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 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. 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 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 Manaen 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 in Ephes. 4. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Antioch 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 a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 11. 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 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 baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris 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 § 22. And all this hath beene the faith practise of Christendome 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
Corinth of eating Idoll Sacrifices expresly against the Decree at Jerusalem so it were without scandall And yet for all this care and curious discretion a little of the leaven still remain'd All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles that it was totally impertinent to the Iewes still they had a distinction to satisfie the letter of the Apostles Decree and yet to persist in their old opinion and this so continued that fifteene Christian Bishops in succession Euseb. l. 4. Eccles. hist. c. 5. were circumcised even untill the destruction of Jerusalem under Adrian as Eusebius reports First By the way let me observe that never any matter of Numb 4. Question in the Christian Church was determin'd with greater solennity or more full authority of the Church then this Question concerning Circumcision No lesse than the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and that with a Decree of the highest sanction Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Secondly Either the case of the Hebrewes in particular was omitted and no determination concerning them 2. whether it were necessary or lawfull for them to be circumcised or else it was involv'd in the Decree and intended to oblige the Jewes If it was omitted since the Question was de re necessaria for dico vobis I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gaine the Iewes and to comply with their violent projudice in behalfe of Moses Law did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re aliôquin necessariâ which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after But if it was not omitted either all the multitude of the Iewes which S. James then Act. 21. 20. their Bishop expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou seest how many myriads of Jewes that believe and yet are zelots for the Law and Eusebius speaking of Justus sayes he was one ex infinit â multitudine L. 3. 32. Eccles. Hist. eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant I say all these did perish and their believing in Christ serv'd them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisie and heresie or if they were sav'd it is apparent how mercifull God was and pitifull to humane infirmities that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weaknesse and pardon their errors and love their good minde since their prejudice was little lesse than insuperable and had faire probabilities at least it was such as might abuse a wise and good man and so it did many they did bono aâ—imâ— carrare And if I mistake not this consideration S. Paul urg'd as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor 1. Tim. 1. of the Saints because he did it ignorantly in unbelief that is he was not convinc'd in his understanding of the truth of the way which he persecuted he in the meane while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeale therefore God had mercy on him And so it was in this great Question of circumcision here only was the difference the invincibility of S. Paul's error and the honesty of his heart caused God so to pardon him as to bring him to the knowledge of Christ which God therefore did because it was necessary necessitate medii no salvation was consistent with the actuall remanency of that error but in the Question of Circumcision although they by consequence did overthrow the end of Christ's comming yet because it was such a consequence which they being hindred by a prejudice not impious did not perceive God tolerated them in their error till time and a continuall dropping of the lessons and dictates Apostolicall did weare it out and then the doctrine put on it's apparell and became cloathed with nenessity they in the meane time so kept to the foundation that is Iesus Christ crucified and risen againe that although this did make a violent concussion of it yet they held fast with their heart what they ignorantly destroyed with their tongue which Saul before his conversion did not that God upon other Titles then an actuall dereliction of their error did bring them to salvation And in the descent of so many years I finde not any one Anathema past by the Apostles or their Successors upon any Numb 5. of the Bishops of Jerusalem or the Believers of the Circumcision and yet it was a point as clearly determined and of as great necessity as any of those Questions that at this day vex and crucifie Christendome Besides this Question and that of the Resurrection commenc'd in the Church of Corinth and promoted with some variety Numb 6. of sense by Hymenaeus and Philetus in Asia who said that the Resurrection was past already I doe not remember any other heresy nam'd in Scripture but such as were errours of impiety seductiones in materiâ practicâ such as was particularly forbidding to marry and the heresy of the Nicolaitans a doctrine that taught the necessity of lust and frequent fornication But in all the Animadversions against errours made by the Apostles in the New Testament no pious person was condemn'd Numb 7. no man that did invincibly erre or bona mente but something that was amisse in genere morum was that which the Apostles did redargue And it is very considerable that even they of the Circumcision who in so great numbers did heartily believe in Christ and yet most violently retaine Circumcision and without Question went to Heaven in great numbers yet of the number of these very men they came deeply under censure when to their errour they added impiety So long as it stood with charity and without humane ends and secular interests so long it was either innocent or conniv'd at but when they grew covetous and for filthy lucres sake taught the same doctrine which others did in the simplicity of their hearts then they turn'd Hereticks then they were term'd Seducers and Titus was commanded to look to them and to silence them For there are many that are intractable and vaine bablers Seducers of minds especially they of the Circumcision who seduce whole houses teaching things that they ought not for filthy lucres sake These indeed were not to be indur'd but to be silenced by the conviction of sound doctrine and to be rebuked sharply and avoided For heresy is not an errour of the understanding but an errour Numb 8. of the will And this is clearly insinuated in Scripture in the stile whereof Faith and a good life are made one duty and vice is called opposite to Faith and heresy opposed to holinesse and sanctity So in S. Paul For saith he the end of 1 Tim. 1. the Commandement is charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfained à quibus
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. 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 vicario 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 Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited 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 Act. 13. 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 Act. 20. 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 Act. 20. 4. 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 vers 18. 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
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 ea quae 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 Church 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 § 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common 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 Epist. ad Corinth 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 1. Pet. 5. 1. 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 Tychicus 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
