the Primitive Church against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendome in the whole descent of 15. Ages without all command and warrant of Scripture that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing against prudence and the best wisedome of humanity because it is without deliberation that it is innovation in a high degree without that Authority which is truly and by inherent and ancient right to command and prescribe to us in externall forms of worship that it is much to the disgrace of the first reformers of our Religion that it gives encouragement to the Papists to quarrell with some reason and more pretence against our Reformation as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindnesse and therefore might erre in the excesse as well as in the defect in the throwing out too much as casting off too little which is the more likely because they wanted zeale to carry it farre enough He that considers the universall deformity of publike worship and the no meanes of union no Symbol of publike communion being publikely consigned that all Heresies may with the same Authority bee brought into our prayers and offered to God in behalfe of the people with the same Authority that any truth may all the matter of our prayers being left to the choyce of all men of all perswasions and then observes that actually there are in many places heresie and blasphemy and impertinency and illiterate rudenesses put into the devotions of the most Solemne dayes and the most publike meetings and then lastly that there are divers parts of Lyturgy for which no provisions at all is made in the Directory and the very administration of the Sacraments left so loosely that if there be any thing essentiall in the forms of Sacraments the Sacrament may come ineffectuall by want of due words and due ministration I say he that considers all these things and many more he may consider will finde that particular men are not fit to be intrusted to offer in publike with their private spirit to God for the people in such solemnities in matters of so great concernment where the honour of God the benefit of the people the interest of Kingdomes the being of a Church the unity of minds the conformity of practice the truth of perswasions and the salvation of soules are so very much concerned as they are in the publike prayers of a whole Nationall Church An unlearned man is not to be trusted and a wise man dare not trust himselfe hee that is ignorant cannot he that is knowing will not The End OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACIE By Divine Jnstitution Apostolicall Tradition and Catholique Practice TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour Secular Employment Manner of Election Delegation of their Power and other appendant questions asserted against the Aerians and Acephali new and old By IER TAYLOR D. D. Chaplaine in Ordinarie to His MAJESTIE Published by His MAJESTIES Command ROM 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God CONCIL CHALCED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1647. TO THE TRVLY VVORTHY AND MOST ACCOMPLISHT S r CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH SIR I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth and J would willingly finde a shrowd to cover my selfe from danger and calumny and although the cause both is ought to be defended by Kings yet my person must not goe thither to Sanctuary unlesse it be to pay my devotion and I have now no other left for my defence I am robd of that which once did blesse me and indeed still does but in another manner and I hope will doe more but those distillations of coelestiall dewes are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense and now adayes we seldome look with other be the object never so beauteous or alluring You may then think Sir I am forc'd upon You may that beg my pardon and excuse but I should do an injury to Your Noblenesse if I should onely make You a refuge for my need pardon this truth you are also of the fairest choice not only for Your love of Learning for although that be eminent in You yet it is not Your eminence but for Your duty to H. Church for Your loyaltie to His sacred Majestie These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your faire incouragement and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy in which cause Religion and Majesty the King and the Church are interested as parties of mutuall concernment There was an odde observation made long agoe and registred in the Law to make it authentick Laici sunt infensi Clericis Now the Clergy pray but fight not and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies and injuries which an envious multitude will inflict upon them It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time Quamvis decreta In Chartē Edgar Regis A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman Pontificum verba Sacerdotum in convulsis ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt tamen plerumque tempestatibus turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur acrumpitur Idcirco Decrevimus Nos c. There was a sad example of it in K. Iohn's time For when he threw the Clergy from his Protection it is incredible what injuries what affronts what robberies yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church whom neither the Sacrednesse of their persons nor the Lawes of God nor the terrors of Conscience nor feares of Hell nor Church-censures nor the Lawes of Hospitality could protect from Scorne from blowes from slaughter Now there being so neer a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger it will tye the Bishops hearts and hands to the King faster then all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance all the Politicall tyes I mean all that are not precisely religious and obligations in the Court of Conscience 2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King besides the interest of their own securitie by the obligation of secular advantages For they who have their livelyhood from the King and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty then others whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependancy on His Majesty Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Councell viz. because the Pope gave spirituall promotions but the Councels gave none It is but the Common expectation of gratitude that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity then by those who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Goverment 3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it selfe
ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras himselfe was reduc'd into lay communion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist Presb. Diacon Mareotic ad Curiosum Philagrium the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischiras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so knowne a businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus who was another Bishop in the aire too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read Cap. 4. the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill These cases are so known I need not insist on them Cap. 5. This onely In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacraments conferr'd by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to Minister but in the cases of the present instance the ordinations were pronounc'd as null to have bestowed nothing and to be meerely imaginary * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordain'd without a title or in the diocesse of another Bishop as in the Councell of †Can. 6. Chalcedon and of * Can 13. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter it was by positive constitution pronounced void and no more and therefore may be rescinded by the Counter-mand of an equall power A Councell at most may doe it and therefore without a Councell a probable necessity will let us loose But to this the answer is evident 1. The expressions in the severall cases are severall of diverse issue for in case of those nullities which are meerely Canonicall they are expressed as then first made but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop they are onely declared voy'd ipso facto And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations the Canon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs impositionem to be esteem'd as null that is not to have Canonicall approbation but is not declared null in Naturâ rei as it is in the foregoing instances 2. In the cases of Antioch and Chalcedon the decree is pro futuro which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodall declarations pronoun'd such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a cleare evidence that this nullity viz in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declar'd to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by the Nature and institution of the Order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependant upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was onely in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speake lesse for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognisance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Ierome Quid facit Episcopus except â ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith ad Evagrium he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Solâ homil 2. in 1. Tim. 2. lâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantùm plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was call'd an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aërius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemn'd and branded for heresie and by the Catholike Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring then positive and Canonicall Sanction But now proceed The Councell held in Trullo complaining that Can. 37. the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forc'd some Bishops from their residence made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and doe such things as DID BELONG TO THE BISHOP and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonicall ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Councell And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands * There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Councell that hath an expression very pertinent to Can. 20. this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to doe them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearely by this Canon some things suppos'd to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are nam'd before viz Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Councell was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be Understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop us'd by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordaine Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholike Church which S. Epiphanius oppos'd to the haeres 75. doctrine of Aërius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptisme but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a
where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferre more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for orders sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practise And that the other Apostles were by a personall priviledge as infallible as himselfe is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himselfe was and certainly there might have something hapned in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judiciall power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalfe Will the Ministeriall Headship inferre any more then when the Church in a Community or a publike capacity should doe any Act of Ministery Ecelesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councels which yet was not alwayes granted him Suppose it to be a power of taking cognisance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councels cannot be called Suppose it a double voyce or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour Suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministeriall Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causlessely amused with such premises and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 8. I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Numb 10. Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places can be that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetuall experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their halfe Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophecying should be restrain'd But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seemes not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles S. Peter himselfe not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not only with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determin'd the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret and although we have but little Record that the first Councell at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the finall sentence and although S. Peter determin'd the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstaine from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judg'd most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of S. Chrysost. hom 3. in act Apost Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if this Question be to be determin'd by Scripture it Numb 11. must either be ended by plaine places or by obscure plaine places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what meanes shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Popes interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for it selfe either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogy of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peters own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confesse what they never thought But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile Numb 12. their words and their actions that the processe is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so farre at least as to shew either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practise was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much cased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in it selfe as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Councell every men liv'd to himselfe and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practise could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops infallibility and by consequence supreme judgement and last resolution in matters of
office of power and great authority p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendome p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supream Church Officer p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him onely the Pastor of the Church p. 145 26 And Doctor p. 149 27 And Pontifex And Sacerdos p. 150 28 And these were a distinct order from the rest p. 156 29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree p. 160 30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation p. 198 34 Power of Iurisdiction p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 35 Vniversall obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopall license p. 251 38 Church-goods reserved to Episcopal dispensatiō 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Dioces or to travell without leave of the Bishop p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased p. 267 41 Bishops onely did vote in Councels and neither Presbyters nor People p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks p. 292 43 The Bishops Iurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes p. 295 44 Their Iurisdiction was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary p. 323 46 They are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop p. 327 47 And Hereticks p. 329 48 Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great honour p. 335 49 And trusted with affaires of Secular interest p. 351 50 And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church p. 375 ERRATA PAg. 21. line 8. insert except S. John Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters read Bishops Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy insert c. l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers OF THE Sacred Order and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION APOSTOLICALL TRADITION Catholick practise c. IN all those accursed machinations which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church Inimicus homo that old superseminator of heresies and crude mischiefes hath indeavoured to be curiously compendious and with Tarquin's device put are summ a papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium The Priests but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all Tolleimpios Polycarpus requiratur Away with these pedling persecutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lay the axe at the root of the tree Insomuch that in Rome from S. Peter and S. Paul to S. Sylvester thirty three Bishops of Rome in immediate succession suffered an Honourable and glorious Martyrdome unlesse * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur Saith Platina but that is wholly uncertaine Meltiades be perhaps excepted whom Eusebius and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius Conteret caput ejus was the glorious promise Christ should break the Divell's head and though the Divell 's active part of the Duell was farre lesse yet he would venture at that too even to strike at the heads of the Church capita vicaria for the head of all was past his striking now And this I say he offered to doe by Martyrdome but that insteed of breaking crown'd them His next onset was by Iulian and occidere Presbyterium that was his Province To shut up publick Schooles to force Christians to ignorance to impoverish and disgrace the Clergy to make them vile and dishonourable these were his arts and he did the Divell more service in this finenesse of undermining then all the open battery of the ten great Rammes of persecution But this would not take For that which is without cannot defile a man So it is in the Church too Cedunt in bonum all violences ab extrà But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces reunited them at Nice at Constantinople at Ephesus at Chalcedon at Carthage at Rome and in every famous place of Christendome and by God's goodnesse and the Bishops industry Catholick religion was conserved in Vnity and integrity Well! however it is Antichrist must come at last and the great Apostacy foretold must be and this not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity When ye heare of warres and rumors of warres be not afraid said our B. Saviour the end is not yet It is not warre that will doe this great work of destruction for then it might have been done long ' ere now What then will doe it We shall know when we see it In the meane time when we shall find a new device of which indeed the platforme was laid in Aërius and the Acephali brought to a good possibility of compleating a thing that whosoever shall heare his ears shall tingle an abhomination of desolation standing where it ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the praeparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostacy For if Antichrist shall exalt himselfe above all that is called God and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such Dii vocati Dii facti I think we have great reason to be suspitious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very neer conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concernes will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdome by which he governes all Christendome so themselves have taught us so that in case it be proved that Episcopacy is that government then they to use their own expressions throw Christ out of his Kingdome and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our feares in this and all things else may be vaine that what we feare may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and praeparatory to the great Apostacy I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of 1. times for now after that
