omnia ist a moderatur eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum authoritate consilio habere rationem And if in any case we receive a testimony it should be from the mouth of those who can only pretend to be injured My next witness shall be Dionysius of Alexandria whose same and authority was inferiour to none of the age he lived in I do not bring his words to prove there were Bishops in the Church in his time since that is denied by none But to prove how full and absolute the authority of the Bishops was then and that the Presbyters were simply determined by their commands Great care was used to keep the Christian Assemblies pure and therefore such as fell in scandalous sins chiefly these who apostatised in the persecution were not admitted to the Communion of the faithful but after a long and heavy penitence And a question rising What should be done with those who died before they finished their penitence he in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome telling that signal story of Serapion shews that in his Diocese the Presbyters sent the Eucharist to the sick who desired it though they died before they had compleated their penitence and he adds how this was by his authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where from the stile of ◠Command given by him which was the rule of his Presbyters and the rest of that Epistle it is as clear as any matter of fact can be that the authority of Bishops over their Presbyters was then full absolute and undisputed If we will believe Eusebius who certainly hath been a diligent and great Collector as any of all the Ancients the whole Tract both of his History and Chronology runs fully in this strain and he gives us the Catalogues of the Bishops of the Patriarchal Sees from the days of the Apostles to his own time And tho it is not to be denied that he hath been too credulous in some instances yet it is hard to think he could have been mistaken in such a Tract of so many particulars And we see from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the power of Metropolitans over Bishops was then accounted by that Council an ancient Custom neither was there ever any opposition made to this before Aërius who upon that account is reckoned an Heretick by Epiph. lib. 3. haer 75. and also by Augustin ad Quod vult Deum haer 53. Epiphanius adds that he was an Arrian and gives the account of his Opinion in this matter thus Aërius being a Presbyter in Sebastia was offended when Eustathius was preferred before him to that Bishoprick and tho Eustathius took all ways to gain him and committed the Xenodochium that was there to his inspection yet AErius too deeply irritated at the preference said Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum nihil differt hic ab illo unus enim est honor unus ordo una dignitas Imponit munus Episcopus ita etiam Presbyter lavacrum dat Episcopus similiter Presbyter Dispensationem cultûs divini facit Episcopus facit Presbyter similiter sedet Episcopus in throno sedet etiam Presbyter By which he deceived many and had divers followers but it seems they have died with their Author for we hear no more of them Medina in the Council of Trent numbred with AErius Jerome Ambrose Augustine Chrysostom Theodoret Primasius and Sedulius as if they had been of the same mind wherein he certainly spoke rashly and was either ignorant or indeliberate We have already considered both Jerome and Ambrose or rather Hilary the Deacon their opinions in this matter All that is gathered from Augustine is Ep. ad Hieronymum where he saith Quanquam secundum honorem vocabulorum quae jam usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major fit multis tamen in rebus Augustino Hieronymus major est Whence some would infer that the difference of these was only in words and brought in but by custom But how thin and weak this is it being but a smooth Complement will appear to all especially if they set it in the balance with the great evidence that stands upon the other side Chrysostom hom II. on I Tim. when he is giving the reason why the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons without giving rules to Presbyters saith the reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after he taxeth what that little betwixt them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is far from saying that they were all one and that there ought to be no difference betwixt them Chrysost. also in his first Homily on the Phil. I. cap. on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Quid hoc rei est An unius Civitatis plures erunt Episcopi nullo modo Verum sic Presbyteros vocavit tunc enim nomina invicem communicabant Diaconus dicebatur Episcopus And there he shews that Bishop and Presbyter were taken promiscuously for which he cites that of Timothy's being ordained by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery which he saith is to be understood of Bishops Quia Presbyteri Episcopum non ordinassent And a little after Etiam Presbyteri olim appellabantur Episcopi Diaconi Christi Episcopi Christi unde nunc etiam multi Presbyteri Diaconi scribuntur Episcopi But he adds that in process of time each had their proper names appropriated to them OEcumeneus and Theophylact in this and all other things follow Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also Primasius who on I Tim. 3. gives the reason why the Presbyters are not named Eos in Episcoporum ordine comprehendit quia secundus imo pene unus est gradus Sedulius Scotus on the I. of Titus saith verbatim that which Jerome hath on the same place and so it is to be considered as all one with him on the matter But Theodoret's opinion is a little more perplext who on I Tim. tells that the same persons were called sometimes Presbyters sometimes Bishops but these who are now called Bishops were then called Apostles and that in the progress of time they left the name of Apostles and the name of Bishops was appropriated to them who were first called Apostles Thus he These words it seems dropped from him without consideration for there is no shadow of ground to believe it was so otherwise how came it that the Apostle gave no rules for them under that name But these words are sufficiently tossed by Petavius and Wallo Messalinus And thus far we have an ingenuous account of the various Sentiments of the Fathers about the disparity of Bishops and Presbyters The next thing in this Canon to be consider'd is what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is unquestionable that by this is understood Ordination by Imposition of hands for all the Ancients use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously But Criticks judge that by the former we are to understand
