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
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
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
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
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
of the Churches not going from Corinth with the mony but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch't in legation to Ierusalem If any enquire of Titus .... or the Brethren they are the Apostles of the Church and the glory of Christ. So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity So that it is plaine that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried and they having Churches of their own as Titus had Crete Epaphroditus had Philippi their Apostolate was a fixt residence and superintendency of their severall Churches BVt in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seaven letters to the seaven Asian Bishops the Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hathfound themlyars This Angell of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or Gajus the first a Disciple the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles and either of them knew them well enough it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons counterfeit himselfe S. Paul or S. Peter And if they had yet little trying was needfull to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gajus he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles all were then dead and he known to live in Patmos known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles must dissemble an ordinary function not an extraordinary person And indeed by the concurse of of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man S. Iohn cheifly pointed at For he seeing that of Ephesus there had been an Episcopall chayre plac'd and Timothy a long while posses'd of it and perhaps Gajus after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that S. Iohn had not constituted Bishops in all the other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept the Iurisdiction to be ministred by himselfe would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolicall ordination obtruding himselfe upon the Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busy man in anothers Diocesse This and such impostors as this the Angell of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by S. Iohn himselfe as is intimated in S. Iohns third Epistle written to this Gajus v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrell for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appeares further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to doe v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is cleare this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopall preheminence and jurisdiction without lawfull ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his designe He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop BVt this office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its fountain from a Rock Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke He called his Disciples and out of them chose twelve and called them Apostles That was the first election Post haec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos That was his second election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them by two and two We heare but of one commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyfull at their power over Divells wee heare no more of them in the Gospell but that their Names were written in heaven Wee are likely therefore to heare of them after the passion if they can but hold their owne And so we doe For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clericall commission by vertue of Christs first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clericall offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts Others also we find Presbyters at Ierusalem especially at the first Councell for there was Iudas sirnamed Iustus and Silas and S. Marke and Iohn a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Ierusalem these and diverse others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiasticall Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearely a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while 1. THen It is cleare in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church and therefore to be committed to their successors which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy The law of God hath reserved the Greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order First the Apostles impos'd hands in Ordinations which the 72 did not the case is knowne Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to choose seaven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poore They did so and set them before the twelue Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they lay'd their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72 who were there actually present and seaven of them were then ordayn'd to this Ministery for they were not now ordayn'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Constantinople calls them and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witnesse He sent other 72. to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seaven ordained and set over the widdowes And the same is intimated by S. Chrysostome if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dignity had these
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
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
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
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
all others whom himselfe in the next words points out by the description of their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Feed the flock of God as Bishops or being Bishops and overseers over it And that to rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny that had no rule at all * The meere Presbyters I deny not but are included in this admonition for as their office is involved in the Bishops office the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too so is his duty also in the Bishops so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knowes what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But againe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Iohn the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gajus the Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harme though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolicall men in the Colledge at Ierusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall men ruling men and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that rule well By Presbyters are meant Bishops to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus as appears in the former discourse The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one place expounds the other for they are both ad idem and speake of Elders of the same Church * 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops unlesse it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the Generall addresse which in all faire deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearely show that the confusion of names of Episcopus and Presbyter such as it is in Scripture is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture for the indistinction of offices for even the names in Scripture it selfe are so distinguished that a meere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop an Apostle is often called a Presbyter as in the instances above But we will consider those places of Scripture which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name to confusion of things and shew that they neither enterfere upon the maine Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ Iesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to choose this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to cleare it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could not be and yet * S. Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the * Church of Philippi and therefore must meane * meere Presbyters * so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superior order of the clergy Bishops and Priests and that he speaks plurally he may besides the Bishops in the Church comprehend under their name the Presbyters too for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office and order the inferiour under the superiour the lesser within the greater for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order and is not only inclusively in it but derivative from it the same name may comprehend both persons because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both And in this sense it is if it be at all that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops * 2. Why may not Bishops be understood properly For there is no necessity of admiitting that there were any meere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church It can neither be proved from Scripture not antiquity if it were denyed For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopall men as there were at Antioch might doe all that Presbyters could and much more And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply and a Bishop can it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter then that there was no Bishop And certainely it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be onely meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sense and yet no more Bishops in one Diocesse then one of a fixt residence for in that sense is S. Chrysostome and the fathers to be understood in their commentaries on this place affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop but then take this along that it was not then unusuall in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary residentiaries but of an Apostolicall and Episcopall authority as in the Churches of Ierusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it selfe If I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus Bitus Demas Polybius omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo unde haec vobis Scripsi saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon So that many Bishops we see might be at Philippi and many were actually there long after S. Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sense Because there could not be more Bishops then one in a Diocesse No By what law If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times that hinders not but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times If by a Law in the Apostles times then we have obtained the main question by the shift and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters And then let this objection be admitted how it will and doe its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had diverse Bishopricks under it and S. Paul writing to the Church of Philippi wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit and therefore might well salute many Bishops though writing to one Metropolis and this is the more probable if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopi◠Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose referres this clause of
Cum Episcopis Diaconis to S. Paul and S. Timothy intimating that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from S. Paul and S. Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons so that the reading must be thus Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons to all the Saints at Philippi c. Cum Episcopis Diaconis hoc est cum Paulo Timotheo qui utique Episcopi erant simul significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei Ad plebem enim scribit Nam si Episcopis scriberet Diaconi ad personas eorum scriberet loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat non duobus vel tribus sicut ad Titum Timotheum 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians which may give another light to this speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively and so will not inferre that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiasticall provision which no man imagines of what interest soever he be it followes then that Bishops and Deacons are no more but Majores and Minores Sacerdotes in both places for as Presbyter and Episcopâ—s were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I thinke it will easily be shewen in Scripture that the word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters then to those ministers which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now againe to the main observation Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for S. Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church orders and officers gives directions first for Bishops then for Deacons Where are the Presbyters in the interim Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons They may as well be in one as the other for Diaconus is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy then Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never us'd in the new Testament for any but such as had the care regiment and supra-vision of a Church but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus yet it is not because the offices and orders are one but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop And then indeed the compellation is of the more principall and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the principall observation here intended Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus Sacerdos est hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium saith S. Ambrose So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop he intends to qualifie Presbyters also then it is Principally intended for a Bishop and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension This only by the way because this place is also abused to other issues To be sure it is but a vaine dreame that because Presbyter is not nam'd that therefore it is all one with a Bishop when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole or the inferiour within the superiour the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more or else it may be as well intended in the word Deacons and rather then the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plurall and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose Ministration yee beleived and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Tituâ— S. Paul describes the office of a Bishop and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office and why I pray may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus or else why may not Deacons be confounded and be all one with Bishop as well as Presbyter It will it must be so if this argument were any thing else but an aëry and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be showne in Scripture that any one single and meere Presbyter is called a Bishop but may be often found that a Bishop nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter as in the instances above and therefore since this communication of Names is onely in descension by reason of the involution or comprehension of Presbyter within Episcopus but never in ascension that is an Apostle or a Bishop is often called Presbyter and Deacon and Prophet and Pastor and Doctor but never retrò that a meere Deacon or a meere Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depresse the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meere Presbyters above their stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability then Episcopus and Presbyter For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons I gave one instance of this before but there are very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of S. Matthias when he succeded Iudas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye beleived Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfill thy Deaconship * Adde to this that there is no word or designation of any Clericall office but is given to Bishops and Apostles The Apostles are called Prophets Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaën and Paul and Barnabas and then they are called Pastors too and indeed hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Pastors Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos PASCERE ECCLESIAM DEI. Whereupon trhe Geeke Scholiast expounds the word Pastors to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that S. Peter set us a copie in the compellation of the
of Iulius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and People of Alexandria in behalfe of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VESTRUM AC PRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a litle after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PASTOREM VESTRUM esuritis sititis c The same is often us'd in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called PASTORES MAGNI Great sheapheards or PASTORS * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosequuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui saith Theodoret they wept for the losse of their PASTOR And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalfe of Christianity PASTOREM inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a PASTOR a Bishop certainely for himselfe was a Priest and his commands we follow But I need not specifie any more particular instances I touch'd upon it before * He that shall consider that to Bishops the regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first and the Presbyters were but his assistants in Cities and Villages and were admitted in partem sollicitudinis first casually and cursorily then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided and endowed will easily see that this word Pastor must needes be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter and the practise of infant Christendome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intrusted first solely then in communication with others but alwaies principally * But now of late especially in those places where Bishops are exauctorated and no where else that I know but amongst those men that have complying designes the word Pastor is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendome and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited subordinate sense and by way of participation just as they may be called Angels when the Bishop is the Angell and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor and so they are called Pastores ovium in S. Cyprian but never are they called Pastores simply or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600 yeares in the Church and I think 800 more And therefore it was good counsell which S. Paul gave to avoid vocum Novitates because there is never any affectation of New words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendome but there is some designe in the thing too to make an innovation and of this we have had long warning in the New use of the word Pastor IF Bishops were the Pastors then Doctors also it was the observation which S. Austin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets .... some Pastors and Doctors So the Church hath learn'd to speak In the