Whence it is evident that then it was the beliefe of Christendome that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministery given to faithfull people after Baptisme but only by Apostolicall or Episcopall consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendome was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could doe it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is cleare that S. Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministeriall giving of the holy Ghost but the Apostles must goe to doe it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought de facto alwaies was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwaies be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to doe it that is an office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never doe it and this is it which we call Episcopacy 3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole § 9. And Superiority of Iurisdiction Church each Apostle respectively of his severall Diocesse when he would fixe his chaire had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christs donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater Iohn 20. 21. sic ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententiae Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis Lib. 7. de baptism Contra Donatist c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian de Unit. Eccles. S. Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 12. c. 55. ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Councell of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aërius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appeares in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordaine Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Ierusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant ' amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enimies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopall preheminence over Presbyters as will appeare in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never bee proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them severall commissions and parts of the office Apostolicall all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders Truth is if we change the scene of warre and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct order from the ordinary office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder then for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clericall Ephes. 4. 1. Corinth 12. offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other members of the induction are of guifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must inferre many more orders then the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the guift of tongues of healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72 to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwaies did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolicall only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolicall alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a lesse But if the first be said then the commission to the 72 Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolicall ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolicall institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it followes that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolicall or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolicall And that I say truth besides that
filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops doe succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good De verbis Dom serm 24 use of his succeeding the Apostles which would doe very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsell not to despise Bishops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protected by that saying he that despiseth you despiseth mee I said it was good counsell especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anatthematizandiab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam In Ephes. 4. dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops In 1. Corinth 12. 28. That 's down right and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesi â Apostolos posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsisunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Iudâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli In vers 29. ibid. verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when hee spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates Biblioth Phot. n. 254. of the Martyrdome of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolicall presidency Lih. 4. c. 18. The summe is the same which S. Peter himselfe taught the Church as S. Clement his Scholler or some other primitive man in his name reports of him Episâ—â—pos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum Epist. 1. docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Epist. 1. ad Simpron Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in b Homil. 26. in Evang. S. Gregory c Orat. 2. de imagin S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sixtus the first his second decretall Epistle and most plentifully in d Epist. 7. S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Councell in the Epistle of e Habetur Can. in Novo distinct 21. Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In f In synod Hispal Isidore and in g Lib. 3. c. 15. super Lucam Venerable Bede His words are these sicut duodecem Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of § 11. And particularly of S. Peter Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suaerationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Epist. 27. ad Lapsos Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopall dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S Ierome intimate's Non est facilè Epist. 1. stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtaine the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopall office Pasceoves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Lib. 12. thes cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejusque paritèr authoritatem libertatemque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejusque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira So Basil did to Valens and his Sonne for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the tract primâ die suae ordinat Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evill Bishops whatsoever doe with unhallowed and uncleane feete usurpe the seate of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholike beleife and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate Biblioth S S. P P. ton 5 in Eccles. ord in crepat be eternall to be succeeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not onely of Divine institution but indeed the onely order which can clearely show an immediate Divine commission for it's power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolicall then
those which doe succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolicall ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiasticall power and all the offices Now they in their ordayning assistant Ministers did not in every ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordayned some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clericall imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordain'd by imposition of hands to goe to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. Iohn and Iames and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publike designe or Grand imployment but the Apostolike men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolicall ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were onely a giving of partilar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolicall calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were onely a delivering of Iurisdiction when the persons ordayned had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of Acts 13. the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spirituall offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher then Apostolicall ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authoriz'd for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Iudas and Silas and diverse others who therefore were more then meere Presbyters as the word is now us'd * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure atleast not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say clearely make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from Grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordaine such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their Successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to baptize to preach to consecrate to absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much lesse to another that is onely of Apostolicall ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some onely a power to absolve to some onely to consecrate to some onely to baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had onely a power to baptize and preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture does not tell us * But if to some men they had onely given a power to use the Keyes or made them officers spirituall to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessary conjunction no more then baptizing and consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of absolving or consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Preist hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordayn'd with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordayned by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolicall power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessity that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetuall So that we have cleare evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetuall order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops doe succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scirpture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholike testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacy the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinary offices in which they were Superior to the 72 the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must cleare For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmaticall resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alleaged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of baptizing consecrating and absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolicall power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observeable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed in Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places
wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordaine and Advers Iovinian therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall hee take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordaine these Bishops in Citties is in order to coercitive jurisdiction because many unruly and vaine talkers were crept in vers 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolicall institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himselfe had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordayn'd these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his comming had not Episcopall power or coercitive jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordayn'd before his ordayning them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercitiv jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his owne person for they that were there before his comming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not loose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordain'd For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest quà m ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his owne person and then it followes Undeniably that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impcccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schisme and tumutuary factions without possibility of releife or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personall prerogative but a power to be succeded to he might ordaine others he had authority to doe it with the same power he had himselfe and therefore since he alone had this coërcion in his owne person so should his Successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his comming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordaine if they were but meere Presbyters could not have it no more then the Presbytes that were there before his comming it followes that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himselfe call's Bishops in the proper sense and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus comming had not power to ordaine others that is had not that power which Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordaine others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meere Presbyters could not doe it and yet this must be done not onely by Titus himselfe but after him it followes undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine men with the same power that himselfe had that is with more then his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he meanes them in the proper sense 7. That by Elders in severall Cityes he meanes Bishops is also plaine from the place where they were to be ordaind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cityes not in village Townes For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Townes as is to be seene in the Councell of a cap. 6. Sardis of b can 17. Chalcedon and S. c Epist 87. ad Episc. Afric Leo the Cityes therefore doe at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordain'd were not meere Presbyters The issue of this discourse is that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordaine Bishops himselfe was a Bishop to be sure at least If he had ordain'd only Presbyters it would have prov'd that But this inferres him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his owne constitution and yet of proper diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least inferres his being a Bishop if not a great deale more Yea but did not S. Titus ordaine no meere Presbyters yes most certainely But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordaines a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtaines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that those inferior orders are presuppos'd in the authorizing the Supreame and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferiour orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Adde to this that he that ordaines Bishops in Cityes sets there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainely with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no expresse provision for villages and yet most certainely did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he tooke order that such ordinations should be made in Cityes which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordaine and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordaine other Presbyters as appeares by S. Paul's sending Titus to doe it there where most certainely many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cityes destitute or if they staid in Cityes the Villages would have perished and atlast when these men had dyed both one and the other had beene made a prey to the wolfe for there could be no
criminall and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius Vbi supra apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23. For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already prooved and for the present it will sufficiently appeare in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unlesse they could be their own superiours BUt a Councell or Colledge of Presbyters §. 21. Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they rul'd without him * This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud S. Ierom's words are these Comment in ep ad Titum Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consitio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos put abat esse non Christi in toto or be decretum est ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quid facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordayne a Bishop does which is a cleare difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non FACIAT not non facit that a Priest may not must not doe that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Diocesse therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary by actuall indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and originall right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had beene quickly answered if the Question had onely beene de facto For the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Iurisdiction was greater then Presbyters and this was by custome and in fact at least S. Hierome saies it and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco palibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complain'd of so that de facto the power of Ad Nepotian de 7. ordin Eccles. ordination was not the onely difference That then if S. Hierome sayes true being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a superiour order to the Presbyterate * Adde to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Act. 20. And Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needes a proofe and this he Undertooke Now that they are so called must needes inferre an identity and a disparity in severall respects An identity at least of Names for else it had beene wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a businesse next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he meanes the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certaine if he stand to his owne principles This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in jurisdiction I know not certainely which he meanes for his arguments conclude onely for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he meanes the first viz that of Names it is well enough there is no harme done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so farre as may be guess'd by his words a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction this must be consider'd distinctly 1. Then in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at
Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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.