Isidorus Mercator and Dionysius Exiguns read it as appears by their Latin versions which are Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis licet sine Episcopi praecepto aliquid amplius imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus ' in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere And this is according to Binius's Edition of them But in another Edition of Dionysius Exiguus by Iustellus he seems to have read it simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any supplement Another old Latin Edition published by Iustellus hath Sed neque Presbyteris civitatis licere sine jussione Episcopi sed cum ejusdem literis eundi ad singulas Parochias Ioannes Antiochen in his Collectio Canonum reads it simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ferrandus in his Breviatio Canonum Canon 92. cites this part of the Canon thus Ut Presbyteri civitatis sine jussu Episcopi nihil jubeant nec in unaguaque Paroeciâ aliquid agant Alexius Aristinus in his Synopsis hath the first part of the Canon but wants the second part And in his Gloss agrees with Zonaras as was before observed And so doth Simeon Logotheta in his Epitome Canonum And by this diversity of reading it will appear how little ground there is for founding any thing upon this Canon alone especially when that alledged from it is contradicted by undeniable Evidences But as Presbyters might not ordain without Bishops so neither could Bishops ordain without the advice consent and concurrence of their Presbyters Conc. Carth. 4. Canon 22. Ut Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet ita ut cirvium testimonium coâ—â—iventiam quaerat And it was laid to Chrysostone's charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the Roman Council held by Sylvester if credit be due to the Registers of that Council which are indeed justly questionable it was decreed cap. 11. that one was to be ordained a Presbyter cum omnes Presbyteri declararent firmarent sic ad ordinem Presbyterii accederet And none was to be made a Bishop nisi omnis Clerus expeteret uno voto perenni It is likewise certain that all things were done by the joint advice of Bishop and Presbyters Neither were these wretched contests of the limits of Power much thought on or tossed among them The Bishops pretending to no more than Presbyters were willing to yield to them and Presbyters claiming no more than Bishops were ready to allow them Their contentions lay chiefly with these that were without those intestine Fewds and Broils being reserved for our unhappy days But as we find Cyprian amply declaring how he resolved to do nothing without the consent of his Clergy and People so in the African Churches that course continued longest in vigor Divers instances whereof appear in the 4. Council of Carthage one I have already cited to which I shall add three more Can. 23. Episcopus nullius causans audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentiâ confirmetur Can. 34. Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur And Can. 35. Episcopus in Ecclesiâ in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum vero collegam Prebyterorum sese esse cognoscat There were two ranks of Presbyters as clearly appears from the 13. Canon of Neocesareo to wit the Presbyters of the City and the Presbyters of the Country The former were the more eminent in so far that the latter might not consecrate the Eucharist within the Church of the City in their presence which appears from the cited Canon Over the Presbyters of the Country were the Chorepiscopi of whom already but the Presbyters of the City being next at hand were the Bishops Counsel and advisers in all matters The Bishop and they had the oversight of the Souls within the City They were also to be maintained out of the Treasury of the Church and were called Canonici or Praebendarii The reason why they were called Canonici was either because of their regular observing of the course of Worship and hours of Prayer or because of the distributions that were made among them according to the Canon or Rule and from the share that was assigned to them called Praebenda they got the name Praebendarii This Consessus or Collegium Presbyterorum was afterwards designed by the barbarous word Capitulum The chief over them or the Vice praeses next to the Bishop was called Archipresbyter or Decanus Idem quod decurio qui decem militibus praeerat And insensibly the whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction crept into their hands The Presbyters of the Country either neglecting it or being neglected in it But without the Capitulum nothing that the Bishop did was valid However when the first servor and vigor of Church Discipline slacken'd avarice and ambition creeping in apace into the Hearts of Churchmen these Chanoins or Praebends not contented with their allowances out of the Church of the City which were too small for their growing desires got Churches in the Country annexed to them and for most part serv'd them by Substitutes except at the return of some solemn Festivities and by this means it was that Church Discipline fell totally into the Bishops hands and the ancient model being laid aside new Courts which were unknown to Antiquity were set up As these of the Arch-deacons Chancellors Officials Surrogates c. However the Praebends though they had deserted their Interest in Church-Discipline yet two things they stuck to because of the advantage and power that followed them The one was the capitular Elections of the Bishop and the other was the meddling with and disposing of the Church Revenues and Treasure But it was a gross Contradiction to the ends of Government that the Bishop alone might manage the Spiritual part of his Charge but must be limited to the advice of his Presbyters for the governing of the Temporality Yet this was a farther proof of that saying Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit matrem And thus far we have seen what Interest Presbyters had within their own Parish mark that at first the Bishops Precinct was called Parish and not Diocese neither was the meeting of the Bishop with his Presbyters called a Synod by which we see how weak that Allegiance is that there were no Diocesan Bishops in the first Centuries it being merely a playing with the word Diocess But let us next consider what Interest Presbyters had in Provincial or National Councils If that of the Acts 15. was a Synod in it we have Presbyter subscribing with the Apostles Brethren are also there added not as if there had been any Laicks elected out of the Laity such as these are who are now vulgarly called Lay-Elders but some more eminent Christians whom as the Apostles call'd then so the Bishops continued afterward to consult and advise with in Ecclesiastick matters But that Presbyters sate in Provincial Synods in the first and purest Ages is undeniably
OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIRST and SECOND OF THE CANONS Commonly ascribed to the Holy Apostles WHEREIN An Account of the Primitive Constitution and Government of Churches is contained Drawn from ancient and acknowledged Writings GLASGOW By Robert Sanders Printer to the City and University 1673. The FIRST CANON 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop shall be ordained by two or three Bishops A BISHOP THIS word is sometime taken for a Spy so Estathius ad Homeri K. sometime for a Defender so Hector was called Bishop of Troy by Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was among the Athenians a publick Office so called and in this sense it was also used among the Romans so Cicero ad Atticum Lib. 7. Epist. 11. tells That Pompey would had him to be quem tota compania maritima ora habeant Episcopum ad quem delectus summa negotii referatur ff de mun hon leg ult parag item Episcopi sunt qui praesunt pani caeteris rebus vaenalibus This term is sometime in the Old Testament And Clemens Romanus Epist. ad Rom. proves Bishop and Deacon to be no new terms from Isai. 60.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in our Edition we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where on the way mark how different the present Edition of the Septuagint is from that which Clemens made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also Psalm 109.8 Among the Iews he who was the chief of the Synagogue was called Chazan hakeneseth the Bishop of the Congregation and Sheliach tsibbor the Angel of the Church And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be as they retained many of the Rites so the form of their Government was continued and the names remained the same But more of this afterward Clemens Romanus in his Epistle speaks only of Bishops and Deacons Polycarp again in his Epistle speaks only of Presbyters and Deacons where some object that it would seem that both in the Church of Corinth to which Clement wrote and in that of Philippi to which Polycarp wrote there were but two Orders of Churchmen whom the one calls Bishops the other Presbyters But if Polycarp's Epistle be genuine then these of Ignatius which he there mentions must be so too and in them the matter is past Controversie Epiphanius lib. 3. baer 75. tells that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons which he saith he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that ubi Episcopi erant jam constituti scripsit Episcopis Diaconis Non enim omnia statim potuerunt Apostoli constituere Presbyteris enim opus est Diaconis per hos enim duos Ecclesiastica compleri possunt ubi vero non inventus est quis dignus Episcopatu permansit locus sine Episcopo Ubi autem opus fuit erant digni Episcopatu constituti sunt Episcopi cum autem multitudo non esset non inventi sunt inter ipsos qui Presbyteri constituerentur contenti erant solo Episcopo in loco constituto Verum sine Diacono impossibile est esse Episcopum So it seems that from these profound Histories which he had read it appeared that in some Villages there were only Presbyters and no Bishops because in those places none were found worthy of it But certainly these places were obliged to depend upon some place where there was a Bishop constitute For if none were worthy to be Bishops much less were they worthy to constitute a Church within themselves and independent It also appears that in some places at first they had no Presbyters And indeed where the number of Christians was so small as no doubt it was in many places at first a Bishop alone might well have served a whole City But where the Christians were more numerous there were need of more hands to assist the Bishop in his work As for that of Polycarp's naming no Bishop but only Presbyters and Deacons perhaps he wrote in the vacancy of the See so we find many Letters of Cyprian's ad Clerum Romanum when there was no Bishop Besides it is known that at first the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used promiscuously Presbyters were so called not from their age as they were men but from the age of their Christianity For a Neophite was not to be ordained and the Presbyters did jointly with the Bishop both rule and feed the flock But some do stretch this too far as if always the eldest Presbyter had been chosen Bishop The Commentaries upon the Epistles commonly called Ambrose's but truly Hilary the Deacons of which I shall say nothing it being now agreed among the Criticks that they are his upon the 4th of the Eph. After he hath at length shewn the difference which was betwixt the Churches in the Apostles times when they were not fully constitute and the ages that succeeded he tells how at first all in the Clergy baptized and preached and that on any day or where they had opportunity But afterwards Deacons were restrained in this and things were astricted to certain times and places Hinc est ergo saith he unde nunc neque Diaconi in populo praedicant nec Clerici nec Laici baptizant Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta Nam Timotheum à se creatum Presbyterum Episcopum nominat quia primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Denique apud AEgyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus sed quia coeperunt praesentes Episcopi indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum Multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temere usurparet esset multis scandalo And like to this is what he saith on 1 Tim. 3. from which words it would appear that he thought the Elder Presbyter without any Election or Ordination succeeded unto the Chair of the deceased Bishop But this is directly contrary even to what Ierome himself saith neither do we find any such constitution as that he mentions either in the Acts of the Council of Nice or of any other It is true Clemens Romanus saith That the Apostles ordained their first fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Bishops and Deacons of them who should afterward believe but he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trying them by the Spirit that of discerning spirits being among their extraordinary gifts and though they ordained no Neophyte yet there is no reason to believe that either they made the eldest Christians Presbyters or the eldest Presbyters Bishops The choice of Matthias and of the seven Deacons shews that it went not simply by age St. Iames the younger was Bishop of Ierusalem and Timothy was but young when ordained Yet the