Greeks Councell of Carthage it was decreed that places which never had a Bishop of their owne should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a DOCTOR of their owne that is a Bishop but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocesse to whom formerly they gave obedience and the title of the chapter is that the parts of the Diocesse without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not have another Bishop He who in the title is called Bishop in the chapter is called the DOCTOR And thus also Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers and DOCTORS Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus DOCTORIS est saith S. Ambrose speaking of the eminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy The same also is to be seen in S. Austin Sedulius and diverse others I deny not but it is in this appellative as in diverse of the rest that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called DOCTORS for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop and no where expressely of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture but yet because in all Churches it was by license of the Bishop that Presbyters did Preach if at all and in some Churches the Bishop only did it particularly of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen therefore it was that the Presbyter in the language of the Church was not but the Bishop was often called DOCTOR of the Church THe next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to expresse the offices and eminence of Bishops is PONTIFEX and PONTIFICATUS for Episcopacy Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum Episcopis PONTIFICATUS munera assignavimus said the Apostles as S. Clement reports PONTIFICALE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Iohn the Apostle wore in his forehead as an Ensigne of his Apostleship a gold plate or medall when he was IN PONTIFICALIBUS in his pontificall or Apostolicall habit saith Eusebius * De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit definitio SS Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... si PONTIFICES voluerint ut cum cis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes Said the Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople * Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum Petrum PONTIFICATUM tenebat saith Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus * Apud Antiochiam verò Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae PONTIFICATUM tenebat saith the same Eusebius * And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia that when Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extreame age he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you but it was when Narcissus jam senio fessus PONTIFICATUS Ministerio sufficere non posset saith the story * Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Prefect that wish'd him to comply with the Emperour ask'd him Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam PONTIFICATUM est consequutus He hath an Empire but hath he also a Bishoprick PONTIFICATUS is the word * But S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clericall offices and particularly gives this account of the present Est igitur PONTIFICATUS ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt c. And a little after Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus PONTIFICUM ordini c. To which agrees S. Isidore in his etymologies Ideo autem Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur quia sacrum dant sicut Episcopi qui licet Sacerdotes sint tamen PONTIFICATUS apicem non habent quia nec Chrismate frontem signant nec Paracletum spiritum dant quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum
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
and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apostacy of Iudas and Surrogation of S. Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Apostolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the 70. is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelicall prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith S. Hierome herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himselfe calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthians But this is no waies unusuall in Scripture For 2. S. Iames the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle and yet he was not in the number of the twelve but he was Bishop of Ierusalem 1. That S. Iames was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of S. Paul But other Apostles saw Iâ—none save Iames the Lords Brother 2. That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two Iames's The sonne of Alpheus and Iames the sonne of Zebedee the Brother of Iohn But neither of these was the Iames whom S. Paul calls the Lords brother And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to Iames then to all the Apostles So that here S. Iames is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity then the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Hegesippus * S. Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierome 3. That S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Galat. 2. even before S. Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Cratiâunus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus as S. Austin yet in his own diocesse S. Iames had priority of order before him v. 9. And when 1 Iames 2 Cephas and 3 Iohn c. First Iames before Cephas i.e. S. Peter S. Iames also was president of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Ierusalem about the Question of circumcision as is to be seen Act. 15. to him S. Paul made his addresse Act. 21. to him the brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwaies resident and his seat fixt and that he liv'd Bishop of Ierusalem for many years together is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians But of this hereafter 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of thâ— Philippians I have sent unto you Epaphroditâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My compeere and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatus recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is we are told by Theodoret dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus Because he also had received the office of being an Apostle among them saith S. Ierome upon the same place and it is very observeable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Iesus Christ but those other men which were Bishops of Churches and called Apostles by Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Churches or sometime Apostles alone but never are intitled of Iesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but Iames the Lords Brother Gal. 1. There S. Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himselfe often the Apostle of Iesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Iesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Iesus Christ but S. Iames in his Epistle to the Iewes of the dispersion writes not himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iames the servant of God and of the Lord Iesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the holy Ghost but by Humane constitution and imposition of hands in relation to that part of his office and his cure of the uncircumcision he limits his Apostolate to his Diocesse and calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle of the Gentiles as S. Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearely was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocesse of Philippi Paâ—latim verò tempore procedente aliâ— ab his quos Dominus eleger at ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So S. Ierome In processe of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen were ordained Apostles and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance adding also that by the Apostles themselves Iudas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Ierusalem with the Corinthian benevolence are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopall sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolike ordination they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter Titus was Bishop of Crete and Epaphroditus of Philippi and these were the Apostles for Titus came with the Corinthian Epaphroditus with the Colossian liberality Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches to wit whose almes they carried but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches viz. of their own of which they were Bishops For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches it is unimaginable that there should be no terme of relation expressed 2. It is very cleare that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the severall Churches yet S. Paul not those Churches sent them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles
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
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
