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
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
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
Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men and Ministers are joyned as assistants only and Counsellors but at Schaffhausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much but in the Huguenot Churches of France the Ministers doe all 3. In such cases where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory and confessedly of all sides there can be none in causes Courts Ecclesiasticall if there be no opinion of Religion no derivation from a divine authority there will be sure to be no obedience and indeed nothing but a certain publick calamitous irregularity For why should they obay Not for Conscience for there is no derivation from divine authority Not for feare for they have not the power of the sword 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keyes by Christ concredited to his Church for the binding and loosing delinquents and penitents respectively on earth then there is clearely a Court erected by Christ in his Church for here is the delegation of Iudges Tu Petrus vos Apostoli whatsoever ye shall bind Here is a compulsory ligaveritis Here are the causes of which they take cognisance Quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Vniversall Iohn 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam in causes which are emergent from Christianity ut sic that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon But of this hereafter That Christ did in this place erect a Iurisdiction and establish a government besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers affirming that to S. Peter the Keyes were given that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae ut quae solveret interrâ soluta essent in coelo scil ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sanaretur So * De doctr Christ. lib. 1. 6. 18. tract 118. in Iohan. vide etiam tract 124. tract 50. in Ioh. de Agon Christ. cap. 30 de bapt contr Donatist lib. 3. c. 17. S. Austin And againe Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit Quoniam nec ille solus sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata S. Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing But not he alone but all the Church to wit all succession and ages of the Church Vniversa Ecclesia viz. in Pastoribus solis as * De Sacerd. lib. 3. S. Chrysostom In Episcopis Presbyteris as †In 16. Matt. S. Ierome The whole Church as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters The same is affirmed by a Lib. de pudicit Tertullian b Epist. 27. S. Cyprian c Lib. qd Christus est Deus S. Chrysostome d Lib. 6. de Trinit S. Hilary e Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke 12. 42. Primasius and generally by the Fathers of the elder and Divines of the middle ages 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the sonne of Man commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch the Disciples asked him speakest thou this parable to us or even to all And the Lord said who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season As if he had said I speak to You for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Masters absence You are by office and designation my stewards to feed my servants to governe my house 6. In Scripture and other writers to Feed and to Governe is all one when the office is either Politicall or Oeconomicall or Ecclesiasticall So he Psal 78. FED them with a faithfull and true heart and RULED them prudently with all his power And S. Peter joynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together 1. Pet. 5. 2. Acts. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So does S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers or overseers in a flock Pastors It is ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripides calls the Governors and guides of Chariots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our blessed Saviour himselfe is called the Great sheapheard of our soules and that we may know the intentum of that compellation it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is therefore our sheapheard for he is our Bishop our Ruler and Overseer Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church it is also as certain he hath left Rulers they being both one in name in person in office But this is of a known truth to all that understand either lawes or languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith * in lib de eo quod deterior potiori insidiatur Philo they that feed have the power of Princes and rulers the thing is an undoubted truth to most men but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it THis government was by immediate substitution § 2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ delegated to the Apostles by Christ himselfe in traditione clavium in spiratione Spiritûs in missione in Pentecoste When Christ promised them the Keyes he promised them power to bind and loose when he breathed on them the holy Ghost he gave them that actually to which by the former promise they were intitled and in the octaves of the Passion he gave them the same authority which he had received from his Father and they were the faithfull and wise stewards whom the Lord made RULERS over his Houshold * vide Hilarium in hunc locum pp. communitèr But I shall not labour much upon this Their founding all the Churches from East to West and so by being Fathers derived their authority from the nature of the thing their appointing rulers in every Church their Synodall decrees de Suffocato Sanguine and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia their excommunications of Hymeneus Alexander and the incestuous Corinthian their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things as S. Paul did of his subjects of Corinth and the Hebrews by precept Apostolicall their threatning the Pastorall rod their calling Synods and publick assemblies their ordering rites and ceremonies composing a Symbole as the tessera of Christianity their publick reprehension of delinquents and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their
superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction 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
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
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
Marco Epist. ad Evagr Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri Egypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant And againe Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus The same is de Script Eccles. in proëm in Matth. witnessed by a lib. 6. Epist. 371. S. Gregory b lib 14. cap 39. Nicephorus and divers others Now although the ordination of S. Marke is not specified in the Acts as innumerable multitudes of things more and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter nothing of S. Iames the sonne of Thaddaeus nor of Alpheus but the Martyrdome of one of them nothing of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas of Simon zelotes of S. Iude the Apostle scarce any of their names recorded yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records which all Christendome hitherto so farre as we know hath acknowledged as authentick and these ordinations cannot possibly goe lesse then Apostolicall being done in the Apostles times to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited they seeing and beholding severall successions in severall Churches before their death as here at Alexandria first Saint Marke then Anianus made Bishop five or sixe years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul But yet who it was that ordain'd S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria for Bishop he was most certainly is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Romane Councell Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit In decret de lib. authent apocryph gloriosè consummavit Martyrium S. Peter sent him into Egypt to found a Church and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment and that could be no lesse then the ordinary power Apostolicall BUt in the Church of Rome the ordination of § 17. S. Linus and s. Clement at Rome Bishops by the Apostles and their successions during the times of the Apostles is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit Succedit autem ei Anacletus post eum tertiò loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui vidit ipsos Apostolos conâ—ulit cum eis cùm adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum traditionem ante oculos haberet So S. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. * Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus Linus vero Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles as of a de praescript Tertullian b lib 2. contr Parmen Optatus c Epist. 165. S. Austin and d de Script Eccles. S. Hierome But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish and bee tedious in a thing so evident and known S. Iohn ordain'd S. Polycarpe Bishop at Smyrna .... sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum § 18. S. Polycarpe at Smyrna diverse others ab Iohanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici scminis traduces habeant So Tertullian The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarpe De praescript was placed there by S. Iohn as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordain'd there by S. Peter and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops Polycarpus autem De Script Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35. non solùm ab Apostolis edoctus .... sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesiâ constitutus Episcopus .... testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesiae omnes qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo c. The same also is witnessed by S. Ierome and * In Martyrologio Roman Eusebius Quoniam autem valdè longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare to use S. Irenaeus his expression It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands as a Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. lib. 3. c. 4. S. Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens b Origen lib. 10. in 16. Rom. Cajus at Thessalonica c S. Ambros. in 4 Coloss. Archippus at Colosse d Jgnatius Epist ad Ephes. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35. Onesimus at Ephesus e Arethas in 1. Apocal. Antipas at Pergamus f Epist. ad Philip. Theodoret. ib. in 1. Tim. 3. Epaphroditus at Philippi g Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Galtias So Ruffinus reads it In Galatia so is intimated in Scripture and so the Roman Martyrol Crescens among the Gaules h Ignatius Epist. ad Antioch Euseb. lib 3. c. 22. Evodias at Antioch * In Martyrologio Roman Sosipater at Iconium Erastus in Macedonia Trophimus at Arles Iason at Tarsus Silas at Corinth Onesiphorus at Colophon Quartus at Berytus Paul the Proconsul at Narbona besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture as these forecited are so many as * lib. 3. cap. 37. Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their acts and ordinations in those generall foldings us'd by the Fathers saying that the Apostles did ordaine Bishops in all Churches that the succession of Bishops downe from the Apostles first ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick and their adversaries who could not doe so to be Hereticall This also is very evident and of great consideration in the first ages while their tradition was cleare and evident and not so be pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks striving to spoile that which did so much mischiefe to their causes Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum it a per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquemex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned Lib. 3. cap. 3. twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritat is praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and onely foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believ'd by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were oblig'd to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute then the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed Numb 11. our blessed Lord himselfe promised heaven to them who believd him to be the Christ that was to come into the world and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternall he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very generall and a complexion rather then a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite and though they have said no more then what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosome of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it selfe because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolicall deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symboll the plaine description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertaine us but if we goe farther besides the easinesse of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then binde us to follow them but yet no more then when they only seem truest yet they cannot make the thing certaine to another much lesse necessary in it selfe And since God would not binde us upon paine of sinne and punishment to make deductions our selves much lesse would he binde us to follow another man's Logick as an Article of our Faith I say much lesse another mans for our own integrity for we will certainly be true to our selves and doe our own businesse heartily is as fit and proper to be imployed as another mans ability He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest but I can be more certaine that my own purposes and fidelity to my selfe is such And since it is necessary to rest somewhere lest we should run to an infinity it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolicall rested when not only they who are able to judge but others who are not are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication This I say not that I believe it unlawfull or unsafe for the Numb 12. Church or any of the Antistites religionis or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainely follow from any one of the Articles but I say that no such deduction is fit to be prest on others as an Article of Faith and that every deduction which is so made unlesse it be such a thing as is at first evident to all is but sufficient to make a humane Faith nor can it amount to a divine much lesse can be obligatory to binde a person of a differing perswasion to subscribe under paine of loosing his Faith or being a Heretick For it is a demonstration that nothing can be necessary to be believed under paine of damnation but such propositions of which it is certaine that God hath spoken and taught them to us and of which it is certaine that this is their sense and purpose For if the sense be uncertain we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sense then we are to believe it at all if it were not certaine that God delivered it But if it be onely certaine that God spake it and not certaine to what sense our Faith of it is to be as indeterminate as its sense and it can be no other in the nature of the thing nor is it consonant to Gods justice to believe of him that he can or will require more And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which without any further probation all wise men will give assent at its first publication And therfore deductions inevident from the evident and plain letter of Faith are as great recessions from the obligation as they are from the simplicity and certainty of the Article And this I also affirm although the Church of any one denomination or represented in a Councell shall make the deduction or declaration For unlesse Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errors lesse materiall unlesse he had promised an absolute universall infallibility etiam in minutioribus unlesse super-structures be of the same necessity with the foundation and that Gods Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is lesse certain and that whether they will or no too we may be bound to peace and obedience to silence and to charity but have not a new Article of Faith made and a new proposition though consequent as 't is said from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith nor of absolute necessity Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis Contra haeres cap 32. eâ—isa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur said Vincentius Lirinensis whatsoever was of necessary beliefe before is so still and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication but no prositions can be adopted into the foundation The Church hath power to intend our Faith but not to extend it to make our beliefe more evident but not more large and comprehensive For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the
of any side shall finde as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds Arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and he is angry at it neque enim putare debemus De doctri Christian. lib. 3. esse praescriptum ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus 3. Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by Numb 3. a proportion and Analogy of reason And this is as the other if it be well it s well But unlesse there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions by referring to which every man might argue infallibly this Logick may deceive as well as any of the rest For it is with reason as with mens tastes although there are some generall principles which are reasonable to all men yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences nor to understand them when they are drawn forth nor to believe when he does understand them There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gather'd into a body of a Church 2 Thes. 3. 6. To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly But if this precept were now observed I would faine know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoyd in giving the same commandement to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote to you that yee should not company with fornicators And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world for then yee must goe out of the world And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives But now that all the world hath been Christians if we should sin in keeping company with vitious Christians must we not also goe out of this world Is not the precept made null because the reason is altered and things are come about and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called brethren as S. Pauls phrase is And yet either this never was considered or not yet believed for it is generally taken to be obligatory though I think seldome practised But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certaine sense by Arguments drawn from prudentiall motives then we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide and we shall have so many senses as there are humane prudences But that which goes further then this is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced If thy brother refuse to be amended Dic ecclesiae Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury then much more in case of heresy Well suppose this to be a good Interpretation Why must I stay here Why may not I also adde by a parity of reason If the Church must be told of heresy much more of treason And why may not I reduce all sinnes to the cognizance of a Church tribunall as some men doe indirectly and Snecanus does heartily and plainly If a mans principles be good and his deductions certain he need not care whether they carry him But when an Authority is intrusted to a person and the extent of his power expressed in his commission it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason To instance once more When Christ in pasce oves tu es Petrus gave power to the Pope to govern the Church for to that sense the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities by a certain consequence of reason say they he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction and therefore in pasce oves he gave him an indirect power over temporalls for that is necessary that he may doe his duty Well having gone thus farre we will goe further upon the parity of reason therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues and he hath given him power to give it for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians He hath given him also power to command the Seas and the winds that they should obey him for this also is very necessary in some cases And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum and Impera ventis dispone regum diademata laicorum praedia and influentias caeli too and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce ovts when a man does speak reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilities to doe it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason unlesse other mens understandings were of the same ayre the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescrib'd unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute circumstances and particularities in which it is so easy to be deceived and so hard to speak reason regularly and alwayes that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived 4. Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of Numb 4. Faith and that is the most sure and infallible way as it is thought But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimera a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way It may bring him to his journeyes end though twenty mile about it may keep him from running into the Sea and from mistaking a river for dry land but whether this little path or the other be the right way it tells not So is the analogy of Faith that is if I understand it right the rule of Faith that is the Creed Now were it not a fine device to goe to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed then they have to Tityre tu patula Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogy of Faith that is to expound Scripture so as not to doe any violence to any fundamentall Article he shall be sure however he erres yet not to destroy Faith he shall not perish in his Exposition And that was the precept given by S. Paul that all Prophesyings should be estimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6. 12. and to this very purpose S. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith with this design and protestation of it that if he
fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset dicto Pape aut totius Concilii praeferendum si ille moveretur melioribus Argumentis I end this Discourse with representing the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his Epistle to Procopius Ego si vera scribere Numb 11. oportet ita animo affectus sum ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia Athanas. lib. de Synod Frusta igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt ob fidem se Synodos postulare cum sit Divina Scriptura omnibus potentior fugiam quoniam nullius Concilii finem laetum faustumque vidi nec quod depulsionem malorum potius quam accessionem incrementum habuerit But I will not be so severe and dogmaticall against them For I believe many Councels to have been cald with sufficient Authority to have been managed with singular piety and prudence and to have been finished with admirable successe and truth And where we find such Councels he that will not with all veneration believe their Decrees and receive their sanctions understands not that great duty he owes to them who have the care of our soules whose faith we are bound to follow saith S. Paul that is so long as they follow Christ and certainly many Councels have done so But Heb. 13. 7. this was then when the publike interest of Christendome was better conserv'd in determining a true Article then in finding a discreet temper or a wise expedient to satisfie disagreeing persons As the Fathers at Trent did and the Lutherans and Calvinists did at Sendomir in Polonia and the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians did at Dort It was in Ages when the summe of Religion did not consist in maintaining the Grandezza of the Papacy where there was no order of men with a fourth Vow upon them to advance S. Peters Chaire when there was no man nor any company of men that esteem'd themselves infallible and therefore they searched for truth as if they meant to find it and would believe it if they could see it prov'd not resolv'd to prove it because they had upon chance or interest believ'd it then they had rather have spoken a truth then upheld their reputation but only in order to truth This was done sometimes and when it was done God's Spirit never fail'd them but gave them such assistances as were sufficient to that good end for which they were Assembled and did implore his aid And therefore it is that the foure generall Councels so called by way of eminency have gained so great a reputation above all others not because they had a better promise or more speciall assistances but because they proceeded better according to the Rule with lesse faction without ambition and temporall ends And yet those very Assemblies of Bishops had no Authority by their Decrees to make a Divine Faith or to constitute Numb 12. new objects of necessary Credence they made nothing true that was not so before and therefore they are to be apprehended in the nature of excellent Guides and whose Decrees are most certainly to determine all those who have no Argument to the contrary of greater force and efficacy then the Authority or reasons of the Councell And there is a duty owing to every Parish Priest and to every Dioecesan Bishop these are appointed over us and to answer for our soules and are therefore morally to guide us as reasonable Creatures are to be guided that is by reason and discourse For in things of judgement and understanding they are but in forme next above Beasts that are to be ruled by the imperiousnesse and absolutenesse of Authority unlesse the Authority be Divine that is infallible Now then in a juster height but still in its true proportion Assemblies of Bishops are to guide us with a higher Authority because in reason it is supposed they will doe it better with more Argument and certainty and with Decrees which have the advantage by being the results of many discourses of very wise and good men But that the Authority of generall Councels was never esteem'd absolute infallible and unlimited appears in this that before they were obliging it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu c. Vid. S. August 1. l. c. 18. de bapt contr Donat. in declaratione veritatum quae credendae sunt c. That 's the way of making the Deerees of Councels become authentik and be turn'd into a Law as Gerson observes and till they did their Decrees were but a dead letter and therefore it is that these later Popes have so labour'd that the Councell of Trent should be received in France and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer and of the Roman Communion disputed * So did the third Estate of France in the Convention of the three Estates under Lewis the 13th earnestly contend against it against the reception and this is a known condition in the Canon Law but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councels have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Councell And there is great reason it should for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented so it resolves into it and though it may have all the legall power yet it hath not all the naturall for more able men may be unsent then sent and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church it is therefore most fit that since the legall power that is the externall was passed over to the body representative yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remaine in the diffusive as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no and so to proceed accordingly For unlesse it be in matters of justice in which the interest of a third person is concern'd no man will or can be supposed to passe away all power from himselfe of doing himselfe right in matters personall proper and of so high concernment It is most unnaturall and unreasonable But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace the best humane Judicatories in the world rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversy and the greatest probability from humane Authority besides these advantages I say I know nothing greater that generall Councels can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man And as there was never any Councell so generall but it might have been more generall for in respect of the whole Church even Nice it selfe was but a small Assembly so there is no Decree so well constituted but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Councell And therefore generall Councels and Nationall and Provinciall and Dioecesan in their severall degrees are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings but
not of weight and Authority to restraine their Liberty so wholy but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to perswade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions BUt since the Question between the Councell and the Pope Numb 1. grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Popes behalfe as to believe Generall Councels to be nothing but Pompes and Solennities of the Catholike Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeale from the Pope to a future Councell is a heresy yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II and therefore it concerns us now Epist. ad Norimberg to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II while he was the wise and learned Patrum avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium l. 1. de gestis Concil Basil. Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preheminence of a Councell and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Councell though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councels give none and yet as soone as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peters Chaire which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a Generall Councell But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universall and the infallible Doctor that he breathes Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedrall determinations is absolute heresy the Rule of Faith being nothing else but consormity to the Chaire of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complaine that his choyce is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himselfe And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to find it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be cozened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plaine then the Commission given to Peter Numb 2. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keyes And again for thee have I prayed that thy faith faile not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and inabled with an infallible power so to doe And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chaire of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peters Successors as to his Person that must by all meanes be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said a Irenae contra haeres l. 3. c. 3. To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene ..... In this Tradition Apostolicall alwayes was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this * Ambr. de obitu Salyri l. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imp. Cypr. Ep. 52. Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholike .... b Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. To this Church errour or perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse .... c S. Austin in Psal. contra partem Donat. Against this Sea the gates of Hell cannot prevaile .... d Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damasum For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock .... And whoever eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his finall sentence But if you would have all this prov'd by an infallible Argument e L. 2. contra Parmenian Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholike Church Dignum patellà operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions or the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomely laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 1. Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater Numb 3. prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ pray'd for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did meane to constitute a Church that his faith