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 § 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreame Church-officer in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present vulgar conception Some few examples I shal give insteed of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is us'd 36 times in appropriation to him that is the 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 a Can. 15. 16. Nice of b c. 9. alibi 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 c post advent Episc. Cypri Councell of Ephesus by d advers Praxeam Tertullian by e lib. 3. c. 59. de vitâ Const. 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 Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Ortbod fide Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does I sidore 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 Anno Dom 257. 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 Epist. ad Trall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Heron 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
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 clection 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 Epist. ad Antioch 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. 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 Epist. 61. 62. as how himselfe was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cùm tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Hieron ad Nepotian 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 lib. 1. offic cap. 44. 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 Tripart hist. lib. 5. cap. 32. habentes vitam ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem Diacontûs 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 lib. 1. Epist. 5. 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 Epist. 68. 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 * Iust thus Bishops are and ever were ordayn'd non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ in the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publike testimony and examination for so it followes sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proof's whence we may
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 Concil Antisiodor can 7. 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 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7. Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests doe from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking Epist. 3. per Ruffinum 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 Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. 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 Epist. 69. 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 Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis cap. 18. 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 Epist. 32. QUIS QUAM IUDEX resideat sed unus 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 betumultuous 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 * Acts 15. 23. 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 is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Lib. 4. polit c. 15. They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks the Presbyters subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. Suo He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests So Theodoret. Peter and Irenaeus were two Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they have supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state for that is truly a reformation id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what
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 rather 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 vide Concil Byzacenum An. Dom. 504. Surium die 1. Ianuar. Baron in A. D. 504. had made an edict 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 ordinatiin suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos inveniebant 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 Epist. 2. endeavouring to make them infamous they adde saith he evill to evill and grow worse non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit 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 advers Lucifer cap. 4. the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacer dot is dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this § 46. For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop businesse to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an Vnmatchable power be not given to him tot efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved and we know that unity and being are of equall extent and if the Unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop then where there is no Bishop no pretence to a Church and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick For Unity which the Fathers presse so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos dirimere sed Vnimini Episcopo subjecti Deo per illum in Christo saith S. Ignatius Let nothing divide you but be united to your Bishop Epist. ad Magnes being subiect to God in Christ through your Bishop And it is his congè to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Iesu Christo in quo manete per Vnitatem Dei EPISCOPI Farewell in Christ Iesus in whom remaine by the Vnity of God and of the BISHOP * Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo Episcopo vt Ecclesia à Domino Iesu Ad Ephes. Dominus à Patre suo vt omnià per Vnitatem consentiant Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop as the Church on Christ and Christ on God that all things may consent in Vnity * Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quà m inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur S. Cyprian ep 55. nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Iudex vice Christi cogitatur Hence come SCHISMES hence spring HERESYES that the Bishop is not obeyed and admitted alone to be the high Priest alone to be the Iudge The same S. Cyprian Epist. 69. repeates againe and by it we may see his meaning clearer Qui vos audit me audit c Indeenim haereses schismata obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur The pride and peevish haughtinesse of some factious people that contemne their Bishops is the cause of all heresy and Schisme And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons that any Man should have any meetings or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop that if any man prov'd delinquent in this particular he was punish'd with the highest censures as appeares in the 32 Canon of the Apostles in the 6 th Canon of the Councell of Gangra the 5 th Canon of the Councell of Antioch and the great Councell of Chalcedon all Act. 4. which I have before cited The summe is this The Bishop is the band and ligature of the Churches Unity and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodorets expession is a Symbol of faction and he that separates is a Schismatick But how if the Bishop himselfe be a heretick or schismatick May we not then separate Yes if he be judg'd so by a Synod of Bishops but then he is sure to be depos'd too and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop For till he be declar'd so his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocesse least they by so doing become their Iudges judge and when he is declar'd so no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop for the heretick or schismatick must be no longer Bishop * But let the case be what it will be no separation from a Bishop ut sic can be lawfull and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawfull to separate from a Bishop yet in no case is it lawfull to separate from Episcopacy That is the quintessence and spirit of schisme and a direct overthrow to Christianity and