all that pertained to the Ordination and the whole Office of it and that the latter is to be restrained to that particular rite of Imposition of hands given in the Ordination Nor do I remember of any place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands for the Election of Churchmen except in the fifth Canon of Laodicea which discharges it to be in the presence of the hearers and if we compare that with the 13th Canon of the same Council which discharges the popular elections we shall see the reason why they likewise forbid the elections to be in the peoples hearing which was for avoiding tumults Balsamon on this Canon refutes their mistake who understood it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who founded their gloss on that Canon of Laodicea which Zonaras and Aristenus doth Quae enim fit in Ecclesia ordinatio per preces mysticas peragitur etiamsi fiat coram multis And he proves his gloss from the 4. Canon of Nice which appoints the elections of the Bishops to be by the whole Bishops of the Province or by three at least Therefore this Canon cannot be meant of the elections of Bishops since two suffice by this rule for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the recurring of this same word in the next Canon he confirms his assertion since Presbyters and Deacons were not according to him elected by Suffrages Whence we see how groundless a nicety theirs is who would distinguish them as if the former had been the election the latter the ordination It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Greek Authors almost constantly taken for the election of Magistrates which was ordinarily done in Greece by the extention or elevation of the hand so Budaeus upon the word and Cicero pro Flacco speaks of their psephismata porrigenda manu profundendoque clamore concitata But that distinction is not observed in sacred Writings in which these minute critical Modes of speaking are not attended to and since before they were to lay on hands they were to stretch forth their hands on the head of the person this word is not improperly used for that action and therefore Acts 14. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of Paul and Barnabas their ordaining of Elders where it is clear it cannot be meant of the election by the people but of their Ordination of Pastors This word in Scripture is also used for an appointment or election Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for GOD's election and 2 Cor. 8.19 it is applied to these who were chosen to carry a Message As for the Ordination of Churchmen it is nothing else but a solemn Ceremony of blessing them by laying on of hands We find of old that all who were called out for any Divine Service were solemnly separated for it so were both Kings Priests and Prophets And the Law of Nature saith that to all Functions for which a great veneration is due there should be a solemn Inauguration The laying of the hand upon the head was the rite of Benediction Gen. 48. 14. Jacob blessing Joseph's Children doth it with that Ceremony In like manner Deut. 34. 19. did Moses bless Joshuah We see also by the sinners laying on their hands on the head of the Sacrifice that is was a Ceremony used in the devoting of things to GOD whence might rise that phrase among the Latins caput devovere And upon these accounts this was appropriated to the Ordination of Churchmen who are to be both blessed and devoted to GOD. We find this ceremony also used in the New Testament on many and different occasions sometimes when they healed diseases Mark 16. 8. They shall lay their hand on the sick and they shall recover And our LORD usually touched the sick with his hand Acts 28. 8. S. Paul lays his hands on Publius Likewise when they conferred the holy Ghost on any who were baptized they used this ceremony so Acts 8.17 and 19. 6. And farther when they appointed any for the Ministery of the Gospel they separated and blessed them by the laying on of hands so 1 Tim. 4.15 and 5.22 and 2 Tim. 1.6 Deacons were also ordained by this ceremony Acts 6. 6. As also when they sent any on a particular mission though already sanctified for the work of the Gospel they laid hands on them so Acts 13. 3. Paul and Barnabas were ordained for the Ministery of the Gentiles From all which it is clear that they used imposition of hands as the constant ceremony of Benediction and as a concomitant of it and not as a ceremony of it self significant and sacramental Among the Ancients Imposition of hands was used not only in Confirmation which is undoubted and is by many founded on that of Hebrews 6.2 where laying on of hands being joined with Baptism and reckoned among foundations seems to be common to all Christians But they also used it in the receiving of penitents so 19th Canon of Laodicea As for the form of ordaining Bishops we see here it was to be done by Bishops which is agreed to by all only Eutychius seems to say that in Alexandria Presbyters ordained the Bishop But as for the number of the Bishops who were to ordain this seems to be later and more sutable to the state of the Churches after they were constituted than while they were under persecution The number of three was appointed Conc. Arel 1. Can. 21. Nic. Can. 4. Arel 2. Can. 5. Carth. 2. Can. 12. And see more of this Gratian dist 64. This seems to have been founded on Timothy's Ordination which is said to have been done by the Presbytery which Chrysostom understands of a Company of Bishops But it is not probable that in the time of persecution when Bishops neither durst leave their own flocks nor meet in any number this was then observed and divers accounts are given of Ordinations where we hear only of one Bishop ordaining Gregory Thaumaturg was ordained by Fidimus Bishop of Amasia who went to the Wilderness to seek him And there are many instances among the Lives of the Solitaries of such as were brought to a Bishop and ordained by him without any other assisting him So Synesius Epist. 67. tells how Siderius was ordained a Bishop only by Philo Bishop of Cyrene and tho he call that a Transgression of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confesseth it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since he was neither ordained in Alexandria nor by three Bishops yet he justifies it from the necessity of the times wherein such freedom of Assemblies was not safe And Gregory the Great allowed Augustine to ordain alone in England who upon that did ordain some Bishops alone as Beda relates Dionysius the Areopagite cap. 5. de Eccles. hierar giving the account of the Ordination of Bishops represents it as done by one person Anno 555 after Vigilius Bishop of Rome his death Pelagius who
