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 etiam foris nobilitatem suam dilataverint The reason was as he insinuates before Sapiâ—ntes 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 Bishop Morton and of England Scotland by the treaty of 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 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 be 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 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 dispensatioÌ„ 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 putare summa papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was
S. Hierome and diverse others of the Fathers make this glosse Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops doe succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. aliàs 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would doe very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsell not to despise Bishops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protected by that saying he that despiseth you despiseth mee I said it was good counsell especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's down right and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolos posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Iudâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when hee spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdome of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolicall presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himselfe taught the Church as S. Clement his Scholler or some other primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sixtus the first his second decretall Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Councell in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these sicut duodecem Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tamet si primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suaerationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopall dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S Ierome intimate's Non est facilè stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtaine the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopall office Pasceoves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejasque paritèr authoritatem libertatemque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejusque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira So Basil did to Valens and his Sonne for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evill Bishops whatsoever doe with unhallowed and uncleane feete usurpe the seate of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholike beleife and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternall to be succeeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not onely of Divine institution but indeed the onely order which can clearely show an immediate Divine commission for it's power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolicall then 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 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 at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say 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 Sacerdotiam 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 is 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 Scripture and because no Scirpture 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 which I have specifyed and they are all I could ever meete with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt
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 ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Sardis of Chalcedon and S. 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 these 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 at last when these men had dyed both one and the other had beene made a prey to the wolfe for there could be no sheapheard after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject 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 a coactive 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 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 dìgnos 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 Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. 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. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primatius Sedulius Theophilact and Nicephorus To which if we adde the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S Ierome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and 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
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 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 Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes 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 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 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 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 consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe 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 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
without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Bishops alone or to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertaine by any intination of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more then probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practise of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it selfe when they were to leave a Church to fixe a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Ierusalem so long before in other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloudy field of Martyrdome was to be fought And the case was equall here for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds and he had actually plac'd a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equall provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either S. Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other sixe Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and S. Timothy had sate in Ephesus and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. Iohn writ his Revelation 6. Lastly that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appeares beyond all exception by S. Pauls first epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church 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
example of it in Christendome till almost 600 yeares after Christ and that but once and that 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 Ostiâ ordinaverunt eum Pontificem Tunc enim non â—rant in Clero qui eum possent promovere Saith Damasus It was in case of necessity because there were not three Bishops therefore he procur'd two and a Priest of Ostia 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 requirng 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Presbyteraâ—e 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 Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcopâ—rum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirmes Primum ordinem 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 censuâ—e 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. Austin Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam vìrtutem quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS and S. Cyprian of Cornelius ad Sacerdotij sublime sastigium 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 gratâ—am habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs * Neque enim fas erat aut licebat at inferior ORDINARET majorem saith S. Ambrose 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 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 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 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 deâ—â—nitions 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 integrâ— 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 Româ— by advantage of the former discourse For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest worke of the most seeret mystery greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much Superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the 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 there being 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 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 greatâ—st 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 Epiphani us Vox est Aërii haretici unus est ordo Bpisoeperum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broach'd by Aërius 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 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 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 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Episcopisunt consecrati tamen aportet eos modum proprtum retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies years 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 Presbyterâ— rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had country Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Châ—repiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distibutively 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 impertineâ—â— * 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 Châ—râ—piscâ—pi 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. Caesareâ— 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 Neâ—-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 perticulari 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 Civitat is unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res euim 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 Presbytâ—r 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 reâ—dâ—ndo 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 literis 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 incroaâ—hâ—â—â— upon the Bishops Diocesse and as they were but 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 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 Cahon 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 Deâ—cons 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 Citied 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 restiÌ„tution 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 * 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 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 Bâ—lâ—amon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indecd But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eâ—tychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands â—n them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Entychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fveront 