have been believed But I said the fancy was new and I had reason for it was so unknown till yesterday that even the late Writers of his own side expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else as is to be seen in a Desens pacis part 2. c. 28. Marsilius b Recommend sacr Script Petrus de Aliaco and the glosse upon Dist. 19. can ita Dominus § ut supra which also was the Interpretation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop from whom they learnt the resemblance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which they have made so many gay discourses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. But upon condition I may have leave at another time to Numb 7. recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter but his person upon which Christ said he would build his Church or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith and Christ and his Apostles the subjective Christ principally and S. Peter instrumentally and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the Sea of Rome For upon S Peter it was built but not alone for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy he reckons not Peter first and then the Apostles But first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And whatsoever is first either is before all things else or at least nothing is before it So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles which also S. Paul expresly averres I am in nothing inferiour to the very chiefest of the Apostles no not in the very being a Rock and a foundation and it was of the Church of Ephesus that S. Paul said in particular it was columna firmamentum veritatis that Church was not excluding others for they also were as much as she for so we keep close and be united to the corner stone although some be master builders Vid. Socrat. l. 1. c. 19. 20. Sozom. l. 2. c 14. Niceph. l. 14. c. 40. yet all may build and we have known whole Nations converted by Lay-men and women who have been builders so farre as to bring them to the corner stone 6. But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the Numb 8. capacities can be with any colour pretended yet what have the Bishops of Rome to doe with this For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop and not as a publike Apostle Since this later is so much the more likely because the great pretence of all seemes in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church then its continuance And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop which yet is a further degree of improbability removed further from certainty yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of headship then S. Iohn or any of the Apostles that survived Peter It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch since that he was at Antioch and preached there we have a Divine Authority but that he did so at Rome at most we have but a humane and if it be replyed that because he dyed at Rome it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his priviledge this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome and the Apostolicall presidency was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdome the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholike Church And this thing presses the harder because it is held by no meane persons in the Church of Rome that the Bishoprick of Rome and the Papacy are things separable And the Pope may quit that Sea and sit in another which to my understanding is an Argument that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch is as much supream by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome both alike that is Vid. Cameracens Qu. vel◠est neither by Divine Ordinance For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church then by the same intention the Succession must be continued in that Sea and then let the Pope goe whether he will the Bishop of Rome must be the Head which they themselves deny and the Pope himselfe did not believe when in a schisme he sate at Avignon and that it was to be continued in the Sea of Rome it is but offered to us upon conjecture upon an act providence as they fancy it so ordering it by vision and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphall under the name of Linus in Biblioth PP de passione Petri Pauli A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidentall whose purpose was but infinuated the meaning of it but conjectur'd at and this conjecture so uncertain that it was an imperfect aime at the purpose of an event which whether it was true or no was so uncertain that it is ten to one there was no such matter And yet again another degree of uncertainty is to whom the Bishops of Rome doe succeed For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome as S. Peter was there he presided there he preach'd and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles S. Peter of the Circumcision and of the Jewes only and therefore the converted Jewes at Rome might with better reason claim the priviledge of S. Peter then the Romans and the Churches in her Communion who doe not derive from Jewish Parents 7. If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also Numb 9. communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entail'd upon the Chaire of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministeriall Head of the Church is the most that is desir'd to be prov'd by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that Sea Now let the Ministerall Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equall power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremoniall But will this Ministeriall Headship inferre an infallibility will it inferre more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue
the Iurisdiction to be ministred by himselfe would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolicall ordination obtruding himselfe upon the Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busy man in anothers Diocesse This and such impostors as this the Angell of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by S. Iohn himselfe as is intimated in S. Iohns third Epistle written to this Gajus v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearely this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrell for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appeares further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to doe v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is cleare this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopall preheminence and jurisdiction without lawfull ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his designe He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop BVt this office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy § 6. Which Christ himselfe hath made distinct from Presbyters derives its fountain from a Rock Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke He called his Disciples and out Luke 10. of them chose twelve and called them Apostles That was the first election Post haec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos That was his second election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them by two and two We heare but of one commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyfull at their power over Divells wee heare no more of them in the Gospell but that their Names were written in heaven Wee are likely therefore to heare of them after the passion if they can but hold their owne And so we doe For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clericall commission by vertue of Christs first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clericall offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts Others also we find Presbyters at Ierusalem especially at the first Councell for there was Iudas sirnamed Iustus and Silas and S. Marke and Iohn a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius Lib. 3. cap. 3. reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Ierusalem these and diverse others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiasticall Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary § 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not but succeeded to and if so then