly sham'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may feare A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they feare to sinne Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for feare of being punished Adde to all this that here is in this chapter the plaine
wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordaine and Advers Iovinian therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall hee take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordaine these Bishops in Citties is in order to coercitive jurisdiction because many unruly and vaine talkers were crept in vers 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolicall institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himselfe had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordayn'd these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his comming had not Episcopall power or coercitive jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordayn'd before his ordayning them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercitiv jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his owne person for they that were there before his comming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not loose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordain'd For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest quà m ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his owne person and then it followes Undeniably that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impcccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schisme and tumutuary factions without possibility of releife or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personall prerogative but a power to be succeded to he might ordaine others he had authority to doe it with the same power he had himselfe and therefore since he alone had this coërcion in his owne person so should his Successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his comming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordaine if they were but meere Presbyters could not have it no more then the Presbytes that were there before his comming it followes that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine 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 himselfe call's Bishops in the proper sense and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus comming had not power to ordaine others that is had not that power which Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordaine others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meere Presbyters could not doe it and yet this must be done not onely by Titus himselfe but after him it followes undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine men with the same power that himselfe had that is with more then his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he meanes them in the proper sense 7. That by Elders in severall Cityes he meanes Bishops is also plaine from the place where they were to be ordaind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cityes not in village Townes For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Townes as is to be seene in the Councell of a cap. 6. Sardis of b can 17. Chalcedon and S. c Epist 87. ad Episc. Afric Leo the Cityes therefore doe at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordain'd were not meere Presbyters The issue of this discourse is that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordaine Bishops himselfe was a Bishop to be sure at least If he had ordain'd only Presbyters it would have prov'd that But this inferres him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his owne 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 inferres his being a Bishop if not a great deale more Yea but did not S. Titus ordaine no meere Presbyters yes most certainely 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 ordaines a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtaines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that those inferior orders are presuppos'd in the authorizing the Supreame and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferiour orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Adde to this that he that ordaines Bishops in Cityes sets there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainely with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no expresse provision for villages and yet most certainely did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he tooke order that such ordinations should be made in Cityes which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordaine and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordaine other Presbyters as appeares by S. Paul's sending Titus to doe it there where most certainely many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cityes destitute or if they staid in Cityes the Villages would have perished and atlast when these men had dyed both one and the other had beene made a prey to the wolfe for there could be no
criminall and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius Vbi supra apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23. For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already prooved and for the present it will sufficiently appeare in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unlesse they could be their own superiours BUt a Councell or Colledge of Presbyters §. 21. Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they rul'd without him * This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud S. Ierom's words are these Comment in ep ad Titum 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 consitio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos put abat esse non Christi in toto or be decretum est ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quid facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordayne a Bishop does which is a cleare difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non FACIAT not non facit that a Priest may not must not doe that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Diocesse therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary by actuall indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and originall right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had beene quickly answered if the Question had onely beene de facto For the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Iurisdiction was greater then Presbyters and this was by custome and in fact at least S. Hierome saies it and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco palibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complain'd of so that de facto the power of Ad Nepotian de 7. ordin Eccles. ordination was not the onely difference That then if S. Hierome sayes true being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a superiour order to the Presbyterate * Adde to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Act. 20. And Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needes a proofe and this he Undertooke Now that they are so called must needes inferre an identity and a disparity in severall respects An identity at least of Names for else it had beene wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a businesse next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he meanes the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certaine if he stand to his owne principles This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in jurisdiction I know not certainely which he meanes for his arguments conclude onely for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he meanes the first viz that of Names it is well enough there is no harme done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so farre as may be guess'd by his words a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction this must be consider'd distinctly 1. Then in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at
Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we doe Act. 13. 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 doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit Act. 20. of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus Act. 20. 4. And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sense the lessar Asia For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have vers 18. beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side
and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signify a meere Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sense and not to doe so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the termes These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meere Presbyters * And least it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Ierusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopall and Apostolicall authority and so at Antioch as at Ierusalem where Iames and Iudas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But 2 ly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other countries as appears vers 4. So that although they were all Bishops wee might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplyed incumbency Thus farre then we are upon even termes the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meere Presbyters then Bishops in the proper sense 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his fare-well Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolicall for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witnesse and Trophimus of Arles in France Vbi supra for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premises we have a witnesse beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant eb Lib. 3. cap. 14. Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making hast to keep his Pentecost at Ierusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastorall supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of v. 18. ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage viz. in a collective sense not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travailes but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of v. 25. yee all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for S. Paul sent for him a litle before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at this meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolicall men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gajus and to the other Apostolicall men who had at least Episcopall authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Bishops alone or to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertaine by any intination of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more then probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practise of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it selfe when they were to leave a Church to fixe a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Ierusalem so long before in other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloudy field of Martyrdome was to be fought And the case was equall here for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds and he had actually plac'd a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equall provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either S. Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other sixe Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and S. Timothy had sate in Ephesus and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. Iohn writ his Revelation 6. Lastly that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appeares beyond all
exception by S. Pauls first epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a commission given to the whole assembly and no more concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is v. 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For TAKEN AWAY FROM You implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himselfe He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall and pertaining to the publick regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angell of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fix't as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S.
Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus in Ephes. 4. locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata alitèr composita res est quà m caperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it 's owne nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. Iohn and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to goe away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Antioch So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a businesse of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Doe you feed the flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sense Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater then all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councell at Ierusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse and Iurisdiction * 2 ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their owne hands in S. Hieromes time this is it which he saith is rather by custome then by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no law of God against the delegation of power Episcopall * As for the last words in the objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Debere is a Non sequitur unlesse this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments that is THEY OUGHT not by Gods law but in imitation of the practise Apostolicall to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were THEY OUGHT for many considerations and in Great cases not by the necessity of a Divine precept * And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have rul'd alone yet was content to take others to him and himselfe only to rule in chiefe Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needlesse now * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is I have and shall else where produce for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place of a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 11. S. Chrysostome It is needlesse to repeat either the objection or answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument against an Evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party or to runne upon their owne Swords For either they are to be understood in the senses above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholike antiquity and so are false and dye within their owne trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolicall with that saying of S. 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 Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publike 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 governe the flock commited to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schisme for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens tooke them for his owne not as Christs disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. Iames and S. Marke and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes expresse attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not beene proved to have beene an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much lesse it being as I have proved and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIKE and APOSTOLICK * BEe ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolicall precept We have § 22. And all this hath beene the faith practise of Christendome seene 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. CATHOLIKE
same reason is given by the Latine Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signifie Episcopacy For saith S. Ambrose S. Paul had ordain'd Timothy to be a Bishop Vnde quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ordinaret Majorem So he and subjoynes this reason Nemo n. tribuit quodnon accepit The same is affirmed by S. Chrysostome and generally by the authors of the former expositions that is the Fathers both of the East and West For it was so Generall and Catholike a truth that Priests could not might not lay hands on a Bishop that there was never any example of it in Christendome till almost 600 yeares after Christ and that but once and that A. D. 555. irregular and that without imitation in his Successors or example in his Antecessors It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first dum non essent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent inventi sunt duo Episcopi Iohannes de Perusio Bonus de Ferentino Andraeas Presbyter de O stiâ ordinaverunt eum Pontificem Tunc enim non erant in Clero qui eum possent promovere Saith Damasus It was in case of necessity in libr. Pontificali vit Pelag. 1. because there were not three Bishops therefore he procur'd two and a Priest of O stia to supply the place of the third that three according to the direction Apostolicall and Canons of Nice Antioch and Carthage make Episcopall ordination * The Church of Rome is concern'd in the businesse to make faire this ordination and to reconcile it to the Councell of Rhegium and the others before mentined who if ask't would declare it to be invalid * But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop so also they commanded that those three should be three Bishops and Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the ordination if done by two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Nicene Canon is as much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I beleive that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case then if a lay man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Un-canonicall yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolicall Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in formâ Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheate the Canon and cozen himselfe into an impertinent beleife of a Canonicall ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. Concil Sardic saith the Councell of Sardis Bishops must ordaine Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises doe most certainely inferre a reall difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they inferre a difference of order or onely 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 all Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were us'd promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greeke word and for it the Latins us'd Ordo as is evident in the instances above mention'd to which adde that Anacletus sayes that Epist. 3. Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirmes Primum ordinem Epist. 84. c. 4. esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greekes are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c is a censure us'd 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 affirm'd of them all and the word gradus is us'd sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Lib. 1 c. 12. de act is cum Felice Manich Austin Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam virtutem quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotij sublime lib 4. Epist. 2. fastigium cunctis religionis GRADIBUS ascendit Degree and Order are us'd 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 wrong'd by a mutuall substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first call'd ordinatio Episcopi Stirre vp the Grace that is in the juxta ORDINATIONEM tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierome Prophetiae gratiam habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs * Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ORDINARET majorem saith S. Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro ORDINATUM edit saith Tertullian and S. Hierome affirmes that S. Iames was ORDAIND Bishop de praescript cap. 32. of Ierusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the word at first and afterwards CONSECRATUS came in conjunction with it When Moses the Monke was to be ordain'd 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 saies he vt manus tua lib. 4. cap. 23. me CONSECRET 3. In all orders there is the impresse of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to doe certaine offices which before his ordination he had no power to doe A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himselfe 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 Councell of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give cap. 1. orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is defin'd by the Schooles to be traditio potestatis spiritualis collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spirituall power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiasticall 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 Schoole 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 speciall 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 ordayning 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 consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sense Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more then 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 deni'd it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would faine know how 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 ordaine Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration then all those inferiour officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unlesse because they will not *** But however in the meane 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 onely by the way The Enemies of Episcopacy call in aide from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their maine hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest worke of the most secret mystery S. Hieron ad Rusticum Narbonens apud Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego casus ibid. 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 Counter-poise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would inferre an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would inferre a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be serv'd 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 certainely 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 doe that which in Gods estimate may tant ' amount to a direct Vndervaluing but however it is vnprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fixe it selfe upon any basis therebeing no way of proving either to be more excellent then the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in severall respects For since they are all in order to severall ends that is productive of severall effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent then the other not ordain'd to that effect For example Matrimony is ordain'd for a means to preserve chastity and to represent the mysticall union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater then baptisme which does neither But * The Nicene Creed baptisme is for remission of sinnes and in that is more excellent then Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs naturall body as the Schooles speak the other in order to his mysticall body and so have their severall excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fixe that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they goe both before and after one another Thus Wooll and a Iewell are better then each other for wooll is better for warmth and a jewell for ornament A frogge hath more sense in it then the Sunne and yet the Sunne shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater then 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 then ordination the Priest would not only equall but excell 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 Clericall power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equall in the greatest power yet a lesser power then it superadded to the Bishop's may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the sonne of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower then 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 Angells 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 lesse is paulò minor Angelis a little lower then the Bishop the Angell of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angell and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spirituall essence they both discourse
ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras himselfe was reduc'd into lay communion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist Presb. Diacon Mareotic ad Curiosum Philagrium the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischiras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so knowne a businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus who was another Bishop in the aire too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read Cap. 4. the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill These cases are so known I need not insist on them Cap. 5. This onely In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacraments conferr'd by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to Minister but in the cases of the present instance the ordinations were pronounc'd as null to have bestowed nothing and to be meerely imaginary * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordain'd without a title or in the diocesse of another Bishop as in the Councell of †Can. 6. Chalcedon and of * Can 13. 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 Counter-mand of an equall power A Councell at most may doe it and therefore without a Councell a probable necessity will let us loose But to this the answer is evident 1. The expressions in the severall cases are severall of diverse issue for in case of those nullities which are meerely Canonicall they are expressed as then first made but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop they are onely declared voy'd ipso facto And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations the Canon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs impositionem to be esteem'd as null that is not to have Canonicall approbation but is not declared null in Naturâ rei as it is in the foregoing instances 2. In the cases of Antioch and Chalcedon the decree is pro futuro which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made 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 Synodall declarations pronoun'd such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a cleare evidence that this nullity viz in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declar'd to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by the 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 dependant upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was onely in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speake lesse for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognisance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Ierome Quid facit Episcopus except â ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith ad Evagrium 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 Solâ homil 2. in 1. Tim. 2. lâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantùm 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 call'd an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aërius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemn'd and branded for heresie and by the Catholike Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring then positive and Canonicall Sanction But now proceed The Councell held in Trullo complaining that Can. 37. the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forc'd some Bishops from their residence made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and doe 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 Canonicall ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Councell And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by the 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 Councell that hath an expression very pertinent to Can. 20. 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 doe them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearely by this Canon some things suppos'd 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 nam'd before viz Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Councell 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 us'd by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordaine Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholike Church which S. Epiphanius oppos'd to the haeres 75. doctrine of Aërius 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 baptisme but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a
very remarkeable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordaine him and then certainely scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a rul'd case and attested by the Uniforme practise of the Church which was set downe in the third Councell of Carthage Episcopus vnus esse potest per quem Can. 45. dignatione Divinâ 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 vnus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widdow-Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keepe ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have beene 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 himselfe ordaine many and then I am sure there is 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 Councell the Councell of a Cap. 9. Antioch the Cap. 19. Councell of b Cap. 2. 6. Chalcedon and S. Ierome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of Iohn of Ierusalem If thou speake 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 ordain'd him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councells appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordain'd by two Bishops together but onely Origen by the Bishops of Ierusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mention'd 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 adde this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonicall which were most vnreasonable if Presbyters did joine in them and were causes in conjunction But unlesse they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixt Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon and in the Imperiall constitutions Since therefore we neither find Presbyters join'd with Bishops in commission or Novell constit 6. 1. 223. cap. 16. practise or penalty all this while I may inferre from the premises the same thing which the Councell of Hispales expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone Cap. 6. lone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffer'd to take it away * This Councell was held in the yeare 657 and I set it downe here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Councell Can 2 3. 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 yeares after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Councell no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Councell sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 yeares together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtain'd that although Presbyters joyne not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they doe but this is onely by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provinciall of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practise * I know not what can be said against it I onely find a peice of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocesse that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy * Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi Epist. 33. à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he meanes 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 observ'd before against the practise of Christendome will not easily be admitted to be the sense of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters join'd 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 ordain'd was ordain'd 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 practise of Primitive antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meere 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 publike interest to approve all that they doe that wee have disabled our selves to justify our owne For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Romane Church we found these men zealous in it we thank'd God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justify 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 wee did not condemne the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church then what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councells and Fathers doe well in condemning the ordinations made by meere
Churches Catholike and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this will not an extraordinary calling justifie it Yea most certainely could we but see an ordinary proofe for an extraordinary calling viz an evident prophecy demonstration of Miracles certainety of reason clarity of sense or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission But shall we then condemne those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations alwaies have beene without Bishops No indeed That must not be They stand or fall to their owne Master And though I cannot justifie their ordinations yet what degree their Necessity is of what their desire of Episcopall ordinations may doe for their personall excuse and how farre a good life and a Catholike beleife may leade a man in the way to heaven although the formes of externall communion be not observ'd I cannot determine * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus I know thy works and where thou dwellest even where Sathans seate is and thou heldest fast my FAITH and hast not denied my Name Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca some few things I have against thee and yet of them the want of Canonicall ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied but if it cannot be done their sinne indeed is the lesse but their misery the Greater * I am sure I have said sooth but whether or no it will be thought so I cannot tell and yet why it may not I cannot guesse unlesse they only be impeccable which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them who themselves thinke that all the Church possibly may faile But this I would not have declar'd so freely had not the necessity of our owne Churches requir'd it and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations beene boyed up to the height of an absolute necessity for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conforme to us and to the practise of the Catholike Church and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeale to exact our conformity to them But I hope it will so happen to us that it will be verifyed here what was once said of the Catholikes under the fury of Iustina sed tanta fuit persever antia fidelium populorum vt animas priùs amittere quà m Episcopum mallent If it were put to our choice rather to dye to wit the death of Martyrs not rebells then loose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy without which no Priest no ordination no consecration of the Sacrament no absolution no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity The summe is this If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolicall if the decrees of eight famous Councells in Christendome of Ancyra of Antioch of Sardis of Alexandria two of Constantinople the Arausican Councell and that of Hispalis if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations if the testimony of the whole Pontificall book if the dogmaticall resolution of so many Fathers S. Denis S. Cornelius S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Austin and diverse others all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand if the constant voice of Christendome declaring ordinations made by Presbyters to be null and voide in the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a non-Non-Bishop approoved by any Councell decretall or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendome if that ordinations of Bishops were alwaies 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 heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aërius 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 then the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voyce and united vote of Christendome * BUT this was but the first part of the power § 33. And Confirmation 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 manûs impositionem donum Epist. de Chorepisc Spiritus 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 Councell of Eliberis giving permission to faithfull people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in cases of necessity and exigence of journey it a tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improv'd by imposition of the BISHOPS hands This was Law It was also custome saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc Epist. ad Iubaian 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 custome was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversall concernement OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretall Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine Apud Sev. Binium in 1. tom Concil morâ renasci demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sanctigratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement ALL FAITHFULL baptized people must goe to the Bishop to be consign'd and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtaine the seven fold guifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spaine affirmes confirmation in this to have a speciall excellency besides baptisme quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give confirmation And the same is said proov'd by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be perform'd by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostome speaking of S. Philip converting Homil. 18. in Act. 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 guift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was PECULIAR to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to passe that the principall and
as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum cōtumeliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea Epist. 11. but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them ketpe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended Epist. 12. them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus Epist. 65. resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa 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 Epist. 55. the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox Tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furiosum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy that he was hated by them which clearely showes that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excesse of power 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 Clergy unlesse thou strikest them all with thy Pastorall rod. S. Iohn Chrysostome did not indeed doe so but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergy men for diverse 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 clearely 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 joyne with their Bishop to supend themselves Adde to this that Theodoret Ibid. cap. 4. also affirmes that Chrysostome 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. Hierome to Riparius Miror sanctum Advers Vigilant Epist. 53. Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ APOSTOLICA virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not mov'd at the fury of Vigilantius and does not breake him with his APOSTOLICALL rod that by this temporary punishment his soule might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hither to the Bishops Pastorall staffe is of faire power and coërcion The Councell 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 judgement of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would faine have been judg'd 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 Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Councell S. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco
the Bishop was Iudge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocesse that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency that his censures were firme 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't by them either in full Councell 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 unlesse in cases of appeale 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 Imperiall Constitutions Novel constit 123. c. 11. For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognisance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speake in most large and comprehensive termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to doe what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Councell of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though then S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proofe of you whether ye be obedient 2. Corinth 2. 9. IN ALL THINGS A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universall obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runne in descention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must doe NOTHING without your BISHOP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in NOTHING Vbi suprà The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgement or cognisance so the Councell of Antioch Ca. 9. * But these Universall expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himselfe Ye must without your Bishop doe nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiasticall persons it is an Ecclesiasticall power they are indowed with it is for a spirituall end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of soules and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopall cognisance And what things are those 1. Then it is certaine that since Christ hath professed his Kingdome 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 Host is Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunall did take cognisance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christ'ned And these are all actions civill all publike violations of justice all breach of Municipall lawes These the Church hath nothing to doe with unlesse by the favour of Princes and common-wealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annull such pious vowes is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unlesse there was sinne 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 it's new distinctive Principles I say by it's new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the lawes of nature there the secular tribunall 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 republike 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 Clergy to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchicall rites and ceremonies liturgyes and publike formes of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologyes tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome 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 pretious soules may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people 3. There are somethings of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution and these are of double cognisance the secular power and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencyes of Clergy-men who are both Clergy and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflected a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in severall ages upon the exigence of severall occasions and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the common-wealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiasticall because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things
let him communicate till hee had wash't away his sinnes by repentance And the Emperour did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuer at 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 Ecclesiasticall Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captaine a Consull or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater then his If thou darest not remove him tell it mee I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more errour in the managing Church-censures then in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandall or danger to her selfe 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 forraine enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinterest in the allegeance 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 designes and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawfull to inflict thē 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 In 3. partis Supplem q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep 75. Gratian dist 24. q. 2. c. Sihabet sed ibi Princeps non inseritur sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ but is indeed found in the Ordinary Glosse upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Common wealth 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 cognisance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of soules such a power quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognisance viz. things spirituall 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 Common-wealth And this I the rather noted to show how those men would mend themselves that cry downe the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognisance of all causes whatsoever which are either sinnes directly or by reduction * All crimes which Vide the book of Order of Excomm in Scotland the Hist. of Scotland Admonit 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England 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 adde this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sinne there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspitious scandalous or criminall true or imaginary reall actions or personall in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or reall injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullify all Courts and judicatories besides their owne and being for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory no appeale from them but they shall heare and determine with finall resolution and it will be sinne and therefore punishable to complaine of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the Modesty of their severall demands and the reasonablenesse and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudentiall motives to be put into ballance to weigh downe this Question the cause would soone be determin'd and the little finger of Presbytery not only in it's exemplary and tryed practises but in its dogmaticall pretensions is heavier then the loynes nay then the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldome happens otherwise but that they who usurpe a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawfull power are faire and moderate BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopall license of Episcopall Iurisdiction 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 shewes the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendome S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Smyrn It is not lawfull 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 generall 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 doe not here dispute the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure doe any offices without Episcopall licence but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church This is sufficient to show 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 publike disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should
32. conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt nullam se potestatem habere SED IUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councells I produce not as Iudges but as witnesses in the businesse for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it selfe so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Councell of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it selfe is almost 1100. years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense For so it was determin'd Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videatur Concil Carthag Graec. can 36. 38. 41. Balsam ibid. apologia 2. Iustini Martyris according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop ADde to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not goe to another Diocesse So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under paine of suspension or deposition § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse or to travell without leave of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would not returne when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Councell of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixe himselfe in the Diocesse of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed Vide Concil Epaun. c. 5. venet c. 10. in many other Synodall decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocesse is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy men might not travaile from Citty to Citty without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clericall subordination to their Bishop The Councell of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy Can. 41. man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travail without Canonicall or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition Can. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerke must not travaile without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law de consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Councell The same is in the Councell of a Can. 38. Agatho The Councell of b Can. 5. Venice adds a cēsure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Councell of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diacono Can. 6. sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Councell of Tourayne in France and the third Councell of Orleans attest the selfe same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased jurisdiction unlesse it be also remunerative the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but halfe a tye to indeare obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the primitive Church to make the Episcopall jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocesse to the higher Orders and neerer degrees of approximation to himselfe and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPISCOPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour Can. 31. in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not alwaies goe together and also severall Orders had severall manner of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon severall pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainely the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every Church and they passed thorough Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he saies of himselfe and Titus For this cause I SENT thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou shouldest oppoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordain'd them no man questions but he also APPOINTED THEM and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Titus V 5. as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolicall ordinance that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS Let there be halfe so much showne for the people and I will also indeavour to promote their interest **** There is onely one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widdowes * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of soules This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monyes it was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their owne right it was to satisfye the multitude it was to avoid scandall which in the dispensation of moneyes might easily arise it was in a temporary office it was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescrib'd them it was out of the number