ad PRINCIPATUM SACERDOTII pertinent Presbyteris verò quae ad Sacerdotium And in b Lib. 3. Ep. 1. S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signify Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus SACERDOTIUM Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith c Lib. 7. c. 28. Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop alwaies Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS qui est Episcopus saith d Lib. de baptism Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unlesse when there is some distinctive terme and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesia est plebs SACERDOTI adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. e Epist. 69. Cyprian And that we may know by Sacerdos he means the Bishop his next words are Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt SACERDOTEM Dei agnoscentes contestantes * f Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21. Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Councell of Antioch In quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum PRAECIPUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACERDOTES Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis SACERDOTIO ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACERDOTIUM Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SACERDOTIUM gerens for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith g Lib. 3. c. 35. Eusebius and the h Epist. Comprovinc ad S. Leonem Bishops of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter say quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civit as missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACERDOTEM *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word Melito Lib. 4. c. 26. quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greeke and used for the Bishop by Iustin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with PRAELATUS and praepositus Ecclesiae ANTISTES autem SACERDOS dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae suprase nullum habet saith S. Isidore Lib 7. Etymol c. 12. *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called PRIMUS PRESBYTER Nam Timotheum Episcopum Comment in 4. Ephes. à secreatum Presbyterum vocat quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the Colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called PRIMI PRESBYTERI that 's S. Ambrose his sense But S. Austin gives Quast Vet. et N. Testam Qu. 101. another PRIMI PRESBYTERI that is chiefe above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER h. e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himselfe gives a better exposition of his words then is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus PRIMUS est ut omnis Episcopus In 1. Tim. 3. Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER that is PRIMUS SACERDOS h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDOTUM so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus INTER In 4. Ephes. PRESBYTEROS himselfe remaining a meere Presbyter but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in another sense he is the chiefe not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower then Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. Iohn Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Iohannes enim qui diutissimi Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocesse Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith S. Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith S. Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But S. Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the severall relations expressed in the severall compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Epist. 69. Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... eccejam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistatem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himselfe who had then been sixe years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unlesse there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochiall and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher § 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent to the rest For
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
definitions of the Schoole There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a speciall power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordayning labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sense Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more then a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever deni'd it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would faine know how the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordaine Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration then all those inferiour officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unlesse because they will not *** But however in the meane time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an Innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all antiquity This onely by the way The Enemies of Episcopacy call in aide from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their maine hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest worke of the most secret mystery S. Hieron ad Rusticum Narbonens apud Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego casus ibid. greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much Superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counter-poise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would inferre an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would inferre a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be serv'd 1. Then whether power be greater of Ordaining Priests or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question possibly it may be of some danger because in comparing Gods ordinances there must certainely be a depression of one and whether that lights upon the right side or no yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God to doe that which in Gods estimate may tant ' amount to a direct Vndervaluing but however it is vnprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fixe it selfe upon any basis therebeing no way of proving either to be more excellent then the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in severall respects For since they are all in order to severall ends that is productive of severall effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent then the other not ordain'd to that effect For example Matrimony is ordain'd for a means to preserve chastity and to represent the mysticall union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater then baptisme which does neither But * The Nicene Creed baptisme is for remission of sinnes and in that is more excellent then Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs naturall body as the Schooles speak the other in order to his mysticall body and so have their severall excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fixe that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they goe both before and after one another Thus Wooll and a Iewell are better then each other for wooll is better for warmth and a jewell for ornament A frogge hath more sense in it then the Sunne and yet the Sunne shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater then ordaining Priests yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more it is all that which makes the Priest and it is something more besides which makes the Bishop Indeed if the Bishop had it not and the Priest had it then supposing consecration to be greater then ordination the Priest would not only equall but excell the Bishop but because the Bishop hath that and ordination besides therefore he is higher both in Order and Dignity 4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clericall power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equall in the greatest power yet a lesser power then it superadded to the Bishop's may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the sonne of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower then the Angels It was but a little lower and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures for he took not upon him the NATURE of Angells but the seed of Abraham So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist yet differing in a lesse is paulò minor Angelis a little lower then the Bishop the Angell of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angell and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spirituall essence they both discourse
they have both election and freedome of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more reall and eternall worth then the Angelicall manner of moving so in an instant and those other formes and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no lesse then specificall If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection doe not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turne For all the world sees that to them that deny the reall presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopall men doe so in all senses and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more then in ordination Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the maine Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the lawes of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impresse of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independantly as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answere It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independant as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependant on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordaine a Presbyter with a power that himselfe hath not can he give what himselfe hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Haeres 75. Vox est Aerii haeretici unus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broach'd by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanc'd by many of the Church of Rome FOR to cleare the distinction of order it is evident § 32. For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of Orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affaire in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practise and tradition Astolicall As of Ordination The first and second Canons of the Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordaine a Bishop and one Bishop should ordaine a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordaine a Bishop is * S. Dionysius affirmes Sacerdotem Eccles. hier c. 5. non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was faine to goe to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius * To Lib. 6. cap. 33. this we may adde as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontificall book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Councell of Ancyra it is determin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. That Rurall Bishops shall not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons in anothers diocesse without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rurall Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the diocesse they must not ordaine Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is anothers diocesse and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopall Ordination at first but not Episcopall Iurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had country Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively to wit that each Country Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more then Village Priests and then this caution had been impertinent * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordaine any but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordaine to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not
ordaine without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to doe it if these should doe it the Citty Presbyters who were often dispatch'd into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther then it did or that they might goe beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Adde to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appeares in the thirteenth Canon of the Councell of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not beene their bridle The summe of the Canon is this With the Bishops licence the Chorepiscopi might ordaine for themselves had Episcopall ordination but without licence they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc particulari not in order but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the Citty Presbyters might not ordaine neither with nor without licence for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitatis unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practise Apostolicall is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is cleare for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopall order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church and exigence of Catholike Custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of the Citty for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in liter is Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the Citty have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopall ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not doe it unlesse more be added to them for their want was more They not only want jurisdiction but something besides and that must needs be order * But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopall Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Biships Diocesse and as they were but Vicarij or visitatores Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meere Presbyterate And this we find as soone as ever we heare that they had had Episcopall Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops in the end of the same Canon we find it decreed de novo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chorepiscopus or Country Bishop must be ordayn'd by the Bishop of the Citie in whose jurisdiction he is which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter and no more And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries with the Bishop's License too but they never ordayn'd any to be Deacons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing and therefore were gratiae Spiritûs Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and requir'd not the capacity of Episcopall Order to collate them for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost as all Orders properly so called are but might by humane dispensation be bestow'd as well as by humane Ordinance they had their first constitution * * The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Councell of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had beene Bishops of Cities but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices and by being traditors but in case they repented and were reconciled they had not indeed restitution to their See but because they had the indelible character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopall Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended if they had made ordinations and of the other nothing pertinent for they also had the ordination and order of Bishops The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Councell as is to be seene in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria tripart hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret. * But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Councell Can 19. of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordain'd some Clerkes themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men 't is likely for quietnesse sake and to comply with the times would faine have had those Clerks received into Clericall communion but the Councell would by no meanes admitt that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily and indeed But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and Eutychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands on them and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Eutychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt c. Saith Balsamon intimating that it is a rul'd case and of publike interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordain'd of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dream'd onely he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordain'd by him could be no Priest nor any else of his
Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sinne in us If they did ill from what principle shall wee judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that impos'd hands on Timothy is by all antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his owne hands as appeares by comparing the two epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signify a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it alwayes to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be showne from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so farre from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the primitive Church did never joyne with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the 4 th Councell of Carthage much lesse doe it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity or not so faire interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speake a truth in sincerity then erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodoxe Bishops shall we either sinne against our consciences by suscribing to hereticall and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else loose the being of a Church for want of Episcopall ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with the good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to beleive that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspition but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and Great learning de Eccles. cap. 11. does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinalls in Germany England France and Italy that joyn'd in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would faine learne that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practise at least in France that if any returnes to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopall Danaeus part 2. Isagog lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron repl fol 92. impress 1605. Ordination as both their friends and their enemies beare witnesse 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personall delinquency but I never heard that necessity did build a Church Indeed no man is forc'd for his owne particular to committ a sinne for if it be absolutely a case of necessity the action ceases to be a sinne but indeed if God meanes to build a Church in any place he will doe it by meanes proportionable to that end that is by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which himselfe hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church * So that supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons as I have proved it is and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Crdinations and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed There are diverse stories in Ruffinus to this purpose Eccles. hist lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum When Aedesius and Frumentius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians they preached Christianity and baptized many but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations and so not fixe a Church What then was to be done in the case Frumentius Alexandriam pergit .... rem omnem ut gesta est narrat EPISCOPO ac monet ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop Athanasius being then Patriarch ordayn'd Frumentius their Bishop tradito ei Sacerdotio redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet .... ex quo saith Ruffinus in Indiae partibus populi Christianorum Ecclesiae factae sunt Sacerdotium caepit The same happened in the case of the Iberians Ibidem c. 10. apud Theodoret. l. 1. converted by a Captive woman posteà verò quà m Ecclesia magnificè constructa est populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur Res gesta exponitur SACERDOTES mittere oratur qui caeptum ergà se Dei munus implerent The worke of Christianity could not be completed nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops * Thus the case is evident that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one and where God meanes to found a Church there he will supply them with those meanes and Ministeries which himselfe hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us prove hereticall still Gods Church is Catholike and though with trouble yet Orthodoxe Bishops may be acquir'd For just so it happen'd when Mauvia Queene of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation and offer'd peace to the Catholikes upō that condition Lucius an Arrian troubled the affayre by his interposing and offering to ordayne Moses The Hermit discover'd his vilenesse it a Eccles hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere Moses refus'd to be ordayn'd by him that was an Arrian So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman communion But what then might they have done Even the same that Moses did in that necessity compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat Lucius sacerdotium sumere Those good people might have had orders from the Bishops of England or the Lutheran Churches if at least they thought our
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
Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by thesecular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIA are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of or may not the secular power find out some externall compulsory instead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A
let him communicate till hee had wash't away his sinnes by repentance And the Emperour did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuer at suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiasticall Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captaine a Consull or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater then his If thou darest not remove him tell it mee I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more errour in the managing Church-censures then in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandall or danger to her selfe or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a forraine enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinterest in the allegeance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designes and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawfull to inflict thē things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's In 3. partis Supplem q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep 75. Gratian dist 24. q. 2. c. Sihabet sed ibi Princeps non inseritur sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ but is indeed found in the Ordinary Glosse upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Common wealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognisance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of soules such a power quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognisance viz. things spirituall and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Common-wealth And this I the rather noted to show how those men would mend themselves that cry downe the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognisance of all causes whatsoever which are either sinnes directly or by reduction * All crimes which Vide the book of Order of Excomm in Scotland the Hist. of Scotland Admonit 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we adde this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sinne there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspitious scandalous or criminall true or imaginary reall actions or personall in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or reall injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullify all Courts and judicatories besides their owne and being for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory no appeale from them but they shall heare and determine with finall resolution and it will be sinne and therefore punishable to complaine of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the Modesty of their severall demands and the reasonablenesse and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudentiall motives to be put into ballance to weigh downe this Question the cause would soone be determin'd and the little finger of Presbytery not only in it's exemplary and tryed practises but in its dogmaticall pretensions is heavier then the loynes nay then the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldome happens otherwise but that they who usurpe a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawfull power are faire and moderate BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopall license of Episcopall Iurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shewes the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendome S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Smyrn It is not lawfull without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a generall interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I doe not here dispute the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure doe any offices without Episcopall licence but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church This is sufficient to show to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publike disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should
integrity of Christian Faith or salvation of our souls Christ declared all the will of his Father and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries and were faithfull in all the house and therefore conceald nothing but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ so they said themselves And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith an Angel or a man might have taught us other things then what they taught without deserving an Anathema but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith and then where was their infallibility and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title for she may as well introduce a falshood as loose a truth it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth as that she shall be preserved from all errors as appears Ioh. 16. 13. Or if she retaind all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught then no Age can by declaring any point make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration And indeed if the * Vide Iacob Almain in 3. Sent. d 25. Q. Vnic Dub. 3 Patet ergo quod nulla veritas est Catholica ex approbatione Ecclesiae vei Papae Gabr. Biel. in 3. Sent. Dist 25. q. Unic art 3. Dub. 3. ad finem Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary which before was not necessary I doe not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to doe especially after so long experience shee hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication for by so doing she makes the narrow way to heaven narrower and chalks out one path more to the Devill then he had before and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest For before differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions and now afterthis declaration if they cannot there is no other alteration made but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and beliefe should have been beatified persons For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errors were not discovered for if they had been contested for that would have been cald discovery enough vel errores emendassent vel ab Ecclesiâ Bellar. de laici◠l. 3. c. 20. §. ad primam confirmationem ejecti fuissent But it is better as it was they went to heaven by that good fortune whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devill And yet there were some errors particularly that of S. Cyprian that was discovered and he went to heaven 't is thought possibly they might so too for all this pretence But suppose it true yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or beene ignorant does more good then the damning of those many soules occasionally but yet certainely and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodnesse to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unlesse he had furnished these men with an infallible judgement and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never doe it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designes of which I think no Arguments can make us certaine what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unlesse the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believ'd with the Articles Apostolicall and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unlesse a new building be to be made the foundation is Numb 13. the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himselfe yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary beliefe to all which are the only foundation they cannot be severall in severall Ages and to severall persons Nay the sentence declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produc'd or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habite of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more then the act of the visive faculty can adde visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and requir'd of us to believe we need not we cannot goe any further for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as farre off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be beliv'd
much the more force and efficacy because Numb 25. it began upon great reason and in the first instance with successe good enough For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed which the Councell of Nice made because they enlarged it to my sense but I am not sure that others are satisfied with it While we look upon the Article they did determine we see all things well enough but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sense constrain'd to alter the simplicity of her faith and make it more curious and articulate so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in the presence Numb 26. of his Clergy entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity and Unity so curiously that Socra l. 1. c. 8. Arius who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appear'd misunderstood him and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius For while he taught the Unity of the Trinity either he did it so inartificially or so intricately that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature Against this Arius furiously drives and to confute Sabellius and in him as he thought the Bishop distinguishes the natures too and so to secure the Article of the Trinity destroyes the Unity It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world and in such mysterious niceties possibly every wise man may understand something but few can understand all and therefore suspect what they understand not and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they doe perceive Well it hapned in these as alwayes in such cases in things men understand not they are most impetuous and because suspition is a thing infinite in degrees for it hath nothing to determine it a suspitious person is ever most violent for his feares are worse then the thing feared because the thing is limited but his feares are not so that upon this grew contentions on both sides and Lib. 1. c. 6. tumults rayling and reviling each other and then the Laity were drawn into parts and the Meletians abetted the wrong part and the right part fearing to be overborn did any thing that was next at hand to secure it selfe Now then they that lived in that Age that understood the men that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre how miserably rent now what little benefit from the Question what schisme about it gave other censures of the businesse then we since have done who only look upon the Article determind with truth and approbation of the Church generally since that time But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and Cap. 7. chides them both for commencing the Question Alexander for broaching it Arius for taking it up and although this be true that it had been better for the Church it never had begun yet being begun what is to be done in it of this also in that admirable Epistle we have the Emperours judgement I suppose not without the advise and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba whom the Emperour lov'd and trusted much and imployed in the delivery of the Letters For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question ill begun and more unadvisedly published a Question which no Law or Ecclesiasticall Canon defineth a fruitlesse contention the product of idle braines a matter so nice so obscure so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy nor understood by the people a dispute of words a doctrine inexpliable but most dangerous when taught least it introduce discord or blasphemy and therefore the Objector was rash and the answerer unadvised for it concernd not the substance of Faith or the worship of God nor any cheife commandment of Scripture and therefore why should it be the matter of discord For though the matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the contention is trifling and toyish And therefore as the Philosophers of the same Sect though differing in explication of an opinion yet more love for the unity of their Profession then disagree for the difference of opinion So should Christians believing in the same God retaining the same Faith having the same hopes opposed by the same enemies not fall at variance upon such disputes considering our understandings are not all alike and therefore neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles so that the matter being of no great importance but vaine and a toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgivenesse and give mutuall toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a Question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Councell it was upon occasion of the vilenesse of the men of the Arian part their eternall discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it selfe the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderfull exhortation full of grace and sober councels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestnesse with all the skill and Authority he had I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and Numb 27. therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidentall blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determin'd with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason professe to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determin'd if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practise of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have left this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was