where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferre more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for orders sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practise And that the other Apostles were by a personall priviledge as infallible as himselfe is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himselfe was and certainly there might have something hapned in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judiciall power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalfe Will the Ministeriall Headship inferre any more then when the Church in a Community or a publike capacity should doe any Act of Ministery Ecelesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councels which yet was not alwayes granted him Suppose it to be a power of taking cognisance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councels cannot be called Suppose it a double voyce or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour Suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministeriall Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causlessely amused with such premises and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 8. I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Numb 10. Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places can be that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetuall experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their halfe Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophecying should be restrain'd But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seemes not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles S. Peter himselfe not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not only with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determin'd the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret and although we have but little Record that the first Councell at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the finall sentence and although S. Peter determin'd the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstaine from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judg'd most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of S. Chrysost. hom 3. in act Apost Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if this Question be to be determin'd by Scripture it Numb 11. must either be ended by plaine places or by obscure plaine places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what meanes shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Popes interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for it selfe either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogy of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peters own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confesse what they never thought But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile Numb 12. their words and their actions that the processe is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so farre at least as to shew either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practise was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much cased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in it selfe as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Councell every men liv'd to himselfe and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practise could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops infallibility and by consequence supreme judgement and last resolution in matters of
Numb 1. to practicall Conclusions and consider among the differing sects and opinions which trouble these parts of Christendome and come into our concernment which sects of Christians are to be tolerated and how farre and which are to be restrained and punished in their severall proportions The first consideration is that since diversity of opinions does Numb 2. more concerne publike peace then religion what is to be done to persons who disobey a publike sanction upon a true allegation that they cannot believe it to be lawfull to obey such constitutions although they dis-believe them upon insufficient grounds that is whether in constituta lege disagreeing persons or weake consciences are to be complyed withall and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated 1. In this question there is no distinction can be made between Numb 3. persons truely weake and but pretending so For all that pretend to it are to be allowed the same liberty whatsoever it be for no mans spirit is knowne to any but to God and himselfe and therefore pretences and realityes in this case are both alike in order to the publike toleration And this very thing is one argument to perswade a Negative For the chiefe thing in this case is the concernment of publique government which is then most of all violated when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes may be demanded to many more and the piety of the Lawes abused to the impiety of other mens ends And if laws be made so malleable as to comply with weak consciences he that hath a mind to disobey is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the Law by this pretence For a weak conscience signifyes nothing in this case but a dislike of the Law upon a contrary perswasion For if some weak consciences doe obey the law and others doe not it is not their weaknesse indefinitely that is the cause of it but a definite and particular perswasion to the contrary So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying then the law is a sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a mind to it and he that hath not may choose that is it is no Law at all for he that hath a mind to it may doe it if there be no Law and he that hath no mind to it need not for all the Law And therefore the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law Numb 4. of that temper and expedient but either he must lose the formality of a law and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory but ad arbitrium inferiorum or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey 2. Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfie divers persons pious prudent that it complyes with the necessity Numb 5. of government and promotes the interest of Gods service and publike order it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church may be as zealous for the publike order and discipline of the Church as others for their opinion against it and may be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated as others are if the Law be exacted and what shall be done in this case Both sorts of men cannot be complyed withall because as these pretend to be offended at the Law and by consequence if they understand the consequents of their owne opinion at them that obey the Law so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side then the disagreeing persons are not to be complyed with to avoid giving offence for if they be offence is given to better persons and so the mischiefe which such complying seeks to prevent is made greater and more unjust obedience is discouraged and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender conscience 3. Such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men is Numb 6. the totall overthrow of all Discipline and it is better to make no Lawes of publique worship then to rescind them in the very constitution and there can be no end in making the sanction but to make the Law ridiculous and the authority contemptible For to say that complying with weake consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline is the way to preserve unity were all one as to say To take away all Lawes is the best way to prevent disobedience In such matters of indifferencie the best way of cementing the fraction is to unite the parts in the authority for then the question is but one viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars the questions become next to infinite A Mirrour when it is broken represents the object multiplyed and divided but if it be entire and through one centre transmits the species to the eye the Vision is one and naturall Lawes are the Mirrour in which men are to dresse and compose their actions and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of authority and peace and all humane sanctions And I have knowne in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a designe to discredit the Law to dismantle the authority that made it to raise their owne credit and a trophey of their zeale to make it a characteristick note of a sect and the cognisance of holy persons and yet the men that claim'd exemption from the Lawes upon pretence of having weake consciences if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads they would have spit in your face and were so farre from confessing themselves weake that they thought themselves able to give Lawes to Christendome to instruct the greatest Clerks and to Catechize the Church her selfe And which is the worst of all they who were perpetually clamorous that the severity of the Lawes should slacken as to their particular and in matter adiaphorous in which if the Church hath any authority she hath power to make Lawes to indulge a leave to them to doe as they list yet were the most imperious amongst men most decretory in their sentences and most impatient of any disagreeing from them though in the least minute and particular whereas by all the justice of the world they who perswade such a complyance in matters of fact and of so little question should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in questions of great difficulty and contestation 4. But yet since all things almost in the world have beene Numb 7. made matters of dispute and the will of some men and the malice of others and the infinite industry and pertinacie of contesting and resolution to conquer hath abused some persons innocently into a perswasion that even the Lawes themselves though never so
prudently constituted are superstitious or impious such persons who are otherwise pious humble and religious are not to be destroyed for such matters which in themselves are not of concernment to salvation and neither are so accidentally to such men and in such cases where they are innocently abused and they erre without purpose and designe And therefore if there be a publike disposition in some persons to dislike Lawes of a certaine quality if it before-seene it is to be considered in lege dicendâ and whatever inconvenience or particular offence is fore-seene is either to be directly avoided in the Law or else a compensation in the excellency of the Law and certaine advantages made to out-weigh their pretensions But in lege jam dictâ because there may be a necessity some persons should have a liberty indulged them it is necessary that the Governours of the Church should be intrusted with a power to consider the particular case and indulge a liberty to the person and grant personall dispensations This I say is to be done at severall times upon particular instance upon singular consideration and new emergencies But that a whole kind of men such a kind to which all men without possibility of being confuted may pretend should at once in the very frame of the Law be permitted to disobey is to nullifie the Law to destroy Discipline and to hallow disobedience it takes away the obliging part of the Law and makes that the thing enacted shall not be enjoyn'd but tolerated onely it destroyes unity and uniformity which to preserve was the very end of such lawes of Discipline it bends the rule to the thing which is to be ruled so that the law obeyes the subject not the subject the law it is to make a law for particulars not upon generall reason and congruity against the prudence and designe of all Lawes in the world and absolutely without the example of any Church in Christendome it prevents no scandall for some will be scandalized at the authority it selfe some at the complying and remisnesse of Discipline and severall men at matters and upon ends contradictory All which cannot some ought not to be complyed withall 6. The summe is this The end of the Lawes of Discipline are in an immediate order to the conservation and ornament of the Numb 8. publique and therefore the Lawes must not so tolerate as by conserving persons to destroy themselves and the publike benefit but if there be cause for it they must be cassated or if there be no sufficient cause the complyings must be so as may best preserve the particulars in conjunction with the publike end which