difference of Bishop and Presbyter seems not to have been unknown to Clemens as appears from these savings of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositis vestris subditi seniores inter vos debito honore prosequentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui nobis praesunt revereamur seniores inter nos honoremus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which by the words that follow must certainly relate to some Ecclesiastical constitution among themselves to which he accommodates the terms of the Temple Hierarchy All which I propose without any peremptory decision in this matter submitting it to the judgment of the impartial Reader For I know there are exceptions against these words yet they do clearly imply a difference and subordination betwixt the Presbyters and their Presidents and what he saith of the ranks of the High Priest the Priests the Levites and the Laicks hath certainly a relation to the Orders of the Church The next opinion about the Origine of Episcopacy is that of Ierome and he hath given it very fully both in his Epistle to Evagrius and on the Epist. to Titus cap. 1. He holds that all things at first were governed in the Church communi Presbyterorum consilio and that the Bishops were above the Presbyters non ex dispositione dominicâ sed ex Ecclesiae consuetudine And by divers arguments from Scripture he proves that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same Acts 20. they who v. 17. are called Presbyters are v. 28. called Bishops Titus 1.5 he left him to ordain Elders and v. 7. it is added For a Bishop c. Whence he infers that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same As also Phil. 1. the Apostle writes only to Bishops and Deacons And 1 Tim. 3. he gives the Rules only to Bishops and Deacons S. Peter also called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And S. Iohn designs himself the Elder But he adds after there arose Schisms and one said I am of Paul c. Toto orbe decretum est ut unus caeteris super imponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur ut Schismatum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnis sollicitudo est delata And ad Evagrium he tells how Alexandriae à Marco Evangelist â usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Quid enim excepta ordinatione facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non facit Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae fuerunt in Templo hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia And from these words we may observe that he accounted the difference of Bishop and Presbyter an Apostolical tradition which came in place of the difference that was betwixt Aaron and his Sons as also that this began from the time of the Apostles and of Mark the Evangelist That it was done to evite Schism and that it was appointed through the whole World as also that the whole care and chief Power was in the hands of the Bishop of which he saith further Dial adv Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiâ efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes It may seem likewise probable from him that Presbyters choosed their Bishop out of their own number and that in Alexandria they made him Bishop without any new Ordination And of this Eutychius Patriarcha Alex. who was not very long after Ierome speaks more plainly for he in his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published by Selden pag. 29.30 tells that there were twelve Presbyters constitute by S. Mark and when the See was vacant they did chuse one of their number to succeed and to be their Head and the rest laid their hands upon him and bless'd him yet this cannot hold true as shall afterwards appear But all Ignatius his Epistles are full of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops not without very hyperbolical magnifications of the Bishops Office It is true in the vulgar Editions these expressions are much more frequent but in the Medicean Codex published by Vossius which agrees not only with the old Latin one published by Usher but also with the citations of Theodoret and Athanasius and other ancient Writers which they have taken out of them there is a great deal of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops Ep. ad Tral he saith Necessarium est quemadmodum facitis sine Episcopo nibil operari Omnes revereantur Episcopum ut Iesum Christum existentem filium Patris Presbyteros autem ut concilium Dei conjunctionem Apostolorum To the Ephes. he bids them be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concludes that they should obey these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his Epist. to the Magnesians he saith Quantum Episcopum quidem vocant sine ipso autem omnia operantur wherefore he adviseth them ut omnia operentur praesidente Episcopo in loco Dei Presbyteris in loco confessionis Apostolorum And there he speaks of the age of Damas their Bishop who was but a young man which he calls according to the vulgar Edition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the Medicean Codex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which some will infer that Episcopacy was then newly invented but suppose that were the true reading which some question who in this prefer the vulgar reading it is clear from the whole Epistle that he is speaking of the Bishops age and not of Episcopacy And from 2 Tim. 2.22 we see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly youthful and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that which is new And what tho Ignatius who lived so near the Apostles time did call Episcopacy a new Order Many other places to the same purpose of the difference among these Offices occur through all his Epistles neither is there any room for debate but if these Epistles be his the difference of Bishop and Presbyter hath begun in the Apostolical times But that debate would prove too long a digression here therefore I refer the Reader if he desire a full discussion of that question to the incomparably learned and exact defence of them lately published by Doctor Pearson whose harvest is so full that he hath not so much as left work for a gleaner That of the Angel in the Revelation is brought by many and that not without ground to prove that there was some singular person in these Churches to whom each Epistle was directed and we have a great deal of reason to believe that Polycarp was then Bishop of the Church of Smyrna Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. and apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 13. tells that Polycarp was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now Irenaeus tells how he was Polycarp his hearer and disciple