of the 70 that the election was made if we may beleive S. Epiphanus so that they were Presbyters before this choice and lastly it was onely a Nomination of seven Men the determination of the buisinesse and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom WE MAY APPOINT over this businesse after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearely and indubiously the clection of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles owne persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first APPOINTED to be your Governour or Bishop by the APOSTLES and themselves did committ Epist. ad Antioch 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 Apostolicall The People did not might not choose the Ministers of holy Church So the Councell of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. The people must not choose 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 Councell of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Councell forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordayned which clearely reserves to the Bishop the power of retayning or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already prooved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendome that no Presbyter might be ordain'd sine titulo without a particular charge which was alwaies custome and at last grew to be a law in the Councell of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the onely chooser for then to ordaine 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 Diocesse as I have already showne And therefore when S. Ierome according to the custome of Christendome had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops Epist. 61. 62. as how himselfe was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cùm tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Hieron ad Nepotian let the Bishop rejoyce in his owne 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 lib. 1. offic cap. 44. id officij deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret reports of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licèt turpem Tripart hist. lib. 5. cap. 32. habentes vitam ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem Diacontûs evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanc'd his owne faction but would not promote any man that was Catholike and pious So he did The power therefore of Clericall promotion was in his owne hands This thing is evident and notorious And there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people choosing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples hast snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordayne him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordayn'd was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum lib. 1. Epist. 5. communi consilio ponderare It was his custome to advise with his people concerning the publike fame of Clerks to be ordayn'd It was usuall I say with him but not perpetuall 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 actuall interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publike acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. Iames of S. Marke and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the severall chayres 2 ly This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Councell and the 31 th Canon of the Apostles which under paine 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 maximè habeat potestatem Epist. 68. vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited The people have power to choose 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 publikely in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publike judgement and testimony or as S. Paul's 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 publike attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appeares clearely by S. Cyprian's 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 Sonne of Eleazer and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagogâ before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and look'd on that 's all that this argument can supply * Iust thus Bishops are and ever were ordayn'd 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 publike testimony and examination for so it followes sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proof's whence we may
and the Bishops of the Province and the Clergy of the Church and the people of the Citty were assembled at the choosing of another the Emperour makes a speech to the Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5. Bishops only that they should be carefull in their choyce 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 faire complyings to be used so long as they are pious catholick and obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one halfe of this 6. There are in Antiquity diverse precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will choose a Bishop over his head and proclaime that they were weary of him In those daies they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appeare it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to choose Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperour he complyed with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21. whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian * Thus did Valerius choose his successor S. Austin for though the people nam'd him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usuall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to doe 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 saies they alwaies did so in Alexandria from S. Markes time to Heraclas and Dionysius * S. Ambrose saies that at the first In Ephes. 4. the Bishop was not by a formall new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one dyed 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 choyce of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it alwaies 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 meane and approbation did concurre with the Synod of Bishops in the choyce of a Bishop the people at last according to their usuall 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 publike scandall and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unlesse where themselves usurped farther then 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 learn'd to take deniall but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were check'd 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 Councell Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the senses above explicated Sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vnius cujusque 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 occasion'd many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he addes that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slaine and that sixe 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 choyce of Simeon Cleophae the Successor of S. Iames to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountaine of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himselfe 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 choose their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Councell the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to choose by the necessity oftimes and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choyce as is now folded up in a peice of paper even to a testimoniall 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 Tripart hist. lib. 10. c. 14. though God took away his life before himselfe would accept of their choyce and then they behav'd themselves oftentimes with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan basenesse that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 yeares 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 peices vide dist 63. per tot Gratian. But I thinke I need not have troubled my selfe halfe so farre for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as faine have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seeme superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of choosing Bishops be founded upon Gods 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 choose any man into that office which himselfe 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
enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Lib. 4. polit c. 15. They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks the Presbyters subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. Suo He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests So Theodoret. Peter and Irenaeus were two Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they have supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state for that is truly a reformation id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what
sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Faelix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should returne to his See on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied Lib. 2. c. 11. if plenty will doe it in a In 1. Philip. S. Chrysostome b in 1. Philip Theodoret S. c in 1. Philip Hierom d in 1. Philip Oecumenius e lib. 2. contr Parmen Optatus S. f in 1. Tim. 3. in 1. Phil. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole booke of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Prelatorum 6ly Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochiall then these were at least diocesan by their owne argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainely and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE and esteeme him as their HEAD and doe NOTHING without his consent but those things that appertaine to their owne Diocesse And from hence the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch deriv'd their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Concil Antioch ca. 9. 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 Apostolicall Constitution saith S. Clement that in the conversion of Gentile Epist. 1. ad Iacobum Fratrem Domini Cities in place of the Archflamines 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 Metropoliticall See long before the Nicene Councell as appeares in the sixth Canon before cited Nay Dioscorus the Bishop of vide Concil Chalced. act 1. in epist. Theod. Valentin Imp. that Church was required to bring ten of the METROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Councell of Ephesus by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours so that it was a PATRIARCHAT These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops Now then either Bishops were Parochiall 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 Parochiall Bishops under them * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle but as nowadayes it is made the consideration of it is materiall to the maine Question Only this I adde That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his owne and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had onely two townes in their charge and no more and each of these townes 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 disturbe this Question by pretending that the Bishops were onely parochiall not diocesan and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest Most certainely themselves could not beleive the allegation onely they knew it would raise a dust But by God's providence there is water enough in the Primitive fountaines to allay it ANother consideration must here be interpos'd §. 44. concerning the intervening of Presbyters in And was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred the regiment of the severall Churches For though I have twice already showne that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution or Apostolicall 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 Cardinalls too to make every Diocesse a Romane Consistory 1. Then the first thing we heare of Presbyters after Scripture I meane for of it I have already given account is from the testimony of S. Hierome in Epist. ad Titum cap. 1. Antequam studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli c communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Before factions arose in the Church the Church was govern'd by the common Counsell of Presbyters Here S. Hierome either meanes 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 governe both them and all the diocesse beside For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch Epist. ad Antioch exhorts the Pres byters to feed the flock untill God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa Epist. 2. 1. and some other women that had made defaillance in time of persecution and so were put to penance praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur The Presbyters whom sede vacante hee praeter morem suum calls Praepositos they gave order that they should so remaine till the Consecration of a Bishop * But if S. Hierome meanes this saying of his after Bishops were fixt then his expression answers the allegation for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum the IUDICIUM might be solely in the Bishop he was the IUDGE though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS For so himselfe addes that upon occasion of those first Schismes in Corinth it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD vt omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret all the care of the diocesse 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
overcome with those feares 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 19 th epistle is yet unanswer'd 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 fairely deliver'd 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 doe an act of so publike consequence without the advise of his Metropolitan He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolicall and so he did and no harme done to the present Question of the Bishops sole and independant power and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery who had nothing to doe beyond ministery counsell and assistance 3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was there were not alwayes a Colledge of Presbyters but only in the greatest Churches for sometimes in the lesser Cities there were but two Esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini sint per Ecclesias unus incivitate Episcopus So S. Ambrose sometimes there was but one in a Church Posthumianus in In 1. Timoth. 3. the third Councell 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 Eradius the Priest Sometimes not one as in the case Aurelius put in the same Councell I now cited of a Church that had never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that dyed 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 Iudge alone I am sure he had but little company sometimes none at all 4. But suppose it had been alwaies done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty and possibility of Scandall for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these 1. Tim. 1. Churches where Presbyteries were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecution and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not comply'd withall in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilisme for a discontented spirit will hide it selfe and take sanctuary in the reedes and mud of Nilus rather then not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge 2. As yet there had been scarse any Synods to determine cases of publike difficulty and what they could not receive from publike decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twise a yeare to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a yeare a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion then a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give generall rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been when the frequency of Generall Councells and Provinciall Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretalls of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions hath made the personall assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity requir'd not their presence and Counsell their own necessity requir'd that they should attend their severall cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what followes For either they must have Presbyters ordain'd without a title which I am sure they have complain'd of these threescore years or else they must be forc'd to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrences of the Church unlesse either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constitute doe not aide him but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by Custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity fail'd and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsolever Vbi suprà it nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I meane in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum In Isaiae c. 3. we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Ierusalem but they were not consulted in Church affaires matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to passe And thus it is to this day In our Mother Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the fowre generall Councells and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicisme and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so faire antiquity but however it was never otherwise then voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and Councell in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a
particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Councell of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre Can. 6. non potest A Bishop may alone ordaine a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that hee that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling downe then in raising up It was wont alwaies to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution then its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull downe a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodall sentence and determination for so the Canon runnes qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui sed praesentati SYNODALI IUDICIO quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determin'd in the Greekes Councell of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused Can. 20. their owne Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of sixe Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must ALONE heare and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be clancular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determin'd for Africa in the fourth Councell of Carthage Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Can. 23. 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 least the sentence should be clandestine and so illegall but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi the Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop ALONE might give sentence in the causes of the inferior Clergy even by this Canon it selfe which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our processe for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearely left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the maine question VVEE have seen what Episcopacy is in it selfe § 45. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 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 expresse in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcopo Sacerdotibus Qui verò foris Epist. ad Tral 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 obeyes 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 then an infidell NECESSE itaque est quicquid facitis ut SINE EPISCOPO NIHIL faciatis It is NECESSARY that what euer ye doe ye be sure to doe nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est Episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater then all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse then an infidell The same also he affirmes againe Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi Epist. ad Philadelph qui verò ab illo declinant cum maledict is communionem amplectuntur hi cum illis excidentur All them that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cutt off with them * If then we will be Christ's 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 Epist. 27. alibi spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keyes to Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio ECCLESIAE RATIO decurrit VT ECCLESIA SUPER EPISCOPOS CONSTITUATUR omnis actus Ecclesiae per EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernetur Hence is it that by severall succcession of Bishops the Church is continued so that the CHURCH HATH IT'S BEING OR CONSTITUTION BY BISHOPS and every act of Ecclesiasticall regiment is to be disposed by them Cùm 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 aske a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer bee called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces againe upon the same charge in his * Epist. 69. 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 it's Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyn'd Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum EPISCOPO NON SIT IN ECCLESIA NON ESSE frustrà sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latentèr apud quosà am communicarese
the time was Curate to S. Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on S. Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either S. Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished Philip. 2. v. 25. 26. for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdome Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter Epist. ad Antioch vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters doe you feed the flock till God shall designe you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour * To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Can. 56. Councell 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 unlesse the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seemes what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose S. Cyprian sent a playne commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vestrâ .... his literis hortor Epist. 9. Mando vt vos .... VICE MEA FUN GAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you doe my office in the administration of the affayres of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Epist. 38. 39. Faelicissimus and fower more Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and haeres 68. Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praeminere c vt qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personall declamatory clause in any Councell or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or lesse of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplexe and buisy dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopall function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Councell of Chalcedon might delegate to a steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Councell of Sevill forbid any lay-men to be stewards for the Church Elegimus vt vnusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta Concil Hispal cap. 6. ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum VICARIUM esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare VICARS OF BISHOPS the Canon allowes onely forbids lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c In one and the same office the law of God forbids to joyne men of disparate vapacities This then would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of antiquity for it's Sanction * FOR although antiquity approves of Episcopall §. 51. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay Elders in any Church office heard of in the Church Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37. delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Bishop and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria So were Herculanus and Caldonius to S. Cyprian But they never delegated to any lay-man any part of their Episcopall power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money * Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut LAICALI PROCURATIONE administrandam elegerit Concil Hispal ubi suprà .... non solùm a Christo derebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etià m Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affayres to LAY ADMINISTRATION he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Councell But the thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement Epist. ad Iacob Fratr Dom. which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judiciall contestation let it be ended before the PRIESTS For so S. Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy * To this or some paralell constitution S. Hierome relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of de 7. Ordin Eccles. causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Iudges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories Presybter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwaies Clergy with him and all men else * But for the mayne Question S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with Epist. 13. ad Valent. confidence and humility In causâ fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare that Clergy-men must onely judge of Clergy-causes and this S. Ambrose there call's judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores feceruntmei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiasticall Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus farre S. Ambrose * S. Athanasius
Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like Councell in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Sonne Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessefull 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 D. of Savoy repenting of his warre 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 Arrians 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 practise till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empresse Irene who put her Sonnes eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruell as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coales to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affaire in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Iustinian the Emperour A. D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome it selfe 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 Gothes invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true beliefe who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds doe persecute an errour lesse materiall in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common faith And I have heard it observ'd 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 chang'd his mind yet to Tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the secular power to be kild that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he dyed 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 Arrians 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 himselfe to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Iustinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons but as yet it came not so farre 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 only 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 Mothers dreame who the night before Dominick was born dream'd she was brought to Bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his disciples expound the dreame 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 this Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom hee 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 B. Bruno Berengarianes è suâ diocesi expulit non morti aut suppliciis corporalibus tradidit Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they cald Heresy and recanted and relapsed and recanted againe and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died siccâ morte his own naturall death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his judge which shewes that at that time Rome was not come to so great heigths of bloodshed 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 endeare 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 pollicies of evill persons but never the pure and chaste designs of Christianity which admits no blood but Christs and the imitating blood of Martyrs but knowes 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 unlesse so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny Popery and Faction did teach indifferency for I have shewn that Christianity does not punish corporally persons erring spiritually but indeed Popery does The Donatists and Circumcellians and Arrians and the Itaciani they of old did In the middle Ages the Patrons of Images did and the Papists at this day doe and have done ever since they were taught it by their S. Dominick Seventhly And yet after all this I have something more to exempt my selfe from the clamour of this Objection For let all errours be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that but let it be done by such meanes as are proper instruments of their suppression by Preaching and Disputation so that neither of them breed disturbance by charity and sweetnesse by holinesse of life assiduity of exhortation by
inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they misse of baptism for that is the doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from S. Austin and others also doe from hence baptize Infants though with a lesse opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same forme of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in forme 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 equall nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole Ages did follow their own principles where ever they lead them and seeing that upon the same ground equall results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not doe so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of orall manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spirituall manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no meanes can understand And in these cases no externall determiner can bee pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecall to the words as Councels Tradition Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practise contrary to the present opinion as is plaine in their communicating Infants by vertue of nisi comederitis 5. I shall not need to urge the mysteriousnesse of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood Numb 8. though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spirituall which are rather to be felt then discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publike consideration they will therefore be opposed because they runne 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 Kingdome are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publike revelation but of the publike 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 personall necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation beliefe of particular salvation speciall influences and comforts comming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actuall fervours and great complacencies in devotion spirituall joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtaines 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 doe so too that feele them not is cause that in many Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easy 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 6. But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that Numb 9. all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the termes and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determin'd by things accidentall and extrinsecall they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extremly 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 seria it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves severall turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgement and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholy to a differing sense 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 Successors 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 Colledge of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free soules from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keyes 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 Keyes seem to have nothing to doe with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keyes shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keyes shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councels to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Lawes 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 Luk. 22. for that place sayes Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te Bellar. lib. 1. de Pontif. c. 3. § respondeo primò signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither erre personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did erre personally might not erre judicially and that the Roman Church might not erre personally All this variety of sense 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 guiltlesse of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himselfe Universall Bishop pasce 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
cannot doe this when they list but when they are mov'd to it by the Spirit then we are never the nearer for so may the Bishop of Angolesme write infallible Commentaries when the holy Ghost moves him to it for I suppose his motions are not ineffectuall but hee 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 faine 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 knowes If they doe not know then neither can we know it from them and then we are as uncertaine 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 practise And therefore it is absolutely uselesse 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 dermin'd we are never the nearer but may hugge our selves in an imaginary truth the certainty of finding truth out depending upon so many fallible and contingent circumstances And therefore the thing if it were true being so to no purpose it is to be presum'd that God never gave a power so impertinently and from whence no benefit can accrue to the Christian Church for whose use and benefit if at all it must needs have been appointed But I am too long in this impertinency If I were bound Numb 18. to call any man Master upon earth and to believe him upon his own affirmative and authority I would of all men least follow him that pretends he is infallible and cannot prove it For that he cannot prove it makes me as uncertaine as ever and that he pretends to infallibility makes him carelesse of using such meanes which will morally secure those wise persons who knowing their own aptnesse to be deceiv'd use what endeavours they can to secure themselves from errour and so become the better and more probable guides Well! Thus farre we are come Although we are secured in fundamentall points from involuntary errour by the plaine Numb 19. expresse and dogmaticall places of Scripture yet in other things we are not but may be invincibly mistaken because of the obscurity and difficulty in the controverted parts of Scripture by reason of the incertainty of the meanes of its Interpretation since Tradition is of an uncertain reputation and sometimes evidently false Councels are contradictory to each other and therefore certainly are equally deceiv'd many of them and therefore all may and then the Popes of Rome are very likely to mislead us but cannot ascertain us of truth in matter of Question and in this world we believe in part and prophecy in part and this imperfection shall never be done away till we be translated to a more glorious state either we must throw our chances and get truth by accident or predestination or else we must lie safe in a mutuall toleration and private liberty of perswasion unlesse some other Anchor can bee thought upon where wee may fasten our floating Vessels and ride safely SECT VIII Of the disability of Fathers or Writers Ecclesiasticall to determine our Questions with certainty and Truth THere are some that think they can determine all Questions Numb 1. in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent Testimony But this consideration will soon be at an end for if the Fathers when they are witnesses of Tradition doe not alwayes speak truth as it hapned in the case of Papias and his numerous Followers for almost three Ages together then is their Testimony more improbable when they dispute or write Commentaries 2. The Fathers of the first Ages spake unitedly concerning Numb 2. divers Questions of secret Theology and yet were afterwards contradicted by one personage of great repution whose credit had so much influence upon the world as to make the contrary opinion become popular why then may not we have the same liberty when so plain an uncertainty is in their perswasions and so great contrariety in their Doctrines But this is evident in the case of absolute predestination which till S. Austine's time no man preached but all taught the contrary and yet the reputation of this one excellent man altered the scene But if he might dissent from so Generall a Doctrine why may not we doe so too it being pretended that he is so excellent a precedent to be followed if we have the same reason he had no more Authority nor dispensation to dissent then any Bishop hath now And therefore S. Austin hath dealt ingeniously and as he took this liberty to himself so he denies it not to others but indeed forces them to preserve their own liberty And Sess. ult therefore when S. Hierom had a great mind to follow the Fathers in a point that he fancyed and the best security he had was Patiaris me cum talibus errare S. Austin would not endure it but answered his reason and neglected the Authority And therefore it had been most unreasonable that we should doe that now though in his behalfe which he towards greater personages for so they were then at that time judg'd to be unreasonable It is a plaine recession from Antiquity which was determin'd by the Councell of Florence piorum animas purgatas c. mox in Caelum recipi intueri clarè ipsum Deum trinum unum sicuti est As who please to try may see it dogmatically resolved to the contrary by a Q. 60. ad Christian. Justin Martyr b Lib. 5. Irenaeus by c Hom. 7. in Levit. Origen d Hom. 39 in 1 Cor. S. Chrysostome e In c. 11. ad Heb. Theodoret f In c. 6. ad Apoc. Arethas Caesariensis g In 16. c. Luc. Euthymius who may answer for the Greek Church and it is plaine that it was the opinion of the Greek Church by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Councell where the
persons and were impatient and peevish by their owne too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no age did ever teach the lawfullnesse of putting hereticks to death till they grew wanton with prosperity But when the reputation of the Governours was concerned when the interests of men were indangered 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 owne 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 sollicited the temporall power to banish to fine to imprison and to kill their adversaries So that the case stands thus In the best times amongst the Numb 5. best men when there were fewer temporall ends to be served when Religion and the pure and simple designes of Christianity were onely to be promoted in those times and amongst such men no persecution was actuall nor perswaded nor allowed towards disagreeing persons But as men had ends of their owne and not of Christs as they receded from their duty and Religion from its purity as Christ anity began to be compounded with interests and blended with temporall designes 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 The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his Numb 6. followers who were condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus Which instance although S. 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 Catholike and Heretick without choyce and therefore the Priscilianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholiques as the Catholiques upon them But when Ursatus and Stacius two Bishops procured the Priscilianists death by the power they had at Court S. Martin Numb 7. was so angry at them for their cruelty that he excommunicated them both And S. Ambrose upon the same stock denyed his communion to the Itaciani And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this Hoc modo sayes 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 But it was of more authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated Numb 8. the Emperour and prevailed for the banishment of Arius Sozom. l. 1. c. 20 of this we can give no other account but that by the historie of the time we see basenesse enough and personall misdemeanour Socrat. l. 1. c. 26 Cont. Crescon Grammat lib. 3. c. 50. vide etiam Epist. 61. ad dulcilium et Epist. 158. et 159. et lib. 1. c. 29. cont tit petilian vide etiam Socrat. li. 3. c. 3 et c. 29. and factiousnesse of spirit in Arius to have deserved worse then banishment though the obliquity of his opinion were not put into the ballance which we have reason to beleeve was not so much as considered because Constantine gave toleration to differing opinions and Arius himselfe was restored upon such conditions to his country and office which would not stand with the ends of the Catholiques if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of perswasions I am still within the scene of Ecclesiasticall persons and am considering what the opinion of the learnedest and the holiest prelates were concerning this great question If we will beleeve Lib. 2. Cap. 5. retractat vide Epist. 48. ad vincent script post retract et Epist. 50. ad Bonifac. Saint Austin who was a credible person no good man did allow it Nullis tamen bonis in Catholicâ hoc placet si usque ad mortem in quenquam licet haereticum saeviatur This was S. Austins finall 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 meere opinion made capitall But for ought appears S. 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 Witnes those known testimonies of a ad S capulaÌ„ Tertullian b lib. 3. Ep. 1. Epist Cyprian c Lib. 5. c. 20. Lactantius d in cap 13. Matth. et in cap. 2. hos Hierom e in vit S. Martin Severus Sulpitius f O ctav Minutius g cont Auxent Arr. Hilary h 3. sect C. 32. Damascen i in cap. 13. Matth. hom 47. Chrysostome k in cuang Matth. Theophylact and l in verba Apost fides ex auditu Bernard and divers others whom the Reader may find quoted by the Arch-Bishop of Spalato Lib. 8. de rep Eccles. cap. 8. Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversarie nor contrary instances but in Attious of C. P. Theodosius of Synada in Stacius Ursaeus before reckoned Only 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 temporall concernments highly considerable 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 Numb 11. forced or heretiques 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 unconcern'd in the suffering Petilian Parmenian and Apud Aug li. 1. c. 7. coat Epist. Parmenian l. 2. c. 1â— coat tit Petilian Gaudentius by no means would allow it lawfull for themselves were in danger and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanc'd but * Epist. 1. ad Tuâ—bium Gregory and * Lib. 1. cp 72. 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 S. 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 tyrannie of
from a higher fountaine For it is one of the maine excellencies in Christianity that it advances the State and well being of Monarchies and Bodies Politique Now then the Fathers of Religion the Reverend Bishops whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity are by the nature and essentiall requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings whom Christianity would have so much honour'd as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince upon better principles then ever no lesse then their precise duty to God and the hopes of a blissefull immortality Here then is utile honestum and necessarium to tye Bishops in duty to Kings and a threefold Cord is not easily broken In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy payes three returnes of tribute to Monarchy 1. The first is the Duty of their people For they being by God himselfe set over soules judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences and the venerable Priests under them have more power to keep men in their duteous subordination to the Prince then there is in any secular power by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are then all the externall violence in the world And this power they have fairely put into act for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion unlesse he turn'd recreant to his Order and it is the honour of the Church of England that all her Children and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebells be they of any interest or party whatsoever For here for it wethanke God and good Princes Episcopacy hath been preserv'd in faire priviledges and honour and God hath blest and honour'd Episcopacy with the conjunction of a loyall people As if because in the law of Nature the Kingdome and Priesthood were joyned in one person it were naturall and consonant to the first justice that Kings should defend the rights of the Church and the Church advance the honour of Kings And when I consider that the first Bishop that was exauctorated was a Prince too Prince and Bishop of Geneva me thinks it was an ill Omen that the cause of the Prince and the Bishop should be in Conjunction ever after 2. A second returne that Episcopacy makes to Royalty is that which is the Duty of all Christians the paying tributes and impositions And though all the Kings Leige people doe it yet the issues of their duty and liberality are mightily disproportionate if we consider their unequall Number and Revenues And if Clergy-subsidies be estimated according to the smallnesse of their revenue and paucity of persons it will not be half so short of the number and weight of Crownes from Lay Dispensation as it does farre exceed in the proportion of the Donative 3. But the assistance that the Kings of England had in their Counsells and affaires of greatest difficulty from the great ability of Bishops and other the Ministers of the Church I desire to represent in the words of K. Alvred to Walfsigeus the Bishop in an Epistle where he deplores the misery of his owne age by comparing it with the former times when the Bishops were learn'd and exercis'd in publike Counsels Faelicia tum tempora fuerunt inter omnes Angliae populos Reges Deo scriptae ejus voluntati obsecundârunt in suâ pace bellicis expeditionibus atque regimine domestico domi se semper tutati fuerint atque etiamforis nobilitatem suam dilataverint The reason was as he insinuates before Sapientes extiterunt in Anglicâ gente de spirituali gradu c. The Bishops were able by their great learning and wisdome to give assistance to the Kings affaires And they have prosper'd in it for the most glorious issues of Divine Benison upon this Kingdome were conveyed to us by Bishops hands I meane the Union of the houses of York Lancaster by the Counsells of a Iohn Speeds Hist. l. 9. c. 19. n. 23. p. 716. Bishop Morton and of England Scotland by the treaty of b Ibid. c. 20. n. 64. p. 747. Bishop Fox to which if we adde two other in Materia religionis I meane the conversion of the Kingdom from Paganisme by S t Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury and the reformation begun and promoted by Bishops I think we cannot call to mind foure blessings equall to these in any age or Kingdome in all which God was pleased by the mediation of Bishops as he useth to doe to blesse the people And this may not only be expected in reason but in good Divinity for amongst the gifts of the spirit which God hath given to his Church are reckon'd Doctors Teachers and * 1. Cor. ca 12. v. 28. helps in government To which may be added this advantage that the services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches stock no need to disimprove the Royall Banks to pay thanks to Bishops But Sir I grow troublesome Let this discourse have what ends it can the use J make of it is but to pretend reason for my Boldnesse and to entitle You to my Book for I am confident you will owne any thing that is but a friends friend to a cause of Loyalty I have nothing else to plead for your acceptance but the confidence of your Goodnesse and that I am a person capeable of your pardon and of a faire interpretation of my addresse to you by being SIR Your most affectionate Servant J. TAYLOR Syllabus Paragraphorum § 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church p. 7 2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ p. 12 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successours in the Apostolate p. 13 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops p. 15. For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name and person 5. And office p. 20. 6. Which Christ himselfe hath made distinct from Presbyters p. 22 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not p. 23 As of Ordination 8. And Confirmation p. 28 9. And superiority of Iurisdiction p. 35 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of antiquitie p. 49 11 And particularly of S. Peter p. 54 12 And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority p. 62 13 In pursuance of the Divine institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in severall Churches p. 68 As S t Iames at Ierusalem S. Simeon to he his successor 14 S. Timothy at Ephesus p 75 15 S. Titus at Creet p. 85 16 S. Mark at Alexandria p. 93 17 S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome p. 96 18 S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others p. 97 19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall Ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed p. 100 20 And was an
