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
true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not alwaies * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sense neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming to wit to judgement But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopacy then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personall but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stirre there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostome so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be true it makes all this discourse needlesse we were safe enough without it if it be false then it selfe we see is needlesse for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer 1. Reliqui te Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete 2. His worke was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminall to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectify and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify 2. The next worke is Episcopall too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every Citty Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Citty by Citty that is Elders in severall Citties one in one Citty Many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops 1. In termes and expresse words To ordaine Elders in every Citty If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse That is the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Iohn Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolicall and that 's as much as Episcopall to be sure 3. S. Paul addes farther a Bishop must be blamelesse AS THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold saies our blessed Saviour himselfe and therefore not a meere Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE and BEATE his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the hous-hold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordaine and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall hee take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordaine these Bishops in Citties is in order to coercitive jurisdiction because many unruly and vaine talkers were crept in vers 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolicall institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himselfe had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordayn'd these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his comming had not Episcopall power or coercitive jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordayn'd before his ordayning them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercitive jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his owne person for they that were there before his comming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not loose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordain'd For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest quà m ipse habet Howsoever it by then to be sure Titus had it in his owne person and then it followes Undeniably that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impcccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schisme and tumutuary factions without possibility of releife or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personall prerogative but a power to be succeded to he might ordaine others he had authority to doe it with the same power he had himselfe and therefore since he alone had this coërcion in his owne person so should his Successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his comming
had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordaine if they were but meere Presbyters could not have it no more then the Presbytes that were there before his comming it followes that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himselfe call's Bishops in the proper sense and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus comming had not power to ordaine others that is had not that power which Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordaine others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meere Presbyters could not doe it and yet this must be done not onely by Titus himselfe but after him it followes undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine men with the same power that himselfe had that is with more then his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he meanes them in the proper sense 7. That by Elders in severall Cityes he meanes Bishops is also plaine from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cityes not in village Townes For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Townes as is to be seene in the Councell of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cityes therefore doe at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordain'd were not meere Presbyters The issue of this discourse is that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordaine Bishops himselfe was a Bishop to be sure at least If he had ordain'd only Presbyters it would have prov'd that But this inferres him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his owne constitution and yet of proper diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least inferres his being a Bishop if not a great deale more Yea but did not S. Titus ordaine no meere Presbyters yes most certainely But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordaines a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtaines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presuppos'd in the authorizing the Supreame and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferiour orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Adde to this that he that ordaines Bishops in Cityes sets there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainely with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no expresse provision for villages and yet most certainely did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he tooke order that such ordinations should be made in Cityes which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordaine and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordaine other Presbyters as appeares by S. Paul's sending Titus to doe it there where most certainely many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cityes destitute or if they staid in Cityes the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had dyed both one and the other had beene made a prey to the wolfe for there could be no sheapheard after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognisance of hereticall pravity and animadversion against the heretick himselfe is most plainely concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholike communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coërcitive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocesse But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Comentary on this Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit sollicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dìgnos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so faire preparatory of Scripture we may heare the testimonies of Antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum .... Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Chrysost. S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primatius Sedulius Theophilact and Nicephorus To which if we adde the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S Ierome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident deniall can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairely be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognisance of causes criminall and the whole
suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminall and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already prooved and for the present it will sufficiently appeare in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unlesse they could be their own superiours BUt a Councell or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they rul'd without him * This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud S. Ierom's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quid facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordayne a Bishop does which is a cleare difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non FACIAT not non facit that a Priest may not must not doe that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Diocesse therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary by actuall indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and originall right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had beene quickly answered if the Question had onely beene de facto For the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Iurisdiction was greater then Presbyters and this was by custome and in fact at least S. Hierome saies it and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco palibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complain'd of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the onely difference That then if S. Hierome sayes true being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne
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
Church of Antioch but I doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sense the lessar Asia For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signify a meere Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sense and not to doe so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the termes These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meere Presbyters * And least it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Ierusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopall and Apostolicall authority and so at Antioch as at Ierusalem where Iames and Iudas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But 2 ly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other countries as appears vers 4. So that although they were all Bishops wee might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplyed incumbency Thus farre then we are upon even termes the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meere Presbyters then Bishops in the proper sense 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his fare-well Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolicall for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witnesse and Trophimus of Arles in France for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premises we have a witnesse beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convâ—catis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making hast to keep his Pentecost at Ierusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Citties * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastorall supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of v. 18. ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage viz. in a collective sense not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travailes but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of v. 25. yee all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for S. Paul sent for him a litle before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at this meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolicall men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gajus and to the other Apostolicall men who had at least Episcopall authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches
delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaën and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S. Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata alitèr composita res est quà m caperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it 's owne nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. Iohn and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to goe away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a businesse of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Doe you feed the flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sense Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater then all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councell at Ierusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse and Iurisdiction * 2 ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their owne hands in S. Hieromes time this is it which he saith is rather by custome then by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no law of God against the delegation of power Episcopall * As for the last words in the objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Debere is a Non sequitur unlesse this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments that is THEY OUGHT not by Gods law but in imitation of the practise Apostolicall to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were THEY OUGHT for many considerations and in Great cases not by the necessity of a Divine precept * And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have rul'd alone yet was content to take others to him and himselfe only to rule in chiefe Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needlesse now * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is I have and shall else where produce for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place of S. Chrysostome It is needlesse to repeat either the objection or answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument against an Evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party or to runne upon their owne Swords For either they are to be understood in the
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
Prototype calling him the Great Sheapherd and Bishop of our soules it hath obtayned in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some PASTORS AND TEACHERS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were setled Bishops fix't upon their severall Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those names which did designe temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome Thus farre the names were common viz. in the sense above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every order it 's owne Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be suppos'd at first for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificiall and imposed sense USE which is the Master of language must rule us in this affaire and USE is not contracted but in some processe and descent of time * For at first Christendome it selfe wanted a Name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christ'ned first in Antioch for they had their baptisme some yeares before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church BVt immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending 〈◊〉 Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the â—â—rch the Bishop in the present vulgar conceptâ—â—â—ome few examples I shal give insteed of Myriads 〈◊〉 Canons of the Apostles the word ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—shop is us'd 36 times in appropriation to him that 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ruler president of the Church above the Clergie and the Laity being 24 times expressely distinguish'd from Presbyter and in the other 14 having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and Ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentick by the Councell of Nice of Antioch 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councell of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councell of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councell of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS sometimes THE ECCLESIASTICALL CANONS sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolicall Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councell in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his preface to the worke of the Councells for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canons by the authority of Councells and have put them amongst the Canonicall Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephens time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephens time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copie elder then this and yet after the Originall to be sure shewes them to be of prime antiquity and they are mention'd by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who doe prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I referre the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the Citie of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphall by Gratian and some others viz. in the sense of the Church just as the wisdome of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most beleived to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all Question are so farre Canonicall as to be of undoubted Ecclesiasticall authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c So that here is the reall and exact distinction of dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imitators of the Angells who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himselfe in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much lesse an argument for the parity of offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldome confound the names yet distinguish the offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairely admitted for himselfe their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopall jurisdiction to rule the Church till hee being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done least the Church should not be only without a Father