meeting places and consequently several persons to preside and officiate in these meetings But Damasus and Platina reckon that Evaristus who was Bishop of Rome about the 106 year was the first qui titulos in urbe Româ Presbyteris divisit so that before his time the Presbyters have all officiated here or there indefinitely according to the Bishop's appointment And Evaristus seems to have given them assignments to particular places As for the meaning of the word Tituli it is to be considered that the Christians met about the places where the Martyrs were buried and so their meeting places were called Memoriae Martyrum Now upon Burials some title or inscription being usually made it followed that the place of the burial or Gravestone was called Titulus among the Latins so Gen. 35.20 Jacob's erecting a Pillar upon Rachels Grave is rendred by the vulgar Latin erexit titulum super sepulchrum and Gen. 28.18 of Jacob's stone at Bethel it is said erexit in titulum and 2 Sam. 18. Absalom his Pillar is called Titulus Hence it is that Evaristus his dividing of the titles is to be understood of his giving particular assignments of several Churches to Presbyters The next thing to be examined is what were the actions appropriated to Bishops If we believe Ierome the Bishop did nothing which Presbyters might not do except Ordination By which we see that he judged Ordination could not be done without the Bishop Athanasius in his second Apology inserts among other papers an Epistle of the Synod of Alexandria mentioning that Ischyras his Ordination by Coluthus being questioned and examined and it being found that Coluthus had never been ordained a Bishop but that he had falsly pretended to that Title and Character all the Ordinations made by him were annulled and Ischyras with such others who were so ordained were declared Laicks Which is an undeniable instance that at that time it was the general sense of the Church that none but a Bishop might ordain Neither in any Author do we meet with an instance of any that were ordained by Presbyters save one that Cassian who was about the 500. year Collat. 4. cap. 1. gives of one Paphnutius a Presbyter in the Desert of Scetis who delighting in the Vertues of one Daniel ut quem vitae meritis gratiâ sibi parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii ordine festinaret Eum Presbyterii honori provexit But what a few devout solitaries might do in a desert and undiscerned corner will be no precedent for a constituted Church else we may allow of Baptism with sand for that was once done in a Desert But Socrates had another Opinion of this who lib. 1. cap. 27. tells that Ischyras did a thin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the third Council of Toledo set down by Gratian dist 23. cap. 14. this Canon was made Quorundam Clericorum dum unus ad Presbyterium duo ad Levitarum ministerium sacrarentur Episcopus oculorum dolore detentus fertur manum suam super eos tantum imposuisse Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum ordinem benedictionem dedisse sed quia jam ille examini divino relictus humano judicio accusari non potest ii qui supersunt gradum Sacerdotii vel Levitici ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt amittant By which we see how far they were from allowing of any Ordination wherein a Bishop had not intervened It is further clear that the Bishop was looked upon as the Pastor of the Flock who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Presbyters or Deacons could finish nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was to give an account of the Souls of the people and indeed in these days a Bishoprick was onus more than honos The common treasury of the Church was also committed to his care so infra Can. 4. And as the Offerings of the faithful were laid down at the Apostles feet Acts 4.3.4 so were the collectae and the other goods of the Church laid in their hands For all the goods os the Church and collectae were at first deposited in the Bishop's hand and distributed by him tho afterwards there was an OEconomus appointed for that work Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes tells that they were to do nothing without their Bishop And ad Smyrn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 5. Canon of Laodicea they might no nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Can. 19. Arel 1. As for Baptism Tertull de bapt saith Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non quidem sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae bonum quo salvo salva pax est alioquin laicis etiam jus est Firmilian ad Cyprianum which is reckoned the 75. among Cyprian his Epistles faith Majores natu and by what is a little after where he calls these Bishops it is clear he means not of Presbyters in Ecclesiâ praesidebant baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi potestatem possidebant Pacian serm de Bapt. Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate spiritus super funditur utraque purgantur Chrismate spiritus super funditur utraque vero ist a manu ore Antistitis impetramus And even Ierome himself contra Luciferianos saith Sine Chrismate Episcopi jussione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habent baptizandi By all which we see that Baptism was chiefly the Bishop's work and that the Presbyters did not baptize without his order As for the Eucharist Ignatius ad Smyrnenses saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin in his second Apol. giving the account of their Eucharist and whole service reckons all to have been managed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Tert. de cor mil. Non de aliorum quam praesidentium manibus sumimus But all this is very unjustly applied by such as would pretend to the whole Ecclesiastical Authority but would exempt themselves from the great labor of it For it is clear that according to the primitive constitution the Bishop was the immediate Pastor of the flock and the Presbyters were assumed by him in partem sollicitudinis the greatest of the load still lying on his own shoulders and this might have been some way managed by him where the Dioceses were smaller But the enlarging of the Dioceses hath wholly altered the figure of Primitive Episcopacy All that the Bishop can now do being to try entrants well and oversee these that are in charge which ought not to be performed either by these overly visitations in Synods or by a pompous procession through the Diocese but by a strict and severe Examen both of their lives and labors performed in such visitations as are sutable to the simplicity and humility of the Gospel As for Preaching it was ordinary at first even for persons not ordained to preach not to mention that of the Corinthians where every one brought his Psalm his