because it is primarily intended is of greatest consideration But the particulars whether of case or person are to be considered occasionally and emergently by the Judges but cannot antecedently and regularly be determined by a Law But this sort of men is of so generall pretence that all Lawes Numb 9. and all Judges may easily be abused by them Those sects which are signified by a Name which have a systeme of Articles a body of profession may be more cleerly determined in their question concerning the lawfulnesse of permitting their professions and assemblies I shall instance in two which are most troublesome and most dislik'd and by an account made of these we may make judgement what may be done towards others whose errors are not apprehended of so great malignity The men I meane are the Anabaptists and the Papists SECT 18. A particular consideration of the opinions of the Anabaptists IN the Anabaptists I consider onely their two capitall opinions the one against the baptisme of infants the other against Numb 1. Magistracy and because they produce different judgements and various effects all their other fancyes which vary as the Moon does may stand or fall in their proportion and likenesse to these And first I consider their denying baptisme to infants although it be a doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of Numb 2. Christians upon great grounds of reason yet possibly their defence may be so great as to take off much and rebate the edge of their adversaries assault It will be neither unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side that their errour is not impudent or vincible The baptisme of infants rests wholly upon this discourse When God made a covenant with Abraham for himselfe and his posterity into which the Gentiles were reckoned by sprituall Numb 3. adoption he did for the present consigne that covenant with the Sacrament of circumcision The extent of which rite was to all his family from the Major domo to the Proselytus domicilio and to infants of eight dayes old Now the very nature of this covenant being a covenant of faith for its formallity and with all faithfull people for the object and circumcision being a seale of this covenant if ever any rite doe supervene to consigne the same covenant that rite must acknowledge circumcision for its type and precedent And this the Apostle tels us in expresse doctrine Now the nature of types is to give some proportions to its successour the Antitype and they both being seales of the same righteousnesse of faith it will not easily be found where these two seales have any such distinction in their nature or purposes as to appertaine to persons of differing capacity and not equally concerne all and this argument was thought of so much force by some of those excellent men which were Bishops in the primitive church that a good Bishop writ an Epistle to S. Cyprian to know of him whether or no it were lawfull to baptize infants before the eighth day because the type of baptisme was ministred in that circumcision he in his discourse supposing that the first rite was a direction to the second which prevailed with him so farre as to believe it to limit every circumstance And not onely this type but the acts of Christ which were Numb 4. previous to the institution of baptisme did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such perswasion in us that Christ intended this ministery for the actuall advantage of infants as well as of persons of understanding For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto him he took them in his armes he imposed hands on them and blessed them and without question did by such acts of favour consigne his love to them and them to a capacity of an eternall participation of it And possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to come to him all them that are heavy laden did in its proportion concerne infants as much as others if they be guilty of Originall sinne and if that sinne be a burthen and presses them to any spirituall danger or inconvenience And it is all the reason of the world
us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie And thus in these two Instances I have given account what Numb 20. is to be done in Toleration of diversity of opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Common-wealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a question rather Politicall then Religious for as for the concernments of Religion these instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jewes in Numb 21. a Common-wealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equall grounds of State and Policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turn'd from Christian to Iew as many are daily in Spaine and Portugall And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no Numb 22. power over them qui foris sunt as Iewes are For it is true the Church in the capacity of Spirituall regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocesse Yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be kild because they are not of the Christian Communion but they are living persons parts of the Common-Wealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose Service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintaine And when the Question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose Subjects equally Christians and Iewes are hath equall power over their persons for a Christian is no more a subject then a Iew is The Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Iew by being no Christian is not foris or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the secular power hath temporall reason to tolerate the Iewes they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion which thing is of more consideration because the Iewes are direct Blasphemers of the Sonne of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capitall And might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urg'd upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidentall and consequutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeale and heartinesse of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the Mother to doe with them any more then with the Iewes they are in some relation or habitude of the Family for they are consigned with the same Baptism professe the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be reaveled to them at the comming of their Common Lord and Saviour to whose Service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with them that 's the worst that is to be done to such a man in S. Pauls judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion FRom these premises we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulnesse or duty respectively of Christian Communion Numb 1. which is differently to bee considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that professe the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as Members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or beliefe that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us Members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the Iudiciall Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God To make the way to Heaven straighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those whom God will vouchsase to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we over-value is impious and Schismaticall it inferres Tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitablenesse and animosities on both It dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consignes the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a goodlife bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and Societies And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Numb 2. Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian Epist. ad Sempron 2. because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authors of that opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churches peace nor magisterially prescib d to others were in that disagrecing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unit as L. 2. c. 95. contra liter Petilian faciunt Catholicos said S. Austin and to this sense is that of S. Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true beliefe denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and S. Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reprov'd and condemn'd as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 26. Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitat is effectus est unio
or not free in both as it may happen But the restraint is this that every one is not left to his liberty Numb 46. to pray how he list with premeditation or without it makes not much matter but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another But if it be a fault thus to restraine the spirit I would faine know is not the spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one mans composing or it shall be unlawfull or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set forms especially of the Churches composition More plainly thus 2. Doth not the Minister confine and restraine the spirit of the Lords People when they are tyed to his form It would Numb 47. sound of more liberty to their spirits that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate and private spirit It is true it would breed confusions and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began and not for the avoiding one inconvenience runne into a greater and to avoid the disorder of a popular noyse restraine the blessed Spirit for even in this case as well as in the other Where the spirit of God is there must be liberty 3. If the spirit must be at liberty who shall assure us this liberty must be in forms of prayer And if so whether also it Numb 48. must be in publike prayer and will it not suffice that it be in private And if in publike prayers is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved in that the publike spirit is free That is the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and encrease her Litanyes By what Argument shall any man make it so much as probable that the holy Ghost is injured if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided and therefore by necessary consequence limited by the Authority of the Churches publick spirit 4. Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining Numb 49. of the spirit Does it not appoint every thing but the words And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for and a princely liberty that they leave unto the Spirit to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia Verborum For as for the matter it is all there described and appointed and to those determined senses the spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choyce Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously Is it not as much injury to the spirit to restraine his matter as to appoint his words Which is the more considerable of the two sense or Language Matter or Words I meane when they are taken singly and separately For so they may very well be for as if men prescribe the matter only the spirit may cover it with severall words and expressions so if the spirit prescribe the words I may still abound in variety of sense and preserve the liberty of my meaning we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture So that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations we trust him to say what he pleases so it be to our sense to our purposes A goodly compensation surely 5. Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles when he Numb 50. taught them to pray the Lords Prayer whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it was Pray this or Pray thus Pray these words or pray after this manner or though it had been lesse then either and been only a Directory for the matter still it is a thing which our Brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a restraint Certainly then this pretended restraint is no such formidable thing These men themselves doe it by directing all the matter and much of the manner and Christ himselfe did it by prescribing both the matter and the words too 6. These restraints as they are called or determinations of the Spirit are made by the Spirit himselfe For I demand when Numb 51. any Assembly of Divines appointed the matter of Prayers to all particular Ministers as this hath done is that appointment by the Spirit or no If no then for ought appears this Directory not being made by Gods Spirit may be an enemy to it But if this appointment be by the Spirit then the determination and limitation of the Spirit is by the Spirit himself and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spirituall Such as was that of S. Paul to the Corinthians when he prescribed orders for publike prophecying and interpretation and speaking with tongues The spirit of some he so restrained that he bound them to hold their peace he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting the rest were to keep silence though possibly six or seven might at that time have the Spirit 7. Is it not a restraint of the Spirit to sing a Psalm in meeter by appointment Cleerely as much as appointing formes of Numb 52. prayer or Eucharist And yet that we see done daily and no scruple made Is not this to be partiall in judgement and inconsiderate of what wee doe 8. And now after all this strife what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sense What prohibition what law Numb 53. what reason or revelation is against it What inconvenience in the nature of the thing For can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace when those gifts to his Church are used regularly and by order As if prudence were no gift of Gods spirit as if helps in Government and the ordering spirituall matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto Men. But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason and never seen in Scripture For Divinity never knew any other vitious restraining of the Spirit but either suppressing those holy incitements to virtue and Numb 54. good life which Gods Spirit ministers to us externally or internally or else a forbidding by publick Authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to speak such truths as God hath commended and so taking away the liberty of Prophecying The first is directly vitious In materia speciale the second is tyrannicall and Antichristian And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the spirit viz. by appointing a regular form of prayer it is so very a Chimera that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence 9. But lastly how if the spirit
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
suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërcion in causis Clericorum to be watchfull and strengthen the things that remaine as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they Watch for your Soules And the Hebr. 13. second of Apostles and Apostolike men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas and Silas confirm'd the Brethren for these men although they were but of the 72 at first yet by this time were made Apostles and cheife men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15. He went up and downe confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirme 1. Cor. 11. the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no lesse then Episcopall or Apostolicall and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocesse Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and diverse others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called his Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have knowne thy Ministery His office therefore was Clericall it was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charg'd with all 3. By the Angel is mean't a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personall delinquency or suppose personall excellencyes Adde to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seaven Churches had but seaven starres and these seaven starres were the Angels of the seaven Churches And if by seaven starres they may meane 70 times seaven starres for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one starre they must meane many starres and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as starres and no more Angels then Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seaven Churches into 7000 as every starre into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the Exigency of the thing it selfe these seaven Angels are by Antiquity called the seaven Governours or Bishops of the seaven Churches their very names are commemorated Vnto these seaven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth in 1. Apocal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equall number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere ibid eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrosc and againe Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman in 1. Cor. 11. have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voyce of God the Bishop Epist. 162. in Apocal. of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Policarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himselfe an Angell of the Church of Ephesus and he also lib. 4 c. 10. quotes S. Irenaeus for it out of the Encyclicall Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe and besides lib. 4. cap. 15. these authorities it is attested by S. †Epist. ad Policarp Ignatius and * de praescrip Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angell to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had beene and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this booke written vide Aretha in 1. Apoc. he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ lib. 4. cap. 26. his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. Iohn speakes of were such who had Iurisdiction over their whole Diocesse therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fix'd them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetuall and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personall mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairely pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem sollicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolicall did give them power of administring Sacraments of absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem Ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity
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
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
shcapheard after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man Tit. 3. 10. that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognisance of hereticall pravity and animadversion against the heretick himselfe is most plainely concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholike communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing acoactive or coërcitive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocesse But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority 2. Titus 15. and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Comentary on this Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit sollicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so faire preparatory of Scripture we may heare the testimonies of Antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum .... Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso lib. 3. c. 4. Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. ubi suprà Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And in 1. Tim. 3. for this reason saith S. Chrysost. S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. a de Script Eccl. in Tito Hierome in b in Sinopsi Dorotheus in c de vitâ morte SSanct Isidore in d lib. 38. c. 10. Vincentius in e apud Oecumen in praefat in Tit. in 1 Timoth. 3. Theodoret in f in pastor part 2. c. 11. S. Gregory in g praefat in 1. Tim. in 2. Tim. 1. Primatius h in 1. Tim. 1. in 2. Tim. 1. 6. Sedulius i in 1. Tit. Theophilact and k lib. 2. c. 34. Nicephorus To which if we adde the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. l In Synop si Sacr. Script Athanasius S m ad Paulam Eustoch Ierome the Syriack translation n Comment ad Titum Oecumenius and o ibid Theophylact no confident deniall can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairely be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognisance of causes criminall and the whole exigence of the Epistle proclaime him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would faine know who succeeded him Or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death then before and govern'd the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolicall Ordinance much lesse is it a Divine right for it is postnate to thē both But if they had no more power after Titus then they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this lib. 4. c. 21. enough MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist §. 16. S. Marke at Alexandria indeed one that writ the Gospell and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordinanation and speciall designement made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts. 12. Acts. 13. They had Iohn to be their Minister viz Iohn whose sirname was Marke * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Paul's first going to Rome but many other things their founding of diverse Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeyes their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdomes are recorded rely upon the faith of the primitive Church And yet the ordination of S. Marke was within the terme of S. Lukes story for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eight yeare of Nero's reigne five or six yeares before the death of S. Paul Igitur Neronis PRIMO Imperij anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it in stead of octavo Sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Bishoprick for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priests in Alexandria besides him and how then he should be S. Markes successor more then the other Presbyters is not so soone to be contriv'd But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs Quòd post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Marke * And Philo the lew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria called by the inhabitants Cultores and Cultrices The worshippers Addit autem adhuc his saith Eusebius quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua vel quae sit suprà lib. 2 hist. cap. 17. omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopall dignity which was apex super omnia a height above all imployments established at Alexandria and how soone that was is soone computed for Philo liv'd in our blessed Saviours time and was Embassador to the Emperour Cajus and surviv'd S. Marke a little But S. Ierome will strike up this businesse A