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
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
demonstrat and in the same chapter PONTIFEX Princeps Sacerdotumest One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops and that 's SACERDOS Sacerdotum autem â—ipartituâ— est ordo say S. Clement and Anacletus for they are Majores and Minores The Majores Bishops the Minâ—res Presbyters for so it is in the Apostolicall Constitutions attributed to S. Clement Episcopis quidem assignavimus attribuimus quae ad PRINCIPATUM SACERDOTII pertinent Presbyteris verò quae ad Sacerdotium And in S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signify Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus SACERDOTIUM Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop alwaies Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS qui est Episcopus saith Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unlesse when there is some distinctive terme and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesia est plebs SACERDOTI adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. Cyprian And that we may know by Sacerdos he means the Bishop his next words are Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt SACâ—RDOTEM Dei agnoscentes contestantes * Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Councell of Antioch In quihus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum PRAECIPUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACERDOTES Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis SACERDOTIO ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACERDOTIUM Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SACERDOTIUM gerens for he was Bishops of Hierapolis saith Eusebius and the Bishops of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter say quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACERDOTEM *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greeke and used for the Bishop by Iustin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with PRAELATUS and praepositus Ecclesiae ANTISTES autem SACERDOS dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae suprase nullum habet saith S. Isidore *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called PRIMUS PRESBYTER Nam Timotheum Episcopum à secreatum Presbyterum vocat quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the Colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called PRIMI PRESBYTERI that 's S. Ambrose his sense But S. Austin gives another PRIMI PRESBYTERI that is chiefe above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER h.e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himselfe gives a better exposition of his words then is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacer dos est sed Episcopus PRIMUS est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER that is PRIMUS SACâ—RDOS h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDOTUM so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus INTER PRESBYTEROS himselfe remaining a meere Presbyter but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in another sense he is the chiefe not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower then Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. Iohn Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Iohannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocesse Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith S. Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith S. Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But S. Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the severall relations expressed in the severall compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistitem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himselfe who had then been sixe years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unlesse there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochiall and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent
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
these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and diverse others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of Eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shewes that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërcion in causis Clericorum to be watchfull and strengthen the things that remaine as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they Watch for your Soules And the second of Apostles and Apostolike men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas and Silas confirm'd the Brethren for these men although they were but of the 72 at first yet by this time were made Apostles and cheife men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up and downe confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirme the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no lesse then Episcopall or Apostolicall and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocesse Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and diverse others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called his Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have knowne thy Ministery His office therefore was Clericall it was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charg'd with all 3. By the Angel is mean't a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personall delinquency or suppose personall excellencyes Adde to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seaven Churches had but seaven starres and these seaven starres were the Angels of the seaven Churches And if by seaven starres they may meane 70 times seaven starres for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one starre they must meane many starres and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as starres and no more Angels then Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seaven Churches into 7000 as every starre into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the Exigency of the thing it selfe these seaven Angels are by Antiquity called the seaven Governours or Bishops of the seaven Churches their very names are commemorated Vnto these seaven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equall number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and againe Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voyce of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Policarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himselfe an Angell of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it out of the Encyclicall Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angell to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had beene and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this booke written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. Iohn speakes of were such who had Iurisdiction over their whole Diocesse therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fix'd them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetuall and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personall mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairely pretended But yet
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
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
acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shewes the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendome S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawfull without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a generall interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I doe not here dispute the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure doe any offices without Episcopall licence but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church This is sufficient to show to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publike disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feele a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and faire arguments of honour but was only in a meere spirituall estimate and ten thousand reall disadvantages This will not be suppos'd either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valâ—â—e potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in heaven be faire precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper then this foundation of Catholick practise Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearely intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Councell of Antioch and in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the most Reverend Bishops cryed out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolicall now cited * Tertullian is something more particular and instances in Baptisme Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptisme Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So farre the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolicall ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesia and no harme done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate But the next words doe of themselves make answer Otherwise lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can doe it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptisme conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to bee repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so saies Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawfull in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptisme Tertullian affirmes the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopall license whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Councell of Gangra forbidding conventicles expresses it with this intimation of Episcopall authority If any man shall make assemblies privately out of the Church so despising the Chutch or shall doe any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop then the assembly is lawfull * And this thing was so knowne that the Fathers of the second Councell of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to doe their offices without a license from the Bishop Numidiuâ— Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr aut dissimulantes audactèr praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domicilijs agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses doe offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling Implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopall license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco vâ—luërit celebrare ipse honroi suo contrarius existit All the Bishops said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate
* For my owne particular I am confident that my Lords the Bishops doe so undervalue any fastuous or pompous title that were not the duty of their people in it they would as easily reject them as it is our duties piously to use them But if they still desire appellatives of honour we must give them they are their due if they desire them not they deserve them much more So that either for their humility or however for their works sake we must highly honour them that have the rule over us It is the precept of S. Paul and S. Cyprian observing how Curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Iewes even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell he did it to teach us a duty Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros LEGITIME ET PLENE HONORARI dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop * To these I adde If fitting in a THRONE even above the seate of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops chaire A THRONE and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church AN INTHRONIZATION Quando INTHRONIZANTUR propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c saith P. Anterus in his decretall Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo INTHRONING is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesâ—is excelsae constitutae praeparatae UT THRONUS speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my THRONE ** The summe of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our dutyes and their worke deserves it S. Paul was as deare to the Galathians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formâ—sipedes Evangelizantium the feete of the Preachers of the Gospell are beauteous and then much more of the chiefe Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi vt intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos UT ANIMAS VESTRAS diligatis vt quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more then amicitia that 's amongst Peeres but love to our Betters is Reverence Obedience and high Estimate And if we have the one the dispute about the other would be a meere impertinence I end this with the saying of S. Ignatius vâ—s decet non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium OMNEM ILLI IMPERTIRI REVERENTIAM It is the WILL OF GOD the Father that we should give all REVERENCE HONOUR or veneration to our Bishops VVELL However things are now It was otherwise in the Old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honourd with so great degrees of approximation to himselfe in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their soules they might with an equall confidence trust with their personall actions and imployments of greatest trust For it was Great Consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors and great Dictators of Faith and conscience should be the composers of those affayres in whose determination a Divine wisdome and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Common-wealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their severall interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their owne people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for faire issue upon such good grounds as they might fairely expect from the Bishops abilityes authority and religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as shee could and made sanctions against it so farre as shee might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arme to their owne assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawfull for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment S. Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular tribunall is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republike which must be indulged to a private personall necessity But we have not S. Paul's example onely but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another goe to law before the Vnjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church who are they The Clergy I am sure now adayes But S. Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Iudges For by least esteemed he could not meane the most ignorant of the Laity they would most certainly have done very strange justice especially in such causes which they Understand not No but set them to judge who by their office are Servants and Ministers of all and those are the Clergy who as S. Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Iesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Iesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Yea but S. Paul's expression seemes to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to Iudge betweene his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Iudges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but onely for S. Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem Fratrem Iudicem eligendum dicit quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus S. Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was to be the man though till then in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwaies forbid to Clergy-men A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of ingagements in REBUS SAECULI So the sixth Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himselfe worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is generall No worldly cares Not domestick But how if they come on him by Divine imposition or accident That 's nothing if he does not assume them that is by his voluntary