here is clearely a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while 1. THen It is cleare in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church and therefore to be committed to their Successors which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Denis Eccles. hierarch c. 5. of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy The law of God hath reserved the Greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order First the Apostles impos'd hands in Ordinations As of Ordination which the 72 did not the case is knowne Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to choose seaven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poore They did so and set them before the twelue Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they lay'd their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72 who were there actually present and seaven of them were then ordayn'd to this Ministery for they were not now ordayn'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the * In Trullo can 16. Councell of Constantinople calls them and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witnesse He sent other 72. to Haeres 20. preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seaven ordained and set over the widdowes And the same is intimated by S. Chrysostome if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 14. in Act. 6. What dignity had these seaven here ordained of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearely repeating the In hunc locū words of S. Chrysostome promore 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 Acts. 13. 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
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 becomprehended 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 nor 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in 1. Phil. 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 One simus 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopis Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose referres this clause of Cum Episcopis Diaconis to S. Paul and S. Timothy intimating In 1. Philip. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 54. 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 Episcopus were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I thinke it will easily be shewen in Scripture that the
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 inferior Orders The same commendation S. Cyprian Epist. 52. 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 cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit .... factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegiis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant qui ad nos liter as .... 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 quis quis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit for is 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 § 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick Can. Apost 1 2. 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 Epist. Vnica 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 Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Antiech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 19. 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 Can. 12. 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 Can. 4. qunm ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno super eum fundente benedictionem reliquiomnes 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 * A. D. 509. Epaunū cals it And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch a schisme was made about his successor Evagrius his ordination Theodoret. l. 9. cap 44. condemn'd because praeter Ecclesiasticam 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 penitùs 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 Cap. 1. 2. saith Eusebius he obtain'd three Bishops for performance lib. 6. hist. cap. 33. 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 and Catholicke tradition For 3. THE Bishops ordination was peculiar in § 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 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 A. D. 555. 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 O stiâ ordinaverunt eum Pontificem Tunc enim non erant in Clero qui eum possent promovere Saith Damasus It was in case of necessity in libr. Pontificali vit Pelag. 1. because there were not three Bishops therefore he procur'd two and a Priest of O stia 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 requiring 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. Concil Sardic 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 Presbyterate 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 Epist. 3. Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirmes Primum ordinem Epist. 84. c. 4. 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 censure 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. Lib. 1 c. 12. de act is cum Felice Manich Austin Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam virtutem quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotij sublime lib 4. Epist. 2. fastigium 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 gratiam habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs * Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ORDINARET majorem saith S. Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. 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 de praescript cap. 32. 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 lib. 4. cap. 23. 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 cap. 1. 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
Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needlesse to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretall now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these wee see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of cofirmation by many Councells and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denyed to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their owne opinion but witnesses of a Catholike practise and doe actually attest it as done by a Catholike consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produc'd of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation wee may conclude it to be a power Apostolicall in the Originall Episcopall in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher then that of a Presbyter and so declar'd by this instance of Catholike Practise THus farre I hope we are right But I call to § 34. And jurisdiction mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and eares some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chinne but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Iurisdiction Others by all meanes would be thought to be quite thorough in behalfe of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this meanes they thinke to impaire their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is lesse and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction then now Men will endure to be granted or then themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in termes of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei 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 quiomni Prineipatu potestate superior Epist. ad Trallian 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 SACERDOTUM 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 lib. 3. epist. 9. 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 lib. 4. cap. 63. or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Can. 10. Councell of Sardis to the TOP or HEIGHT of Episcopacy APICES PRINCIPES OMNIUM so Optatus calls Bishops the CHEIFE aud HEAD of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum lib. 2. adv Parmen Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in Ierem. TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER ORHEIGHT 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 effect no Diocesse yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDENCY 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 Can. 69. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 25. The Bishop hath POWER OVER the affayrs of the Church * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat S. Sylvester the