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 Ischyr as himselfe was reduc'd into laycommunion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischir as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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 Chalcedon and of Anti. â—ch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Sinetitulâ—r 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 Chalcodon 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-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 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 quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoctantùm 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 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 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 doctrine of Aërius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptisme but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination It is a very remarkeable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordaine him and then certainely searce 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 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 Antioch the Councell of 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 practise or penalty all this while I may inferre from the premises the same thing which the Councell of Hispal expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not 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 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 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 Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sinne in us If they did ill from what principle shall wee judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that impos'd hands on Timothy is by all antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his owne hands as appeares by comparing the two epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signify a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it alwayes to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be showne from thence From when 〈◊〉 then From Antiquity That was so farre from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the primitive Church did never joyne with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the 4 th Councell of Carthage much lesse doe it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity or not so faire interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather
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 perseverantia 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 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 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 ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum cum 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 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 morâ renasci demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam 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 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 chiefe of the Church doe it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consigne faithfull people baptiz'd For this was the Ancient practise I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholick custome appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councells Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in Iohn the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Councell of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirmes Non licere Presbyteris .... per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptiz andis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawfull for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopall power .... Chrismate spiritus S. superinfunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmaticall resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first author of that unhappy and long lasting schisme between the Latine and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greekes sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirme them But the Latins sent againe to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greekes had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopall of confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith
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 FED them with a faithfull and true heart and RULED them prudently with all his power And S. Peter joynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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 But I shall not labour much upon this Their founding all the Churches from Eastro 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 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 vâ—stri 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 â—ence 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 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
seaven here ordained of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearely repeating the words of S. Chrysostome pro more suo addes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seaven was no lesse but even the dignity of Presbyters only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithfull people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostome and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is cleare that the 72. were present for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident they were not yet sent abroad they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdome of S. Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affaire vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordaine them 2. An instance paralell to this is in the imposition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas in the first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manäen and Saul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while these men were Ministring the holy Ghost said to them separate me Barnabas and Saul They did so they fasted they prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away So they being sent forth by the holy Ghost departed into Seleucia This is the story now let us make our best on 't Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands complete and that was said to be done by the holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch For they sent them away and yet the next words are so they being sent forth by the holy Ghost So that here was the thing done and that by the Prophets alone and that by the command of the Holy Ghost and said to be his act Well! but what were these Prophets They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch not such as 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 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 or dinis 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 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 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 ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis nonesse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tels of the successe of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done
of Samaria praying over them and giving them the Holy Ghost made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptisme and this is to this day done in the Church for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops and by imposition of their hands obtaine the Holy Ghost But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendome may see it in the decretall Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius in the Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops under the name of S. Clement in the Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr in Tertullian in S. Austen and in S. Cyrill of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechiâ—me is concerning Confirmation This only The Catholicks whose Christian prudence it was in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks least their poyson should infect like a Pest layd it in Novatus dish as a crime He was baptized in his bed and was not confirmed Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri therefore he could never receive the gift of the holy Ghost So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle 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 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 sic ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the 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 Clericâ—â—l 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 parâ—â— 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 Eusebius Epiphanius and 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 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 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
true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not alwaies * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sense neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming to wit to judgement But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopacy then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personall but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stirre there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostome so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be true it makes all this discourse needlesse we were safe enough without it if it be false then it selfe we see is needlesse for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer 1. Reliqui te Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete 2. His worke was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminall to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectify and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify 2. The next worke is Episcopall too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every Citty Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Citty by Citty that is Elders in severall Citties one in one Citty Many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops 1. In termes and expresse words To ordaine Elders in every Citty If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse That is the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Iohn Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolicall and that 's as much as Episcopall to be sure 3. S. Paul addes farther a Bishop must be blamelesse AS THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold saies our blessed Saviour himselfe and therefore not a meere Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE and BEATE his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the hous-hold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordaine and 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 coercitive 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 by 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