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
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
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
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
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
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower then a Diocesse it will bring the Priest lower then a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocesse or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it farre worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depresse the whole hierarchy and all the orders of H. Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enimies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in it's fucus and show the falsehood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the Pontificall book Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris septem Diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis He divided the Parishes or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit caemiteria parochiasque dioeceses constituit Marcellus increased the number in the yeare 305. Hic fecit caemiterium viâ Salariâ 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis propter sepulturas Martyrum He made a Sepulture or caemitery for the buriall of Martyrs and appointed 25. Titles or Parishes but he addes quasi Dioeceses as it had been diocesses that is distinct and limited to Presbyters as diocesses were to Bishops and the use of parishes which he subjoynes cleares the businesse for he appointed them onely propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum sepulturas for baptisme and penance and buriall for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes but in the Mother-Church Thus it was in the West * But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner then the earliest of these for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Markes Lib. 2. hist. cap. 17. time had severall Churches in Alexandria Etià m DE ECCLESIIS quae apud eos sunt it a dicit Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus c But even before this there were Bishops For in Rome there were fowre Bishops before any division of Parishes though S. Peter be reckon'd for none And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria S. Marke himselfe who did it was the Bishop and before that time S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and in diverse other places where Bishops were there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus time for when Dionysius had assign'd Presbyters to severall Parishes he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba desires him to doe so too in his Diocesse as appeares in his Epistle to him * For indeed necessity requir'd it when the * Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37. Christians multiplyed and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as apud Binium tom 1. Concil Cornelius call'd the Roman Christians a great and innumerable people and did implere omnia as Tertullians phrase is fill'd all places and publike and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves and increased jealousies in others and their publike offices could not be perform'd with so diffused and particular advantage then they were forc'd to divide congregations and assigne severall Presbyters to their cure in subordination to the Bishop and so we see the elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were At first in Rome there were none Evaristus made seven Dionysius made some more and Marcellus added 15 and in Optatus lib. 2. contr Parmenian time there were 40. Well then The case is thus Parishes were not divided at first therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish therefore also a Parish is not by Christs ordinance an independant body for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all neither absolute nor in dependance neither and then for the maine issue since Bishops were before Parishes in the present sense the Bishops in that sense could not be Parochiall * But which was first a private congregation or a Diocesse If a private congregation then a Bishop was at first fix't in a private congregation and so was a Parochiall Bishop If a Diocesse was first then the Question will be how a Diocesse could be without Parishes for what is a Diocesse but a jurisdiction over many Parishes * I answer it is true that DIOCESSE and PARISH are words us'd now in contradistinction And now a Diocesse is nothing but the multiplication of of many Parishes Sed non fuit sic ab initio For at first a Diocesse was the Citie and the Regio suburbicaria the neighbouring townes in which there was no distinction of Parishes That which was a Diocesse in the secular sense that is a particular Province or division of secular prefecture that was the assignation of a Bishops charge * Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Laodicea were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads of the Diocesses saith Pliny meaning in respect of secular lib. 5. cap. 29. 30. Vide Baron A. D. 39. n. 10. B. Rhenan in notit provinc Imperial in descript Illyrici jurisdiction and so they were in Ecclesiasticall regiment And it was so upon great reason for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Common-wealth it was of lesse suspition to the secular power while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the politicall as if of purpose to shew their mutuall consistence and it 's owne subordination ** And besides this there was in it a necessity for the subjects of another Province or Diocesse could not either safely or conveniently meete where the duty of the Common-wealth did not ingage them but being all of one prefecture and Diocesse the necessity of publike meetings in order to the Common-wealth would be faire opportunity for the advancement of their Christendome And this which at first was a necessity in this case grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Councell of *
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
the Kings of the Gentiles but as the sonne of man so must your regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers expresse the authority and regiment of Bishops * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius siae saith Origen And S. Hierom Episcopi Sacer dotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet S. Hierom homil 6. in Isai. himselfe writing to S. Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa * Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio S. Bernard lib. 10. de considerat It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chiefe the officers of which Ministration must governe and wee must obey They must governe not in a temporall regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a spirituall not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So S. Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse lib. 19. de civit Dei cap. 19. Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book Qui imperant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio confulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the Propheticall visions where the regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spirituall the other secular And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet saies Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou maist make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdomes by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiasticall rule or cheifty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sinne if it continues and no sinne if it lasts but for a weeke or is it lawfull to sinne and domineere and Lord it over their Brethren for a weeke together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetuall Dictators Calvin was perpetuall president and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and governe in causes Spirituall and Consistoriall and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sinne in Episcopacy to doe so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawfull here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineere and as they call it now a dayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to governe but if the Apostles may governe then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sonnes of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may doe the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easy to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre De Vnitat Eccles consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no waies pertinent to impugne Episcopall authority For inter se they might be equall and yet Superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so Christ said non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporall Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporall principalities as other men Bishops vt sic are not secular Princes must not seeke for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawfull for a Bishop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single acre is no more due to the Order then a Province but both these may be conjunct in the same person though still by vertue of Christs precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermixe the Kingdome and the Priesthood is to joyne things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that S. Peter when he speakes of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propunds her as an example to all married women in these words shee obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should doe so too And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allowes every woman to give to her husband a Mechanick a hard-handed artisan he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church those lights of Christendome whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholike Church Credat Apella 4. PASTOR and FATHER are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c Thy Father in all senses They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not onely in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is knowne * Adde to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13. used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certaine that Duke and Captaine Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greeke and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spirituall regiment and us'd words of secular honour to expresse it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet
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
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