subjects to kill him Pasce agnos said Christ the third time And pasce is doce and pasce is Impera and pasce is occide Now if others should take the same unreasonablenesse I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it selfe is so full and redundant in senses quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly finde such rare productions from severall places that either the unreasonablenesse of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgement where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it selfe ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaime to all the world our great weaknesse by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it selfe affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it selfe but then if we consider that we have no certain Numb 1. wayes of determining places of difficulty and Question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be sav'd in the beliefe of things plaine necessary and fundamentall and our pious endeavour to finde out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becomming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the meanes of expounding Scripture are either externall or internall For the externall as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councels and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those meanes of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internall to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many wayes to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but morall instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a minde to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not alwayes depend upon another Where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not alwayes very probable to expound Scripture take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's moralls upon Job lib. 5. c. 29. and the instances he there brings are excellent proofe that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the beliefe and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Another great pretence of medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium faelicissimam expositionem Numb 2. sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that doe so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilfull people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is naturall but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other doe but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topique is an universall abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sense therefore it must because in one of the places the sense is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholikes If any place be urg'd in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word God is taken in a depressed sense for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no Argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both wayes the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharisticall manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they liv'd hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies
alike necessary or alike indifferent if the former why does no Church observe them if the later why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but to be adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appeares in their Canons The Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostles had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kisse of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugall Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no meanes will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84 Canons Apostolicall which Clemens collected De sacr hom continent li 5. c. 105. scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantur aliis pro temporis De Tradit part 3. c. de Author Can. Apost materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universall will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practises or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being prov'd the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both rituall and doctrinall are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 6. To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to Numb 9. us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that dyed in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphall Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretend it an Apostolicall Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Crosse but this was only consign'd to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Conciliae celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more then what was Apostolicall yet it hath nothing lesse And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easy it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50. which many did admit for Apostolicall 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them universally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65. 67. and 8 ⅘ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impared insomuch that Isidor of Sevill sayes they were Apoeryphall made by Hereticks and published under the Apud Gratian. dist 16. c. Canones title Apostolicall but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevail'd so farre amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should Lib. ◠c. 18 de Orthod fide be received equally with the Canonicall writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theology that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they doe not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they doe not like the matter and so doe not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84 or 85 Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with lesse Authority then the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise then it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it selfe becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolicall Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 7. The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only Numb 10. meanes of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from severall Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the Authority it selfe the lesse authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designs having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others * Vid. Card. Petron. lettre an Sieur Casaubon say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which
and promises and authority of Generall Councels For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartiall and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a Generall Councell If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not oblig'd to search for it or else we are sav'd by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a Generall Councell So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to Generall Assemblies in the Church But I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as charity and therefore consists in liberty and choyce and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any Generall Councell ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently prov'd by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councels now then if they be tyed to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certaine that they will observe them that they will doe all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of Generall Councels and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetuall instances and experiments of the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of S. Gregory that he had the foure first Councels in esteem and veneration next to the foure Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to Rule and to have judged righteous judgement but why had not he the same opinion of other Councels too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth Generall not because they had not the same Authority for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first foure had done and the following Councels did never get that reputation which all the Catholike Church acknowledged due to the first foure And in the next Order were the three following generalls for the Greeks and Latines did never joyntly acknowledge but seven generalls to have been authentick in any sense because they were in no sense agreed that any more then seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether Generall Councels have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them For every private man hath that promise that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance and therefore much more shall Generall Councels in order to that end for which they convene and to which they need assistance that is in order to the conservation of the Faith for the doctrinall rules of good life and all that concerns the essentiall duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so conven'd be factious can they be abused with prejudice or transported with interests can they resist the holy Ghost can they extinguish the Spirit can they stop their eares and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances and cease to serve him upon themselves by captivating their understandings to his dictates and their wills to his precepts Is it necessary they should perform any condition is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies a duty which they have power to doe or not doe If so then they may faile of it and not doe their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditionall then we have no more assurance that they are assisted then that they doe their duty and doe not sinne Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel Numb 2. be hid it is hid to them that are lost and all that come to the knowledge of the truth must come to it by such meanes which are spirituall and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spirituall end They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace that is they must have peaceable and docible dispositions nothing with them that is violent and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances and the Rule they are to follow is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consign'd to the Catholike Church that is the holy Scripture either * Vid. Optat. Milev l. 5. adv Parm. Baldvin in eundem S. August in Psa. 21. Expos. 2. intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops bee factious and prepossest with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amisse and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they doe judge amisse And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the authority of Generall Councels For if a Generall Councell may erre if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also erre because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture and that therefore the defaillance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Councell then also are the Councels Decrees invalid if they recede from any other part of Scripture So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow and a man would have thought it had been needlesse to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certaine no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extreme boldnesse against the piety of Christendome against the publike sense of the ancient Relect. centrov 4. q. 1. a. 3 Church and the practise of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirmes the Decrees of a Councell to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabili testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sense which S. Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour
fit maxime in Angliâ haec est ratio quia in peccatis concepta fuit sicut caeteri Sancti And the Commissaries of Sixtus V. and Gregory XIII did not expunge these words but left them upon Record not only against a received and more approved opinion of the Jesuites and Franciscans but also in plain defiance of a Decree made by their visible head of the Church who if ever any thing was decreed by a Pope with an intent to oblige all Christendome decreed * Hâc in perpetuum valiturâ constitutione statuimus c. De reliquiis c. Extrav Com. Sixt. 4 cap. 1. this to that purpose So that without taking particular notice of it that egregious sophistry and flattery of the late Writers of the Roman Church is in this instance besides divers others before mentioned clearly made invalid For here the Bishop of Rome not as Numb 16. a private Doctor but as Pope not by declaring his own opinion but with an intent to oblige the Church gave sentence in a Question which the Dominicans will still account pro non determinatâ And every decretall recorded in the Canon Law if it be false in the matter is just such another instance And Alphonsus à Castro sayes it to the same purpose in the instance of Celestine dissolving Marriages for heresy Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem titulo de conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi lib. 1. adv haeres cap. 4. And therefore 't is a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chaire though he may erre in his Closet and may maintaine a false opinion even to his death For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion as all men naturally would or that if he were set in his Chaire he would determine contrary to himselfe in his study and therefore to represent it as possible they are faine to flie to a Miracle for which they have no colour neither instructions nor insinuation nor warrant nor promise besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for heresy who may so easily even by setting himselfe in his Chaire and reviewing his Theorems be cured it is also against a very great experience For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III in a Councell at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemn'd Peter Lombard of heresy in a matter of great concernment no lesse then something about the incarnation from which sentence he was after 36 years abiding it absolv'd by Pope Innocent III without repentance or dereliction of the opinion Now if this sentence was not a Cathedrall Dictate as solemn and great as could be expected or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges who tell us that a particular Councell with the Popes confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption and is infallible and obliges all Christendome so Bellarmine And therefore he sayes that it is temerarium erroneum proximum haeresi to L. 2. de Concil cap. 5. deny it but whether it be or not it is all one as to my purpose For it is certain that in a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope if ever then and there the Pope sate himselfe in his Chaire and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsly in this case But this is a device De Pontif. Rom. c. 14. § respondeo In 3. sent d. 24. q. in conl 6. dub 6. in fine for which there is no Scripture no Tradition no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father Greek or Latine for above 1000 years after Christ And themselves when they list can acknowledge as much And therefore Bellarmine's saying I perceive is believ'd by them to be true That there are many things in the * Proverbialitèr olim dictuÌ„ erat de Decretalibus Malè cum rebus humanis actum esse ex quo decretis alae accesserunt scil cum Decretales post decretum Gratiani sub nomine Gregorii noni edebantur Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide And therefore Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificâ—m sayes Almain And this serves their turns in every thing they doe not like and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for some thing and that is that the matter of the Pope's infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable that they doe not believe it themselves Some of them clearly practised the contrary and although Pope Leo X hath determined the Pope to be above a Councell yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot De Authorit Eccles. cap 10. in fine erre in judgement doe not also affirm that he cannot sinne they are like enough to say so sayes he if the vitious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery Now for my own particular I am as confident and think it as certain that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine as that they doe prevaricate the lawes of Christian piety And therefore †L. 1. ca. 4. advers haeres edit Paris 1534. In seqq non expurgantur ista verba at idem sensus maner Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores that ascribe to him infallibility in judgement or interpretation of Scripture But if themselves did believe it heartily what excuse is there Numb 11. in the world for the strange uncharitablenesse or supine negligence of the Popes that they doe not set themselves in their Chaire and write infallible Commentaries and determine all Controversies without errour and blast all heresies with the word of their mouth declare what is and what is not de fide that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans and expound all Mysteries for it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends was also fitted with proportionable that is extraordinary personall abilities succeeding and deriv'd upon the persons of all the Popes And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study nor writing explications of Scripture but might wholly attend to practicall devotion and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings the distinguishing opinions of their Orders and they might have a fine Church something like Fairy land or Lucians Kingdome in the Moone But if they say they