sub Sylv. cap. 5. decreed it But as that Council is much suspected so the reason there given is a very poor one Quia Christus dicitur à Chrismate But Canon sixth Cod. Afric is more authentick ut Chrisma à Presbyteris non fiat And Synod Tolet. Can. 20. Quamvis pene ubique custodiatur ut absque Episcopo nemo Chrisma conficiat tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel Provinciis dicuntur Presbyteri Chrisma consicere placuit ex hoc die nullum alium nisi Episcopum hoc facere And the Areopagite as he at length describes it and descants upon it so he appropriates it to the Bishop Gregory the Great lib. 3. Epist. 9. writing to Ianuarius Bishop of Caralis in Sardinia discharges Presbyters to anoint with the Chrisma on the brow appointing that to be reserved to the Bishop for Sardinia and the other Isles had observed the customs of the Greek Church but Gregory Epist. 26. writing to that same person tells that he heard how some were scandalized because he had discharged Presbyters the use of the Chrisma which he therefore takes off in these words Et nos quidem secundum usum veterem Ecclesiae nostrae fecimus sed si omnino hac de re aliqui contristantur ubi Episcopi desunt ut Presbyteri etiam in frontibus baptizatos Chrismate tangere debeant concedimus But 200 years afterwards Nicolaus first Bishop of Rome observed not that moderation For the Bulgarians who were converted by the Greeks receiving the Chrisma from the Presbyters according to the custom of that Church Nicolaus sent Bishops to them and appointed such as had been confirmed by Presbyters to be confirmed again by Bishops But upon this Photius who was then Patriarch of Constantinople called a Synod it which it was decreed that the Chrisma being hallowed by a Bishop might be administred by Presbyters And Photius in his Epistle contends that a Presbyter might unguento signare sanctificare consummatos angere expiatorium donum baptizato consummare as well as he might either baptize or offer at the Altar But Nicolaus impudently denied that this had ever been permitted and upon this account it is that many of the Latins have charged the Greek Church as if there were no Confirmation used among them But this challenge is denied and rejected by the Greeks And so much of the Minister of Confirmation It is in the last place to be considered what value was set upon this action and for what ends it was practised in the Church We have already heard Augustin call it a Sacrament It is likewise so termed by Cyprian Epist. 72. and in the Records of the Council held by him for the rebaptizing of Hereticks But as was marked before they took that term largely for an holy rite or symbolical action Whereas a Sacrament strictly taken is a holy rite instituted by Christ for a federal stipulation by which the promises of the Gospel are sealed and grace conveyed to the worthy receivers Now in this sense it is visible that Confirmation is no Sacrament it neither being instituted by Christ nor having any grace appended to it Neither is it so totally distinct from Baptism being but a renovation of the baptismal Vow joined with Prayer and a solemn benediction Some have thought that Confirmation was only used by the Ancients as an appendix or a consummatory rite of Baptism which mistake is founded upon this that some of the riper age being baptized got this imposition of hands after Baptism For the clearing of which some things must be considered First The Ancients used an imposition of hands before Baptism to such as were admitted to be Catechumens who were in the Christian Church like the Proselytes of the gates among the Iews for they having renounced Idolatry were admitted to some parts of the Christian worship and instructed in the faith for some time before they could commence Christians And an imposition of hands was used when any were admitted to this Order so it is express in the 39. Canon of Elib and in the Greek Euchology there is a prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where it is said Inflat signat manum imponit And in the Liturgy called S. Marks Quotquot ad Baptismum dispositi estis accedite ac manus impositionem benedictionem accipite dem manum imponit Sacerdos And Euseb. de vitae Const. lib. 4. faith of Constantine Confessione factâ precum particeps factus est per impositionem manuum The Areopagite makes mention also of this as done twice before Baptism and Aug. de mer. remis pec lib. 2. cap. 26. Catechumenum secundum quendam modum suum per signum orationem manuum impositionis puto sanctificari And Cyprian ad Steph. makes Baptism a superaddition to that imposition of hands which he draws from the example of Cornelius upon whom the Spirit falling first he was afterward baptized It is true he is there speaking of such as turned from Heresie who he judged should be rebaptized after an imposition of hands first given them But as the 39. Canon of Elib speaks of an imposition of hands given before Baptism so the 7. Canon of that same Council mentions another given after it Si quis Diaconus regens plebem sine Episcopo vel Presbyteris aliquos baptizaverit eos per benedictionem perficere debebit And by the 33. Canon of that Council any Laick that was baptized and was no Bigamus might baptize a Catechumen if sick Ita ut si supervixerit ad Episcopum cum perducat ut per manus impositionem perficere or as others read it perfici possit If the first be the reading it will relate to Confirmation if the second it will relate to the compleating of the Baptism The 48. Canon of Laodicea is Illuminatos post baptisma unguento caelesti liniendos esse To infer from that that Confirmation was immediately to follow upon Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not imply that it was to be done immediately after but only that Baptism was to go before it and we find that same phrase in the Canons immediately preceding this applied to such as had been of a great while baptized But tho such as were of riper years had been confirmed immediately after they received Baptism it will no more prove that Confirmation was an appendix of Baptism than that the Eucharist was so likewise which was also given to them at the same time So the Areopagite tells how such as were baptized were carried by the Priest to the Bishop Ille vero unguento consecrato virum ungens sacrosanctae Eucharistiae participem esse pronunciat And tho even Children were confirmed immediately after Baptism that doth not prove the one but a rite of the other for we find that not only in the African Churches but also in the Roman Church the custom of giving Children the Eucharist immediately after Baptism continued long for the Ordo