God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospell that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me .... repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasceoves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have Pastorall or Episcopall authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirme it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were diverse others there present therefore the order it selfe is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Councell of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councells of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sixtus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordaine and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Originall constitution These and all the former who affirme Bishops to be successors of the Apostles by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the do-doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendome which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a never failing succession unlesse where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the starre the Angell of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darknesse usque ad consummationem saeâ—uli aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyne in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God THE second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolicall tradition We have seen what Christ did now wee shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well wee can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority then the practise Apostolicall Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus FIrst then the Apostles did presently after the ascension fixe an Apostle or a Bishop in the chayre of Ierusalem For they knew that Ierusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseryes and desolations to insue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and warres and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs owne prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publike affaires as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fixe it upon it's perpetuall base 2 ly The Church of Ierusalem was to be the president and platforme for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Ierusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their governement from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what starres their continuall fluxe of light must streame 3 ly The Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to governe in their absence or decession any wayes they ordayn'd S. Iames the first Bishop of Ierusalem there he fixt his chayre there he liv'd Bishop for 30 yeares and finish'd his course with glorious Martyrdome If this be proov'd we are in a fayre way for practise Apostolicall First let us see all that is said of S. Iames in Scripture that may concerne this affayre Acts. 15. We find S. Iames in the Synod at Ierusalem not disputing but giving finall determination to that Great Qu about Circumcision And when there had beene much disputing Peter rose up and said c He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he beleiv'd concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will goe as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who us'd it But S. Iames when he had summ'd up what had beene said by S. Peter gave sentence and finall determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The Acts of Councell which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. Iames his was decisive which proves him clearely if by reasonablenesse of the thing and the successive practise of Christendome in imitation of this first Councell Apostolicall we may take our estimate that S. Iames was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Ierusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement call's him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personall priviledges and prerogatives * Adde to this that although the whole Councell did consent to the sending of the Decretall Epistle and to send Iudas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of
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
Bishop we find ordayn'd by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordayn'd by an Apostle appeares in Scripture For S. Paul impos'd hands on him that 's certayne Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum by the laying on of MY HANDS That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him 1. He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publike necessityes of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he liv'd and dyed as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasionall and when it was his Cure was supplyed by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopall deportment as is plaine A Bishop must be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. 3. S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young for a Bishop must be no striker but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compeliest me to shed teares Suavitèr omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekely but yet so as to doe his office to keep all in their severall duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widdowes Give all these things in charge Command all to doe their duty Command but not objurgate Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his jurisdiction over Presbyters and people if he had had no jurisdiction and coercitive authority at all Nay and howsoever S. Paul forbids to Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it intimating upon great occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be but an urging or an exhortation is not all for S. Paul gives him coercitive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widdowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger Widdowes viz. à collegio viduarum ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae Over Presbyters for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters of which if he was not to take cognisance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation in foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminall That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminall then for his punishing in such causes it followes in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reprehend them publikely that is disgrace them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indâ—corus ..... 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul is to call them to publick account that 's one part of the jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to examine Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give an account of one's life idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. â— Iliad But the words in S. Paul will cleare this businesse Let them that sinne be publikly sham'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may feare A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they feare to sinne Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for feare of being punished Adde to all this that here is in this chapter the plaine giving of a jurisdiction an erection of a judicatory and is all the way direction for his proceeding in causes criminall appears most evidently v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the elect Angells that thou observe these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without prejudging the cause of any maÌ„ before it comes in open contestatioÌ„ under publick test of witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing nothing for favour or partiality Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory then these mandates of S. Paul Lastly to make up his Episcopall function compleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders Lay hands suddenly on no man sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri .... Ne facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem .... peccat enim si non probat siâ— ordinet Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est Haec Episcopus custodiens castum se exhibebit religioni cujus rei in futuro praemium consequetur So S. Ambrose upon the place who is so farre from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops consistory that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the judicature and coercitive jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholike and unquestion'd Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have beene ordain'd Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul sed Lucas saith he in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat sicut Timothei Titi quorum alter in Ephesi Episcopus ... ab eo ordinatus praeficitur S. Ambrose affirmes that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopall office Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolâ—m quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare And that this Epistle was written to instruct S.
