Bishops only Presidents This is of no force for that Father had no occasion given him to reckon up the several Functions in the Church when he was writing an Apology for the Christians to the Roman Senate in which he gives a plain and simple account of their Faith and Worship but it had been to very little purpose for him to have told the Roman Senate what were the several Orders of Church-Offices among them And it is not improbable that both he and Tertullian might have used the Term President the rather because it would be the more easily understood by the Romans than either Bishop or Priest The sixth objection is from St. Cyprian who calls himself Praepositus or President But neither does this signifie much for we are to consider the sence of Authours not so much by some terms or words they use as by the formal accounts they give us when they come to treat expresly on any subject Therefore when we would examine that Father's opinion in this matter we are neither to consider what in modesty he writes to his Flock or Clergy nor what terms he makes use of but the sure way is to see what his sense of the Episcopal Authority was when he formally treated of it upon it's being questioned and to this we have reason to appeal St. Cyprian's Counsel was asked by Rogatian another Bishop concerning the censure of a Deacon who had carried himself insolently toward him to whom St. Cyprian writes that by the vigor of his Episcopat and the Authority of his Chair he had just power to have avenged that insolence instantly And toward the end he says these are the beginnings of Hereticks and the rise and attempts of ill meaning Schismaticks that they may please themselves and despise their Bishop with a swelling pride So men separate from the Church so a prophane Altar is set up without and so men rebel against the Peace of Christ and the divine Ordinance and Unity These words St. Cyprian writes like one that prophesied of the age we are born in and if he does not assert the Power of Jurisdiction to the height I leave to every ones eyes And the same Saint in another Epistle challenging the insolent presumption of some Priests hath these words There is no danger which we ought not now to fear our Lord being thus offended when some of the Priests who neither are mindful of the Gospel of their place or of the judgement to come and consider not that there is a Bishop set over them do assume all to themselves to the reproach and contempt of him that is set over them which was never at all done by any that went before us And another of his Epistles which is about the same subject concerning the Lapsed that had fallen in the persecution begins with these words Our Lord whose commands we ought to fear and observe when he was settling the Bishop's honour or authority and the rule of his Church says to Peter I say thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. From thence through the Revolution of times and successions the Ordination of Bishops and the account of the Church hath run down that the Church should be constituted upon Bishops and every Act of the Church should be governed by these Presidents or Praepositi as that Authour would have them called though he seems not to have considered that by this Saint they were not bare Overseers but had the whole power lodged with them Since then this is founded by the Divine Law I wonder at the bold rashness of some that wrote to me as they did since the Church is made up of the Bishops the Clergy and all that stand i. e. in the Faith or stand in the Worship And if in all these places St. Cyprian that lived within 140. years of the Apostles does not very formally assure us that both the full Authority was in the Bishop and that this was settled by Christ so that there remains no room for any shift or answer I appeal to you and every unprejudiced Reader But there is yet a clearer and less suspected testimony in St. Cyprian's works in an Epistle which the Clergy of Rome wrote to him when their See was vacant after Fabian's death from which we may judge what sense the Priests of that age had of the Episcopal Office These are their words after the death of Fabian of most noble memory There is no Bishop yet constituted among us by reason of the difficulty of affairs and the times who should regulate all these things and must consider the case of the Lapsed with authority and advice Can any thing be more evident than at that time which was but 150. years after the Apostles were dead it was acknowledged by the Priests that they had no full Authority to govern the Church when they wanted a Bishop Now if the difference between Bishop and Priest be only by Commission they being both the same Order then certainly in a vacancy the Priests have a full power But here we see the greatest company of Priests then in the Christian world did not think they were of the same Order or had the Authority of a Bishop even in a sede vacante The seventh objection is That Presbyters are ordained in the same form in which Christ ordained his Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins yo forgive they are forgiven them This must either prove nothing to the purpose or too much for if there be any strength in this consequence it must amount to this That all â—â—esbyters are of the same order the Apostles were of which certainly that Authour will think is too much The answer to it is given by St. Paul that there are diversities of operations administrations and gifts but it is the same God the same Lord and the same Spirit for all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit And since it is both by the authority and assistance of the Holy Ghost that all these offices are derived and discharged it is no argument to prove the Offices are the same because we pray that all may receive the Holy Ghost it being necessarily to be understood that every one receives it in his own order Nor do the following words of forgiving of sins prove any more but that both these offices are empowered to that equally For it is acknowledged that a Priest gives absolution as well as a Bishop but from their being both authorized equally in one thing it is somewhat a strange kind of inference to conclude there is nothing else which a Bishop has authority to do that is not competent to a Priest The last objection is from the inconvenience that must needs follow on our asserting Bishops and Priests to be of different orders since this must condemn and un-church all the foreign Churches which were indeed a very severe and uncharitable censure I know this is very popular