the Iurisdiction to be ministred by himselfe would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolicall ordination obtruding himselfe upon the Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busy man in anothers Diocesse This and such impostors as this the Angell of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by S. Iohn himselfe as is intimated in S. Iohns third Epistle written to this Gajus v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearely this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrell for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appeares further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to doe v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is cleare this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopall preheminence and jurisdiction without lawfull ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his designe He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop BVt this office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy § 6. Which Christ himselfe hath made distinct from Presbyters derives its fountain from a Rock Christs 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 duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke He called his Disciples and out Luke 10. 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 heare but of one commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyfull at their power over Divells wee heare no more of them in the Gospell but that their Names were written in heaven Wee are likely therefore to heare of them after the passion if they can but hold their owne And so we doe For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clericall commission by vertue of Christs first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clericall 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 Ierusalem especially at the first Councell for there was Iudas sirnamed Iustus and Silas and S. Marke and Iohn a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius Lib. 3. cap. 3. reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Ierusalem these and diverse others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiasticall Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary § 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not but succeeded to and if so then here is clearely a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while 1. THen It is cleare 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 doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Denis Eccles. hierarch c. 5. 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 impos'd hands in Ordinations As of Ordination which the 72 did not the case is knowne Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to choose seaven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poore They did so and set them before the twelue Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they lay'd their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72 who were there actually present and seaven of them were then ordayn'd to this Ministery for they were not now ordayn'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the * In Trullo can 16. Councell of Constantinople calls them and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witnesse He sent other 72. to Haeres 20. preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seaven ordained and set over the widdowes And the same is intimated by S. Chrysostome if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 14. in Act. 6. What dignity had these seaven here ordained of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearely repeating the In hunc locū words of S. Chrysostome promore suo addes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seaven was no lesse 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 faithfull people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostome and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is cleare 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 Martyrdome of S. Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affaire vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordaine them 2. An instance paralell to this is in the imposition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas in the Acts. 13. first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manäen 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 complete 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 Prophetas duplici genere intelligamus futura dicentes Scripturas revelantes S. Ambros in 1. Corinth 12. 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 then 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 then the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this cleare enough in S. Paul * Ephes. 4. where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. 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 S. Iames and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and S. Paul himselfe To be sure they were such Prophets as S. Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by S. Luke for here it was that S. Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to this Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they they were at the least more then ordinary Presbyters and therefore they impos'd hands and they only And yet to make the businesse up compleat S. Marke was amongst them but he impos'd no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not S. Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as S. Paul himselfe was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did S. Marke 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 lesse then Prophets that is who were not more then meere Presbyters The summe is this Imposition of hands is a duty office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne Gens sit Vnius aetatis least it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fix't upon the Apostles and Apostolike men and not communicated to the 72 Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolike men did so de facto and were commanded to doe 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 perpetuall as the Clergy as the Church it selfe 2. THe Apostles did impose hands for confirmation § 8. And Confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetuall act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72 or any other meere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirme Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergie could not is beyond all exception cleare in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts. 8. For when S. Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and Iohn to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost S. Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72 Disciples * S. Cyprian ad Iubajan a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that S. Stephen was about the poore Widdowes yet he could not doe 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 S. Philip could and did doe miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts. 19. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus S. Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelue only but Apostolike men the other Apostles S. Paul did it S. Philip could not nor any of the 72 or any other meere 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 agoe expired 1. Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternall and therefore are no signes 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 itdut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verb is non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as * lib 3 hist cap. 37. Eusebius tels of the successe 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 curs'd and anathematiz'd a delinquent he dyed suddainly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom S. Peter flew 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 Sathan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporall punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodyes of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remaines in the Church and the power of the Keyes is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation * vide August tract 6. in 1. Epict. Iohan. 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 confirme the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptiz'd people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appeares from these considerations 1. 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 Christendome 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 a Act. 2. 39. farre off even to as many as the Lord shall
they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolicall ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirme by the practise of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturbe us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples In Lucae cap. 10. Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores posteà illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountaines and the 72 are the palmes that are nourished by the waters of those fountaines For though Christ also ordain'd the 72 yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the maine question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolicall authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doe not command Epist. ad Philadelph this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my selfe with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it selfe if we consider to whom he speakes it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocesse he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equall the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personall priviledges and in their universall jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedome of a Christian Bishop to whom the soules of all faithfull people were deare and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that Antiquity is clearely on this side is the next businesse For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only adde two more from Antiquity and so passe on to tradition § 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of Antiquity Apostolicall 1. THE beliefe of the primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the 72 and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give faire evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this Lib. 3. cap. 3. particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis ET SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè 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 severall Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which them selves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall Lib. de praescript c. 36. apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolicall they are from their foundation and by their succession for Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still doe governe them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino Epist. 42. ad Cornelium 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 Epist. 69. sed dolens profero cum te Iudicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt quivos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence he that heareth you heareth mee Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Councell of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis cont Donatist nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Councell in an assembly of Bishops and himselfe was a Bishop The Councell of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quenquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for Epist. 54. undervaluing their Bishops shewes the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and diverse others of the Fathers make this glosse Pro Patribus Apostolis
which I have specifyed and they are all I could ever meete with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis * Jdem ferè habet in Epist. ad Magnes Smyrnens 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 caetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they doe not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher then their first station This then will doe 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. Iohn was who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà Lib. 4. c. 43. eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris abaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Cap. 44. Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Iustitiâ 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 joynes 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 Epist. 13. Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and inforce 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 Apostolicall 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 alleadged and the full voyce of traditive interpretation THE second argument from Antiquity is the § 12. And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority Epist. 27. direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine institution In this S. Cyprian is most plentifull 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 Gospell 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 Epist. 65. ad Rogatian Apostolos i. e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quod si nos aliquid audere contrà Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contranos 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 Epist. 76. est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelicall and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirmes there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelicall 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Magnes He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Iesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergy And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearefull thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceiveable 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 obeyes the Bishop and Clergy obeyes Christ who did constitute and ordaine them This is plain and dogmaticall I would be loath to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speake halfe so much against us But it is a generall resolve and no private opinion Quaest. Vet. N. Testam qu. 97. 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 knowes 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 Euseb. lib. 4. c. 22. in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their severall Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus ist is ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram it a 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 decretall 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 Lib. 4. c. 43. Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis
in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it selfe be a very certain thing when the Church made it a maine 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 chaire till wee come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain then 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 himselfe was baptized both relying upon the report of others * Radix Christianae societatis Epist. 42. per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Austin 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 madnesse to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolicall 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 haereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis Ubi supra postolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles untill now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians THe summe is this Although we had not prooved § 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lord's 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 Iewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have chang'd it into a Thursday meeting to have showne their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men doe easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we doe of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicail traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemn'd for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are diverse 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 Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the foure Gospells 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 practise Apostolicall 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 Christendome suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and § 20. And was an office of power and great authority the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatir a in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes
they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificiall and imposed sense USE which is the Master of language must rule us in this affaire and USE is not contracted but in some processe and descent of time * For at first Christendome it selfe wanted a Name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christ'ned first in Antioch for they had their baptisme some yeares before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church BVt immediately after the Apostles and still more § 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreame Church-officer in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present vulgar conception Some few examples I shal give insteed of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is us'd 36 times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler president of the Church above the Clergie and the Laity being 24 times expressely distinguish'd from Presbyter and in the other 14 having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and Ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentick by the Councell of a Can. 15. 16. Nice of b c. 9. alibi Antioch 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councell of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councell of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the c post advent Episc. Cypri Councell of Ephesus by d advers Praxeam Tertullian by e lib. 3. c. 59. de vitâ Const. Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS sometimes THE ECCLESIASTICALL CANONS sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolicall Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councell in Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Ortbod fide Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does I sidore in his preface to the worke of the Councells for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canons by the authority of Councells and have put them amongst the Canonicall Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephens time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then Anno Dom 257. the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephens time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copie elder then this and yet after the Originall to be sure shewes them to be of prime antiquity and they are mention'd by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who doe prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I referre the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the Citie of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphall by Gratian and some others viz. in the sense of the Church just as the wisdome of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most beleived to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all Question are so farre Canonicall as to be of undoubted Ecclesiasticall authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority Epist. ad Trall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c So that here is the reall and exact distinction of dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imitators of the Angells who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himselfe in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much lesse an argument for the parity of offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldome confound the names yet distinguish the offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Heron Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairely admitted for himselfe their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopall jurisdiction to rule the Church till hee being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done least the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent then Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the youth whom S. Iohn had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unlesse by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O EPISCOPE saith S. Iohn to him Tunc graviter suspirans SENIOR c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusuall so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopall power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be
appropriate to the supreame order of the Clergy was done with faire reason and designe For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and faire execution of its offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the gray head and it transplants the honour and Reverence of age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meere supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saith S. Chrysostome Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desider at bonum desider at gradum sed bonum opus desider at quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum So S. Hierome It is not an honourable title but a good office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent vertues But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur Lib. 7. etymolog c. 12. superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Grecè latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iulius Pollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angells and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church THE ANGEL for his excellency OF THE CHURCH for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the senses above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence THE BISHOP and in descent of time it came to passe that the compellation which was alwaies his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a faire precedent of it wee have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great sheapheard and Bishop of our soules The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by faire intimation it does more immediatly descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulnesse of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our soules * And besides this so faire a Copy besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have showne before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for S. Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the chaire of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 16. 17. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and faire congruity of reason BVt the Church used other appellatives for Bishops § 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers useing those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have bin given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the roome of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius lib. 3. hist. c. 36. Denique cùm Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so followes in quâmeminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop Epist. ad Ephes himselfe witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himselfe makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most Blessed and worthy PASTOR * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councell was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum PASTORES diversis è locis urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus in signes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareá Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres .... Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. 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 proceedes sed Prebyteri quamplurimi Diaconiad supradictam Vrbem .... conventrunt So that these were not under the generall appellative of Pastors * And the Councell of Sardis Can. 6. making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certifi'd by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given vnto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Iulius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and People of Alexandria in behalfe of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres hist. tripartlib 4. c. 29. charissimi cumomni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VESTRUM ACPRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a litle after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PASTOREM VESTRUM esuritis sititis c The same is often us'd in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called PASTORES MAGNI Great sheapheards or PASTORS * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosequuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui saith Theodoret they wept for the losse of their PASTOR And lib. 4. cap. 14. Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalfe of Christianity PASTOREM inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a PASTOR a
