after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries ' loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church-governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men and Ministers are joyned as assistants only and Counsellors but at Schaffhausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much but in the Huguenot Churches of France the Ministers doe all 3. In such cases where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory and confessedly of all sides there can be none in causes Courts Ecclesiasticall if there be no opinion of Religion no derivation from a divine authority there will be sure to be no obedience and indeed nothing but a certain publick calamitous irregularity For why should they obay Not for Conscience for there is no derivation from divine authority Not for feare for they have not the power of the sword 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keyes by Christ concredited to his Church for the binding and loosing delinquents and penitents respectively on earth then there is clearely a Court erected by Christ in his Church for here is the delegation of Iudges Tu Petrus vâ—s Apostoli whatsoever ye shall bind Here is a compulsory ligaveritis Here are the causes of which they take cognisance Quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Vniversall Iohn 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam in causes which are emergent from Christianity ut sic that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon But of this hereafter That Christ did in this place erect a Iurisdiction and establish a government besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers affirming that to S. Peter the Keys were given that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae ut quae solveret in terrâ sâ—luta essent in coelo scil ut ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem side atque correctione sanaretur So S. Austin And againe Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparâ—bilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae proceâ—â—osissima gubernacuâ—um ad ligandâ— solvenda peccatâ— claves regni coelorum primuâ— Apostolorum Petrus accepit Quoniam nec ille solus sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata S. Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing But not he alone but all the Church to wit all succession and ages of the Church Vniversa Ecclesia viz. in Pastoribus solis as S. Chrysostom In Episcopis Presbyteris as S. Ierome The whole Church as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters The same is affirmed by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Hilary Primasius and generally by the Fathers of the elder and Divines of the middle ages 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the sonne of Man commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch the Disciples asked
conjunctus Apostolorum caetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they doe not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher then their first station This then will doe no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. Iohn was who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris abandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Iustitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joynes Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and inforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolicall and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alleadged and the full voyce of traditive interpretation THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine institution In this S. Cyprian is most plentifull Dominus noster ** Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suo rationem disponens in Evangelio dicit Petro c Inde per tamporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiâ— ratiâ— decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos canstituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Cum hos itaque Divinâ lâ—ge fundatum sit c Our Lord did institute in the Gospell the honour of a Bishop Hence comes the ordination of Bishops and the Church is built upon them and every action of the Church is to be governed by them and this is founded upon a Divine law Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos i.e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quod si nos aliquid auderâ— contrà Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contra nos audere Diaconi à quibus fiunt We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelicall and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirmes there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelicall power did institute that calling for the modus of whose election it took such particular order S. Ignatius long before him speaking concerning his absent friend Sâ—tion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Iesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergy And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearefull thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceiveable God For this contumely relates not to man but to God So S. Ignatius which could not be true were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeyes the Bishop and Clergy obeyes Christ who did constitute and ordaine them This is plain and dogmaticall I would be loath to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speake halfe so much against us But it is a generall resolve and no private opinion For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is so ignorant but he knowes that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his ascension into Heaven he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops But long before him Hegesippus going to Rome and by the way calling in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their severall Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit Prophetae indicaverunt ET DOMINUS STATUIT All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed All things therefore both of doctrine and discipline and therefore the ordinations themselves too Further yet and it is worth observing there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester that ever writ decretall Epistle now extant and transmitted to us but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated that the order of Bishops did come from God S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis certum a true and certaine or indelible character secundùm placitum Patris according to the will of God the Father And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis quià ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit God from whom all good things doe come did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop And againe Honor igitur Fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares c and a little after Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence and is by
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
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
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