confession cannot be meant in respect of order but the 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 Iurisdiction I know not certainely which he meanes for his arguments conclude onely for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he meanes the first viz that of Names it is well enough there is no harme done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so farre as may be guess'd by his words a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction this must be consider'd distinctly 1. Then in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 viâ—ario 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 Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oeâ—umenius For truth is that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vulimited 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 and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the
Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptisme For in his 9 th Epistle he forbids Priests to anoynt baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of severall anoyntings and so S. Gregory expounds himselfe in this 9 th Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in fronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoynt baptised people twice once they might now that this permission of anoynting was that which was a ceremony of baptisme not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons * In the collection of the Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non SIGNET infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not signe infantes without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not signe them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptisme for the circumstant Canons doe expressly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptisme and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here wee see a consignation permitted to the presbyters in the Easterne Churches to be used in baptisme in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters but yet of no objection in case of confimation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Crosse and anealing Thus it is us'd in the first Arausican Councell for extreame Vnction which is there in case of extreame necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione CONSIGNARI placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreame Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancyed of any other consignation But I returne *** The first Councell of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum anto diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetch 't by the Deacons from the Bishop to be us'd in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Pascbae sayes the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publike baptismes so that it was to be us'd in baptisme And this sense being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to signe with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is somthing clearer in the first Arausican Counsell Nullus ministrorum qui BAPTIZANDI recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with oyntment was us'd in baptisme and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Grogory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expressely forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practise of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more expresse and distinctive termes Presbyteris Chrismate baptizetos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a cleare permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptisme but he subjoynes a prohibition to Priests for doing it in confirmation non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregory's dispensation to be only in baptismall Chrisme read it Vt baptiz andos ungant not baptizatos so 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 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 the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in termes of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei
compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his 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 omnia as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour 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 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 quod Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i.e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluërit 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 que 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 fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiasticall Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command 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 not 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 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 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 adamnable 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 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
I will also indeavour to promote their interest **** There is onely one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widdowes * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of soules This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monyes it was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their owne right it was to satisfye the multitude it was to avoid scandall which in the dispensation of moneyes might easily arise it was in a temporary office it was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescrib'd them it was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may beleive S. Epiphanus so that they were Presbyters before this choice and lastly it was onely a Nomination of seven Men the determination of the buisinesse and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom WE MAY APPOINT over this businesse after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearely and indubiously the election 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 as how himselfe was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cùm tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes 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 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 habentes vitam ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem Diaconatûs 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 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 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 *
ordinary placitâ—s 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 â—ase 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 Bishops only that they should be carefull in their choyce So that although the people were present quibus profide 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 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 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 Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this 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 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 of times 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 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 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
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 he does not doe the offices of his order by himselfe onely but by others also for all the inferior orders doc 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 Doe thy diligence 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 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 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 Councell Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis â—um 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 Mando vt vos ... VICE MEA FUNGAMINI 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 Faelicissimus and fower more Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius 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 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 capacities 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 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 .... non solùm a Christo de rebus 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 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
Nicen. Concil Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart Lib. 3. tripart c. 2. Hist. tripart l. 11. c. 5. Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12. Per Binium Parts Can 2. § 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree Can. 10. Lib. 5. c. 8. Epist. 52. § 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick Can. Apost 1 2. Epist. Vnicâ— * Can 4. * Can. 19. Can. 12. Can. 4. * A. D. 509. Theodoret. l. 9. cap 44. Cap. 1. 2. lib. 6. hist. cap. 33. § 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands A.D. 555. in libr. Pontificali vit Pelag. 1. Can. 6. Concil Sardic Epist. 3. Epist. 84. c. 4. Lib. 1 c. 12. de actis cum Felice Manich lib 4. Epist. 2. in 1. Tim. 3. de praescript cap. 32. lib. 4. cap. 23. cap. 1. S. Hieromad Rusticum Narbonens apud Gratian dist 95. can ecâ—e ego casus iâ—idâ— * The Nicenâ— Creed * Haeres 75. § 32. For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters As of Ordination Eccles. hier c. 5. * Lib. 6. cap 33. Can. 13. tripart hist. lib 2. c 12. ex Theodoret. Can 19. Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist. Presb. Diacon Mareotic ad Curiosum Philagrium Cap. 4. Cap. 5. †Can. 6. * Can. 13. ad Evagrium homil 2. in 1. Tim. 2. Can. 37. Can. 20. haeres 7 5. * Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. Can. 45. Cap. 19. a Cap. 9. b Cap. 2. 6. Novell constir 6. 1. 23. cap. 16. Cap 6. Can 2 3. Epist. 33. de Eccles. cap. 11. Danaeus part 2. Isagog lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron repl fol 92. impress 1605. Ecclesihist lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum Ibidem c. 10. apud Theodoret. l. 1. Eccles hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum § 33. And Confirmation Epist. de Chorepisc Epist. ad Iubaian Apud Sev. Binium in 1. tom Concil Homil. 18. in Act. In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch * Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17. a De Baptismo b Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent c Epist. 4. d Epist. 