and Priest as it appeared in it's first Origination When Christ sent out his Apostles with an Universal jurisdiction as they gathered and planted Churches there was a necessity to fix some to have the charge of them and to labour in the conversion of others Now the Apostles having observed that Christ had in the institution of the Sacraments and many other things followed such customes as were received by the Jews they must certainly have likewise followed the same Rule for as the Gospel was first offered to the Jews so they raising their new superstructure on the foundation of Moses and the Prophets could not change the customs that were among the Jews and instituted by Moses further than was necessary for emancipating the Gentiles from that yoke Therefore every Church of Christians coming in place of the Temple of Ierusalem in which living Sacrifices were offered up to God instead of the dead ones that were then antiquated it was natural for them to take their Model from the Temple of Ierusalem as the Synagogues had also done in which there was one High Priest a company of Priests and Levites and this even St. Ierome who is in no small esteem with that Authour in that Epistle to Evagrius confirms to us in these words And that we may know the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the old Testament what Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are to claim to themselves in the Church But where the number of the Christians was small they made only one Bishop who as his charge encreased might ordain others to assist him This Epiphanins tells us he had from the most ancient or profoundest Histories and in a matter of Fact to distrust History where it is strengthned with high probabilities from the nature of things is Unreasonable There were two ranks of Christians the one was the Neophites or Novices who had lately received the Faith the other were the first fruits of the Gospel who as they had at the first Preaching received the Faith so had continued longer in it and these naturally must have been called the Seniors Elders or Presbyters There is one great errour that vulgar observers fall in of which though all Criticks have often given notice yet most people are still guilty of it which is to judge of all words and appellations according to the more received customes in or near their own time not examining how they were used in former Ages and till this caution be minded we must fall into frequent mistakes every hour So at first these names of Bishop and Presbyter were not used in that sence they came afterwards to be appropriated to any person that was of great and long standing in the Faith would have esteemed it an honour to have been called a Presbyter hence it is that there was not that nice and choice distinction of the terms which use did afterwards bring in Upon which I shall with all modesty suggest to you one thing which is not so much considered that though those who were chosen to look after the Poor be called Deacons in the 6. of the Acts yet we find that term in the New Testament is not at all restricted to that sence even after that appointment St. Paul calls Christ a Deacon Rom. 15. 8. He calls also the civil Powers the Deacons or as we render it the Ministers of God Rom. 13. 4. He calls all Church-men in general the Deacons of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 15. He calls the Apostles Deacons frequently 1 Cor. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 3. 6. and 6. cap. 4. v. and cap. 11. ver 23. and Eph. 3. 7. and Col. 1. 23 25. He calls Tychicus a Deacon Eph. 6. 21. and Col. 4. 7. He calls Epaphras a Deacon So also Timothy 1 Thes. 3. 2. So that we see this term is used in a great many other sences than that of a distributer of Charity among the Widows Therefore there is no reason to think that when St. Paul wrote to the Philippians to the Bishops and Deacons and when in his Epistle to Timothy he gives rules about Church-offices passing immediately from the Bishop to the Deacons that by Deacons we are only to understand the distributers of Charity which was not an office of such importance that they must have such extraordinary qualifications but that he is treating of some other standing Ministry in the Church in which all Christians were more concerned and therefore though the subsequent use of the Church appropriating the term Deacon to the other Function these places in the Epistles of St. Paul were generally applyed to these Deacons and the Translations of the New Testament as well the vulgar Latin as other modern ones into the vulgar Languages rendring the Greek of Deacon by the term Minister in all the other places I have marked This was less observed therefore there being so good ground to think that St. Paul in these Epistles is treating about Priests whom he calls by a common name Deacons or Ministers we have the disparity between these Offices clearly set down in the Scriptures Another thing is observable that as long as the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost continued there could not be such a critical distinction of Functions as came to be settled afterwards when that ceased for even the Laity were by these inspirations qualified to many things which can be no Presidents when that effusion of the Spirit is ceased So though while that extraordinary assistance continued there were not such clear traces of the several offices in the Church yet if as soon as that began to fail we find this distinction of orders appear clearly We have reason to conclude it could be no other way settled but as the Apostles had at first appointed Though while every one was so full of the Holy Ghost all these limits were not observed for any extraordinary emission of the Holy Ghost being above positive and constant rules it is not to be wondred if we have no such clear account of a formed and regulated society at the first planting of Churches in all Offices and Functions And yet we see the New Testament full of evidences that Christ and his Apostles intended there should be an eminence of Power committed to some Pastors beyond others So Christ gave that Universal Authority over all to his twelve Apostles so the Apostles had some Assistants whom though they employed on other Commissions yet their chief residence and work was in some particular Churches over which they were set And to such the Apostles write as to persons that had the charge and were accountable for these Churches And the reason of this was that since there could not be found such numbers of men sufficiently fitted for the work of the Gospel especially in those trying times Therefore it was to be depositated in a few hands who were of more approved sufficiency and worth the rest being to be directed and