but without a Guardian too yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent then Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the youth whom S. Iohn had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unlesse by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O EPISCOPE saith S. Iohn to him Tunc graviter suspirans SENIOR c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusuall so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopall power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supreame order of the Clergy was done with faire reason and designe For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and faire execution of its offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneâ—ation Rise up to the gray head and it transplants the honour and Reverence of age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meere supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saith S. Chrysostome Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sedbonum â—pus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum So S. Hierome It is not an honourable title but a good office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent vertues But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Grecè latinè senior interpretatur non pro atate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iulius Pollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angells and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church THE ANGEL for his excellency OF THE CHURCH for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the senses above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence THE BISHOP and in descent of time it came to passe that the compellation which was alwaies his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a faire precedent of it wee have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great sheapheard and Bishop of our soules The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by faire intimation it does more immediatly descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulnesse of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our soules * And besides this so faire a Copy besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have showne before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for S. Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the chaire of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and faire congruity of reason BVt the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers useing those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have bin given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the roome of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cùm Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so followes in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himselfe witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himselfe makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most Blessed and worthy PASTOR * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councell was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum PASTORES diversis è locis urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareâ Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres .... Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus .... Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerehat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the PASTORS and not only so but Presbyters were not called PASTORS for he proceedes sed Prebyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem .... convenerunt So that these were not under the generall appellative of Pastors * And the Councell of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certifi'd by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given vnto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle
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
the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In Actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you aske where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should confirme It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not expresse precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himselfe so confidently in this affaire for by this we are arm'd against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopall priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he saies it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather then for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy then a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome saies it was done apud Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may doe it but that as S. Hierome himselfe there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptisme if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remote and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to doe it when it is to be done not that a Priest may doe it if a 〈◊〉 may not be had but this non necessity is to be referred to confirmation it selfe so that if a Bishop cannot be had confirmation though with much losse yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himselfe this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sense of the words be what they will they can doe no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur .... praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the glosse upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirme their Auditors not by consignation of Chrisme but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a paralell place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome ut Orthodoxes Episcopos Presbyteros vel quosâ—unque reperire potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirme Bishops Priests in any other sense but this of S. Hieroms in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himselfe intend that Presbyters should doe it at all but in this sense of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his owne opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter then this S. Ambrose tels of the Egyptian Priests that they in the absence of the Bishop doe confirme Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus But 1. The passage is suspitious for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishopricke and is no way pertinent to the discourse but is incircled with a story of a farre different consequence which is not easily thought to have beene done by any considering and intelligent Author 2. But suppose the clause is not surreptitious but naturall to the discourse and borne with it yet it is matter of fact not of right for S. Ambrose neither approves nor disproves it and so it must goe for a singular act against the Catholike practise and Lawes of Christendome 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious yet the word Consignant is for S. Austin who hath the same discourse the same thing viz of the dignity of Presbyters tels this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria and all Aegypt almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose but he tells it thus Nam in Alexandriâ per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus Consecrat Presbyter So that it should not be consignat but consecrat for no story tells of any confirmations done in Aegypt by Presbyters but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopall absence or commission I shall give account in the Question of Iurisdiction that was indeed permitted in Aegypt and some other places but Confirmation never that we can find else where and this is too improbable to beare weight against evidence and practise Apostolicall and foure Councells and 16 ancient Catholike Fathers testifying that it was a practise and a Law of Christendome that Bishops onely should confirme and not Priests so that if there be no other scruple this Question is quickly at an end ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia vt baptizatos Vguant to aneale baptized people Now anointing the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnityes of confirmation so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Councell and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath beene the vsuall word for confirmation But this will not much trouble the buisinesse Because it is evident that he meanes it not of confirmation but of the