Romanus held by some a work of the eleventh Century appoints that Children be permitted to eat nothing after they are baptized till they received the Eucharist That same practice is also mentioned by Hugo the S. Victore lib. 1. cap. 20. in the twelfth Century And all the Greek Writers assert the necessity of Childrens receiving the Eucharist and yet none asserted the Eucharist to be but a rite of Baptism Cornelius tells of Novatian apud Eusebium lib. 6. hist. cap. 35. how he was baptized Clinicus and being recovered nec reliquorum particeps factus quae secundum Canones Ecclesiae obtinere debuerat nec ab Episcopo obsignatus est It is true it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were explicative of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the former words he said he wanted whence some infer that Confirmation was but one of the Baptismal rites But it is clear that the true reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Nicephorus hath read it quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Yet from the Story it appears that Confirmation was judged only necessary ad bone esse and not to the esse of a Christian since notwithstanding the want of this Fabian Bishop of Rome ordained Novatian a Presbyter The Greek Euchology shews that such as were baptized were after their baptism anointed and so to be confirmed and it subjoyning that the Eucharist was to be given to them proves no more the one to be a rite of Baptism than the other The whole current of the Fathers runs that in Confirmation the holy Ghost was conferred August de Bapt. cont Donatistas lib. 3. cap. 16. Spiritus sanctus in solâ Catholicâ per manus impositionem dari dicitur which he derives from the Apostles tho these extraordinary effects of speaking of Tongues or the like did not follow upon it Sed invisibiliter latenter per vinculum pacis est eorum cordibus charitas divina inspirata And concludes Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem And certainly were Confirmation restored according to the Apostolical practice and managed with a primitive sincerity nothing should give more probable hopes of a recovery of the Christian Church out of the darkness and deadness in which it hath continued so long It might quicken persons more seriously to consider to what they were engaged in Baptism when they were put to so solemn a renovation of it But the more denuded it were of all unnecessary rites such as Oil and the like it might be more sutable to the Evangelical Spirit And we see likewise from Antiquity that there is no reason for appropriating this action wholly or only to the Bishop It should not be gone about till the person were ripe in years and not only able by rote to recite a Catechism but of a fitness to receive the Eucharist immediately after But I shall conclude this whole matter with Calvin's words lib. 4. Instit. cap. 19. sect 4. sequentibus where after he hath laid out the primitive practice of Confirmation he subjoins Haec disciplina si bodie valeret profecto parentum quorundam ignavia acueretur qui liberorum institutionem quasi rem nihil ad se pertinentem negligunt quam tum sine publico dedecore omittere non possent Major esset in populo Christiano fidei consensus nec tanta multorum inscitia ruditas non adeo temere quidam novis peregrinis dogmatibus abriparentur omnibus denique esset quaedam velut methodus doctrinae Christianae A SUPPLEMENT ABOUT THE RURAL BISHOPS CALLED CHOREPISCOPI IT hath been already marked that the extent of the Dioceses was not all of one proportion and generally the Villages which lay adjacent to Cities having received the Gospel at first from them continued in subjection to the City as to their Mother Church whereby the Bishops Parish was not limited to the City but did also include the adjacent Villages The inscription of Clemens his Epistles insinuates this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we see that the Churches of Rome and Corinth were made up not onely of such as inhabited the Towns but also of such as dwelt about them and this is yet clearer from Ignatius his inscription of his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither did they judg it fit to ordain Bishops in smaller or lesser Cities as appears by the Council of Sardis Can. 6. where it is decreed that a Bishop should not be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adding that it was not necessary that Bishops should be ordained there lest the name and dignity of a Bishop should be vilipended But before this it was decreed in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so reads the Manuscript of Oxford Dionysius Exiguus Isidore Mercator Hervetus and Iustellus and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel as Binius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were to do nothing without the knowledg of the Bishop of the City whom the learned Beverigius observes on this Canon to have been distinct from the Rural Bishops which he makes out both from the Civil Law and a place of Gennadius where the Orders of Churchmen being reckoned these circular Visitors are set in a middle rank betwixt the Rural Bishops and Presbyters Frequent mention is also made of these Visitors in the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon This course therefore they took for these Villages to send Presbyters from the City who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Bishop could not immediately over-see them himself he did therefore substitute a Vicar and Delegate who was generally called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first time that we meet with any of these is in the beginning of the fourth Century in the Councils of Ancyra Neocesarea and Antiochia These differed from Presbyters in that they got an Ordination distinct from theirs called by the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They also might have ordained Subdeacons Lectors and Exorcists and given them commendatory Letters But they differed from Bishops in these things First that they were ordained but by one Bishop as appears by the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore it is true that Balsamon calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now we have already seen that a Bishop must be ordained by two Bishops at least Next these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Zonaras And therefore in their subscriptions of the Councils they only design themselves Chorepiscopi without mentioning the place where they served as the Bishops do Now Bishops could not be ordained but with a Title to a particular charge and See Thirdly their power was limited and in many things inferior to the power of Bishops So Pope Leo the first in his 88. Epist. Quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis ministeriorum communis sit