chiefe of the Church doe it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch It is required that a Bishop should consigne faithfull people baptiz'd For this was the Ancient practise I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholick custome appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councells Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in * Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17. Eusebius a De Baptismo Tertullian S. b Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent Innocentius the first c Epist. 4. Damasus d Epist. 88. S. Leo in e Epist. ad Episc German Iohn the third in S. f Lib. 3. ep 9. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the g Apud Gratian de consecrat dist 5. can ut jejuni Councell of Orleans and of h Ibid. Can. ut Episcopi Melda and lastly of i Concil Hispal can 7. Sevill which affirmes Non licere Presbyteris .... per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawfull for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopall power .... Chrismate spiritus S. superinfunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmaticall 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 schisme between the Latine and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the vide Anastabiblioth praefat in Can. 8. Synodi Bulgarians were first converted the Greekes sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirme them But the Latins sent againe to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greekes had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopall of confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of vide Optatum lib. 2. S. Bernard in vitâ S Malachiae Surium tom 1. in Febr. 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 dial adv Lucifer obtineret If you aske where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should confirme It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not expresse 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 himselfe so confidently in this affaire for by this we are arm'd against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopall priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he saies it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather then 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 then 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 saies it was done apud Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may doe it but that as S. Hierome himselfe there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptisme if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remore and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to doe it when it is to be done not that a Priest may doe it if a Bishop may not be had but this non necessity is to be referred to confirmation it selfe so that if a Bishop cannot be had confirmation though with much losse yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himselfe this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sense of the words be what they will they can doe no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur .... praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the glosse upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirme their Auditors not by consignation of Chrisme but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a paralell place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate Caus. 11. q. 3. can Quod praedecessor into Germany from the See of Rome ut Orthodoxos Episcopos Presbyteros vel quoscunque reperire potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirme Bishops Priests in any other sense but this of S. Hieroms in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himselfe intend that Presbyters should doe it at all but in this sense of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his owne opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter
Bishop held the Reynes or the stearne of the Roman Church saith Theodoret hist tripart lib. 1. cap. 12. 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 de dignit sacerdot c. 2. nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopall Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò RECTORIBUS suis subdi dicuntur c The sheepe are delivered to Bishops as to RULERS and are made their Subjects And in the next chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres Cap. 3. ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis vt ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri vt cùm dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus .... actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent then the DIGNITY AND EMINENCE OF A BISHOP C. * The other is of S. Hierome CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD EPISCOPUM PERTINET The care of the whole Church appertaines to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet cuisi non exors quaedam ab Cap. 4. omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP to whom vnlesse an EMINENT and UNPARALELL'D POWER be given by all there will be as many Schismes as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of thē then the Bishop is SUPERIOUR IN A PEERELESSE AND INCOMPARABLE AUTHORITY and all the whole Diocesse are his subjects viz in regimine Spirituali BUT from words let us passe to things For the § 35. Requiring Vniversall obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity Faith and practise of Christendome requires obedience Universall obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin againe with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gaine by it for the more primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the comming of the Sonne of Man But to our businesse S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine EPISCOPO NIHIL TENTETIS So the Latine 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 doe you should attempt nothing without your BISHOP And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire EPISCOPO ET IN NULLO ILLI REFRAGARI It is sitting 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 possum facere à me ipso quicquam sic vos SINE EPISCOPO nec Presbyter nec Diaconus nec Laicus Nec QUICQUAM videatur VOEIS CONSENTANEUM quod sit PRAETER ILLIUs IUDICIUM quod enim tale est iniquum est Deo inimicum Here is obedience Vniversall both in respect of things and persons and all this no lesse then absolutely necessary For as Christ obey'd his Father in all things saying of my selfe I can doe nothing so nor you without your BISHOP whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Lay-man Let nothing please you which the Bishop mislikes for all such things are wicked and in enmity with God * But it seems S. Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to Wee have already reckon'd the Trallians and the Magnesians But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop The same to the Philadelphians Sine EPISCOPO nihil facite Doe nothing without your BISHOP But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Sine EPISCOPO NEMO QUICQUAM FACIAT eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant No man may doe ANY THING WITHOUT THE BISHOP viz. of those things which belong to the Church So that this saying expounds all the rest for this universall obedience is to be understood according to the sense of the Church viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiasticall cognizance all Church affaires And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarpe their Bishop that he also look to it that nothing be done without his leave Nihil sine TUO ARBITRIO agatur nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem As thou must doe nothing against Gods will so let nothing in the Church be done without thine By the way observe he saies not that as the Presbytery must doe nothing without the Bishop so the Bishop nothing without them But so the Bishop nothing without God But so it is Nothing must BE DONE without the Bishop And therefore although he incourages them that can to remaine in Virginity yet this if it be either done with pride or without the Bishop it is spoiled For si gloriatus fuerit periit si id ipsum statuatur SINE EPISCOPO corruptum est His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarpe is with an Episcopo attendite sicut Deus vobis The way to have God to take care of us is to observe our Bishop Hinc vos decet accedere SENTENTIAE EPISCOPI qui secundùm Deum vos pascit quemadmodum Episl. ad Ephes facitis edocti à spiritu you must therefore conforme to the sentence of the BISHOP as indeed yee doe already being taught so to doe by Gods holy Spirit There needs no more to be said in this cause if the authority of so great a man will beare so great a burden What the man was I said before what these Epistles are and of what authority
ejus Catholicus ordinetur * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople depos'd Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Tripart hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. Roome * But their Grand-father was serv'd no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria serv'd him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander Tripart hist. lib. 1. c. 12. autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator priùs quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consilijs nâ—tebatur Cùm verò eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonish'd the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserv'd it highly It was for a lesse matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personall misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Councell of Taurinum and his restitution was Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397. left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censur'd 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 Councell qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus who was punished by Triferius the Bishop hoc ei humanitate Concilii reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit eirelaxare 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 Councell and the absolution reserv'd to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complain'd to the Councell by the Councell might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his owne power These are particular instances and made publike by acts conciliary intervening But it was the Generall Canon and Law of H Church Thus we have it expressed in the Councell of Agatho Cap. 2. Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractary Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allowes I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonicall penalty and so goe on ad alia In the second Councell of Carthage Alypius Episcopus Ca. 8. dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deosacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greeke Code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or Can. 10. otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means goe unpunished * The like is in the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 4. can 83. the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Councell of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Councell of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemne and they have power to doe what they please other faith then this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the foure great Councells of Christendome which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd Concil Ephes. c. 5. 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 remaine vigorous and confirm'd Vpon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it selfe is cleare enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learn'd that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergy 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 least their infection scatter so S. Austin * Can. 55. And therefore Cap. 15. de corrept gratiâ the fourth Councell of * Can. 55. Carthage commands ut Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunalls For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholike communion I adde no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive ubi suprà cap. 3. and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocesse Ergo praecipiant tantummodò 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 againe Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum Cap. 15 ibid. 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 Diocesse 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 Christendome by the Canons of three Generall Counsells and divers other Provinciall which are made Catholick by adoption and inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that
Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by thesecular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIA are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense 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 cognisance of or may not the secular power find out some externall compulsory instead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine 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 gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee 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 Ecclesiasticall tribunall 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 shee might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a very secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appeal'd 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 betrayes the individuall and inseparable right of holy Church For her censures shee may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is beg'd or borrow'd none of her owne nor of a fit edge to be us'd in her abscissions and coërcions * I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of Can. 39. so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires 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 Diocesse The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge And because our Scene lyes herein Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire 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 soule any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheepe heare his voice and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him viz in matters of spirituall import * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regall power but Bishops in his Sacerdotall and Propheticall * So that the King hath a Supreme Regall power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdome 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 soules and in these also all the externall compulsory and jurisdiction in his owne For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himselfe also upon the same termes 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 Sacerdotall authority And therefore the Kingdome and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall 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 Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keyes 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 prophet â gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their severall excellencies the Highest powers under heaven *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives were not both the piety and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience * And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and Epist. ad Philadelph disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopopareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop * This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis Lib. de dignit Sacerd cap. 2. 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 potest is ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and incausis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. 2. 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 Diocesse to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the lawes of Christendome The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperour exactly the same per omniae as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19. to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Millain showes 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 Theodor. lib. 5 c. 18. by repentance washed out the bloud that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Emperour and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. quod 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
have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feele a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and faire arguments of honour but was only in a meere spirituall estimate and ten thousand reall disadvantages This will not be suppos'd either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valere potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in heaven be faire precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper then this foundation of Catholick practise Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 32 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearely intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Councell of Antioch and in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ca. 5. Act. 4. All the most Reverend Bishops cryed out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolicall now cited * Tertullian is something De baptism more particular and instances in Baptisme Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptisme Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So farre the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolicall ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harme done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate But the next words doe of themselves make answer Otherwise lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can doe it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptisme conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to bee repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so saies Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawfull in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptisme Tertullian affirmes De coronâ milit c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom 11. in 1. Tim. S. Hieron dial adv Lucifer the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopall license whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Councell of Gangra forbidding conventicles Can. 6. expresses it with this intimation of Episcopall authority If any man shall make assemblies privately out of the Church so despising the Church or shall doe any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop then the assembly is lawfull * And this thing was so knowne that the Fathers of the second Councell of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to doe their offices without a Ca. 9. license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr aut dissimulantes audactèr praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domicilijs agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses doe offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling Implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopall license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluërit celebrare ipse honroi suo contrarius existit All the Bishops said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an Enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 8. part 2. Act. 14. Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remaine under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitalls but extends it selfe to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c All they that transgresse this Constitution in ANY WAY not submitting to their Bishop let them be punish'd canonically So that now these generall expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their severall offices the Canon extends it's prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearely and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witnesse for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyter is in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem Epist. 86. tingere aut fignare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec
eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud in the presence of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have faire evidence of this whole particular It is not lawfull to doe any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councells of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawfull to doe any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Councell of Carthage joynes them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to doe by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He dist 95. cap. Ecce ego that will not let Presbyters doe what they are commanded to doe by God let him tell us if any man be greater then Christ viz whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters doe their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole diocesse he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feede the flock so the Canon of the 1 Can. 40. Apostles so 2 Epist. ad Ephes. Ignatius so the Councell of 3 Cap. 24. Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocesse is in the Bishop and without the Bishop's admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not doe these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unlesse he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocesse being the Bishop's charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle least he be what S. Peter blam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocesse Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his 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 sollicitudinis and concredit some part of his diocesse to his administration cum curâ animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocesse is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himselfe of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not devest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocesse so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocesse and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potest as minoris And though because the Bishop could not doe all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocesse therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himselfe looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a generall supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocesse there he being present might doe any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himselfe of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Councell of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his owne but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the starres which in the noon day have their own naturall light as much as in the night but appeare not shine not in the presence of the Sunne This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presbyters who as the Councell of Carthage's expression is are contrarii honori Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own forme where God hath placed us and where wee were in the Primitive Church wee shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawfull to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runnes praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same originall to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Iurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Citties with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Citties the Presbyters preach'd and offer'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions runne indefinitely they must not doe any Clericall offices sine Episcopo unlesse the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fix't 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 doe it I doe 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
learne either the sense or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordayning the seven Deacons but this we have already examin'd the other of S. Peter choosing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But 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 remaines but 37 of the Laity of which many were women which I know not yet whether any man would admitt to the election of an Apostle and whether they doe or doe not the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had beene to be carried by plurality of voices so that let the worst come that is imaginable the whole businesse 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 businesse was miraculous and extraordinary For though the Apostles nam'd two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation And yet for all this it was lawfull for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots An non licebat ipsi Petro eligere licebat quidem maximè verùm 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 himselfe to have completed the election So S. homil 3. in Act. Chrysostome So that now if S. Cyprian meanes more then the presence of the people for suffrage of publike testimony extends it to a suffrage of formall choice his proofes of the divine authority are invalid there is no such thing can be deduc'd from thence and then this is his complying so much with the people which hath beene the fault of many a good man may be reckon'd together with his rebaptization But truth is he meanes no more then 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 himselfe summes up the whole businesse and tells us of another jus Divinum too Propter quod diligentèr de traditione Divinâ Apostolicâ observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque ferè apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique 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 Apostolicall ordinance for it and it is us'd by us and almost by all Churches that all the Bishops of the Province assemble 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 formall election the people to give their judgement 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 choosing a Collegue 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 clearely in the Bishops and that by Divine tradition and Apostolicall 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 Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd his successor It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostome tels us It was so in Spaine as S. †lib. 2. de offic Isidore tels us and in many other places that the people should be present and give acclamation and tumultuary approbation but to the formall 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 noyse cry him up in his ordination ne plebs invita 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 Epist. 84. c. 5. 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 Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the BISHOPS of the province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must be confirm'd and established by the METROPOLITAN No Presbyters here all this while no people * But the exercise of this power is more clearely seen in the Acts of some Councells where the Fathers degraded some Bishops and themselves appointed others in their Roomes * The Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople deposed Marcellus In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt They sent Basilius Bishop in his roome saith Sozomen Tripart hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. * Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporū consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus said the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedō Let Bassianus show that Act. 11. 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 Councell sent a Synodall Epistle to the Church of Alexandria to tell them they had deposed Militius from the office of a Bishop only left him the name but took from him all power nullam verò omnimodò habere potestatem neque Tripart hist. lib. 2. cap. 12. ELIGENDI NEQUE ORDINANDI c. Neither suffering him to choose nor to ordaine Clerks It seems then that was part of the Episcopall office in ordinary placitos sibi eligere as the Epistle expresses it in the sequell to choose whom they listed But the Councell deposed Melitius and sent Alexander their Bishop and Patriarch to rule the Church againe ** And particularly to come home to the case of the present question when Auxentius Bishop of Millaine was dead