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
flock So that this is the generall charge and preaching is the particular For the work in generall they are to receive double honour but this of preaching as then preaching was had a particular excellency and a plastick power to forme men into Christianity especially it being then attested with miracles But the new office of a Lay-Elder I confesse I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion his person his quality his office his authority his subordination his commission hath made so many divisions and new emergent Questions and they none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholick Church and runne in pursuit of this meteor I might quickly be amused but should find nothing certain but a certainty of being misguided Therefore if not for conscience sake yet for prudence bonum est esse hic it is good to remaine in the fold of Christ under the guard and supravision of those sheapheards Christ hath appointed and which his sheep have alwaies followed For I consider this one thing to be enough to determine the Question My sheep saith our blessed Saviour hearâ— my voice if a stranger or a thiefe come him they will not heare Clearly thus That Christ's sheep heare not the voice of a stranger nor will they follow him and therefore those sheapheards whom the Church hath followed in all ages are no strangers but Sheapheards or Pastors of Christs appointing or else Christ hath had no sheep for if he hath then Bishops are the sheapheards for them they have ever followed I end with that golden rule of Vincentius Lirinensis Magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est Hoc est enim verè proprieque Catholicum For certainly the Catholick belief of the Church against Arius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinaris and the worst of hereticks the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all and alwaies and every where then is the government of the Church by Bishops Annunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt nunquam licuit nunquam licet nunquam licebit It never was is nor ever shall be lawfull to teach Christian people any new thing then what they have received from a primitive fountain and is descended in the stream of Catholick uninterrupted succession * I onely adde that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholike Christians to pray for Bishops and as the case now stands for Episcopacy it selfe for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said Letanyes for their KING and for their BISHOP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Chartâ Edgar Regiâ— A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman a Iohn Speeds Hist. l. 9. c. 19. n. 23. p. 716. b Ibid. c. 20. n. 64. p. 747. * 1 Cor. ca 12. v. 28. * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur Saith Platina but that is wholly uncertaine * in 1. ad TituÌ„ Epist. 55. §. 1. Christ did institute a governement in his Church Simler de rep Helvet fol 148. 172. * De doctr Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. tract 118. in Iohan. vide etiam tract 124. tract 50. in Ioh de Agon Christ. cap. 30 de bapt contr Donatist lib. 3. c. 17. * De Sacerd. lib. 3. †In 16. Matt. a Lib. de pudicit b Epist. 27. c Lib. qd Christus est Deus d Lib. 6. de Trinit e Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke 12. 42. Psal 78. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Acts. 20. * in lib de eo quod deterior pâ—tiori infidiatur § 2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ * vide Hilarium in hunc locum pp. communitèr § 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing successors in the Apostolate § 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name person * In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17. 1. Galat. 19. 1. Corin. 15. * Vide Carol. Bovium in constit Apost Schol. Hieron de Script Eccl in Jacobo in 1. Galat Epiphan haeres 78 79. Tract 124. in Iohan. * Vide pag. Philip. 2. 25. In bunc locum â—terque Theod. in 1. Tim 3. Acts. 13. v. 2 3. Rom. 11 13. Galat. 2 8. In 1. cap. Galat 2. Corinth 8 23. Vers. 22. V. 23. § 5. And office Apocal. 2. * Doroth. Synops * Vide Constit. Apost per Clement ubi quidam Iohannes in Epheso Episc. post Timoth. collocatur § 6. Which Christ himselfe hath made distinct from Presbyters Luke 10. Lib. 3. cap. 3. § 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not Eccles. hierarch c. 5. As of Ordination * In Trullo can 16. Haeres 20. Homil. 14. in Act. 6. In hanc locuÌ„ Acts. 13. Prophetas duplici genere intelligamus futura dicentes Scripturas revelantes S. Ambros in 1. Corinth 12. * Ephes. 4. § 8. And Confirmation * S. Cyprian ad Iubajan * lib 3 hist cap. 37. * vide Augast tract 6. in 1. Epist. Iohan. Act. 2. 39. Serm. de Penticoste Hebr. 6. 2. lib 3. hist cap. 17. Quaest. 137. ad Orthod Epist 73. ad lubajan * Lib. 6. hist. cap 33. * in 1. tom Concil a lib. de baptismo c. 8 b lib 2. contra lit Petil cap. 104. lib. 15. de Trinitic 26. vide etiam S Hieron contra Luciferianos S. Ambros lib. 2. c. 2 de sacramentis Epist 3. Eusebij P. M. ad Episc. Tusciae Campon I sidor Hispal de eccles offic lib. 2. c. 26. § 9. And Superiority of Iurisdiction Iohn 20. 21. Lib. 7. de baptism Contra Donatist c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian de Vnit. Eccles. S. Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 12. c. 55. Ephes. 4. 1. Corinth 12. a Lib. 1. hist. c 12. l. 2. c 9. b Haeres 20. c De script Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l 4. c. 63. Tertul de praescript * Vt puta viduarum collegium Diaconorum coenobium fidelium c Revel 1. vers 20. Hebr. 13. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 11. in 1. Apocal. ibid in 1. Cor. 11. Epist. 162. in Apocal. lib. 5. c. 24. lib. 4 c. 10. lib. 4. cap. 15. †Epist. ad Policarp * de praescrip vide Aretha in 1. Apoc. lib. 4. cap. 26. In Lucae cap. 10. Epist. ad Philadelph § 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of Antiquity Lib. 3. cap. 3. Lib. de praescript c. 36. Epist. 42. ad Cornelium Epist. 69. Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis cont Donatist Epist. 54. De verbis Dom. serm 24 In Ephes. 4. In 1. Corinth 12. 28. In vers 29. ibid. Biblioth Phot. n. 254. Lib. 4. c. 18. Epist. 1. a Epist. 1 ad Simpron b Homil. 26. in Evang. c Orat.