88. e Epist. ad Episâ— German f Lib. 3. ep 9. g Apud Gratian de consecrat dist 5. can ut jejuni h Ibid. Can. ut Episcopi i Concil Hispal can 7. vide Anasta biblioth praefat in Can. 8. Synodi vide Optatum lib. 2. S. Bernard in vitâ S Malachiae Surium tom 1. in Febr. dial adv Lucifer Caus. 11. q. 3. can Quod pradecessor in Ephes. 4. Quaest. 101. Vet. N. Testam Basileae lib. 3. eist p. 26. Can. 52. Can. 2 Can. 20. Can. 1. Epist. 1. ad Decent Cap. 3. § 34. And jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power Epist. ad Trallian lib. 3. epist. â— lib. 4. cap. 63. lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Can. 10. lib. 2. adv Parmen lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in Ierem. Can. 69. Can. 25. hist tripart lib. 1. cap. 12. de dignit sacerdot c. 2. Cap. 3. Cap. 4. § 35. Requiring Vniversall obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity Epist. as Ephesâ— * Apologia pro Ignatio a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. b De Script Eccles. c Apud Euseb. quem Latine reddidit Can. 56. * Idem videre èst apud Damasum Epist. de Chorepiscopis Can. 19. Can. 20. Epist. ad Nepotian Lib. 5. cap. 28. * § 36. Appointing them to be Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity Can. 33. Can. 5. Can. 59. Can. 4. Can. 9. Can. 13 14. Epist. 10. Epist. 1â— Epist. 12. Epist. 65. Epist. 55. Tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. Ibid. cap. 4. Advers Vigilant Epist. 53. Tripart hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. Tripart hist. lib. 1. c. 12. Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397. Cap. 2 Ca. 8. Can. 10. Act. 4. can 83. Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione Concil Ephes. c. 5. Câ—p. 15. de coâ—rept gratoâ * Can. 55. Cap. 15. ibid. Novel constit 123. c. 11. 2. Corinth 2. 9. Vbi suprà Ca. 9. tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. * Can. 39. Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. * Epist. ad Philadelph * Lib. de dignit Sacerd. cap. 2. Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. â— Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19. Theodor. lib. 5. c. 18. Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. In 3. partis Supplem q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep 75. Gratian dist 24. q. 2. c. Si habet sed ibi Princeps non inseritur sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ Vide the book of Order of Excomm in Scotland the Hist. of Scotland Admonit 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopall license Epist. ad Smyrn Can. Apost 32 Ca. 5. Act. 4. De baptism De coronâ milit c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom 11. in 1. Tim. S. Hieron dial adv Lucifer Can. 6. Ca. 9. Can. 8. part 2. Act. 14. Epist. 86. dist 95. cap. Ecce ego 1 Can. 40. 2 Epist. ad Ephes. 3 Cap. 24. Lib. 5. c. 22. Ad Rustic Narbon dist 95. can Ecce ego â—an 12. § 38. Reserving Church goods to Episcopall dispensation An. Doâ— 589. Cap. 32. Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem Videatur Concil Carthag Graec. can 36 38. 41. Balsam ibid. apologia 2. Iustini Martyris § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse or to travell without leave of the Bishop Vide Concil Epaun. c. 5. venet c. 10. Can. 41. Can. 42. a Can. 38. b Can. 5. Can. 6. § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased Can. 31. 1. Titus V 5. Epist. ad Antioch Gan. 13. Epist. 61. 62. Hieron ad Nepotian lib. 1. offic cap. 44. Tripart hist. lib. 5. cap. 32. lib. 1. Epist. 5. Epist. 68. homil 3. in Act. Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd †lib. 2. de offic Epist. 84. c. 5. Can. 4. Tripart hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. Act. 11. Tripart hist. lib. 2. cap. 12. Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5. * Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21. In Ephes. 4. lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. Tripart hist. lib. 10. c. 14. vide dist 63. per tot Gratian. § 41. Bishops onely did Vote in Councells and neither Presbyters nor People Epist. ad Solitar lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. proëm in lib. de â—ide lib 5. cap. 8. Epist. Synod ad Clerum C. Ptanum part 2. act 3. part 1 c. 32. Vide §. 36. de simil ferè quaestione in fine Action 1. Coxcil Chalced. Concil Antâ—siodor can 7. Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7. Epist. 3. peâ— Ruffinum Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. Epist. 69. Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis cap. 18. Epist. 32. * Acts 15. 23. Lib. 4. polit â— 15. §
OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACIE By Divine Institution Apostolicall Tradition and Catholique Practice TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour Secular Employment Manner of Election Delegation of their Power and other appendant questions asserted against the Aërians and Acephali new and old By IER TAYLOR D. D. Chaplaine in Ordinarie to His MAJESTIE Published by His MAJESTIES Command ROM 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God CONCIL CHALCED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1647. TO THE TRVLY VVORTHY AND MOST ACCOMPLISHT S t CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH SIR I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth and J would willingly finde a shrowd to cover my selfe from danger and calumny and although the cause both is ought to be defended by Kings yet my person must not goe thither to Sanctuary unlesse it be to pay my devotion and I have now no other left for my defence I am robd of that which once did blesse me and indeed still does but in another manner and I hope will doe more but those distillations of coelestiall dewes are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense and now adayes we seldome look with other be the object never so beauteous or alluring You may then think Sir I am forc'd upon You may that beg my pardon and excuse but I should do an injury to Your Noblenesse if I should onely make You a refuge for my need pardon this truth you are also of the fairest choice not only for Your love of Learning for although that be eminent in You yet it is not Your eminence but for Your duty to H. Church for Your loyaltie to His sacred Majestie These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your faire incouragement and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy in which cause Religion and Majesty the King and the Church are 〈…〉 agoe and registred in the Law to make it authentick Laici sunt infensi Clericis Now the Clergy pray but fight not and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies and injuries which an envious multitude will inflict upon them It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time Quamvis decreta Pontificum verba Sacerdotum in convulâ—is ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt tamen plerumque tempestatibus turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur acrumpitur Idcirco Decrevimus Nos c. There was a sad example of it in K. Iohn's time For when he threw the Clergy from his Protection it is incredible what injuries what affronts what robberies yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church whom neither the Sacrednesse of their persons nor the Lawes of God nor the terrors of Conscience nor feares of Hell nor Church-censures nor the Lawes of Hospitality could protect from Scorne 〈◊〉 neer a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger it will tye the Bishops hearts and hands to the King faster then all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance all the Politicall tyes I mean all that are not precisely religious and obligations in the Court of Conscience 2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King besides the interest of their own securitie by the obligation of secular advantages For they who have their livelyhood from the King and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty then others whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependancy on His Majesty Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Councell viz. because the Pope gave spirituall promotions but the Councels gave none It is but the Common expectation of gratitude that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity then by those who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Goverment 3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it selfe 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 we thanke 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
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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up and downe confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirme 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and againe Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman 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 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 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 quotes S. Irenaeus for it out of the Encyclicall Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and 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 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 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 Palmae sunt isti qui nut riuntur 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 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 〈◊〉 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 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 particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis Er SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent eaquibus 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 themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall 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 per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Iudicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence he that heareth you heareth 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 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 undervalning 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