Timothy for his owne person and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united concurrent testimony of S. Vincentius Tertullian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose Oecumenius Epiphanius Primasius and S. Gregory As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madnesse and stupidity of Aërius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus Presbyterum ne objurges c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the generall Councell of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From S. Timothy untill now there have beene 27 Bishops ordayned in Ephesus Who desires a multitude of testimonies though enough already have deposed in the cause beside the evidence of Scripture may to these adde that saying of S. Chrysostome that to Timothy was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Theodoret calling him Episcopum Asianorum the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy which if it were not writ by S. Paul yet at least will prove a primitive record and very Ancient the fragment of the Martyrdome of S. Timothy in Photius S. Ierome Theophylact Isidore and Nicephorus And now all is well if after all this Timothy doe not prove an Evangelist for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause and though neither pertinent nor true yet shall be laid in the ballance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity But doe the work of an Evangelist saith S. Paul therefore it is cleare S. Timothy was no Bishop No was not That 's hard But let us try however 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those are the next words fulfill thy Deaconship And therefore he was no Bishop As well this as the other for if Deaconship doe not exclude Episcopacy why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist as well as his being an Evangelist exclude his being a Bishop Whether is higher a Bishoprick or the office of an Evangelist If a Bishops office be higher and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist then a Bishop cannot be a Priest and a Priest cannot be a Deacon and an Evangelist can be neither for that also is thought to be higher then them both But if the office of an Evangelist be higher then as long as they are not disparate much lesse destructive of each other they may have leave to consist in subordination For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment and a Bishoprick of fixt residence that will be considered by and by 2. All the former discourse is upon supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyes the office of a Deacon and so it may as well as S. Pauls other phrase implyes S. Timothy to be an Evangelist For if we marke it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe the worke not the office of an Evangelist And what 's that We may see it in the verses immediatly going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if this he the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy performe viz. to preach to be instant in season and out of season to reprove to rebuke to exhort there is no harme done a Bishop may nay he must doe all this 3. Consider we what an Evangelist is and thence take our estimate for the present 1. He that writes the story of the Gospell is an Evangelist so the Greek Scholiast calls him And in this sense indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist but yet if he had he might have been a Bishop because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop sure enough for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church as we shall see hereafter so farre as concernes our Question But then again an Apostle might be an Evangelist S. Matthew was and S. Iohn was and the Apostolicall dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopall preheminence for I have proved these two names Apostle and Bishop to signify all one thing 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of Evangelists Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus S. Philip was one of the leaven commonly called Deacons and he was also a Presbyter and yet an Evangelist and yet a Presbyter in it's proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop or else why are Presbyters cry'd out against so bitterly in all cases for non-residence and yet nothing hinders but that S. Timothy as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together and then why not a Bishop too for why should a Deaconship or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more then a Bishoprick 3. Another acceptation of Evangelist is also in Eusebius Sed alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant .... Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae ... animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant .... ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes .... Evangelistarum fungebantur officio They that planted the Gospell first in any Country they were Evangelists S. Timothy might be such a one and yet be a Bishop afterwards And so were some of this sort of Evangelists For so Eusebius Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes atque ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant So that they first converted the Nation and then govern'd the Church first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops and so was Austin the Monke that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert he was first our Evangelist and afterwards Bishop of Dover Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries as S. Chrysostome in Scythia S. Trophimus S. Denis S. Marke and many more By the way only according to all these acceptations of the word Evangelist this office does not imply a perpetuall motion Evangelists many of them did travell but they were never the more Evangelists for that but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospell and thence they had their name 4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Oecumenius which are the only
exigence of the Epistle proclaime him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would faine know who succeeded him Or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death then before and govern'd the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolicall Ordinance much lesse is it a Divine right for it is postnate to thē both But if they had no more power after Titus then they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospell and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and speciall designement made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had Iohn to be their Minister viz Iohn whose sirname was Marke * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Paul's first going to Rome but many other things their founding of diverse Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeyes their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdomes are recorded rely upon the faith of the primitive Church And yet the ordination of S. Marke was within the terme of S. Lukes story for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eight yeare of Nero's reigne five or six yeares before the death of S. Paul Igitur Neronis PRIMO Imperij anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it in stead of octavo Sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Bishoprick for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priests in Alexandria besides him and how then he should be S. Markes successor more then the other Presbyters is not so soone to be contriv'd But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs Quòd post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Marke * And Philo the Iew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria called by the inhabitants Cultores and Cultrices The worshippers Addit autem adhuc his saith Eusebius quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua vel quae sit suprà omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopall dignity which was apex super omnia a height above all imployments established at Alexandria and how soone that was is soone computed for Philo liv'd in our blessed Saviours time and was Embassador to the Emperour Cajus and surviv'd S. Marke a little But S. Ierome will strike up this businesse A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque Dionysiam Episcopos Presbyteri Egypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant And againe Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus The same is witnessed by S. Gregory Nicephorus and divers others Now although the ordination of S. Marke is not specified in the Acts as innumerable multitudes of things more and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter nothing of S. Iames the sonne of Thaddaeus nor of Alpheus but the Martyrdome of one of them nothing of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas or Simon zelotes of S. Iude the Apostle scarce any of their names recorded yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records which all Christendome hitherto so farre as we know hath acknowledged as authentick and these ordinations cannot possibly goe lesse then Apostolicall being done in the Apostles times to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited they seeing and beholding severall successions in severall Churches before their death as here at Alexandria first Saint Marke then Anianus made Bishop five or sixe years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul But yet who it was that ordain'd S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria for Bishop he was most certainly is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Romane Councell Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit gloriosè consummavit Martyrium S. Peter sent him into Egypt to found a Church and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment and that could be no lesse then the ordinary power Apostolicall BUt in the Church of Rome the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and their successions during the times of the Apostles is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit Succedit autem ei Anacletus post cum tertiò loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui vidit ipsos Apostolos contulit cum eis cùm adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum traditionem ante oculos haberet So S. Irenaeus Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus Linus vero Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse Many more testimonies there are of these means being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles as of Tertullian Optatus S. Austin and S. Hierome But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish and bee tedious in a thing so evident and known S. Iohn ordain'd S. Polycarpe Bishop at Smyrna .... sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant So Tertullian The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarpe was placed there by S. Iohn as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordain'd there by S. Peter and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops Polycarpus autem