had so expounded it he therefore chose a new one This was malice But when a prejudice works tacitely undiscernably and irresistablâ— of the person so wrought upon the man is to be pityed not condemned though possibly his opinion deserves it highly And therefore it hath been usuall to discredit doctrines by the personall defaillances of them that preach them or with the disreputation of that sect that maintains them in conjunction with other perverse doctrines Faustus the Manichee in S. Austin glories much that in their Religion God was worshipped purely and without Images L. 20. c. 3. cont Faustum Man L. 1. c. ult de Imagin S. Austin liked it well for so it was in his too but from hence Sanders concludes that to pull down Images in Churches was the heresie of the Manichees The Jews endure no Images therefore Bellarmine makes it to be a piece of Judaisme to oppose them He might as well have concluded against saying our prayers and Church musick that it is Judaicall because the Jews used it And De reliq SS l. 2. c. 6. Sect. Nicolaus he would be loth to be served so himself for he that had a mind to use such arguments might with much better probability conclude against their Sacrament of extreme unction because when the miraculous healing was ceased then they were not Catholiques but Heretiques that did transferre it to the use of dying persons sayes Irenaeus for so did the Valentinians And indeed L. 1. c. 8. adv haer this argument is something better then I thought for at first because it was in Irenaeus time reckoned among the heresies But there are a sort of men that are even with them and hate some good things which the Church of Rome teaches because she who teaches so many errors hath been the publisher and is the practicer of those things I confess the thing is alwayes unreasonable but sometimes it is invincible and innocent and then may serve to abate the fury of all such decretory sentences as condemne all the world but their own Disciples 3. There are some opinions that have gone hand in hand with Numb 3. a blessing and a prosperous profession and the good success of their defenders hath amused many good people because they thought they heard Gods voice where they saw Gods hand and therefore have rushed upon such opinions with great piety and as great mistaking For where they once had entertain'd a feare of God and apprehension of his so sensible declaration such a feare produces scruple and a scrupulous conscience is alwayes to be pityed because though it is seldome wise it is alwayes pious And this very thing hath prevail'd so farre upon the understandings even of wise men that Bellarmine makes it a note of the true Church Which opinion when it prevailes is a ready way to make that instead of Martyrs all men should prove hereticks or apostates in persecution for since men in misery are very suspicious out of strong desires to finde out the cause that by removing it they may be relieved they apprehend that to be it that is first presented to their fears and then if ever truth be afflicted she shall also be destroyed I will say nothing in defiance of this fancy although all the experience in the world sayes it is false and that of all men Christians should least believe it to be true to whom a perpetuall crosse is their certain expectation and the argument is like the Moone for which no garment can be fit it alters according to the success of humane affairs and in one age will serve a Papist and in another a Protestant yet when such an opinion does prevaile upon timerous persons the malignity of their error if any be consequent to this fancie and taken up upon the reputation of a prosperous heresie is not to be considered simply and nakedly but abatement is to be made in a just proportion to that feare and to that apprehension 4. Education is so great and so invincible a prejudice that he Numb 4. who masters the inconvenience of it is more to be commended than he can justly be blam'd that complyes with it For men doe not alwayes call them principles which are the prime fountaines of reason from whence such consequents naturally flow as are to guide the actions and discourses of men but they are principles which they are first taught which they suckt in next to their milke and by a proportion to those first principles they usually take their estimate of propositions For whatsoever is taught to them at first they believe infinitely for they know nothing to the contrary they have had no other masters whose theoremes might abate the strength of their first perswasions and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession and before their first principles can be dislodg'd they are made habituall and complexionall it is in their nature then to believe them and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions And we see it in the orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome That opinion which was the opinion of their Patron or Founder or of some eminent Personage of the Institute is enough to engage all the Order to be of that opinion and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate conception and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary as if their understandings were form'd in a different mold and furnished with various principles by their very rule Now this prejudice works by many principles but how strongly they doe possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Forefathers You may as well charm a feaver asleep with the noise of Optima vati ea quae magno ossensu recepta sunt quorumque exempla multa sant nec ad rationem sed ad similitudinem vivimus Sen. Vid. Minut. Fel. octav bells as make any pretence of reason against that Religion which old men have intayl'd upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the rites of Moses and the long superstition of the Gentiles which they therefore thought fit to be retain'd because they had done so formerly Pergentes non quo eundum est sed quo itur and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion and therefore they beleeved it was for their Religion and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron the Apostles were forc'd to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts principles in their understandings before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses
life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publike fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they Numb 2. be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spirituall censures they are totally ineffectuall and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the soule and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remaine if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectuall by his innocence he is certainly kill'd and dismembred So that as the Churches authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publike and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publique benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spirituall This discourse is in the case of such opinions which by the former rules are formall heresies and upon practicall inconveniences Numb 3. But for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publique tranquillity as the Republique hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they doe not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamentall articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary If she meddles further otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannicall in her government makes her selfe an immediate judge of consciences and perswasions lords it over their faith destroyes unity and charity and as if he that dogmatizes the opinion becomes criminall if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his article not simply necessary so the Church does not doe her duty if she so condemnes it pro tribunali as to enjoyne him and all her subjects to beleeve the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of meer beliefe and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plaine and easie and without controversie set downe in the Gospels and Writings of the Apostles But to multiply articles and adopt them into the family of the faith and to require assent to such articles which as S. Pauls phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equall to that assent wee give to matters of faith is to build a Tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the further the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spirituall censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporall infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollarie what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions FOr upon these very grounds we may easily give account of Numb 1. that great question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions For first it is a great fault that men will call the severall sects of Christians by the names of severall Religions The Religion of JESUS CHRIST is the forme of sound doctrine and wholsome words which is set downe in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plaine places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonness and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not truth so much as their own ends are farre from being distinct Religions for matters of opinion are no parts of the worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they doe or pretend to serve And such are all the sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they doe serve the great end as every man for his owne sect and interest beleeves for his share it does 2. Tolleration hath a double sense or purpose for sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a sect Sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they meane to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandaliz'd and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publikely or privately to do actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truely holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concerne any thing but the matter of Scandall and relation to the minds and fantasies of certaine persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the question Numb 3. whether the Prince may tollerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his opinion Now in this case he is just so to tollerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publike actions for no opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his opinion by reason
Numb 1. to practicall Conclusions and consider among the differing sects and opinions which trouble these parts of Christendome and come into our concernment which sects of Christians are to be tolerated and how farre and which are to be restrained and punished in their severall proportions The first consideration is that since diversity of opinions does Numb 2. more concerne publike peace then religion what is to be done to persons who disobey a publike sanction upon a true allegation that they cannot believe it to be lawfull to obey such constitutions although they dis-believe them upon insufficient grounds that is whether in constituta lege disagreeing persons or weake consciences are to be complyed withall and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated 1. In this question there is no distinction can be made between Numb 3. persons truely weake and but pretending so For all that pretend to it are to be allowed the same liberty whatsoever it be for no mans spirit is knowne to any but to God and himselfe and therefore pretences and realityes in this case are both alike in order to the publike toleration And this very thing is one argument to perswade a Negative For the chiefe thing in this case is the concernment of publique government which is then most of all violated when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes may be demanded to many more and the piety of the Lawes abused to the impiety of other mens ends And if laws be made so malleable as to comply with weak consciences he that hath a mind to disobey is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the Law by this pretence For a weak conscience signifyes nothing in this case but a dislike of the Law upon a contrary perswasion For if some weak consciences doe obey the law and others doe not it is not their weaknesse indefinitely that is the cause of it but a definite and particular perswasion to the contrary So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying then the law is a sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a mind to it and he that hath not may choose that is it is no Law at all for he that hath a mind to it may doe it if there be no Law and he that hath no mind to it need not for all the Law And therefore the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law Numb 4. of that temper and expedient but either he must lose the formality of a law and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory but ad arbitrium inferiorum or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey 2. Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfie divers persons pious prudent that it complyes with the necessity Numb 5. of government and promotes the interest of Gods service and publike order it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church may be as zealous for the publike order and discipline of the Church as others for their opinion against it and may be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated as others are if the Law be exacted and what shall be done in this case Both sorts of men cannot be complyed withall because as these pretend to be offended at the Law and by consequence if they understand the consequents of their owne opinion at them that obey the Law so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side then the disagreeing persons are not to be complyed with to avoid giving offence for if they be offence is given to better persons and so the mischiefe which such complying seeks to prevent is made greater and more unjust obedience is discouraged and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender conscience 3. Such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men is Numb 6. the totall overthrow of all Discipline and it is better to make no Lawes of publique worship then to rescind them in the very constitution and there can be no end in making the sanction but to make the Law ridiculous and the authority contemptible For to say that complying with weake consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline is the way to preserve unity were all one as to say To take away all Lawes is the best way to prevent disobedience In such matters of indifferencie the best way of cementing the fraction is to unite the parts in the authority for then the question is but one viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars the questions become next to infinite A Mirrour when it is broken represents the object multiplyed and divided but if it be entire and through one centre transmits the species to the eye the Vision is one and naturall Lawes are the Mirrour in which men are to dresse and compose their actions and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of authority and peace and all humane sanctions And I have knowne in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a designe to discredit the Law to dismantle the authority that made it to raise their owne credit and a trophey of their zeale to make it a characteristick note of a sect and the cognisance of holy persons and yet the men that claim'd exemption from the Lawes upon pretence of having weake consciences if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads they would have spit in your face and were so farre from confessing themselves weake that they thought themselves able to give Lawes to Christendome to instruct the greatest Clerks and to Catechize the Church her selfe And which is the worst of all they who were perpetually clamorous that the severity of the Lawes should slacken as to their particular and in matter adiaphorous in which if the Church hath any authority she hath power to make Lawes to indulge a leave to them to doe as they list yet were the most imperious amongst men most decretory in their sentences and most impatient of any disagreeing from them though in the least minute and particular whereas by all the justice of the world they who perswade such a complyance in matters of fact and of so little question should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in questions of great difficulty and contestation 4. But yet since all things almost in the world have beene Numb 7. made matters of dispute and the will of some men and the malice of others and the infinite industry and pertinacie of contesting and resolution to conquer hath abused some persons innocently into a perswasion that even the Lawes themselves though never so