act acquire his owne trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sinne But if he seekes it for it selfe it is ambition In this sense also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seeke a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it selfe but the illnesse of the intention and this indeed shee expressely forbids in her Canons Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy men farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNES and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councell complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotijs saecularibus se immiscere No Bishop No Clergy man Nâ— Monke must farme grounds nor ingage himselfe in secular businesse What in none No none praeter pupillorum si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam an t civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will doe right to the Question All secular affaires and bargaines either for covetousnesse or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much lesse for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councell of Arles Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But nor here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may doe any office that is in piâ curâ He may undertake the supravision of Widdowes and Orphans And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupills yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawfull But without such command or license it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore S. Cyprian did himselfe severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he had no leave of his Bishop so to doe and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his office did in S. Cyprians Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or steward of a Church and dispense her revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches ayde From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him all causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousnesse but any thing in obedience any thing I meane of the fore-named instances Nay the affaires of Church revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiasticall Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolicall and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occurre in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to S. Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widdowes be neglected after God doe thou take care of them Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque quivel morbo vel aliâ de causâ egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithfull people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the reliefe of the widdowes and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Iustin Martyrs time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the Goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Ierusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a Scandall then they chose seven men men full of the holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the 70 Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so S. Stephen and S. Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the word in some sense or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harme neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harme done by this temporary office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not â—afe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a farre greater burden and requires more then a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks doe prohibite it onely in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the offices are supplyed by any
destin'd to the ordinary execution of other offices and yet because the guift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the office and therefore the sense of the words is this that all Presbyters must be honour'd but especially they that Prophecy doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Adde to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek borne and yet a Godly Bishop and S. Austin his Presbyter preach'd for him The same case might occurre in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperiall Citties and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Ierusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophecy they were particular guifts given severally to severall men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some Prophecyed some interpreted and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolicall was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Lay-man if a Church officer be intended If it be said it is used so here that 's the question and must not be brought to prove it selfe 4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintain'd by Ecclesiasticall revenue for so S. Paul expounds honour in the next verse Presbyters that rule well must be honoured c. For it is written thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne But now the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten leggs and so perish then fixe him upon this place with their hands in their purses But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him being he is of their own begetting 5. This place speaks not of divers persons but divers parts of the Pastorall office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To rule and to labour in the word Iust as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ All good Counsellors of State are worthy of double honour especially them that disregarding their own private aime at the publike good This implies not two sorts of Counsellors but two parts of a Counsellors worth and quality Iudges that doe righteousnesse are worthy of double honour especially if they right the cause of Orphans and Widdowes and yet there are no righteous judges that refuse to doe both 6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach at least not frequently The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over the Widdowes were Presbyters but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the word to attend that imployment as I shewed formerly and thus it was in descent too for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Socrates A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria the Bishop only did it And then the allegation is easily understood For labouring in the word does not signify only making Homilies or exhortations to the people but whether it be by word or writing or travelling from place to place still the greater the sedulity of the person is and difficulty of the labour the greater increment of honour is to be given him So that here is no Lay-Elders for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of are to be honoured but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospell For though all preach suppose that yet all doe not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take such great pains in it as is intimated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour and travaile usque ad lassitudinem so Budaeus renders it And so it is likely S. Paul here means Honour the good Presbyters but especially them that travell for disseminating the Gospell And the word is often so used in Scripture S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have travelled in the word more then they all Not that S. Paul preached more then all the Apostles for most certainly they made it their businesse as well as he But he travelled further and more then they all for the spreading it And thus it is said of the good Woman that travelled with the Apostles for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices they laboured much in the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too So it is said of Persis of Mary of Tryphaena of Triphosa And since these women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that travelled with the Apostolicall men and Evangelists the men also travelled to and preach'd and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is travellers in the word We ought therefore to receive such saith S. Iohn intimating a particular reception of them as being towards us of a peculiar merit So that the sense of S. Paul may be this also All the Rulers of the Church that is all Bishops Apostles and Apostolick men are to be honoured but especially them who besides the former ruling are also travellers in the word or Evangelists 7. We are furnished with answere enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders from the common draught of the new discipline For they have some that Preach only and some that Rule and Preach too and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder viz. their Pastors and Doctors 8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy that Presbyter and Episcopus is all one and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy why may not Presbyteri in this place signify Bishops And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes 9. If both these offices of RULING and PREACHING may be conjunct in one person then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the severall imployments since one man may doe both But if these offices cannot be conjunct then no Bishops must preach nor no preachers be of the Consistory take which government you list for if they be then the offices being united in one person the inference of the distinct officer the Lay-Elder is impertinent For the meaning of S. Paul would be nothing but this All Church-Rulers must be honour'd Especially for their preaching For if the offices may be united in one person as it is evident they may then this may be comprehended within the other and only be a vitall part and of peculiar excellency And indeed so it is according to the exposition of S. Chrysostome and Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rule well that spare nothing for the care of the
in the proportion of the Donative 3. But the assistance that the Kings of England had in their Counsells and affaires of greatest difficulty from the great ability of Bishops and other the Ministers of the Church I desire to represent in the words of K. Alvred to Walfsigeus the Bishop in an Epistle where he deplores the misery of his owne age by comparing it with the former times when the Bishops were learn'd and exercis'd in publike Counsels Faelicia tum tempora fuerunt inter omnes Angliae populos Reges Deo scriptae ejus voluntati obsecundârunt in suâ pace bellicis expeditionibus atque regimine domestico domi se semper tutati fuerint atque etiam foris nobilitatem suam dilataverint The reason was as he insinuates before Sapiâ—ntes extiterunt in Anglicâ gente de spirituali gradu c. The Bishops were able by their great learning and wisdome to give assistance to the Kings affaires And they have prosper'd in it for the most glorious issues of Divine Benison upon this Kingdome were conveyed to us by Bishops hands I meane the Union of the houses of York Lancaster by the Counsells of Bishop Morton and of England Scotland by the treaty of Bishop Fox to which if we adde two other in Materia religionis I meane the conversion of the Kingdom from Paganisme by S t Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury and the reformation begun and promoted by Bishops I think we cannot call to mind foure blessings equall to these in any age or Kingdome in all which God was pleased by the mediation of Bishops as he useth to doe to blesse the people And this may not only be expected in reason but in good Divinity for amongst the gifts of the spirit which God hath given to his Church are reckon'd Doctors Teachers and helps in government To which may be added this advantage that the services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches stock no need to disimprove the Royall Banks to pay thanks to Bishops But Sir I grow troublesome Let this discourse have what ends it can the use J make of it is but to pretend reason for my Boldnesse and to entitle You to my Book for I am confident you will owne any thing that is but a friends friend to a cause of Loyalty I have nothing else to plead for your acceptance but the confidence of your Goodnesse and that I am a person capeable of your pardon and of a faire interpretation of my addresse to you by being SIR Your most affectionate Servant J. TAYLOR Syllabus Paragraphorum § 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church p. 7 2 This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ p. 12 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successours in the Apostolate p. 13 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops p. 15. For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name and person 5. And office p. 20. 6. Which Christ himselfe hath made distinct from Presbyters p. 22 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not p. 23 As of Ordination 8. And Confirmation p. 28 9. And superiority of Iurisdiction p. 35 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of antiquitie p. 49 11. And particularly of S. Peter p. 54 12 And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority p. 62 13 In pursuance of the Divine institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in severall Churches p. 68 As S t Iames at Ierusalem S. Simeon to be his successor 14 S. Timothy at Ephesus p. 75 15 S. Titus at Creet p. 85 16 S. Mark at Alexandria p. 93 17 S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome p. 96 18 S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others p. 97 19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall Ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed p. 100 20 And was an office of power and great authority p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendome p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supream Church-Officer p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him onely the Pastor of the Church p. 145 26 And Doctor p. 149 27 And Pontifex And Sacerdos p. 150 28 And these were a distinct order from the rest p. 156 29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree p. 160 30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation p. 198 34 Power of Iurisdiction p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 35 Vniversall obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopall license p. 251 38 Church-goods reserved to Episcopal dispensatioÌ„ 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Dioces or to travell without leave of the Bishop p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased p. 267 41 Bishops onely did vote in Councels and neither Presbyters nor People p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks p. 292 43 The Bishops Iurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes p. 295 44 Their Iurisdiction was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary p. 323 46 They are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop p. 327 47 And Hereticks p. 329 48 Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great honour p. 335 49 And trusted with affaires of Secular interest p. 351 50 And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church p. 375 ERRATA PAg. 21. line 8. insert except S. John Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters read Bishops Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy insert c. l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers OF THE Sacred Order and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION APOSTOLICALL TRADITION Catholick practise c. IN all those accursed machinations which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church Inimicus homo that old superseminator of heresies and crude mischiefes hath indeavoured to be curiously compendious and with Tarquin's device putare summa papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was