the Bishop was Iudge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocesse that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency that his censures were firme and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch't by them either in full Councell if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unlesse in cases of appeale and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the Imperiall Constitutions Novel constit 123. c. 11. For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognisance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speake in most large and comprehensive termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to doe what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Councell of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though then S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proofe of you whether ye be obedient 2. Corinth 2. 9. IN ALL THINGS A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universall obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runne in descention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must doe NOTHING without your BISHOP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in NOTHING Vbi suprà The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgement or cognisance so the Councell of Antioch Ca. 9. * But these Universall expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himselfe Ye must without your Bishop doe nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiasticall persons it is an Ecclesiasticall power they are indowed with it is for a spirituall end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of soules and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopall cognisance And what things are those 1. Then it is certaine that since Christ hath professed his Kingdome is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Host is Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunall did take cognisance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christ'ned And these are all actions civill all publike violations of justice all breach of Municipall lawes These the Church hath nothing to doe with unlesse by the favour of Princes and common-wealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annull such pious vowes is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unlesse there was sinne in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops ALL comes in after this And he is judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by it's new distinctive Principles I say by it's new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the lawes of nature there the secular tribunall is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republike hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is judge of Such are causes of faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchicall rites and ceremonies liturgyes and publike formes of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologyes tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our pretious soules may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people 3. There are somethings of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution and these are of double cognisance the secular power and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencyes of Clergy-men who are both Clergy and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflected a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in severall ages upon the exigence of severall occasions and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the common-wealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiasticall because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things
eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis 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 presence 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 dist 95. cap. Ecce ego 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 1 Can. 40. Apostles so 2 Epist. ad Ephes. Ignatius so the Councell of 3 Cap. 24. 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 ordination 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 present 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 contrarii honori 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
32. 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 Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videatur Concil Carthag Graec. can 36. 38. 41. Balsam ibid. apologia 2. Iustini Martyris 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 § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse or to travell without leave of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixe 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 Vide Concil Epaun. c. 5. venet c. 10. 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 Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy Can. 41. 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 Can. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 a Can. 38. Agatho The Councell of b Can. 5. Venice adds a cēsure 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 Can. 6. 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 § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased 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 Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour Can. 31. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Titus V 5. 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
Bishops were of small Townes and therefore these Canons were not observed and Bishops might be and were parochiall as S. Gregory of Nazianzum Zoticus of Comana Maris in Dolicha The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by * Lib. y. c. 16. Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by †Lib. 5. cap. 4. Theodoret a little Towne This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochiall Bishops * But first suppose these had been parishes and these three parochiall Bishops it followes not that all were not those to be sure which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces and Kingdomes 2 ly It is a cleare case that Nazianzum though a small City yet was the seate of a Bishops throne so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour where it is accounted inter thronos Ius Graecc-Rom p. 89. Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum is in the same account with Caesarea with Ephesus with Crete with Philippi and almost fourescore more * As for Zoticus he indeed came from Vide Baron An. Dom. 205 n. 27. Comana a Village towne for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith †Lib. 4. c. 25. Nicephorus * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha it was indeed such a small Citty as Nazianzus was but that proves not but his Diocesse and territory was large enough Thus was Asclepius Gennad apud Hieron Iohan. de Trittenheim de script Eccles. 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 subjicitus 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 Epist. ad Philadelph 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 notevery 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 Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. 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 Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. 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 In 1. Cor. 12. 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 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan haeres 66. n. 6. Possidon in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. 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 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21 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 Lib. 4. cap. 15. note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. †Lib. 4. Epist. 2. 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