right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary IF we adde to all these foregoing particulars the § 41. Bishops onely did Vote in Councells and neither Presbyters nor People power of making lawes to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spirituall Principality Now as I have shewne that the Bishop of every Diocesse did give lawes to his owne Church for particulars so it is evident that the lawes of Provinces and of the Catholike Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision The instances of this are just so many as there are Councells S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith si judicium Episcoporum est saith Epist. ad Solitar he quid cum eo commune habet Imperator It is a judgment to be pass'd BY BISHOPS meaning the determination of the article and not proper for the Emperour And when Hosius of Corduba reprov'd him for sitting President in a Councell Quis enim videns eum IN DECERNENDO PRINCIPEM SE FACERE EPISCOPORUM non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis He that sits President makes himselfe chiefe of the Bishops c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councells and to make decision And therefore conventus Episcoporum and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for Generall and Provinciall Councells Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur said the 38 th Canon of the Apostles and Congregatio Episcopalis the Councell of Sardis is call'd by Theodoret. And when lib. 2. cap. 7. the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter ob quam causam saith Eusebius conventus Episcoporum Concilia lib. 5. cap. 23. per singulas quasque provincias convocantur Where by the way it is to be observeable that at first even provinciall Synods were onely held by Bishops and Presbyters had no interest in the decision however we have of late sate so neere Bishops in Provinciall assemblies that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this To them I leave it And because the foure generall Councells are the Precedents and chiefe of all the rest I shall only instance in them for this particular 1. The title of the Nicene Councell runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons for if there had been more the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mysticall number proëm in lib. de fide Nam Abraham trecentos decem octo duxit ad bellum .... De Concilijs id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem octo Sacerdotes .... velut trophaeum extulerunt ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum quod eodem numero in Concilijs fidei habemus oraculum quo in historiâ pietatis exemplum Well! 318 was the Number of the Iudges the Nicene Fathers and they were all Bishops for so is the title of the subscriptions Subscripserunt trecenti decem octo EPISCOPI qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt 13. whereof were Chorepiscopi but not one Presbyter save onely that Vitus and Vincentius subscribed as legates of the Bishop of Rome but not by their owne authority 2. The great Councell of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the title of the Canons The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in C. P. and that these were all Bishops appeares by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops And of this Councell it was that Socrates speaking Imperator saith he nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium EPISCOPORUM lib. 5. cap. 8. convocat Here indeed some few Bishops appear'd by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader and about some fowre or five more * This onely amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus Auxanon Helladius and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies They were Bishops saith the title of the Councell and the Oration and the Canons and Socrates And least there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae because before Iohannes Apameensis subscribed which seemes to intimate that one of them was the Bishop and the other but a Presbyter indeed without a subterfuge of modesty the titles distinguishes them For Iohn was Bishop in the Province of Caele Syria and Auxanon of Apamea in Pisidia 3. The third was the Councell of Ephesus Episcoporum plurium quà m ducentorum as is often said in the acts of the Councell of above 200 Bishops But no Presbyters for Cùm Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odde Bishops saith the Councell and Theodosius junior in his Epistle Epist Synod ad Clerum C. Ptanum part 2. act 3. part 1. c. 32. Vide §. 36. de simil ferè quaestione in fine to the Synod Illicitum est saith he eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus It is unlawfull for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be in terest in Ecclesiasticall assemblies 4. The last of the foure great conventions of Christendome was sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia But in all these assemblies no meere Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop and delegation of authority And therefore when in this Councell some Laicks and some Monks and some Clergy-men not Bishops would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empresse sent letters to Consularius to repell them by force si praeter nostram evocationem aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur who come without command of the Empresse or the Bishops permission Where it is observeable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist to dispute and to be present in all the action And thus they often did suffer Abbots or Archimandrites to be there and to subscribe too but that was praeter regulam and by indulgence only and condescension For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered Nec Action 1. Concil Chalced. suum esse sed Episcoporum tantùm subscribere it belong'd only to Bishops to subscribe to Councells For this reason the Fathers themselves often call'd out in the Councell Mitte for as superfluos Concilium Episcoporum
est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Councell of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voyce in Councells and that Councell we know savourd too much of the Schismatick but before this Councell no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenicall or Provinciall Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenicall nor Provinciall but meerely the Convocation of a Diocesse For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more then a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Concil Antisiodor can 7. Synodum venirent that was their summons in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearely Synod besides the first convention the greatest of 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 Provinciall Councell For the guise of Christendome was alwaies otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspition of heresy Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cùm simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7. Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests doe from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking Epist. 3. per Ruffinum of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocesse eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet ab ipso suscicere 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 generall concernement must also be of generall Scrutiny I answer it is true unlesse where God himselfe hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the soules of his Diocesse at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councells 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 Epist. 69. 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 Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis cap. 18. terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their severall persons but was there represented by the Catholike Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladyes too may vote in Councells for I doubt not but they have soules too But however if this argument were concluding in it selfe yet it looses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Lawes of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to choose 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 Councell it was an old hereticall trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut Epist. 32. QUIS QUAM IUDEX resideat sed unus quisque 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 Councells were alwaies kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by externall sentence but internall conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himselfe in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Councell of Ierusalem 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 Iames yet in 16. Acts they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees IUDGED by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the lesse because Presbyter was a generall 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 conventuall 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 voycing in Councells It is a pretty pageant onely 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 spirituall Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to betumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authoriz'd by this first copy of Christian Councells The pretence is in the Synodall * Acts 15. 23. letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is saies Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not BRETHREN that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Governement and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be ask'd 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
Can. 17. Chalcedon and of Constantinople in †Can. 38. Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Common wealth viz. in her regiment and prefefecture * But in the moderne sense of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocesse as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himselfe or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of indeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocesse actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocesse was so much Iust as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocesse yet at first they had but a smal congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocesse I answere that a Diocesse was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts And S. Marke was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted * But ordinarily the Apostles when they had converted a City or Nation then fix't Bishops upon their charge and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocesse But then this City or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocesse before it was a particular congregation yet it was part of the Apostles Diocesse and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively S. Paul was ordain'd by the Prophets at Antioch Apostle of the Uncircumcision All the Gentiles was his Diocesse and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted So that absolutely a diocesse was before a particular congregation But if a diocesse be taken collectively as now it is for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop then one must needes be before 20 and a particular congregation before a diocesse but then that particular congregation was not a parish in the present sense for it was not a part of a Diocesse taking a Diocesse for a collection of Parishes but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocesse and like a Graine of Mustard-seed that in time might and did grow up to a considerable height even to a necessity of distinguishing titles and parts of the Diocesse assigning severall parts to severall Priests 2. We see that the Primitive Bishops before the division of parishes had the City and Country and after the division of parishes had them all under his jurisdiction and ever even from the Apostles times had severall provinces some of them I meane within their limits and charges * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are under his Diocesse the Neighbour-villages and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Councell of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ancient Canon of our forefathers and yet it selfe is elder then three of the generall Councells and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers that the City and Villages should be subject to the Bishop surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan But a little before this was the Nicene Councell Can. 6. and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the old Customes be kept What are those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over ALL Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It was a good large Parish And yet this parish if we have a mind to call it so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the old custome of their forefathers and yet that was so early that S. Anthony was then alive who was borne in S. Irenaeus his time who was himselfe but second from the Apostles It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of even all Syria Caelesyria Mesopotamia and both the Ciliciae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop of Syria he calls himselfe in his epistle to the Romans and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Theodoret and besides lib. 5. ca. 23. all these his Successors in the Councell of Chalcedon had the two Phaeniciae and Arabia yeilded Action 7. to them by composition These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes and would have taken up time enough to perambulate had that been then the guise of Christendome * But examples of this kind are infinite Theodorus Bishop Epist. ad Leon 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres 68. of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt Thebais Mareotis Libya Ammoniaca and Pentapolis saith S. Epiphanius And his predecessor Iulianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop * Concil Chalced act 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about Alexandria Either it was a Diocesse or at least a plurality * †Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28. S. Chrysostome had Pontus Asia and all Thrace in his parish even as much as came to sixteen prefectures a faire bounds surely and so it was with all the Bishops a greater or a lesser Diocesse they had but all were Diocesan for they had severall parishes singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias saith Epiphanius in his epistle to Iohn of Ierusalem and in his Apud S. Hieron haeres 69. book contra haereses Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates it aut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae * All Italy was the parish of Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom Cyprian Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud Euseb lib. ◠c. 22. Liberius saith Socrates Africa was S. Cyprians parish saith S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia But I rather believe if we examine their severall stories they will rather prove Metropolitans then meere parochians 3 ly The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordain'd in a Village Castle or Towne It was so decreed in the Councell of Laodicea before the first Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 56. In the Villages or Countries Bishops must not be constituted And this was renewed in the Councell of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. It is not lawfull to ordaine Bishops in Villages or little Townes to which one Presbyter is sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Bishops must ordaine Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been * So that this Canon does not make a new Constitution but perpetuates the old sanction Bishops ab antiquo were only ordain'd in great Cities and Presbyters to little Villages Who then was the Parish Curate the Bishop or the Priest The case is too apparent Onely here it is objected that some
Bishops were of small Townes and therefore these Canons were not observed and Bishops might be and were parochiall as S. Gregory of Nazianzum Zoticus of Comana Maris in Dolicha The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by * Lib. y. c. 16. Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by †Lib. 5. cap. 4. Theodoret a little Towne This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochiall Bishops * But first suppose these had been parishes and these three parochiall Bishops it followes not that all were not those to be sure which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces and Kingdomes 2 ly It is a cleare case that Nazianzum though a small City yet was the seate of a Bishops throne so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour where it is accounted inter thronos Ius Graecc-Rom p. 89. Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum is in the same account with Caesarea with Ephesus with Crete with Philippi and almost fourescore more * As for Zoticus he indeed came from Vide Baron An. Dom. 205 n. 27. Comana a Village towne for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith †Lib. 4. c. 25. Nicephorus * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha it was indeed such a small Citty as Nazianzus was but that proves not but his Diocesse and territory was large enough Thus was Asclepius Gennad apud Hieron Iohan. de Trittenheim de script Eccles. vici non grandis but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus His seat might usually be in a little Citty if it was one of those townes in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordain'd and yet the appurtenances of his Diocesse large and extended and too great for 100 Parish Priests 4 ly The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan not Parochiall for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visiters as the Councell of Laodicea calls them But what need such Suffragans such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish Indeed they might possibly have been needfull for the managing of a Citty-parish especially if a whole Citty was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochiall But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the country while the Bishop was resident in the Citty either the Bishops parish extended it selfe from Citty to Country and then it is all one with a Diocesse or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch describes their use and power Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias They were to governe the Churches delegated to their charge It seems they had many Churches under their provision and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars for so it followes in the Canon he must not ordaine any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitus Regio Without leave of the Bishop of the Citty to whom both himselfe and all the Country is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a Citty wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one Altar in every Church and Epist. ad Philadelph ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Ierusalem which as Iosephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocesse as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a Citty and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hindred but that there might in a Citty be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may notevery Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it selfe and all the Country therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meere parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi was the Constitution Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a businesse that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance is ergo qui Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearely that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis In 1. Cor. 12. Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was may easily be guessed by himselfe who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millaine * And therefore when Valerius * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan haeres 66. n. 6. Possidon in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. as it was then sometimes used in severall Churches had ordain'd S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonicall and yet he was not ordain'd to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Agelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21 to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harme in it to this cause they were ordain'd to succeed not in conjunction * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a Lib. 4. cap. 15. note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. †Lib. 4. Epist. 2. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schisme by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum
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 vainely flatter themselves that think their case faire 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 then to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa vide Concil Byzacenum An. Dom. 504. Surium die 1. Ianuar. Baron in A. D. 504. had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholike faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected vt arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the Province met together in a Councell and having considered of the command of the tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanser ant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut Regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quò faciliùs ordinatiin 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 then 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 faire disposition to receive a Crowne of Martyrdome They did so Fit repentè communis assumptio and they all striv'd who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might goe 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 Epist. 2. endeavouring to make them infamous they adde saith he evill to evill and grow worse non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit in templum Dei Not considering that THE CHURCH OF GOD DOTH CONSIST or is established in BISHOPS and growes up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to adde S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of advers Lucifer cap. 4. the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacer dot is dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this § 46. For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop businesse to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an Vnmatchable power be not given to him tot efficientur 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 equall 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 presse so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos dirimere sed Vnimini Episcopo subjecti Deo per illum in Christo saith S. Ignatius Let nothing divide you but be united to your Bishop Epist. ad Magnes being subiect to God in Christ through your Bishop And it is his congè to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Iesu Christo in quo manete per Vnitatem Dei EPISCOPI Farewell in Christ Iesus in whom remaine by the Vnity of God and of the BISHOP * Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo Episcopo vt Ecclesia à Domino Iesu Ad Ephes. Dominus à Patre suo vt omnià per Vnitatem consentiant Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop as the Church on Christ and Christ on God that all things may consent in Vnity * Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quà m inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur S. Cyprian ep 55. nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Iudex vice Christi cogitatur Hence come SCHISMES hence spring HERESYES that the Bishop is not obeyed and admitted alone to be the high Priest alone to be the Iudge The same S. Cyprian Epist. 69. repeates againe and by it we may see his meaning clearer Qui vos audit me audit c Indeenim haereses schismata obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur The pride and peevish haughtinesse of some factious people that contemne their Bishops is the cause of all heresy and Schisme And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons that any Man should have any meetings or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop that if any man prov'd delinquent in this particular he was punish'd with the highest censures as appeares in the 32 Canon of the Apostles in the 6 th Canon of the Councell of Gangra the 5 th Canon of the Councell of Antioch and the great Councell of Chalcedon all Act. 4. which I have before cited The summe is this The Bishop is the band and ligature of the Churches Unity and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodorets expession is a Symbol of faction and he that separates is a Schismatick But how if the Bishop himselfe be a heretick or schismatick May we not then separate Yes if he be judg'd so by a Synod of Bishops but then he is sure to be depos'd too and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop For till he be declar'd so his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocesse least they by so doing become their Iudges judge and when he is declar'd so no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop for the heretick or schismatick must be no longer Bishop * But let the case be what it will be no separation from a Bishop ut sic can be lawfull and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawfull to separate from a Bishop yet in no case is it lawfull to separate from Episcopacy That is the quintessence and spirit of schisme and a direct overthrow to Christianity and