seaven here ordained of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearely repeating the words of S. Chrysostome pro more suo addes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seaven was no lesse but even the dignity of Presbyters only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithfull people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostome and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is cleare that the 72. were present for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident they were not yet sent abroad they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdome of S. Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affaire vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordaine them 2. An instance paralell to this is in the imposition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas in the first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manäen and Saul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while these men were Ministring the holy Ghost said to them separate me Barnabas and Saul They did so they fasted they prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away So they being sent forth by the holy Ghost departed into Seleucia This is the story now let us make our best on 't Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands complete and that was said to be done by the holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch For they sent them away and yet the next words are so they being sent forth by the holy Ghost So that here was the thing done and that by the Prophets alone and that by the command of the Holy Ghost and said to be his act Well! but what were these Prophets They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch not such as Agabus and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist Prophets of prediction extraordinary but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers and Ministers More then ordinary Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more then the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this cleare enough in S. Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi or dinis none of the twelve but such as S. Iames and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and S. Paul himselfe To be sure they were such Prophets as S. Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by S. Luke for here it was that S. Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to this Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they they were at the least more then ordinary Presbyters and therefore they impos'd hands and they only And yet to make the businesse up compleat S. Marke was amongst them but he impos'd no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not S. Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as S Paul himselfe was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did S. Marke who was an Evangelist and one of the 72 Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were lesse then Prophets that is who were not more then meere Presbyters The summe is this Imposition of hands is a duty office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne Gens sit Vnius aetatis least it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fix't upon the Apostles and Apostolike men and not communicated to the 72 Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolike men did so de facto and were commanded to doe so and the 72 never did so therefore this office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetuall as the Clergy as the Church it selfe 2. THe Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetuall act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72 or any other meere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirme Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergie could not is beyond all exception cleare in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts. 8. For when S. Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and Iohn to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost S. Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72 Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that S. Stephen was about the poore Widdowes yet he could not doe this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For S. Philip could and did doe miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts. 19. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus S. Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelue only but Apostolike men the other Apostles S. Paul did it S. Philip could not nor any of the 72 or any other meere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long agoe expired 1. Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternall and therefore are no signes of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis nonesse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tels of the successe of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done
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
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
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
to the rest For first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other * The Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the paines as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made both for their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewailes it but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops themselves the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors The diversity of order is here fairely intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2 d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are foure sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithfull Laity And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next in descent in subordination the next under it So the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Councell permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopall order but still the character remaines and the degree of it selfe is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Interdixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordain'd a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Iulius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque proâ—o praesentes Vitus Vincentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell faith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcòpi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyriâ—um to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus desiderabat Episcopatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desir'd a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis saith S. Isidore Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles in the first tome of the Councells * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the preface to the book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But wee shall see it better and by more reall probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this 1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Councell of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordain'd Bishop but he that was first a Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time Here there is clearely a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the same Councell saies that they complain'd that some from Arrianisme were reconciled and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters from Presbyters to be Bishops calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a greater degree or Order And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius speaking of his Canonicall Ordination and election to a
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
example of it in Christendome till almost 600 yeares after Christ and that but once and that irregular and that without imitation in his Successors or example in his Antecessors It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first dum non essent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent inventi sunt duo Episcopi Iohannes de Perusio Bonus de Ferentino Andraeas Presbyter de Ostiâ ordinaverunt eum Pontificem Tunc enim non â—rant in Clero qui eum possent promovere Saith Damasus It was in case of necessity because there were not three Bishops therefore he procur'd two and a Priest of Ostia to supply the place of the third that three according to the direction Apostolicall and Canons of Nice Antioch and Carthage make Episcopall ordination * The Church of Rome is concern'd in the businesse to make faire this ordination and to reconcile it to the Councell of Rhegium and the others before mentined who if ask't would declare it to be invalid * But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop so also they commanded that those three should be three Bishops and Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the ordination if done by two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Nicene Canon is as much exact in requirng the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I beleive that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case then if a lay man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Un canonicall yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolicall Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in formâ Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheate the Canon and cozen himselfe into an impertinent beleife of a Canonicall ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Councell of Sardis Bishops must ordaine Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises doe most certainely inferre a reall difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyteraâ—e But whether or no they inferre a difference of order or onely of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in all Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were us'd promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greeke word and for it the Latins us'd Ordo as is evident in the instances above mention'd to which adde that Anacletus sayes that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcopâ—rum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirmes Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greekes are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c is a censuâ—e us'd alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and ordo are equally affirm'd of them all and the word gradus is us'd sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam vìrtutem quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS and S. Cyprian of Cornelius ad Sacerdotij sublime sastigium cunctis religionis GRADIBUS ascendit Degree and Order are us'd in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wrong'd by a mutuall substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first call'd ordinatio Episcopi Stirre vp the Grace that is in the juxta ORDINATIONEM tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierome Prophetiae gratâ—am habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs * Neque enim fas erat aut licebat at inferior ORDINARET majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro ORDINATUM edit saith Tertullian and S. Hierome affirmes that S. Iames was ORDAIND Bishop of Ierusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the word at first and afterwards CONSECRATUS came in conjunction with it When Moses the Monke was to be ordain'd to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit saies he vt manus tua me CONSECRET 3. In all orders there is the impresse of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to doe certaine offices which before his ordination he had no power to doe A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himselfe a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is defin'd by the Schooles to be traditio potestatis spiritualis collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spirituall power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiasticall Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the deâ—â—nitions of the Schoole There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a speciall power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordayning labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sense Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more then a Presbyter hath But
but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the Citty Presbyters might not ordaine neither with nor without licence for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitat is unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res euim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practise Apostolicall is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is cleare for the illegality of a Presbytâ—r giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopall order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reâ—dâ—ndo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church and exigence of Catholike Custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of the Citty for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the Citty have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopall ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not doe it unlesse more be added to them for their want was more They not only want jurisdiction but something besides and that must needs be order * But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopall Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroaâ—hâ—â—â— upon the Bishops Diocesse and as they were but 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meere Presbyterate And this we find as soone as ever we heare that they had had Episcopall Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops in the end of the same Cahon we find it decreed de novo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chorepiscopus or Country Bishop must be ordayn'd by the Bishop of the Citie in whose jurisdiction he is which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter and no more And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries with the Bishop's License too but they never ordayn'd any to be Deâ—cons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing and therefore were gratiae Spiritûs Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and requir'd not the capacity of Episcopall Order to collate them for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost as all Orders properly so called are but might by humane dispensation be bestow'd as well as by humane Ordinance they had their first constitution ** The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Councell of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had beene Bishops of Citied but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices and by being traditors but in case they repented and were reconciled they had not indeed restiÌ„tution to their See but because they had the indelible character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopall Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended if they had made ordinations and of the other nothing pertinent for they also had the ordination and order of Bishops The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Councell as is to be seene in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria * But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Councell of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordain'd some Clerkes themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men 't is likely for quietnesse sake and to comply with the times would faine have had those Clerks received into Clericall communion but the Councell would by no meanes admitt that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bâ—lâ—amon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indecd But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eâ—tychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands â—n them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Entychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fveront c. Saith Balsamon intimating that it is a rul'd case and of publike interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordain'd of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dream'd onely he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordain'd by him could be no Priest nor any else of his ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyr as himselfe was reduc'd into laycommunion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischir as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so knowne a businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus who was another Bishop in the aire too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill These cases are so known I need not insist on them This onely In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacraments conferr'd by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to Minister
Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carryes the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiasticall And againe Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher then all other power viz in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LOCO DEI. Doe all things in Vnity the Bishop being PRESIDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACER DOTUM imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Iurisdiction The Bishop is the PRINCE OF THE PRIESTS bearring the image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himselfe for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairely and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himselfe saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and dyed a Martyr and hath been honoured as holy Catholike by all posterity certainly these testimonyes must needs be of Great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the generall expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the refractary Deacon And VIGOR EPISCOPALIS and AUTHORITAS CATHEDRae are the the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoynes calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem a high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterij traditus ab Apostolis So S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of Mastership or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received faith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Councell of Sardis to the TOP or HEIGHT os Episcopacy APICES PRINCIPES OMNIUM so Optatus calls Bishops the CHEIFE and HEAD of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER OR HEIGHT of the Church The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo ordayn'd that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Church's pale so as the Bishop had in effâ—ct no Diocesse yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDâ—NCY according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Councell calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the PRELATE or PREFECT of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Councell of Carthage Commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that GOVERNES the Church in that place * And in the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath POWER OVER the affayrs of the Church * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat S. Sylvester the Bishop held the Reynes or the stearne of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose HONOR SUBLIMITAS Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopall Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò RECTORIBUS suis subdi dicuntur c The sheepe are delivered to Bishops as to RULERS and are made their Subjects And in the next chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis vt ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri vt cùm dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus .... actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent then the DIGNITY AND EMINENCE OF A BISHOP c. The other is of S. Hierome CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD EPISCOPUM PERTINET The care of the whole Church appertaines to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP to whom vnlesse an EMINENT and UNPARALELL'D POWER be given by all there will be as many Schismes as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of theÌ„ then the Bishop is SUPERIOUR IN A PEERELESSE AND INCOMPARABLE AUTHORITY and all the whole Diocesse are his subjects viz in regimine Spirituali BUT from words let us passe to things For the Faith and practise of Christendome requires obedience Universall obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin againe with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gaine by it for the more primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the comming of the Sonne of Man But to
our businesse S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine EPISCOPO NIHIL TENTETIS So the Latine of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye doe you should attempt nothing without your BISHOP And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire EPISCOPO ET IN NULLO ILLI REFRAGARI It is fitting that ye should obey your BISHOP and in NOTHING to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possum facere à me ipso quicquam sic vos SINE EPISCOPO nec Presbyter nec Diaconus nec Laicus Nec QUICQUAM videatur VOBIS CONSENTANEUM quod sit PRAETER ILLIUS IUDICIUM quod enim tale est iniquum est Deo inimicum Here is obedience Vniversall both in respect of things and persons and all this no lesse then absolutely necessary For as Christ obey'd his Father in all things saying of my selfe I can doe nothing so nor you without your BISHOP whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Lay-man Let nothing please you which the Bishop mislikes for all such things are wicked and in enemity with God * But it seems S. Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to Wee have already reckon'd the Trallians and the Magnesians But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop The same to the Philadelphians Sine EPISCOPO nihil facite Doe nothing without your BISHOP But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Sine EPISCOPO NEMO QUIC QUAM FACIAT eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant No man may doe ANY THING WITHOUT THE BISHOP viz. of those things which belong to the Church So that this saying expounds all the rest for this universall obedience is to be understood according to the sense of the Church viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiasticall cognizance all Church affaires And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarpe their Bishop that he also look to it that nothing be done without his leave Nihil sine TUO ARBITRIO agatur nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem As thou must doe nothing against Gods will so let nothing in the Church be done without thine By the way observe he saies not that as the Presbytery must doe nothing without the Bishop so the Bishop nothing without them But so the Bishop nothing without God But so it is Nothing must BE DONE without the Bishop And therefore although he incourages them that can to remaine in Virginity yet this if it be either done with pride or without the Bishop it is spoiled For si gloriatus fuerit periit si id ipsum statuatur SINE EPISCOPO corruptum est His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarpe is with an Episcopo attendite sicut Deus vobis The way to have God to take care of us is to observe our Bishop Hinc vos decet accedere SENTENTIAE EPISCOPI qui secundùm Deum vos pascit quemadmodum facitis edocti à spiritu you must therefore conforme to the sentence of the BISHOP as indeed yee doe already being taught so to doe by Gods holy Spirit There needs no more to be said in this cause if the authority of so great a man will beare so great a burden What the man was I said before what these Epistles are and of what authority let it rest upon Vedelius a man who is no waies to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of Eusebius S. Hierome and Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for naturall and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should doe well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affaire and see what is gotten in the bargaine For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gaine by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Iurisdiction But as yet I am in the generall demonstration of obedience The Councell of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summes them up thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them doe nothing without the precept and counsell of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Councell is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere saies the thirteenth Canon of the Anâ—yran Councell according to the Latine of Isidore The same thing is in the first Councell of Toledo the very same words for which I cited the first Councell of Arles viz. That Presbyters doe nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop * Esto SUBIECTUS PONTIFICI Tuo quasi animae parentem suscipe It is the counsell of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soule I shall not need to derive hither any more 〈…〉 the Ecclesiasticall orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spirituall with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must governe the Church or else the Clergy must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition then a tyranny To say that the Laity should governe the Church when all Ecclesiasticall Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it saies for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who
Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first leâ— the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminall but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop under paine of the Canon * I end this with the atâ—estation of the Councell of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP that other Bishop must by no meanes receive him into his communion Thus farre we have matter of publike right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge of the causes and persoâ—s of Clergy men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolicall-Canons of the Generall Councells of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councells of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cognisance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Ignatius calls them counsellors and assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mention'd in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmaticall resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspition * Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Dâ—â—cesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculam metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci 〈◊〉 memores â—ed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum coÌ„tumeliâ contemtu Praeposititotum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this caâ—eâ— S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them keepe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa cum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae
erat plurimis exâ—sus veluti furiosum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy that he was hated by them which clearely showes that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excesse of power authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio nunquam poteris â Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergy unlesse thou strikest them all with thy Pastorall rod. S. Iohn Chrystome did not indeed doe so but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergy men for diverse causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was clearely and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyne with their Bishop to suspend themselves Adde to this that Theodoret also affirmes that Chrysostome intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eas ad tomplum prohibebat accedere ALL them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierome to Riparius Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ APOSTOLICA virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not mov'd at the fury of Vigilantius and does not breake him with his APOSTOLICALL rod that by this temporary punishment his soule might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastorall staffe is of faire power and coërcion The Councell of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgement of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would faine have been judg'd by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Councell S. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople depos'd Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Roome * But their Grand-father was serv'd no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria serv'd him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator priùs quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consilijs nitebatur Cùm verò eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonish'd the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserv'd it highly It was for a lesse matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personall misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Councell of Taurinum and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censur'd him statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synoduâ— qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus â—um contumeliis provocaverat .... propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Councell qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus who was punished by Triferius the Bishop hoc ei humanitate Concilii reservato at ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit ei relaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Councell and the absolution reserv'd to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complain'd to the Councell by the Councell might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his owne power These are particular instances and made publike by acts conciliary intervening But it was the Generall Canon and Law of H. Church Thus we have it expressed in the Councell of Agatho Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractary Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according at the order of their dignity allowes I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonicall penalty and so goe on ad alia In the second Councell of Carthage Alypius Episcopus dixit nee illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greeke Code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means goe unpunished * The like is in the Councell of Chalcedon the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Councell of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Councell of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemne and they have power to doe what they please other faith then this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the foure great Councells or Christendome which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of
Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of or may not the secular power find our some externall compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiasticall tribunall and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which shee might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a very secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appeal'd to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat he betrayes the individuall and inseparable right of holy Church For her censures shee may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is beg'd or borrow'd none of her owne nor of a fit edge to be us ' d in her abscissions and coërcions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocesse The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soule any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheepe heare his voice and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him viz in matters of spirituall import * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regall power but Bishops in his Sacerdotall and Propheticall * So that the King hath a Supreme Regall power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdome became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of soules and in these also all the externall compulsory and jurisdiction in his owne For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himselfe also upon the same termes becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotall authority And therefore the Kingdome and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keyes are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetà gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their severall excellencies the Highest powers under heaven *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives were not both the piety and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori
compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocesse to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the lawes of Christendome The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperour exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Millain showes that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the bloud that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Emperour and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quod Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i.e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluërit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas que de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till hee had wash't away his sinnes by repentance And the Emperour did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiasticall Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captaine a Consull or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater then his If thou darest not remove him tell it mee I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more errour in the managing Church-censures then in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandall or danger to her selfe or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a forraine enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinterest in the allegeance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designes and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures not is it lawfull to inflict thē things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Glosse upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Common wealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognisance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of soules such a power quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognisance viz. things spirituall and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Common-wealth And this I the rather noted to show how those men would mend themselves that cry downe the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognisance of all causes whatsoever which are either sinnes directly or by reduction * All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we adde this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of adamnable sinne there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspitious scandalous or criminall true or imaginary reall actions or personall in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or reall injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullify all Courts and judicatories besides their owne and being for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory no appeale from them but they shall heare and determine with finall resolution and it will be sinne and therefore punishable to complaine of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the Modesty of their severall demands and the reasonablenesse and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudentiall motives to be put into ballance to weigh downe this Question the cause would soone be determin'd and the little finger of Presbytery not only in it's exemplary and tryed practises but in its dogmaticall pretensions is heavier then the loynes nay then the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldome happens otherwise but that they who usurpe a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawfull power are faire and moderate BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopall Iurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed
the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an Enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remaine under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitalls but extends it selfe to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c All they that transgresse this Constitution in ANY WAY not submitting to their Bishop let them be punish'd canonically So that now these generall expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their severall offices the Canon extends it's prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearely and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witnesse for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere aut signare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corpor is Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud in the presencè of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have faire evidence of this whole particular It is not lawfull to doe any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councells of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawfull to doe any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Councell of Carthage joynes them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to doe by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters doe what they are commanded to doe by God let him tell us if any man be greater then Christ viz whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters doe their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole diocesse he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feede the flock so the Canon of the Apostles so Ignatius so the Councell of Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocesse is in the Bishop and without the Bishop's admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not doe these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unlesse he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocesse being the Bishop's charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle least he be what S. Peter blam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocesse Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his oxdination but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions and did quoad hoc take him in partem sollicitudinis and concredit some part of his diocesse to his administration cum curâ animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocesse is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himselfe of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not devest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocesse so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocesse and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potest as minoris And though because the Bishop could not doe all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocesse therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himselfe looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a generall supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocesse there he being presenâ— might doe any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himselfe of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Councell of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his owne but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the starres which in the noon day have their own naturall light as much as in the night but appeare not shine not in the presence of the Sunne This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presbyters who as the Councell of Carthage's expression is are contrâ—rii honort Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own forme where God hath placed us and where wee were in the Primitive Church wee shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawfull to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The
prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runnes praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same originall to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Iurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Citties with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Citties the Presbyters preach'd and offer'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions runne indefinitely they must not doe any Clericall offices sine Episcopo unlesse the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fix't upon ordinary charges then it was only praesente Episcopo if the Bishop was present they might not officiate without leave For in his absence they might doe it I doe not say without leave but I say they had leave given them when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence as it is to this day when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge he also gives power hoc ipso of officiating in that place So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions then they were to have leave but this license was also temporary but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum and that was done in subsidium Muneres Episcopalis because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter but if he was present a new leave was necessary because as the power alwaies was in the Bishop so now the execution also did returne to him when he was there in person himselfe if he listed might officiate All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter Valerius the Bishop being a Greek borne and not well spoken in the Latin tongue and so unfit for publike orations eidem Presbytero viz. to Austin potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi ac frequentissimè tractandi contra USUM quidem CONSUETUDINEM Africanarum Ecclesiarum He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter to preach in the Church even while himselfe was present indeed against the VSE and CUSTOME of the African Churches And for this act of his he suffered soundly in his report * For the case was thus In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all at least in the Mother Church and in the Bishops presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Socrates Thence came this Custome in the African Churches But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able and himselfe for want of Latin so unfit he gave leave to Austin to preach before him against the Custome of the African Churches But he addes this reason for his excuse too it was not indeed the custome of Africa but it was of the Orientall Churches For so Possidonius proceeds sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens in the Levant it was usuall for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat which determines us fully in the businesse For this leave to doe offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himselfe could not fulfill the offices which showes the Presbyters in their severall charges whether of temporary mission or fixt residence to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocesse Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome and it is recorded by Gratian Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere Behold I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop So Gratian quotes it indeed but S. Hierome saies the expresse contrary unlesse we all have false copies For in S. Hierome it is not Ecce ego dico but Nec ego dico He does not say it is lawfull for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop Indeed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach nor to blesse c. This perhaps it was not well done but this makes not against the former discourse for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages and multiplication of Christians and Parishes yet it is cleare that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus to show he did amisse because he would not give his Presbyters license * And this he also reprehends in his epistle ad Nepotianum Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop that was an ill custome to wit as things then stood and it was mended presently after for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence but it was by license from their Ordinary For so Possidonius relates that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned Posteà currente volante hujusmodi famâ bono praecedente exemplo ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei By occasion of this precedent it came to passe that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence having first obtain'd faculty from the Bishop so to doe And a little after it became a custome from a generall faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Councell of Vase Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome let him then first be reconciled to himselfe and then we are sure to be help'd For in his dialogue against the Luciferians his words are these Cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi Because the Bishop hath an eminent power and this power is necessary thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave ** This whole