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
senses above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholike antiquity and so are false and dye within their owne trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolicall with that saying of S. Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptiz abat suos put abat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cepha in toto orbe decretum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeter is ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publike decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and governe the flock commited to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schisme for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens tooke them for his owne not as Christs disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. Iames and S. Marke and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes expresse attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not beene proved to have beene an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much lesse it being as I have proved and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIKE and APOSTOLICK * BEe ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolicall precept We have seene how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. CATHOLIKE PRACTISE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopall to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sonnes of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publike and authoriz'd facts of Catholike Christendome * For Consider we Is it imaginable that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves and not caquae sunt Iesu Christi to erect a government of their owne devising not ordayn'd by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolicall superstructure which if it was at all was a part of our Masters will which whosoever knew and observed not was to be beaten with many stripes Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilisme to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity without evidence of Miracle and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity make an Universall dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilisme to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordayn'd destroyes all those relations of mutuall dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family * Is it imaginable that all those glorious Martyrs that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions and Canons Apostolicall that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from bloud was of force they would rather dye then eat a strangled hen or a pudding for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina that they would be so sedulous in the contemning the government that Christ left for his family and erect another * To what purpose were all their watchings their banishments their fears their fastings their penances and formidable austerities and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes of what excellency or availe if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgracefull by dolourous deaths to be set before a tribunall to give account of their universall neglect and contemning of Christs last testament in so great an affaire as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendome should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliever be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publike affaire and for matter of order of the most generall concernement is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetuall assistance of the impregnable permanence of the 〈◊〉 â—â—ch against the gates of Hell of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth if she be guilty of so grand an errour as to erect a throne where Christ had made all levell or appointed others to sit in it then whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retain'd that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamely negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendome if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairely venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis THE first thing done in Christendome upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common For in holy Scripture all the names of Clericall offices were given to the superiour order and particularly all offices and parts and persons design'd in any imployment of the sacred Preisthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore least the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdome of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations For the Apostles did know by our Lord Iesus Christ that contentions would arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Episcopacy saith S. Clement and so it did in the Church of Corinth as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supreame ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Peter the Apostle the Elders or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter doe intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himselfe to wit those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed the Bishops of Asia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and Bithynia that is to Timothy to Titus to Tycbicus to Sosipater to the Angells of the Asian Churches and
Bishoprick saies that he was chosen being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most worthy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming through all the infertor Orders The same commendation S. Cyprian gives of Cornelius Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus in divinis administrationibus Dominum sepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunct is religionis gradibus ascendit .... fact us est Episcopus à plurimis Collegiis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant qui ad nos literas .... de ejus ordinatione miserunt Here is evident not only a promotion but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome so that now the chaire is full saith S. Cyprian quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem c. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishoprick 2. THe ordination of a Bishop to his chaire was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter and not only so but in another manner then he had when he was made Priest This is evident in the first Ecclesiasticall Canon that was made after Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Priest and Deacon must be ordain'd of one Bishop but a Bishop must be ordain'd by two or three at least And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolicall S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Iacobus à Petro Iacobo Iohanne Apostolis est ordinatus Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. Iames to be a Bishop and the selfe same thing is in words affirmed by Anicetus ut in ore duorum veltrium stet omnis veritas And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome there hapned to be many of his fellow Bishops there factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant These Collegae could not be meer Priests for then the ordination of Novatus had been more Canonicall then that of Cornelius and all Christendome had been deceived for not Novatus who was ordain'd by three Bishops but Cornelius had been the Schismatick as being ordain'd by Priests against the Canon But here I observe it for the word plurimis there were many of them ordination In pursuance of this Apostolicall ordinance Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be ordayn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all the Bishops in the Province unlesse it be in case of necessity and then it must be done by three being gathered together and the rest consenting so the ordination to be performed The same is ratified in the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop is not to be ordain'd without a Synod of Bishops and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province But if this cannot be done conviniently yet however it is required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ordinations must be performed by many The same was decreed in the Councell of Laodicea can 12. in the 13. Canon of the African Code in the 22 th Canon of the first Councell of Arles and the fifth Canon of the second Councell of Arles and was ever the practise of the Church and so we may see it descend through the bowells of the fourth Councell of Carthage to the inferiour ages Episcopus qunm ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant tenâ—ant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno super eum fundente benedictionâ—m reliqui 〈◊〉 Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant The thing was Catholike and Canonicall It was prima immutabilis constitutio so the first Canon of the Councel of EpaunuÌ„ cals it And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch a schisme was made about his successor Evagrius his ordination condemn'd because praeter Ecclesiasticaâ— regulam fuerit ordinatus it was against the rule of Holy Church Why so Solus enim Paulinus eum instituerat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes praeter tres Pontifices ordinationem pènitùs fieri interdicunt Which because it was not observ'd in