Princes Courts I st is me diantibus 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 Councells then the rigor of Lawes is abated equity introduced the cry of the poore is heard their necessities are made known the liberties of the Church are conserved the peace of Kingdomes labour'd for pride is depressed religion increaseth the devotion of the Laity multiplies and tribunalls are made just and incorrupt and mercifull Thus farre Petrus Blesensis * These are the effects which though perhaps they doe not alwaies fall out yet these things may in expectation of reason be look'd for from the Clergy their principles and calling promises all this 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 S. Ambrose In 1. Corinth 6. and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed But if personall 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 S. Paul No man that 2. Timoth. 2. 4. warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life For although this be spoken of all Christian people and concernes 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 owne 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 farre would it be from being hindered by the collaterall 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 atemporall imployment to preserve them from suspition 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 senses of Common-law and externall compulsory he is But if so then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Iudges as Lay-Delegates For to be sure if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of medling with secular affaires there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affaires For if the Clergy be above the affaires of the World then the Laity are under the affaires of the Church or else if the Clergy beincapable of Lay-businesse because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affaires For the Church differs no more from the common-wealth then the common-wealth differs from the Church And now after all this suppose a King should command a Bishop to goe on Embassy to a forraine Prince to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification if the Bishop refuse did he doe the duty of a Subject If yea I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop owes to his Prince when hee 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 goe and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment for no man can be bound to doe a sinne BUt then did not this imployment when the occasions §. 50. And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 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 soules 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 adaies they are complain'd of for their care I say for their care For if they may intervene in secular affaires 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 Diocesse is in curâ Episcopali and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty and yet that instant necessity and the publike act of Christendome hath ratified it that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are parishes in his Diocesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopall charge is no lesse then the act of all Christendome For it is evident at first Presbyters had no distinct cure at all but were in common assistant to the Bishop and were his emissaries for the gaining soules in Citty or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in law and conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith S. Denis Eccles. hierar c. 5. he does not doe the offices of his order by himselfe onely but by others also for all the inferior orders doe so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendome in consent we have faire precedent in S. Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to doe it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sense of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffeted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Doethy diligence 2. Timoth. 4. v. 9. 12. to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an expresse delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for
filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops doe succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good De verbis Dom serm 24 use of his succeeding the Apostles which would doe 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 counsell not to despise Bishops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protected by that saying he that despiseth you despiseth mee I said it was good counsell especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anatthematizandiab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit 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 In Ephes. 4. dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops In 1. Corinth 12. 28. That 's down right and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesi â Apostolos posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsisunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Iudâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli In vers 29. ibid. verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when hee spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates Biblioth Phot. n. 254. of the Martyrdome 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 Apostolicall presidency Lih. 4. c. 18. The summe is the same which S. Peter himselfe taught the Church as S. Clement his Scholler or some other primitive man in his name reports of him Episâ—â—pos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum Epist. 1. 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 Epist. 1. ad Simpron Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in b Homil. 26. in Evang. S. Gregory c Orat. 2. de imagin S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sixtus the first his second decretall Epistle and most plentifully in d Epist. 7. S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Councell in the Epistle of e Habetur Can. in Novo distinct 21. Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In f In synod Hispal Isidore and in g Lib. 3. c. 15. super Lucam Venerable Bede His words are these sicut duodecem 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 TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of § 11. And particularly of S. Peter Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suaerationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Epist. 27. ad Lapsos Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopall 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 Ierome intimate's Non est facilè Epist. 1. stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtaine the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopall office Pasceoves 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 Lib. 12. thes cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejusque paritèr authoritatem libertatemque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejusque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira So Basil did to Valens and his Sonne for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the tract primâ die suae ordinat Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evill Bishops whatsoever doe with unhallowed and uncleane feete usurpe the seate of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholike beleife and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate Biblioth S S. P P. ton 5 in Eccles. ord in crepat be eternall to be succeeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not onely of Divine institution but indeed the onely order which can clearely show an immediate Divine commission for it's power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolicall then
and AUTHORITY He was to be obey'd in ALL THINGS and contradicted in NOTHING The Bishops judgement was to sway and nothing must seeme Ad Trallian Ad Magnes pleasing to the Presbyters that was crosse to the Bishops sentence this and a great deale more which I have formerly made use of is in Ignatius And now let their assistance and Counsell extend as farre as it will the Bishops authority is invulnerable But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierome's § thither I referre the Reader 2. But S. Cyprian must doe this businesse for us if any man for of all the Bishops he did acts of the greatest condescension and seeming declination of Episcopall authority But let us see the worst Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri Epist. 6. .... solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere And againe quamvis mihi videantur debere Epist. 19. pacem accipere tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere And a third time Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium Epist. 18. sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo These are the greatest steps of Episcopall humility that I find in materiâ juridicâ The summe whereof is this that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence and resolved to doe nothing without their advice But then consider also it was statui apud me I have resolved with my selfe to doe nothing without your Counsell It was no necessity ab extrà no duty no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty it was his owne voluntary act 2. It was as well Diaconorum as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction as appeares by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles Cyprianus Presbyter is ac DIACONIS fratribus salutem So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common then the Deacons by any Divine law or Catholike practice 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too and that will as well disturbe the Ius 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 vt 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 seaventy Elders for in 1. ad Titum assistants For as for S. Cyprian this very Epistle cleares it that no part of his Episcopall authority was impayred For he shewes what himselfe alone could doe Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ religione quam satis novi his literis hortor mando c. I intreat and COMMAND you .... vice meâ fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affayres He intreates them pro dilectione because they lov'd him he COMMANDS THEM PRO RELIGIONE by their religion for it was a peice of their religion to obey him and in him was the governement of his Church else how could he have put the Presbyters and Deacons in substitution * Adde to this It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did onely impose hands in the ordination of Clerks yet the Clergy did approve examine the persons to be ordain'd and it being a thing of publike interest it was then not thought fit to be a personall action both in preparation and ministration too and for this S. Chrysostome was accus'd in Concilio nefario as the title of the edition of it expresses it that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet when S. Ius Graecc Rom. pag. 556. Cyprian saw occasion for it he did ordaine without the consent of the Clergy of his Church for so he ordained Celerinus so he ordain'd Optatus and Saturus when himselfe 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 HIMSELFE did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus and Repostus and Irene and Paula as appeares in his 38 and 39 epistles and tells * Epist. 65. Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abus'd him by vertue of his Episcopall authority And the same power singly and solely he exercis'd in his acts of favour and absolution Vnus atque alius Epist. 55. OBNITENTE PLEBE ET CONTRADICENTE MEA tamen FACILITATE suscepti sunt Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed but yet the absolution said to be his owneact against the people and without the Clergy For he alone was the IUDGE insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schisme and heresie that the Bishop was not obey'd nec UNUs in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus IUDEX VICE CHRISTI COGITATUR ibidem and that ONE high Priest in a Church and IUDGE INSTEED OF CHRIST is not admitted So that the Bishop must be ONE and that ONE must be IUDGE and to acknowledge more in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schisme and heresie Farther yet this Iudicatory of the Bishop is independant and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino Epist. 52. redditurus and againe habetin Ecclesiae administratione Epist. 72. voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus The Bishop is Lord of his owne actions and may doe what seemes good in his owne eyes and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This generall account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6 th and 18 th epistles and indeed the whole Question But for the 18 th epistle there is something of peculiar answer For first It was a case of publike concernement and therefore he would so comply with the publike interest as to doe it by publike counsell 2 ly 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 publike and solemne triall reconcil'd it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent and Martyrdome but seldome 3 ly The common counsell which S. Cyprian here said he would expect was the Councell of the Confessors to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publike assoyling of such penitents who were
he forbad not a secular title He us'd many himselfe 5. The voyce of the Spouse the holy Church hath alwaies expressed their honourable estimate in reverentiall compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops and have taught us so to doe * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum Princes of the Churches I had occasion to instance it in the question of Iurisdiction Indeed the third Councell of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum or summus Sacerdos or aliquid hujusmodi but onely primae sedis Episcopus I know not what their meaning was unlesse they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person as in the See for he might be called Bishop of the prime See But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage I am sure it was a guise of Christendome not to speake of Bishops sine praefatione honoris but with honourable mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To our most blessed LORD So the letters were superscribed to Iulius Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren in Sozomen Let no man lib. 3. cap. 23. speake Untruths of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen Nor of MY LORDS THE BISHOPS said S. Gregory Nazianzen The Synodicall book of the Councell of Constantinople is inscribed DOMINIS REVERENDISSIMIS Theodoret. lib. 5. ca. 9. ac pijssimis Fratribus ac Collegis Damaso Ambrosio c To our most Reverend LORDS and holy Brethren c And the Councell of Illyricum sending their Synodall letters to the Bishops of Asia by Bishop Elpidius Haec pluribus say they persequi non est visum quòd miserimus vnum ex omnibus DOMINUM Collegam nostrum Elpidium Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 9. qui cognosceret esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à DOMINO Collegâ nostro Eustathio Our Lord and Brother Elpidius Our Lord and Brother Eustathius * The oration in the Councell of Epaunum begins thus Quod praecipientibus tantis DOMINIS MEIS ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo c The Prolocutor tooke that office on him at the command of so many GREAT LORDS THE BISHOPS * When the Church of Spayne became Catholike and abjur'd the Arian heresy King Recaredus in the third Councell of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops Non incognitum reor esse vobis REVERENDISSIMI Sacerdotes c Non credimus vestram latere SANCTITATEM c vestra Cognovit BEATITUDO c VENERANDI PATRES c And these often Your Holinesse your Blessednesse Most Reverend Venerable Fathers Those were the addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod Thus it was when Spaine grew Catholike But not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian records They amongst them us'd but little Reverence to their Bishops But the instances of this kind are innumerable Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity then to speake of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domine verè Sancte suscipiende Thedor lib. 1. c. 4. c. 5. Athanas. Apolog 2. Papa So S. Hierome a Presbyter to S. Austin a Bishop Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est saith S. Austin Episcopacy is Greater then the office Epist. 17. 18. 19. apud S. Augustin and dignity of a Presbyter according to the TITLES OF HONOUR which the custome of the Church hath introduc'd * But I shall summe up these particulars in a totall which is thus expressed by S. Chrysostome Haeretici à Diabolo HONORUM VOCABULA in Psal. 13. apud Baron An. Dom. 58. n. 2. Episcopis non dare didicerunt Hereticks have learned of the Devill not to give due titles of honour to Bishops The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so * For my owne particular I am confident that my Lords the Bishops doe so undervalue any fastuous or pompous title that were not the duty of their people in it they would as easily reject them as it is our duties piously to use them But if they still desire appellatives of honour we must give them they are their due if they desire them not they deserve them much more So that either for their humility or however for their works sake we must highly honour them that have the rule 1. Thessal 5. 13. over us It is the precept of S. Paul and S. Cyprian observing how Curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Iewes even then 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 Epist. 65. ET 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 adde If fitting in a THRONE even above the seate of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops chaire A THRONE and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church AN INTHRONIZATION Quando INTHRONIZANTUR propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c saith P. Anterus in his decretall Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo INTHRONING is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesi is excelsae constitutae praeparatae UT THRONUS speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. decret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Epist. ad Hero◠THRONE ** The summe of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our dutyes and their worke deserves it S. Paul was as deare to the Galathians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formosipedes Evangelizantium the feete of the Preachers of the Gospell are beauteous and then much more of the chiefe Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi vt intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos UTANIMAS Urban ibid. VESTRAS diligatis vt quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more then amicitia that 's amongst Peeres 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 meere impertinence I end this with the saying of S. Ignatius vos decet non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium OMNEM Epist. ad Magnes ILLI IMPERTIRI REVERENTIAM It is the WILL OF GOD the Father that we should give all REVERENCE HONOUR or veneration to our Bishops VVELL
However things are now It was §. 49. And trusted with affayres of Secular interest otherwise in the Old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honourd with so great degrees of approximation to himselfe in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their soules they might with an equall confidence trust with their personall 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 affayres in whose determination a Divine wisdome and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Common-wealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their severall interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their owne people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for faire issue upon such good grounds as they might fairely expect from the Bishops abilityes authority and religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as shee could and made sanctions against it so farre as shee might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arme to their owne assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawfull for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment S. Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular tribunall is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republike which must be indulged to a private personall necessity But we have not S. Paul's example onely but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another goe to law 1. Cor. 6. before the Vnjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgements 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 S. Ambrose also thought that to In hunc locum be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Iudges For by least esteemed he could not meane 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 S. Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Iesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Iesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Yea but S. Paul's expression seemes to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to Iudge betweene his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Iudges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but onely for S. Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem Fratrem Iudicem eligendum dicit quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus S. Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was Vide etiam August de opere Monach ca. 29. to be the man though till then in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwaies forbid to Clergy-men A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of ingagements in REBUS SAECULI So the sixth Canon of the Apostles Can. 7. Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Vide Zonarin Can. Apostol Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himselfe worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is generall 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 owne trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sinne But if he seekes it for it selfe it is ambition In this sense also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seeke a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it selfe but the illnesse of the intention and this indeed shee expressely forbids in her Canons * Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum Concil Chalced Act. 15. can 3. possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy men farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNES and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councell complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotijs saecularibus se immiscere No Bishop No Clergy man No Monke must farme grounds nor ingage himselfe in secular businesse What in none No none praeter pupillorum si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will doe right to the Question All secular affaires and bargaines either for covetousnesse or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much lesse for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councell of Arles Clericus turpis lucri Can. 14. gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But nor here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may doe any office that is in piâ curâ He may undertake the supravision of Widdowes and Orphans And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupills yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or