Ierusalem S. Iames his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. Iames. Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Iacobo i. e. à Iudaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Iacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. Iames and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. Iames and the Presbyters of Ierusalem which if we expound according to the knowne discipline of the Church in Ignatius time who was Suppar Apostolorum onely not a contemporary Bishop here is plainely the eminency of an Episcopall chayre and Ierusalem the seat of S. Iames and the Clergy his owne of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts. 21. And when we were come to Ierusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present Why unto Iames Why not rather into the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if Iames did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vayne and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon concurrent testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad man and may as well disbeleive every thing that he hath not seene himselfe and can no way prove that himselfe was Christned and to be sure after 1600 yeares there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never question'd or doubted of before and therefore can never obtayne the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. Iohn although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made Iames sirnamed the Iust Bishop of Ierusalem And the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. Iames was crown'd with Martyrdome and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum SUCCESSIONE IACOBI judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. Iames also his Predecessor The same concerning S. Iames is also repeated by Eusebius Iudaei ergo cùm Paulus provocasset ad Caesarem ..... In Iacobum fratrem Domini CUI AB APOSTOLIS SEDES HIEROSOLYMITANA DELATA FUIT omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolicall constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Iacobus Frater Domini S. Iames the Brother of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Iacobus qui Iustus dicebatur secundùm carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Iacobo Iohanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in termes is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Iacobum c Iust as Anacletus before S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and Peter Iames and Iohn were his Ordayners But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chayre who certainly was the best witnesse of his owne Church Records S. Cyrill of Ierusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solùm sed etiam Apostolis IACOBO HUIVS ECCLESIae OLIM EPISCOPO curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and againe he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocesse S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae IN QVA IACOBUS SEDIT in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omitt the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeates out of Hegesippus * There are many more testimonyes to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have beene ordain'd Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe If by Ordinatus he meanes designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turne for the present But either in one sense or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terrâ primò S. Iames had 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 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 Iacobi .... traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus Posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est .... electione 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 Iames and next Simeon qui sub Trajano crucifixus est THe next
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 * 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 S. Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens Cajus at Thessalonica Archippus at Colosse Onesimus at Ephesus Antipas at Pergamus Epaphroditus at Philippi Crescens among the Gaules Evodias at Antioch 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 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 bepudled 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 ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam candem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it 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 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 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 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 Apostolicall 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
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 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 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 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 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 convâ—catis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab 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
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 Manaën and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S. Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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
to the rest For first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other * The Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the paines as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made both for their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewailes it but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops themselves the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors The diversity of order is here fairely intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2 d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are foure sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithfull Laity And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next in descent in subordination the next under it So the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Councell permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopall order but still the character remaines and the degree of it selfe is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Interdixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordain'd a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Iulius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque proâ—o praesentes Vitus Vincentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell faith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcòpi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyriâ—um to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus desiderabat Episcopatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desir'd a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis saith S. Isidore Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles in the first tome of the Councells * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the preface to the book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But wee shall see it better and by more reall probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this 1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Councell of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordain'd Bishop but he that was first a Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time Here there is clearely a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the same Councell saies that they complain'd that some from Arrianisme were reconciled and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters from Presbyters to be Bishops calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a greater degree or Order And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius speaking of his Canonicall Ordination and election to a
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 qui omni Principatu potestate superior 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 SACER DOTUM 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 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 or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received faith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Councell of Sardis to the TOP or HEIGHT os Episcopacy APICES PRINCIPES OMNIUM so Optatus calls Bishops the CHEIFE and HEAD of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER OR HEIGHT 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 effâ—ct no Diocesse yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDâ—NCY 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose HONOR SUBLIMITAS Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of 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 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 cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP to whom 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 theÌ„ 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 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
are called so * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spirituall are inferior to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soule be rul'd by them with whom their Soules are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councells and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chiefe and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction 〈…〉 S. Iames translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this businesse up compleat all these authorities of great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those severall Churches respectively but meere derivations from tradition Apostolicall for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 th Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their soules * And if a Presbyter shall contemne his owne Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32. Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopall dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must governe and give them lawes It was particularly instanc'd in the case of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these Lawes so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops THE Bishops were Ecclesiasticall Iudges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spirituall I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for soules they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coërcion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coërcion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him vnlesse the BISHOP THAT CENSUR'D HIM be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Councell only it is 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 â—b culpas suas EPISCOPORUM SUORUM OFFENSAS meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in câ—mmuni vel IPSL ERISCOPO 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 leâ— 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 atâ—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 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 persoâ—s 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 some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Ignatius calls them counsellors and assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction 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 to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Dâ—â—cesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculam metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci 〈◊〉 memores â—ed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum coÌ„tumeliâ contemtu Praeposititotum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this caâ—eâ— S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them keepe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa cum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae
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 * And therefore the fourth Councell of 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. Auâ—tin which doth freely attest both the preceptive 〈…〉 power of the Bishop over his whole 〈◊〉 Ergo praecipiant tantummodò nobis quid facere debeiamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imó omnia fiant quoniam Doctâ—res 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 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 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 plenâ— Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the Imperiall Constitutions 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 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 The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgement or cognisance so the Councell of Antioch * 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 proâ—essed 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 Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non cripit 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 and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome and all such things as
Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but 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 our some externall compulsory in stead 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 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 here in 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 prophetà 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 disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori
prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runnes praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same originall to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Iurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Citties with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Citties the Presbyters preach'd and offer'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions runne indefinitely they must not doe any Clericall offices sine Episcopo unlesse the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fix't upon ordinary charges then it was only praesente Episcopo if the Bishop was present they might not officiate without leave For in his absence they might doe it I doe not say without leave but I say they had leave given them when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence as it is to this day when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge he also gives power hoc ipso of officiating in that place So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions then they were to have leave but this license was also temporary but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum and that was done in subsidium Muneres Episcopalis because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter but if he was present a new leave was necessary because as the power alwaies was in the Bishop so now the execution also did returne to him when he was there in person himselfe if he listed might officiate All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter Valerius the Bishop being a Greek borne and not well spoken in the Latin tongue and so unfit for publike orations eidem Presbytero viz. to Austin potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi ac frequentissimè tractandi contra USUM quidem CONSUETUDINEM Africanarum Ecclesiarum He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter to preach in the Church even while himselfe was present indeed against the VSE and CUSTOME of the African Churches And for this act of his he suffered soundly in his report * For the case was thus In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all at least in the Mother Church and in the Bishops presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Socrates Thence came this Custome in the African Churches But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able and himselfe for want of Latin so unfit he gave leave to Austin to preach before him against the Custome of the African Churches But he addes this reason for his excuse too it was not indeed the custome of Africa but it was of the Orientall Churches For so Possidonius proceeds sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens in the Levant it was usuall for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat which determines us fully in the businesse For this leave to doe offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himselfe could not fulfill the offices which showes the Presbyters in their severall charges whether of temporary mission or fixt residence to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocesse Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome and it is recorded by Gratian Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere Behold I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop So Gratian quotes it indeed but S. Hierome saies the expresse contrary unlesse we all have false copies For in S. Hierome it is not Ecce ego dico but Nec ego dico He does not say it is lawfull for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop Indeed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach nor to blesse c. This perhaps it was not well done but this makes not against the former discourse for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages and multiplication of Christians and Parishes yet it is cleare that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus to show he did amisse because he would not give his Presbyters license * And this he also reprehends in his epistle ad Nepotianum Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop that was an ill custome to wit as things then stood and it was mended presently after for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence but it was by license from their Ordinary For so Possidonius relates that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned Posteà currente volante hujusmodi famâ bono praecedente exemplo ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei By occasion of this precedent it came to passe that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence having first obtain'd faculty from the Bishop so to doe And a little after it became a custome from a generall faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Councell of Vase Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome let him then first be reconciled to himselfe and then we are sure to be help'd For in his dialogue against the Luciferians his words are these Cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi Because the Bishop hath an eminent power and this power is necessary thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave ** This whole
discourse showes clearely not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction but that they have sole jurisdiction and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge ** DIvers other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons as that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards at the Bishops So it is in the 41. Canon of the Apostles so it is in the Councell of Gangra and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation without expresse delegation from the Bishop as appears in the seventh and eight Canons and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Councell * And therefore when in successe of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop of this the third Councell of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding ut omnia SECUNDUM CONSTITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is reniewed in the fourth Councell of Toledo Noverint autem 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 in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixâ— 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 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 Laâ—dicea commands a Priest or Clergy 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Agatho The Councell of Venice adds a ceÌ„sure 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 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 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 by Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 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 imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over 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 but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved 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 Suo He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests So Theodoret. Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed 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 decree 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 haye 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 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 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 debate 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