discourse showes clearely not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction but that they have sole jurisdiction and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge ** DIvers other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons as that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards at the Bishops So it is in the 41. Canon of the Apostles so it is in the Councell of Gangra and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation without expresse delegation from the Bishop as appears in the seventh and eight Canons and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Councell * And therefore when in successe of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop of this the third Councell of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding ut omnia SECUNDUM CONSTITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is reniewed in the fourth Councell of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt nullam se potestatem habere SED IUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councells I produce not as Iudges but as witnesses in the businesse for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it selfe so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Councell of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it selfe is almost 1100. years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense For so it was determin'd in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop ADde to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not goe to another Diocesse So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under paine of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would not returne when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Councell of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixâ— himselfe in the Diocesse of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodall decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocesse is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy men might not travaile from Citty to Citty without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clericall subordination to their Bishop The Councell of Laâ—dicea commands a Priest or Clergy man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travail without Canonicall or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerke must not travaile without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law de consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Councell The same is in the Councell of Agatho The Councell of Venice adds a ceÌ„sure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Councell of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diacono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Councell of Tourayne in France and the third Councell of Orleans attest the selfe same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete jurisdiction unlesse it be also remunerative the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but halfe a tye to indeare obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the primitive Church to make the Episcopall jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocesse to the higher Orders and neerer degrees of approximation to himselfe and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPISCOPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their by Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not alwaies goe together and also severall Orders had severall manner of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon severall pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainely the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every Church and they passed thorough Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he saies of himselfe and Titus For this cause I SENT thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou shouldest oppoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordain'd them no man questions but he also APPOINTED THEM and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolicall ordinance that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS Let there be halfe so much showne for the people and
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 *
therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary IF we adde to all these foregoing particulars the power of making lawes to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spirituall Principality Now as I have shewne that the Bishop of every Diocesse did give lawes to his owne Church for particulars so it is evident that the lawes of Provinces and of the Catholike Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision The instances of this are just so many as there are Councells S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith si judicium Episcoporum est saith he quid cum eo commune habet Imperator It is a judgment to be pass'd BY BISHOPS meaning the determination of the article and not proper for the Emperour And when Hosius of Corduba reprov'd him for sitting President in a Councell Quis enim videns eum IN DECERNENDO PRINCIPEM SE FACERE EPISCOPORUM non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis He that sits President makes himselfe chiefe of the Bishops c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councells and to make decision And therefore conventus Episcoporum and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for Generall and Provinciall Councells Bis in annâ— Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur said the 38 th Canon of the Apostles and Congregatio Episcopalis the Councell of Sardis is call'd by Theodoret. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter ob quam causam saith Eusebius conventus Episcoporum Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur Where by the way it is to be observeable that at first even provinciall Synods were onely held by Bishops and Presbyters had no interest in the decision however we have of late sate so neere Bishops in Provinciall assemblies that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this To them I leave it And because the foure generall Councells are the Precedents and chiefe of all the rest I shall only instance in them for this particular 1. The title of the Nicene Councell runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons for if there had been more the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mysticall number Nam Abraham trecentos decem octo duxit ad bellum .... De Concilijs id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem octo Sacerdotes .... velut trophaeum extulerunt ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum quod eodem numero in Concilijs fidei habemus oraculum quo in historiâ pietatis exemplum Well! 318 was the Number of the Iudges the Nicene Fathers and they were all Bishops for so is the title of the subscriptions Subscripserunt trecenti decem octo EPISCOPI qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt 13. whereof were Chorepiscopi but not one Presbyter save onely that Vitus and Vincentius subscribed as legates of the Bishop of Rome but not by their owne authority 2. The great Councell of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the title of the Canons The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in C. P. and that these were all Bishops appeares by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops And of this Councell it was that Socrates speaking Imperator saith he nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium EPISCOPORUM convocat Here indeed some few Bishops appear'd by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader and about some fowre or five more * This onely amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus Auxanon Helladius and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies They were Bishops saith the title of the Councell and the Oration and the Canons and Socrates And least there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae because before Iohannes Apameensis subscribed which seemes to intimate that one of them was the Bishop and the other but a Presbyter indeed without a subterfuge of modesty the titles distinguishes them For Iohn was Bishop in the Province of Caele Syria and Auxanon of Apamea in â—isidia 3. The third was the Councell of Ephesus Episcoporum plurium quà m ducentorum as is often said in the acts of the Councell of above 200 Bishops But no Presbyters for Cùm Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odde Bishops saith the Councell and Theodosius junior in his Epistle to the Synod Illicitum est saith he eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus It is unlawfull for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be interest in Ecclesiasticall assemblies 4. The last of the foure great conventions of Christendome was sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia But in all these assemblies no meere Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop and delegation of authority And therefore when in this Councell some Laicks and some Monks and some Clergy-men not Bishops would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empresse sent letters to Consularius to repell them by force si praeter nostram evocationem aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur who come without command of the Empresse or the Bishops permission Where it is observeable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist to dispute and to be present in all the action And thus they often did suffer Abbots or Archimandrites to be there and to subscribe too but that was praeter regulam and by indulgence only and condescension For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered Non suum esse sed Episcoporum tantùm subscribere it belong'd only to Bishops to subscribe to Councells For this reason the Fathers themselves often call'd out in the Councell Mitte foras superfluos Concilium Episcoporum est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Councell of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voyce in Councells and that Councell we know savourd too much of
the Schismatick but before this Councell no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenicall or Provinciall Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenicall nor Provinciall but meerely the Convocation of a Diocesse For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more then a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent that was their summons in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearely Synod besides the first convention the greatest of them but Diocesan and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provinciall Councell For the guise of Christendome was alwaies otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspition of heresy Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cùm simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests doe from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocesse eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet ab ipso suscicere doctrinam fidei monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith Against this if it be objected Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which is of generall concernement must also be of generall Scrutiny I answer it is true unlesse where God himselfe hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the soules of his Diocesse at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councells pertains to all and is handled by all not in diffusion but in representation For Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesiâ saith S. Cyprian the Church is in the Bishop viz. by representment and the Bishop is in the Church viz. as a Pilot in a ship or a Master in a family or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called in Eusebius conventus orbis terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their severall persons but was there represented by the Catholike Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladyes too may vote in Councells for I doubt not but they have soules too But however if this argument were concluding in it selfe yet it looses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Lawes of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to choose neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy nor Knights of the shire to represent us as Commons * In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-judges whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Councell it was an old hereticall trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut QUIS QUAM IUDEX resideat sed unu◠quisque de suo affectu habeat examen eligat quem sequatur So may Presbyters be present so they may judge not for others but for themselves And so may the people be present and anciently were so and therefore Councells were alwaies kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by externall sentence but internall conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himselfe in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Councell of Ierusalem where the Apostles and ELDERS did meet together to DETERMINE of the question of circumcision For although in the story of celebration of it we find no man giving sentence but Peter and Iames yet in 16. Acts they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees IUDGED by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the lesse because Presbyter was a generall word for all that were not of the number of the twelve Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors And then secondly it is none at all because Paul and Barnabas are signally and by name reckoned as present in the Synod and one of them Prolocutor or else both So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventuall assemblies 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty or where any is pretended And of this I have already given account * I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voycing in Councells It is a pretty pageant onely that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church against the exigence of Scripture which bids us require the law at the Mouth of our spirituall Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to be tumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authoriz'd by this first copy of Christian Councells The pretence is in the Synodall letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is saies Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not BRETHREN that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Governement and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be ask'd who then are meant by Elders if by Brethren S. Luke understands these Church officers I answer that here is such variety that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren yet here are enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it
matter for any side but make it farre worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depresse the whole hierarchy and all the orders of H. Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enimies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in it's fucus and show the falsehood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the Pontificall book Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris septem Diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis He divided the Parishes or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit caemiteria parochiasque dioeceses constituit Marcellus increased the number in the yeare 305. Hic fecit caemiterium viâ Salariâ 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis propter sepulturas Martyrum He made a Sepulture or caemitery for the buriall of Martyrs and appointed 25. Titles or Parishes but he addes quasi Dioeceses as it had been diocesses that is distinct and limited to Presbyters as diocesses were to Bishops and the use of parishes which he subjoynes cleares the businesse for he appointed them onely propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum sepulturas for baptisme and penance and buriall for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes but in the Mother-Church Thus it was in the West * But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner then the earliest of these for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Markes time had severall Churches in Alexandria Etià m DE ECCLESIIS quae apudeos sunt it a dicit Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus c But even before this there were Bishops For in Rome there were fowre Bishops before any division of Parishes though S. Peter be reckon'd for none And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria S. Marke himselfe who did it was the Bishop and before that time S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and in diverse other places where Bishops were there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus time for when Dionysius had assign'd Presbyters to severall Parishes he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba desires him to doe so too in his Diocesse as appeares in his Epistle to him * For indeed necessity requir'd it when the Christians multiplyed and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cornelius call'd the Roman Christians a great and innumerable people and did implere omnia as Tertullians phrase is fill'd all places and publike and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves and increased jealousies in others and their publike offices could not be perform'd with so diffused and particular advantage then they were forc'd to divide congregations and assigne severall Presbyters to their cure in subordination to the Bishop and so we see the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were At first in Rome there were none Evaristus made seven Dionysius made some more and Marcellus added 25 and in Optatus time there were 40. Well then The case is thus Parishes were not divided at first therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish therefore also a Parish is not by Christs ordinance an independant body for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all neither absolute nor in dependance neither and then for the maine issue since Bishops were before Parishes in the present sense the Bishops in that sense could not be Parochiall * But which was first of a private congregation or a Diocesse If a private congregation then a Bishop was at first fix't in a private congregation and so was a Parochiall Bishop If a Diocesse was first then the Question will be how a Diocesse could be without Parishes for what is a Diocesse but a jurisdiction over many Parishes * I answer it is true that DIOCESSE and PARISH are words us'd now in contradistinction And now a Diocesse is nothing but the multiplication of of many Parishes Sed non fuit sic ab initio For at first a Diocesse was the Citie and the Regio suburbicaria the neighbouring townes in which there was no distinction of Parishes That which was a Diocesse in the secular sense that is a particular Province or division of secular prefecture that was the assignation of a Bishops charge * Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Laodicea were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads of the Diocesse saith Pliny meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction and so they were in Ecclesiasticall regiment And it was so upon great reason for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Common-wealth it was of lesse suspition to the secular power while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the politicall as if of purpose to shew their mutuall consistence and it 's owne subordination ** And besides this there was in it a necessity for the subjects of another Province or Diocesse could not either safely or conveniently meete where the duty of the Common-wealth did not ingage them but being all of one prefecture and Diocesse the necessity of publike meetings in order to the Common-wealth would be faire opportunity for the advancement of their Christendome And this which at first was a necessity in this case grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Councell of Chalcedon and of Constantinople in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Common-wealth viz. in her regiment and prefefecture * But in the moderne sense of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocesse as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himselfe or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of indeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocesse actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocesse was so much Iust as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocesse yet at first they had but a smal congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocesse I answere that a Diocesse was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of
enough Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus His seat might usually be in a little Citty if it was one of those townes in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordain'd and yet the appurtenances of his Diocesse large and extended and too great for 100 Parish Priests 4 ly The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan not Parochiall for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visiters as the Councell of Laodicea calls them But what need such Suffragans such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish Indeed they might possibly have been needfull for the managing of a Citty-parish especially if a whole Citty was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochiall But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the country while the Bishop was resident in the Citty either the Bishops parish extended it selfe from Citty to Country and then it is all one with a Diocesse or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch describes their use and power Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias They were to governe the Churches delegated to their charge It seems they had many Churches under their provision and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars for so it followes in the Canon he must not ordaine any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitu◠Regio Without leave of the Bishop of the Citty to whom both himselfe and all the Country is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a Citty wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one Altar in every Church and ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Ierusalem which as Iosephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocesse as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a Citty and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hindred but that there might in a Citty be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may not every Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it selfe and all the Country therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meere parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi was the Constitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a businesse that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearely that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was may easily be guessed by himselfe who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millaine * And therefore when Valerius as it was then sometimes used in severall Churches had ordain'd S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonicall and yet he was not ordain'd to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Agelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harme in it to this cause they were ordain'd to succeed not in conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schisme by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Faelix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should returne to his See on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied if plenty will doe it in S. Chrysostome Theodoret S. Hierom Oecumenius Optatus S. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole booke of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Prelatorum 6 ly Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochiall then these were at least diocesan by their owne argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainely and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE and esteeme him as their HEAD and doe NOTHING without his consent but those things that appertaine to their owne Diocesse And from hence the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch deriv'd their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae
clandestine and so illegall but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi the Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop ALONE might give sentence in the causes of the inferior Clergy even by this Canon it selfe which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our processe for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearely left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the maine question VVEE have seen what Episcopacy is in it selfe now from the same principles let us see what it is to us And first Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary even to the being and constitution of a Church That runs high but we must follow our leaders * S. Ignatius is expresse in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcope Sacerdotibus Qui vetò foris est hic is est qui sine Episcopo Sacerdote Diacono quicquam agit ejusmodi inquinatum habet conscientiam infideli deterior est He that is within the Altar that is within the Communion of the Church he is pure for he obeyes the Bishop and the Priests But he that is without that is does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy he hath filthy conscience science and is worse then an infidell NECESSE itaque est quicquid facitis ut SINE EPISCOPO NIHIL faciatis It is NECESSARY that what euer ye doe ye be sure to doe nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est Episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater then all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse then an infidell The same also he affirmes againe Quot quot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi qui verò ab illo declinant cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur hi cam illis excidentur All them that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cutt off with them * If then we will be Christ's servants we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop It is the condition of Christianity We are not Christians else So is the intimation of S. Ignatius * As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsâ—s where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keyes to Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio ECCLESIAE RATIO decurrit VT ECCLESIA SUPER EPISCOPOS CONSTITUATUR omnis actus Ecclesiae per EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernetur Hence is it that by severall succession of Bishops the Church is continued so that the CHURCH HATH IT'S BEING OR CONSTITUTION BY BISHOPS and every act of Ecclesiasticall regiment is to be disposed by them Cùm hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit miror c. Since therefore this is so ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF GOD I wonder any man should question it c. And therefore as in all buildings the foundation being gone the fabrick falls so IF YE TAKE AWAY BISHOPS the Church must aske a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer bee called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces againe upon the same charge in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the DEFINITION of a Church Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo Grex adhaerens The Church is a flock adhering to it's Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyn'd Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum EPISCOPO NON SIT IN ECCLESIA NON ESSE frustrà sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latentèr apud quosdam communicare se credunt c. As a Bishop is in the Church so the Church is in the Bishop and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church and therefore they vainely flatter themselves that think their case faire and good if they communicate in conventicles and forsake their Bishop And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident and zealous for a Bishop that they would â—ather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution then to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made anedict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholike faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected vt arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the Province met together in a Councell and having considered of the command of the tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanser ant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut Regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quò faciliùs ordinati in suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos invenichant promotione It was full of bravery and Christian sprite The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God rather then man and to consecrate Bishops in all places hoping the King would be appeased or if not yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a faire disposition to receive a Crowne of Martyrdome They did so Fit repentè communis assumptio and they all striv'd who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might goe to heaven though persecuted under the conduct of a Bishop they knew without him the ordinary passage was obstructed Pius the first Bishop of Rome and Martyr speaking of them that calumniate and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous they adde saith he evill to evill and grow worse non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit cresâ—it in templum Dei Not considering that THE CHURCH OF GOD DOTH CONSIST or is established in BISHOPS and growes up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to adde S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this
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
and judiciall contestation let it be ended before the PRIESTS For so S. Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some paralell constitution S. Hierome relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Iudges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories Presybter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwaies Clergy with him and all men else But for the mayne Question S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causâ fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare that Clergy-men must onely judge of Clergy-causes and this S. Ambrose there call's judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiasticall Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus farre S. Ambrose S. Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba president in the Nicene Councell said it was the abhomination of desolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affayres Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity * To these adde the Councell of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nat a contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants but the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must heare the cause but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict for so Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall Secular Iudges should have no interest SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostâ—â degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already § 36. and § 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of * Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure for to pretend such slight aëry imaginations against the constant knowne open Catholike practice and doctrine of the Church and history of all ages is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of lay-Elders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white and watry colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprison of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge antiquity for the men with whose Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would faine have beene it is knowne so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can doe no service in the present Question I am only to cleare this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either divine or humane but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasticall as they are unheard of in antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the lake of Gebenna and so to the place of the neerest denomination * The objection is from S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word doctrine especially they therefore all Elders doe not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Pauls sense not so much to doe one as to doe the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme and betook himselfe to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not S. Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to severall gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be
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
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