a long time knowne The Popes incroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore and by its eld almost habituate but yet it grieved them neverthelesse nor was the lesse a fever for being hecticall but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds it may be made as apparent as the noon Sunne for these 600 years and upwards that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extream and continuall Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdome that our condition was under him worse then the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants or then our neighbors are now under their Belgick Tributes So many greivances of the people expilations of the Church abuses to the State intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued that it was a great blessing of Almighty God our Kingdome was delivered from them upon so easy termes which Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne thought would never be done but in Oregladii cruentandi and now to have all these mischiefes returne with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepinesse I said with more strength because what anciently at the highest was thought but a priviledge of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redresse And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Lawes against the Priests obtruding upon the State the Popes power I only referre him to the Parliament of Paris where let him hold his Plèa against those great Sages of the Law for their just censures upon Florentinus Iacobus Thomas Blanzius and Iohn Tanquerell who were all condemned 1561. to a solemne honorary penance and satisfaction to the State and not without extreme difficulty escaped death for the same cause But this is not all I adde Secondly the Pope had his Agent in England to stirre up the Subjects to rebell against the Queene as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and Gabutius It is not then imaginable that he should so poorely intend his own designes to imploy one on purpose and he but a Merchant and that the Priests who were the men if any most likely to doe the businesse should be un-imployed I speak not of the argument from matter of fact for it is apparent that they were imployed as I shewed but now but it is plain also that they must have been imployed if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Popes ordinary discretion Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischiefe Thirdly there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Lawes and subordination to the Prince But that so these Priests might I only bring two witnesses leading men of their own Side Thus Bellarmine The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subiection to Princes Lib. 1. cap. 2â— de Cleriâ—â—â— The same is taught by Emanuel S à in his Aphorismes Verbo Clericus I must not dissemble that this Aphorisme however it passed the Presse at first yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out The cause is known to every man For that it was meerely to serve their ends is apparent for their French freedome was there taken from them they durst not parler tout so neere the Parliament but the Aphorisme is to this day retain'd in the Editions of Antwerp and Colein If this be their Doctrine as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors I mean Sà and Bellarmine I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Lawes they plead exemption Secondly it was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscriptioÌ„ their disobedience should be made Capitall For if they did not obey then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawfull Prince and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inexcusable from the Lawes penalty which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion or if they did not sinne against their conscience then of necessity must they think her to be no lawfull Prince or not their lawfull Prince nor they her Subjects so ipso facto are guilty of high Treason their execution De simplie Pralat was for Treason not Religion and so the Principall is evicted which I shall beg leave to expresse in S. Cyprians language Non erat illa fidei Corona sed poena per fidiae nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus sed desperationis interitus For if Valentius banish Eusebius from Samosata and Eusebius obey not the edict if Valentius puts him to death it is not for his being a Christian that Theodoret. l. 4. c. 14. he suffers death but for staying at Samosata against the command of Valentius Such was the case of the Priests whom for just cause as I have proved and too apparent proofe of seditious practices the Queen banished Now if the Queen was their lawfull Soveraigne then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius or if they did not obey not to think the Lawes unjust for punishing their disobedience I say again their Disobedience not their Religion for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Lawes but the security of the Queen and State only aim'd at besides what I have already said is apparent to the evidence of sence For when Hart and Bosgrave Iesuits both came into England against the Law they were apprehended and imprison'd for the Lawes without just Execution were of no force for the Queenes safety but when these men had acknowledg'd the Queenes legitimate power and put in their security for their due obedience they obtain'd their pardon and their liberty The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton all which I hope were not Apostates from their Order or Religion but so they must have been or not have escap'd death in case that their Religion had been made Capitall Lastly this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth were born in England It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aim'd at But 't is so foule a Calumny I am asham'd to stand longer to efute it The proceedings of the Church and State of England were just honourable and religious full of mercy and discretion and unlesse it were that as C. Fimbria complain'd of Q. Scaevola we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger there is no cause imaginable I mean on our parts
PRACTISE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopall to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sonnes of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publike and authoriz'd facts of Catholike Christendome * For Consider we Is it imaginable that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves and not ea quae sunt Iesu Christi to erect a government of their owne devising not ordayn'd by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolicall superstructure which if it was at all was a part of our Masters will which whosoever knew and observed not was to be beaten with many stripes Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilisme to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity without evidence of Miracle and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity make an Universall dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilisme to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordayn'd destroyes all those relations of mutuall dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family * Is it imaginable that all those glorious Martyrs that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions and Canons Apostolicall that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from bloud was of force they would rather dye then eat a strangled hen or a pudding for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina that they would be so sedulous in the contemning the government that Christ left for his family and erect another * To what purpose were all their watchings their banishments their fears their fastings their penances and formidable austerities and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes of what excellency or availe if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgracefull by dolourous deaths to be set before a tribunall to give account of their universall neglect and contemning of Christs last testament in so great an affaire as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendome should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliever be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publike affaire and for matter of order of the most generall concernement is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetuall assistance of the impregnable permanence of the Church against the gates of Hell of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth if she be guilty of so grand an errour as to erect a throne where Christ had made all levell or appointed others to sit in it then whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retain'd that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamely negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendome if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairely venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis THE first thing done in Christendome upon the § 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common For in holy Scripture all the names of Clericall offices were given to the superiour order and particularly all offices and parts and persons design'd in any imployment of the sacred Preisthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore least the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdome of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations For the Apostles did know by our Lord Iesus Christ that contentions would arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Episcopacy saith S. Clement and so it did in the Church of Corinth as soon as their Apostle had expired his Epist. ad Corinth last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supreame ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Peter the Apostle the Elders 1. Pet. 5. 1. or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter doe intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himselfe to wit those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed the Bishops of Asia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and Bithynia that is to Timothy to Titus to Tychicus to Sosipater to the Angells of the Asian Churches and all others whom himselfe in the next words points out by the description of their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Feed the flock of God as Bishops or being Bishops and overseers over it And that to rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny that had no rule at all * The meere Presbyters I deny not but are included in this admonition for as their office is involved in the Bishops office the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too so is his duty also in the Bishops so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knowes what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But againe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Iohn the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gajus the Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harme though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolicall men in the Colledge at Ierusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall men ruling men and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that rule well By Presbyters are meant Bishops to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus as appears in the former discourse The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one place expounds the other for they are
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
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