gerere c. The Bishops of every province must know that their METROPOLITAN Bishop does take cure of all the province For this was an Apostolicall Constitution saith S. Clement that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archflamines Archbishops Primates or Patriarchs should be placed qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia majora quoties necesse foret negotiain fide agitarent secundùm Dei voluntatem sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli definirent * Alexandria was a Metropoliticall See long before the Nicene Councell as appeares in the sixth Canon before cited Nay Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the METROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Councell of Ephesus by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours so that it was a PATRIARCHAT These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops Now then either Bishops were Parochiall or no If no then they were Diocesan if yea then at least many of them were Diocesan for they had according to this rate many Parochiall Bishops under them * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle but as now a dayes it is made the consideration of it is materiall to the maine Question Only this I adde That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his owne and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had onely two townes in their charge and no more and each of these townes had in them 170 families and were bound to have no more how should this man be confuted It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturbe this Question by pretending that the Bishops were onely parochiall not diocesan and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest Most certainely themselves could not beleive the allegation onely they knew it would raise a dust But by God's providence there is water enough in the Primitive fountaines to allay it ANother consideration must here be interpos'd concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the severall Churches For though I have twice already showne that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution or Apostolicall ordinance yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church for those men that call the Bishop a Pope are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinalls too to make every Diocesse a Romane Consistory 1. Then the first thing we heare of Presbyters after Scripture I meane for of it I have already given account is from the testimony of S. Hierome Antequam studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli c communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Before factions arose in the Church the Church was govern'd by the common Counsell of Presbyters Here S. Hierome either meanes it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches or after Bishops were appointed If before Bishops were appointed no hurt done the Presbyters might well rule in common before themselves had a ruler appointed to governe both them and all the diocesse beside For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock untill God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defaillance in time of persecution and so were put to penance praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur The Presbyters whom sede vacante hee praeter morem suum calls Praepositos they gave order that they should so remaine till the Consecration of a Bishop * But if S. Hierome meanes this saying of his after Bishops were fixt then his expression answers the allegation for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum the IUDICIUM might be solely in the Bishop he was the IUDGE though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS For so himselfe addes that upon occasion of those first Schismes in Corinth it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD vt omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret all the care of the diocesse was in the Bishop and therefore all the power for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters * And so S. Ignatius stiles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius The Bishop is THE RULER without him though all concurr'd yet nothing could be done nothing attempted The Bishop was Superiour in ALL POWER and AUTHORITY He was to be obey'd in ALL THINGS and contradicted in NOTHING The Bishops judgement was to sway and nothing must seeme pleasing to the Presbyters that was crosse to the Bishops sentence this and a great deale more which I have formerly made use of is in Ignatius And now let their assistance and Counsell extend as farre as it will the Bishops authority is invulnerable But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierome's § thither I referre the Reader 2. But S. Cyprian must doe this businesse for us if any man for of all the Bishops he did acts of the greatest condescension and seeming declination of Episcopall authority But let us see the worst Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri .... solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere And againe quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere And a third time Quae res cûm omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihirem communem vindicare non audeo These are the greatest steps of Episcopall humility that I find in materiâ juridicâ The summe whereof is this that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence and resolved to doe nothing without their advice But then consider also it was statui apud me I have resolved with my selfe to doe nothing without your Counsell It was no necessity ab extrà no duty no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty it was his owne voluntary act 2. It was as well Diaconorum as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction as appeares by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles Cyprianus Presbyteris ac DIACONIS fratribus salutem So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common then the Deacons by any Divine law or Catholike practice 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too and that will as well
disturbe the Ius Divinum of an independant Presbytery as of an independant Episcopacy But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian like Moses qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit vt solâ—â— possit praesse populo seniores elegit to use S. Hierome's expression who when it was in his power alone to rule the people yet chose seaventy Elders for assistants For as for S. Cyprian this very Epistle cleares it that no part of his Episcopall authority was impayred For he shewes what himselfe alone could doe Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ religione quam satis nâ—vi his literis hortor mando c. I intreat and COMMAND you .... vice meâ fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Re my substitutes in the administration of Church affayres He intreates them pro dilectione because they lov'd him he COMMANDS THEM PRO RELIGIONE by their religion for it was a peice of their religion to obey him and in him was the governement of his Church else how could he have put the Presbyters and Deacons in substitution * Adde to this It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did onely impose hands in the ordination of Clerks yet the Clergy did approve examine the persons to be ordain'd and it being a thing of publike interest it was then not thought fit to be a personall action both in preparation and ministration too and for this S. Chrysostome was accus'd in Concilionesario as the title of the edition of it expresses it that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it he did ordaine without the consent of the Clergy of his Church for so he ordained Celerinus so he ordain'd Optatus and Satarus when himselfe was from his Church and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministration of the daily offices *** He did as much in jurisdiction too and censures for HIMSELFE did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus and Repâ—stus and Irene and Paula as appeares in his 38 and 39 epistles and tells Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abus'd him by vertue of his Episcopall authority And the same power singly and solely he exercis'd in his acts of favour and absolution Vnus atque alius OBNITENTE PLEâ—E ET CONTRADICENTE Mâ—A tamen FACILITATE susceptisunt Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed but yet the absolution said to be his owne act against the people and without the Clergy For he alone was the IUDOE insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schisme and heresie that the Bishop was not obey'd nec UNUS in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus IVDEX VICE CHRISTI COGITATUR and that ONE high Priest in a Church and IUDGE INSTEED OF CHRIST is not admitted So that the Bishop must be ONE and that ONE must be IUDGE and to acknowledge more in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schisme and heresie Farther yet this Iudicatory of the Bishop is independant and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus and againe habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus The Bishop is Lord of his owne actions and may doe what seemes good in his owne eyes and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This generall account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6 th and 18 th epistles and indeed the whole Question But for the 18 th epistle there is something of peculiar answer For first It was a case of publike concernement and therefore he would so comply with the publike interest as to doe it by publike counsell 2 ly It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar NECESSITAS TEMPORUM facit ut non temerè pacem demus they are the first words of the next epistle which is of the same matter for if the lapsi had been easily and without a publike and solemne triall reconcil'd it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent and Martyrdome but seldome 3 ly The common counsell which S. Cyprian here said he would expect was the Councell of the Confessors to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publike assoyling of such penitents who were overcome with those feares which the Confessors had overcome So that this is evidently an act of positive and temporary discipline and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop so to be sure no advantage to the Presbyter * But the clause of objection from the 19 th epistle is yet unanswer'd and that runs something higher .... tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisine videar aliquid temerè praesumere It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ But from this we are fairely deliver'd by the title Cypriano Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus Caldonius salutem It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan and now what wonder if he call it presumption to doe an act of so publike consequence without the advise of his Metropolitan He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolicall and so he did and no harme done to the present Question of the Bishops sole and independant power and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery who had nothing to doe beyond ministery counsell and assistance 3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was there were not alwayes a Colledge of Presbyters but only in the greatest Churches for sometimes in the lesser Cities there were but two Esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros at bini sint per Ecclesias unus incivitate Episcopus So S. Ambrose sometimes there was but one in a Church Posthumianus in the third Councell of Carthage put the case Dâ—inde qui unum Presbyterum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri The Church of Hippo had but one Valerius was the Bishop and Austin was the Priest and after him Austin was the Bishop Eradius the Priest Sometimes not one as in the case Aurelius put in the same Councell now cited of a Church that had never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that dyed once at Hippo they had none even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Iudge alone I am sure he had but little company sometimes none at all 4. But suppose it had been alwaies done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty
and possibility of Scandall for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these Churches where Presbyteries were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecution and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not comply'd withall in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilisme for a discontented spirit will hide it selfe and take sanctuary in the reedes and mud of Nilus rather then not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge 2. As yet there had been scarse any Synods to determine cases of publike difficulty and what they could not receive from publike decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twise a yeare to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a yeare a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion then a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give generall rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of â—ome considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been when the frequency of Generall Councells and Provinciall Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretalls of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions hath made the personall assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity requir'd not their presence and Counsell their own necessity requir'd that they should attend their severall cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what followes For either they must have Presbyters ordain'd without a title which I am sure they have complain'd of these threescore years or else they must be forc'd to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrences of the Church unlesse either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constitute doe not aide him but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by Custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity fail'd and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I meane in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Ierusalem but they were not consulted in Church affaires matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to passe And thus it is to this day In our Mother Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the fowre generall Councells and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicisme and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so faire antiquity but however it was never otherwise then voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and Councell in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Councell of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordaine a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that hee that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling downe then in raising up It was wont alwaies to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution then its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull downe a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodall sentence and determination for so the Canon runnes qui profecto nec aâ— unâ— damnaâ—i nec unâ— judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiiâ— exuised praesantati SYNODALL 〈◊〉 quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determin'd in the Greekes Councell of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their owne Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of sixe Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must ALONE heare and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be claâ—â—cular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determind for Africa in the fourth Councell of Carthage Vt Episcopuâ— nullius causam audiat absque praescutiâ 〈…〉 alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nini praesentiâ Clericonum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept least the sentence should be
2. de imagin d Epist. 7. e Habetur Can. in Novo distinct 21. f In synod Hispal g Lib. 3. c. 15. super Lucam § 11. And particularly of S. Peter Epist. 27. ad Lapsos Epist. 1. Lib. 12. thes cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil tract primâ die suae ordinat Biblioth SS PP tom 5 in Eccles. ord in crepat Acts 13. * Idem ferè habet in Epist. ad Magnes Smyrnens Lib. 4. c. 43. Cap. 44 Epist. 13. § 12. And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority Epist. 27. Epist. 65. Rogatian Epist. 76. Epist ad Magnes Quaest. Vet. N. Testam qu. 97. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 22. Lib. 4. c. 43. In 1. Corinth 12. De dignit Sacerd cap. 2. Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat in 1. Tim. 1. cap. In 1. Tit. Acts 20. †Hom. 32. in Iohan. * Can. 6. a C. 25. b Octauum Can. 7. c Epist. 2. Lib. 3. in Lucam c. 15. Lib. 3. cap. 5. § 13. In pursuance of the Divine institution the Apostles did ordaine Bishops in severall Churches As S. Iames at Hierusalem Epist. ad Trall lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. lib. 3. c. 11. lib. 2. c. 22. lib. 7. c. 46. lib. 8. cap. ult Epist. 2. Epist. decret Vnic Catech. 4. Catech. 16. lib 2. cont lit Petiâ— c. 51. lib 2. cont Crescon c. 37. lib de Script Eccles. in Iacobo a homil 38. in 1. Cor. 15. 33. hom in 15. Act. b haeres 66. c in 1. Galat d cap. 33. homil 3. in Act. haeres 78. S. Simeon to be his successor lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. lib 4. cap. 22. haeres 66. §14 S. Timothy at Ephesus 2. Tim. 1. 6. * 1. Tim. 1. 3. 1. Tim. 3. 1. Tim. 5. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 7. haeres 75. 2. Tim. 4. 2. 1. Tim. 5. 20. Vers. 22. Lib. 3. c. 4. Praefat. in 1. Tim. a Contr. haeres b contr Marcion â— 5. c hom 〈◊〉 in 1. Timoth. d in 6. cap. in 1. Tim. e in 1. Tim. 4. c. 5. c. f haeres 75. g ad Timoth. cap. 4. h in Pastor part 2. c. 11. Acts. 11. In Titum 1. Philip. In 1. Tim. 3. Biblioth Photiâ— n. 254. i Descript. Eccles. k In praefat in 1. Timoth. l De vitâ â— morrâ— SS 87 88. m Lib. 2. c. 34. 2. Tim. 4. 5. In 4. Ephes. Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37. Lib. 10. tripart hist. cap. 5. Theodoret. 1. Tim. 6. 14 In Ephes. 4. §15 S. Titus at Crete Titus 1. Advers Iovinian a cap. 6. b can 17. c Epist. 87. ad Episc. Afric Tit. 3. 10. 2. Titus 15. lib. 3. c. 4. ubi suprà in 1. Tim. 3. a de Script Eccl in â—ito b in Sinâ—psi c de vità morte S Sanct. d lib. 38. c. 10. e apud Oecumen in praefat in Tit. in 1. Timoth. 3. f in pastor part 2. c. 11. g Praefat in 1. Tim. in 2. Tim. 1. h in 1. Tim. 1. in 2. Tim. 1. 6. i in 1. Tit. k lib. 2. c. 34. l In Synopsi Sacr. Script m ad Paulam Eustoch n Comment ad Titum o ibid lib. 4. c. 21. §. 16. S. Marke at Alexandria Acts. 12. Acts. 13. lib. 2. hist. cap. 17. Epist. ad Evagr de Script Eccles. in proëm in Matth. a lib. 6. Epist. 371. b lib 14. cap 39. In decret de lib. authent apocryph § 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome lib 3 cap. 3. * Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. a de praescript b lib 2. contr Parmen c Epist. 165. d de Script Eccles. § 18. S. Polycarpe at Smyrna diverse others De praescript De Script Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35. a Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. lib. 3. c. 4. b Origen lib. 10. in 16. Rom. c S. Ambros. in 4 Coloss. d Ignatius Epist ad Ephes. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35. e Arethas in 1. Apocal. f Epist. ad Philip. Theodoret. ib. in 1. Tim. 3. g Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Gallias So Ruffinus reads it In Galatia so is intimated in Scripture and so the Roman Martyrol h Ignatius Epist. ad Antioch Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22. * In Martyrologio Roman * lib. 3. cap. 37. Lib. 3. cap. 3. * Epist. 42 Vbi supra § 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed § 20. And was an office of power and great authority Vbi supra apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23. §. 21. Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters Comment in ep ad Titum Ad Nepotian de 7. ordin Eccles. 2. Thess. 3. 14. Act. 15. in Act. Apost Act. 13. Act. 20. Act. 20. 4. vers 18. Vbi suprà Lib. 3. cap. 14. 1. Cor. 5. 3. V. â— in Ephes. 4. Epist. ad Antioch a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 11. § 22. And all this hath beene the saith practise of Christendome § 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common Epist. ad Corinth 1. Pet. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in 1. Phil. In 1. Philip. * Pag. 54. * 1. Timoth 3. in Ephis 4. * Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles hierarch cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 3. 5. in 1. Philip Ephes. 4. Epist. 59. ad Paulinum § 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreame Church-officer a Can. 15. 16. b c. 9. alibi c post advent Episc. Cypri d advers Praxeam e lib. 3. c. 59. de vitâ Const. Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Orthod fide Anno Dom 257. Epist. ad Trall Epist ad Heron Lib. 7. etymolog c. 12. Rom. 16. 17. § 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church lib. 3. hist. c. 36. Epist. ad Ephes Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. Can. 6. hist. tripart lib. 4. c. 29. lib. 4. cap. 14. Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 18. Epist. 11. § 26. And Doctor haeres 75. * Epist 59. 1. Tim. 3. lib. 7. c. 19. § 27. And Pontifex 1 lib. 8. c. ult Apost constitut 2 lib. 3. hist. cap. 31. 3 lib. 9. c. 14. hist. tripart 4 lib. 3. c. 21. 5 lib. 4. c. 20. 6 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 9. 7 Eccles. hierarch 8 Lib. 7. 12. And Sacerdos a Lib. 8. c. 46. b Lib. 3. Ep. 1. c Lib. 7. c. 28. d Lib. de baptism e Epist. 69. f Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21. g Lib. 3. c. 35. h Epist. Comprovinc ad S. Lâ—onem Lib. 4 c. 26. Lib 7. Etymol c. 12. Comment in 4. Ephes. Quast Vet. et N. Testam Qu. 101. In 1. Tim. 3. In 4. Ephes. Epist. 69. § 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest Can. 1. 2. Lib. 1. ad Parmen De vitâ August c. 4. Can. 29. Lib. 7. c. 26. Can. 3.