because he finds the Apostles gave but one ordination which he cannot conceive how it could confer two distinct orders or Characters This is founded on a great mistake for pray cannot the same great Seal that affixed to one Writing does only confer the honour of Barronage when affixed to another Writing confer the dignities of Duke Marquess Earl Viscount and Baron So it is plain the Apostles when they were to send out any with a sacred commission by the same outward rite they might have conferred whatever authority they intended to confer For they declaring on what errant and with what power they sent out a person and imposing hands upon him that imposition confirmed the mission and authority committed to such persons So there was no need of their ordaining Church men through several degrees but as they saw men qualified they did ordain them and I do not question but with the â—ame imposition of hands and the same prayers and words they might have ordained two persons at once the one a Bishop the other a Priest For we are not to consider in an ordination the outward rite and prayers only but the preceding declaration made and the publick intention of those that ordain It is true we find by the ancientest Ordinals we have that there were some differences used in the consecration of Bishops that were not used when a Priest was ordained which may be reasonably judged were very ancient they held the Book of the Gospels over his head and shoulders and all the Bishops laid their hands on him one pouring out the blessing And Denis the Areopagite tells us that besides the imposition of hands and laying the Book of the Gospels on his head and the prayer He was marked by the Sign of the Cross and faluted by the Bishop and all the holy order And in the ordination of a Priest the Bishop and the Priests with him only laid their hands on his head and blessed him By which simplicity of their forms we may on the way observe how unlike the Primitive Church was to the Roman Church that abounds in so many superstitious fopperies with which their Pontificall is full There was also provision made that none should be made a Bishop till he had passed thorough inferiour degrees not from any such subtleties as School-men have since devised but that none might arrive at the highest order of the Church till he gave a sufficient trial of his faith and manners by his deportment in all the inferiour steps in which they intended he should stay so long that all might be well satisfied about him And in or a little before St. Cyprian's time they appointed some inferiour steps which were not sacred orders nor pretended to be Apostolical but degrees of probation through which those who intended to serve the Church should pass before they were made Deacons And this furnishes me with a very considerable remark to shew the fidelity of those Ages in the accounts they give us of Apostolical institutions for they do every where tell us there were but three sacred orders Deacon Priest and Bishop and no where study to make us believe these other degrees of Porters Readers Acolyths Exoreists and Sub-Deacons were Apostolical Now if the Episcopal superiority and power was a device of that Age or of the former why should they not have called all Apostolical as well as some parts of it But it is plain they were careful and conscientious in delivering punctually to us what was Apostolical and what only Ecclesiastical His third objection is because the Apostles call themselves sometimes Presbyters and no where Bishops this sure if it prove any thing must prove more than that Writer intends even that Presbyters are above Bishops He should also have considered that the Apostles do call themselves much oftner Deacons than Presbyters So if this argument be of force then the Deacons must be likewise of the same order with the Bishops But the true account of this is that the name Presbyter was used for any ancient person of Authority and among the Christians it signified a Christian of a long standing So upon both these accounts the Apostles being then both ancient men and of great authority and those that were the first fruits of the World unto Christ might well be called Presbyters though not in that sence by which the following ages understood that term For I do not question but the names of Bishops and Priests were at first promiscuously used and continued so even to Ireneus his time who in his Letter to Victor calls the Bishops of Rome that were before him Presbyters but afterwards those two terms were appropriated to that sence we now understand them in Or if you will stand upon the Apostles being called Presbyters to prove an equality or superiority of Presbyter over the Bishop Let me desire you to observe that St. Peter who calls himself an Elder yet puts us in mind that Bishops are above Presbyters for he tells us in that same Epistle that Christ was the Bishop of our Souls and in that subordination I acknowledge the Apostles were but Priests which perhaps gave occasion to Ignatius to resemble the Bishop and Presbyters to Christ and his Apostles Besides it is as unreasonable to build any opinion concerning these orders upon such humble expressions of the Apostles as if because a Prince or a General will ordinarily call his Souldiers fellow Souldiers that therefore they and he are of the same order The fourth objection is because St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks only of Bishops and Deacons It is true in one place he does say that the Apostles did ordain the first fruits of their labours having first tryed them in the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons But if what was before observed about the use of the Term Deacon be well grounded then St. Clement's words may be also very justly understood of Bishops and Priests but because this has the prejudice of novelty against it let us look further into that Epistle and we shall find it no less clear by other expressions that there were different orders in the Church though in that place he comprehends them under that common name for he commends them because they were subject to their Governours and gave all decent honour to their Presbyters and again says Let us reverence our Governours and honour our Presbyters and clearly applies the subordination that was in the Temple of Ierusalem of High-Priest Priest Levite and Lay-man to the Ecclesiastical constitution as will appear to any that will consider that Epistle From which I conclude that though St. Clement did comprehend Bishops and Priests under the common name of Bishop yet he shews us evidently there were Governours in the Church that were superiour to the Presbyters and to whom there were higher degrees of honour due and particular Ministrations proper as were to the High-Priest The fifth objection is that Iustin Martyr calls the