the ordination of Evagrius who was not ordayn'd by three Bishops the ordination was cassated in the Councell of Rhegium And we read that when Novatus would faine be made a Bishop in the schisme against Cornelius he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis saith Eusebius he obtain'd three Bishops for performance of the action Now besides these Apostolicall and Catholike Canons and precedents this thing according to the constant and Vnited interpretation of the Greeke Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishoprick of Ephesus Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The Latine Fathers expound it abstractly viz. to signifie the office of Priest-hood that is neglect not the grace of Priest-hood that is in thee by the imposition of hands and this Erasmus helpes by making Presbyterij to pertaine to Gratiam by a new inter-punction of the words but however Presbyterij with the Latine Fathers signifies Presbyteratûs not Presbyterorum and this Presbyteratus is in their sense used for Episcopatus too But the Greeke Fathers understand it collectively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply such but Bishops too all agree in that that Episcopacy is either meant in office or in person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Oecumenius and S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theophilact So Theodoret. The probation of this lies upon right reason anÌ„d Catholicke tradition For 3. THE Bishops ordination was peculiaâ— in this respect above the Presbyters for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Councell of Carthage but never on a Bishop And that was the reason of the former exposition By the Presbytery S. Paul meanes Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop and therefore Presbyterium is not a Colledge of meere Presbyters for such could never ordaine S. Timothy to be a Bishop The same reason is given by the Latine Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signifie Episcopacy For saith S. Ambrose S. Paul had ordain'd Timothy to be a Bishop Vnde quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ordinaret Majorem So he and subjoynes this reason Nemo n. tribuit quodnon accepit The same is affirmed by S. Chrysostome and generally by the authors of the former expositions that is the Fathers both of the East and West For it was so Generall and Catholike a truth that Priests could not might not lay hands on a Bishop that there was never any
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
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
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
the guide of their consciences the instruments and conveyances of all the Blessings heaven uses to powre upon us by the ministration of the holy Gospell would they that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free and open communion with a Catholick Bishop would they have contested upon an aëry title and the imaginary priviledge of an honour which is farre lesse then their spirituall dignity but infinitely lesse then the burden and charge of the soules of all their Diocesse Charity thinks nothing too much and that love is but little that grutches at the good words a Bishoprick carries with it However let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spirituall heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginèm Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the PRINCE OF PRIESTS Now since honour and excellency are termes of mutuall relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so farre as they participate of God so farre they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impresse of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himselfe but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must doe him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Councell of Sardis speaking of the severall steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the HIGHEST HONOUR * Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans HONOREM CATHEDRAE potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanc'd him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chaire But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the order of Melchisedek yet he hath also the honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontifex sacro crismate perunctus incivitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High Priest ordained in the Citty viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be Deare and Precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fidelitèr existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat a Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christ's vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himselfe He that despiseth you despiseth mee If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order then the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what it done to the Bishop is farre more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odde one even this whether Christ be to be honour'd or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider wee that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Iewes and how highly Honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou MY LORD Elijah said Obed Edom to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take THY LORD from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schooles So it was then And in the New Testament we find a Prophet HONOURD every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given then was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation ANGELS and GOVERNOURS and FATHERS OF OUR FAITH and STARRS LIGHT OF THE WORLD the CROWNE OF THE CHURCH APOSTLES OF IESUS CHRIST nay GODS viz. to whom the word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly S. Hierom saith that when S. Paul called himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusti Caesaris Magister exercitâ—s Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have prooved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sonnes of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdome and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sonnes viz. faire honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdome for such a Kingdome they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and yet the best preferment from them to wit in a temporall Kingdome No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed doe exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you what shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord made ruler over his Houshold Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me Pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if S. Marke had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honourary appellative that was would have question'd him Highly for it But if we goe to the sense of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might
are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sonnes of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may doe the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easy to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no waies pertinent to impugne Episcopall authority For inter se they might be equall and yet Superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so Christ said non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporall Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporall principalities as other men Bishops vt sic are not secular Princes must not seeke for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawfull for a Bâ—shop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single acre is no more due to the Order then a Province but both these may be conjunct in the sâ—me person though still by vertue of Christs precept the functions and capacities must be distinguishâ—d according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermixe the Kingdome and the Priesthood is to joyne things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that S. Peter when he speakes of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propunds her as an example to all married women in these words shee obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should doe so too And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allowes every woman to give to her husband a Mechanick a hard-handed artisan he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church those lights of Christendome whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholike Church Credat Apella 4. PASTOR and FATHER are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c Thy Father in all senses They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not onely in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is knowne * Adde to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certaine that Duke and Captaine Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greeke and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spirituall regiment and us'd words of secular honour to expresse it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet he forbad not a secular title He us'd many himselfe 5. The voyce of the Spouse the holy Church hath alwaies expressed their honourable estimate in reverentiall compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops and have taught us so to doe * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum Princes of the Churches I had occasion to instance it in the question of Iurisdiction Indeed the third Councell of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum or summus Sacerdos or aliquid hujusmodi but onely primae sedis Episcopus I know not what their meaning was unlesse they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person as in the See for he might be called Bishop of the prime See But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage I am sure it was a guise of Christendome not to speake of Bishops sine praefatione honoris but with honourable mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To our most blessed LORD So the letters were superscribed to Iulius Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren in Sozomen Let no man speake Untruths of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of MY LORDS THE BISHOPS said S. Gregory Nazianzen The Synodicall book of the Councell of Constantinople is inscribed DOMINIâ— REVERENDISSIMIS ac pijssimis Fratribus ac Collegis Damaso Ambrosio c To our most Reverend LORDS and holy Brethren c And the Councell of Illyricum sending their Synodall letters to the Bishops of Asia by Bishop Elpidius Haecpluribus say they persequi non est visum quòd miserimus vnum ex omnibus DOMINUM Collegam nostrum Elpidium qui cognosceret esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à DOMINO Collegâ nostro Eustathio Our Lord and Brother Elpidius Our Lord and Brother Eustathius * The oration in the Councell of Epaunum begins thus Quod praecipientibus tantis DOMINIS MEIS ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo c The Prolocutor tooke that office on him at the command of so many GREAT LORDS THE BISHOPS * When the Church of Spayne became Catholike and adjur'd the Arian heresy King Recaredus in the third Councell of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops Non incognitum reor esse vobis REVERENDISSIMI Sacerdotes c Non credimus vestram latere SANCTITATEM c vestra Cognovit BEATITUDO c VENERANDI PATRES c And these often Your Holinesse your Blessednesse Most Reverend Venerable Fathers Those were the addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod Thus it was when Spaine grew Catholike But not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian records They amongst them us'd but little Reverence to their Bishops But the instances of this kind are innumerable Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity then to speake of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domine verè Sancte suscipiende Papa So S. Hierome a Presbyter to S. Austin a Bishop Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est saith S. Austin Episcopacy is Greater then the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the TITLES OF HONOUR which the custome of the Church hath introduc'd * But I shall summe up these particulars in a totall which is thus expressed by S. Chrysostome Haeretici à Diabolo HONORUM VOCABULA Episcopis non dare didicerunt Hereticks have learned of the Devill not to give due titles of honour to Bishops The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so
actually they were in the Calenture of primitive devotion and that the Doctors of Religion were ever even amongst the most barbarous and untaught Pagans Upon the confidence of these advantages both the Emperours themselves when they first became Christian allowed appeales from secular tribunalls to the Bishops Consistory even in causes of secular interest and the people would choose to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected the issues of justice and religion * I say this was done as soone as ever the Emperours were Christian Before this time Bishops and Priests to be sure could not be imployed in state affayres they were odious for their Christianity and then no wonder if the Church forbad secular imployment in meaner offices the attendance on which could by no meanes make recompense for the least avocation of them from their Church imployment So that it was not onely the avocation but the sordidnesse of the imployment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church But as soone as ever their imployment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession neither Church nor State did then prohibite it And that was as soone as ever the Princes were Christian for then immediately the Bishops were imployed in honorary negotiations It was evident in the case of S. Ambrose For the Church of Millaine had him for their Bishop and the Emperour had him one of his prefects and the people their judge in causes of secular cognisance For when he was chosen Bishop the Emperour who was present at the election cryed out Gratias tibi ago Domine ... quoniam huic viro ego quidem commisi corpora tu autem animas meam electionem ostendisti tuae justitiae convenire So that he was Bishop and Governour of Millaine at the same time And therefore by reason of both these offices S. Austin was forc'd to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebam sicut volebam secludentibus me ab ejus aure atque ore catervis negotiosorum hominum quorum infirmitatibus serviebat And it was his owne condition too when he came to fit in the chayre of Hippo Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor And againe homines quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire cupientes quando eis necessarij fuerimus sic nos Sanctos Dei servos appellant ut negotia terrae suae peragant Aliquando agamus negotium salutis nostrae salut is ipsorum non de auro non de argento non de fundis pecoribus pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum terminemus It was almost the businesse of every day to him to judge causes concerning Gold and Silver Cattell and glebe and all appertenances of this life This S. Austin would not have done if it had not been lawfull so we are to suppose in charity but yet this we are sure of S. Austin thought it not only lawfull but a part of his duty quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus and that by the authority not of himselfe but of him that spake within him even the H. Ghost so he Thus also it was usuall for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Embassadours Constans the Emperour sent two Bishops chosen out of the Councell of Sardis together with Salianus the Great Master of his Army to Constantius * S. Chrysostom was sent Embassadour to Gainas Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Embassadour from the Emperour to Isdigerdes the King of Persia. S. Ambrose from Valentinian the yonger to the Tyrant Maximus * Dorotheus was a Bishop and a chamberlaine to the Emperour Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopall office and a secular dignity or imployment Now then Consider * The Church did not might not challenge any secular honour or imployment by vertue of her Ecclesiasticall dignity precisely 2. The Church might not be ambitious or indagative of such imployment 3. The Churche's interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such imployment but where there was no greater way of compensation was interrupted and depress'd 4. The Church though in some cases shee was allowed to make secession yet might not relinquish her owne charge to intervene in anothers ayd 5. The Church did by no meanes suffer her Clerks to undertake any low secular imployment much more did shee forbid all sordid ends and Covetous designes 6. The Bishop or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety though of secular burden Clerks were never forbidden to reade Grammer or Philosophy to youth to be Masters of Schooles of Hospitalls they might reconcile their Neighbours that were falne out about a personall trespasse or reall action and yet since now adayes a Clergy-man's imployment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit or reading deske or his study of Divinity at most these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing and yet no law of Christendome ever prohibited any of these or any of the like Nature to the Clergy nor any thing that is ingenuous that is fit for a Scholler that requires either finenesse of parts or great learning or overruling authority or exemplary piety 7. Clergy-men might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiours 8. The Bishops and Priests were men of Great ability and surest confidence for determinations of Iustice in which religion was ever the strongest binder And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forc'd the Bishops from their owne interest to serve the Common-wealth in it they serv'd themselves directly and by consequence too the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular arme but an addition of honour and secular advantages and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture and the practice of the Primitive Church and particularly of men whom all succeeding ages have put into the Calender of Saints * So that it would be considered that all this while it is the kings interest and the Peoples that is pleaded when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of publike trust It is no addition to the calling of Bishops It serves the King it assists the republike and in such a plethory and almost a surfet of Clergy-men as this age is supplied with it can be no disservice to the Church whole dayly offices may be plentifully supplyed by Vicars and for the temporary avocation of some few aboundant recompence is made to the Church which is not at all injured by becomming an occasion of indearing the Church to those whose aide shee is * There is an admirable epistle written by Petrus Blesensis in the name of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to P. Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely
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