or not free in both as it may happen But the restraint is this that every one is not left to his liberty Numb 46. to pray how he list with premeditation or without it makes not much matter but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another But if it be a fault thus to restraine the spirit I would faine know is not the spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one mans composing or it shall be unlawfull or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set forms especially of the Churches composition More plainly thus 2. Doth not the Minister confine and restraine the spirit of the Lords People when they are tyed to his form It would Numb 47. sound of more liberty to their spirits that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate and private spirit It is true it would breed confusions and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began and not for the avoiding one inconvenience runne into a greater and to avoid the disorder of a popular noyse restraine the blessed Spirit for even in this case as well as in the other Where the spirit of God is there must be liberty 3. If the spirit must be at liberty who shall assure us this liberty must be in forms of prayer And if so whether also it Numb 48. must be in publike prayer and will it not suffice that it be in private And if in publike prayers is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved in that the publike spirit is free That is the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and encrease her Litanyes By what Argument shall any man make it so much as probable that the holy Ghost is injured if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided and therefore by necessary consequence limited by the Authority of the Churches publick spirit 4. Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining Numb 49. of the spirit Does it not appoint every thing but the words And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for and a princely liberty that they leave unto the Spirit to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia Verborum For as for the matter it is all there described and appointed and to those determined senses the spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choyce Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously Is it not as much injury to the spirit to restraine his matter as to appoint his words Which is the more considerable of the two sense or Language Matter or Words I meane when they are taken singly and separately For so they may very well be for as if men prescribe the matter only the spirit may cover it with severall words and expressions so if the spirit prescribe the words I may still abound in variety of sense and preserve the liberty of my meaning we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture So that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations we trust him to say what he pleases so it be to our sense to our purposes A goodly compensation surely 5. Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles when he Numb 50. taught them to pray the Lords Prayer whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it was Pray this or Pray thus Pray these words or pray after this manner or though it had been lesse then either and been only a Directory for the matter still it is a thing which our Brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a restraint Certainly then this pretended restraint is no such formidable thing These men themselves doe it by directing all the matter and much of the manner and Christ himselfe did it by prescribing both the matter and the words too 6. These restraints as they are called or determinations of the Spirit are made by the Spirit himselfe For I demand when Numb 51. any Assembly of Divines appointed the matter of Prayers to all particular Ministers as this hath done is that appointment by the Spirit or no If no then for ought appears this Directory not being made by Gods Spirit may be an enemy to it But if this appointment be by the Spirit then the determination and limitation of the Spirit is by the Spirit himself and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spirituall Such as was that of S. Paul to the Corinthians when he prescribed orders for publike prophecying and interpretation and speaking with tongues The spirit of some he so restrained that he bound them to hold their peace he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting the rest were to keep silence though possibly six or seven might at that time have the Spirit 7. Is it not a restraint of the Spirit to sing a Psalm in meeter by appointment Cleerely as much as appointing formes of Numb 52. prayer or Eucharist And yet that we see done daily and no scruple made Is not this to be partiall in judgement and inconsiderate of what wee doe 8. And now after all this strife what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sense What prohibition what law Numb 53. what reason or revelation is against it What inconvenience in the nature of the thing For can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace when those gifts to his Church are used regularly and by order As if prudence were no gift of Gods spirit as if helps in Government and the ordering spirituall matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto Men. But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason and never seen in Scripture For Divinity never knew any other vitious restraining of the Spirit but either suppressing those holy incitements to virtue and Numb 54. good life which Gods Spirit ministers to us externally or internally or else a forbidding by publick Authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to speak such truths as God hath commended and so taking away the liberty of Prophecying The first is directly vitious In materia speciale the second is tyrannicall and Antichristian And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the spirit viz. by appointing a regular form of prayer it is so very a Chimera that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence 9. But lastly how if the spirit
these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together our expectation of the Great revelation is very neer accomplishing what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiasticall government contrary to the faith practice of Christendome may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy 2. if we consider the finall cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schisme and Heresy So in 1. ad Titū S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTUR And therefore if Vnity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schisme and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schisme is a division for things either personall or accidentall which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tryed there to receive their first and last breath except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing and ordering persons and things accidentall and substantiall and therefore a direct confronting of Schisme not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schismes alwaies will be and this by divine prediction which clearly showes the necessity of perpetuall Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himselfe ordaining it who made the prophecy or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least who knew the prophecy yet to be sure these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostacy for then were not the houres turned into minutes an universall ruine should seize all Christendome No flesh should be saved if those daies were not shortned is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schismes must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordayn'd as the remedy and obex of Schisme either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognisance of causes spirituall or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How farre these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves despergentur and I believe it will be verified at the comming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountaines as sheep having no sheapheard I am not new in this conception I learn't it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus Epist. 55. ad hoc ECCLESIae PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrociùs atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragin grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himselfe in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock §. 1. Christ did institute a governement in his Church Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Simler de rep Helvet fol. 148. 172. Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the
superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction THis power so delegated was not to expire with § 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing successors in the Apostolate their Persons For when the Great sheapheard had reduced his wandring sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to governe them so long as the wolfe might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem saeculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long agoe but vobiscum vestri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetuall Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetuall regiment of the Church for then the Church should faile when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetuall assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in Materiâ censurae as delivering to Sathan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re Naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetuall assistance for then it had been done and still these signes should have followed them that believe But we see they doe not It followes then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remaine a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetuall assistance For since this perpetuall assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity a succession must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a helpe for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of sence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unlesse men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and Ordination have their sinnes pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all Question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of § 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops these offices and therefore though in a very limited sence they may be called successores Apostolorum to wit in the power of Baptizing consecrating the Eucharist and Preaching an excellent example whereof though we have none in Scripture yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Combination of Apostles yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name person David in the prediction of the Apostacy of Iudas and Surrogation of S. Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Astolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the 70. is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelicall prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith * In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17. S. Hierome herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himselfe calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthians But this is no waies unusuall in Scripture For 2. S. Iames the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle and yet he was not in the number of the twelve but he was Bishop of Ierusalem 1. That S. Iames was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of S. Paul But other Apostles saw I none 1. Galat. 19. save Iames the Lords Brother 1. That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two Iames's The sonne of Alpheus and Iames the sonne of Zebedee the Brother of Iohn But neither of these was the Iames whom S. Paul calls the Lords brother And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration 1. Corin. 15. of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to Iames then to all the Apostles So that here S. Iames is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity then the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of * Vide Carol. Bovium in const it Apost Schol. Hieron de Script Eccl in Jacobo in 1. Galat Epiphan haeres 78 79. Hegesippus * Vide Carol. Bovium in const it Apost Schol. Hieron de Script Eccl in Jacobo in 1. Galat Epiphan haeres 78 79. S. Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierome 3. That S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Galat. 2. even before S. Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Gratiâ unus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus as S. Austin yet in his own diocesse S. Iames had priority of Tract 124. in Iohan. order before him v. 9. And when 1 Iames 2 Cephas and 3 Iohn c. First Iames before Cephas i. e. S. Peter S. Iames also was president
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
suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërcion in causis Clericorum to be watchfull and strengthen the things that remaine as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they Watch for your Soules And the Hebr. 13. second of Apostles and Apostolike men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas and Silas confirm'd the Brethren for these men although they were but of the 72 at first yet by this time were made Apostles and cheife men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15. He went up and downe confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirme 1. Cor. 11. the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no lesse then Episcopall or Apostolicall and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocesse Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and diverse others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called his Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have knowne thy Ministery His office therefore was Clericall it was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charg'd with all 3. By the Angel is mean't a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personall delinquency or suppose personall excellencyes Adde to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seaven Churches had but seaven starres and these seaven starres were the Angels of the seaven Churches And if by seaven starres they may meane 70 times seaven starres for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one starre they must meane many starres and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as starres and no more Angels then Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seaven Churches into 7000 as every starre into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the Exigency of the thing it selfe these seaven Angels are by Antiquity called the seaven Governours or Bishops of the seaven Churches their very names are commemorated Vnto these seaven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth in 1. Apocal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equall number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere ibid eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrosc and againe Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman in 1. Cor. 11. have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voyce of God the Bishop Epist. 162. in Apocal. of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Policarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himselfe an Angell of the Church of Ephesus and he also lib. 4 c. 10. quotes S. Irenaeus for it out of the Encyclicall Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe and besides lib. 4. cap. 15. these authorities it is attested by S. †Epist. ad Policarp Ignatius and * de praescrip Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angell to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had beene and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this booke written vide Aretha in 1. Apoc. he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ lib. 4. cap. 26. his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. Iohn speakes of were such who had Iurisdiction over their whole Diocesse therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fix'd them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetuall and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personall mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairely pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem sollicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolicall did give them power of administring Sacraments of absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem Ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity
they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolicall ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirme by the practise of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturbe us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples In Lucae cap. 10. Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores posteà illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountaines and the 72 are the palmes that are nourished by the waters of those fountaines For though Christ also ordain'd the 72 yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the maine question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolicall authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doe not command Epist. ad Philadelph this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my selfe with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it selfe if we consider to whom he speakes it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocesse he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equall the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personall priviledges and in their universall jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedome of a Christian Bishop to whom the soules of all faithfull people were deare and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that Antiquity is clearely on this side is the next businesse For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only adde two more from Antiquity and so passe on to tradition § 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of Antiquity Apostolicall 1. THE beliefe of the primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the 72 and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give faire evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this Lib. 3. cap. 3. particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis ET SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant ... quos SUCCESSORES relinquebant SUUM IPSORUM LOCUM MAGISTERII tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their severall Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which them selves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall Lib. de praescript c. 36. apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolicall they are from their foundation and by their succession for Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still doe governe them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino Epist. 42. ad Cornelium per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto Epist. 69. sed dolens profero cum te Iudicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt quivos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence he that heareth you heareth mee Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Councell of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis cont Donatist nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Councell in an assembly of Bishops and himselfe was a Bishop The Councell of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quenquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for Epist. 54. undervaluing their Bishops shewes the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and diverse others of the Fathers make this glosse Pro Patribus Apostolis
signify all one thing 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of In 4. Ephes. Evangelists Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus S. Philip was one of the seaven commonly called Deacons and he was also a Presbyter and yet an Evangelist and yet a Presbyter in it's proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop or else why are Presbyters cry'd out against so bitterly in all cases for non-residence and yet nothing hinders but that S. Timothy as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together and then why not a Bishop too for why should a Deaconship or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more then a Bishoprick 3. Another acceptation of Evangelist is also in Eusebius Sed alii plurimi per idem Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37. tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant .... Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae .... animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant .... ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes .... Evangelistarum fungebantur officio They that planted the Gospell first in any Country they were Evangelists S. Timothy might be such a one and yet be a Bishop afterwards And so were some of this sort of Evangelists For so Eusebius Primaque apudeos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes atque ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant So that they first converted the Nation and then gouern'd the Church first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops and so was Austin the Monke that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert he was first our Evangelist and afterwards Bishop of Dover Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries as S. Chrysostome Lib. 10. tripart hist. cap. 5. Theodoret. in Scythia S. Trophimus S. Denis S. Marke and many more By the way only according to all these acceptations of the word Evangelist this office does not imply a perpetuall motion Evangelists many of them did travell but they were never the more Evangelists for that but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospell and thence they had their name 4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Oecumenius which are the only true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not alwaies * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules 1. Tim. 6. 14. was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sense neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming to wit to judgement But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopacy then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personall but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stirre there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostome so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be In Ephes. 4. true it makes all this discourse needlesse we were safe enough without it if it be false then it selfe we see is needlesse for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer 1. Reliqui te § 15. S. Titus at Crete Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete 2. His worke was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminall to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectify and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify 2. The next worke is Episcopall too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every Citty Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Citty by Citty that is Elders in severall Citties one in one Citty Many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops 1. In termes and expresse words To ordaine Elders in every Citty If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse That is the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Iohn Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolicall and that 's as much as Episcopall to be sure 3. S. Paul addes farther a Bishop must be blamelesse As THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward Titus 1. and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold saies our blessed Saviour himselfe and therefore not a meere Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE and BEATE his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to
in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it selfe be a very certain thing when the Church made it a maine probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chaire till wee come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain then the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himselfe was baptized both relying upon the report of others * Radix Christianae societatis Epist. 42. per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Austin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madnesse to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolicall no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of haereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis Ubi supra postolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles untill now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians THe summe is this Although we had not prooved § 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lord's day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Iewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have chang'd it into a Thursday meeting to have showne their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men doe easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we doe of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicail traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemn'd for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the foure Gospells limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendome suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and § 20. And was an office of power and great authority the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatir a in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes
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
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
word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters then to those ministers which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now againe to the main observation * Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for S. Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church orders 1. Timoth. 3. and officers gives directions first for Bishops then for Deacons Where are the Presbyters in the interim Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons They may as well be in one as the other for Diaconus is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy then Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never us'd in the new Testament for any but such as had the care regiment and supra-vision of a Church but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus yet it is not because the offices and orders are one but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop And then indeed the compellation is of the more principall and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the principall observation here intended Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus Sacerdos est hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium saith S. Ambrose * So that if in the description of in Ephis 4. * Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles hierarch cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the qualifications of a Bishop he intends to qualifie Presbyters also then it is Principally intended for a Bishop and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension This only by the way because this place is also abused to other issues To be sure it is but a vaine dreame that because Presbyter is not nam'd that therefore it is all one with a Bishop when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole or the inferiour within the superiour the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more or else it may be as well intended in the word Deacons and rather then the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plurall and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose Ministration yee beleived and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Titus S. Paul describes the office of a Bishop and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office and why I pray may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus or else why may not Deacons be confounded and be all one with Bishop as well as Presbyter It will it must be so if this argument were any thing else but an aëry and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be showne in Scripture that any one single and meere Presbyter is called a Bishop but may be often found that a Bishop nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter as in the instances above and therefore since this communication of Names is onely in descension by reason of the involution or comprehension of Presbyter within Episcopus but never in ascension that is an Apostle or a Bishop is often called Presbyter and Deacon and Prophet and Pastor and Doctor but never retrò that a meere Deacon or a meere Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depresse the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meere Presbyters above their stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability then Episcopus and Presbyter For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons I gave one instance of this before but there are very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of S. Matthias when he succeded Iudas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 6. 4. A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 3. 5. is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye beleived Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1. Philip And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfillthy Deaconship * Adde to this that there is no word or designation of any Clericall office but is given to Bishops and Apostles The Apostles are called Prophets Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaën and Paul and Barnabas and then they are called Pastors too and indeed hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Pastors Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos PASCERE ECCLESIAM DEI. Whereupon trhe Geeke Scholiast expounds the word Pastors to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that S. Peter set us a copie in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Sheapherd and Bishop of our soules it hath obtayned in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some PASTORS AND Ephes. 4. TEACHERS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors Doctors whom you would Epist. 59. ad Paulinum have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were setled Bishops fix't upon their severall Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those names which did designe temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome Thus farre the names were common viz. in the sense above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every order it 's owne Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be suppos'd at first for when
first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other * The Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate Can. 1. 2. the paines as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made both for their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewailes it but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui Lib. 1. ad Parmen tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops themselves the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors The diversity of order is herefairely intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2 d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are foure sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithfull Laity And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii De vitâ August c. 4. licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next in descent in subordination the next under it So the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree Can. 29. and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Councell permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopall order but still the character remaines and the degree of it selfe is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred Lib. 7. c. 26. and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Inter dixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was Can. 3. Nicen. Concil a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordain'd a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Iulius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus Vincentius Presbyteriejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell saith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Lib. 3. tripart c. 2. Episcopi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus desiderabat Episcopatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desir'd a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Hist. tripart l. 11. c. 5. Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis faith S. Isidore Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12. But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles in the first tome of the Councells * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the Per Binium Paris preface to the book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 2. But wee shall see it better and by more reall probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this 1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy § 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree Can. 10. as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Councell of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordain'd Bishop but he that was firsta Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time Here there is clearely a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the Lib. 5. c. 8. same
very remarkeable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordaine him and then certainely scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a rul'd case and attested by the Uniforme practise of the Church which was set downe in the third Councell of Carthage Episcopus vnus esse potest per quem Can. 45. dignatione Divinâ Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse vnus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widdow-Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keepe ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have beene the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himselfe ordaine many and then I am sure there is sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Councell the Councell of a Cap. 9. Antioch the Cap. 19. Councell of b Cap. 2. 6. Chalcedon and S. Ierome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of Iohn of Ierusalem If thou speake saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordain'd him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councells appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordain'd by two Bishops together but onely Origen by the Bishops of Ierusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mention'd in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars adde this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonicall which were most vnreasonable if Presbyters did joine in them and were causes in conjunction But unlesse they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixt Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon and in the Imperiall constitutions Since therefore we neither find Presbyters join'd with Bishops in commission or Novell constit 6. 1. 223. cap. 16. practise or penalty all this while I may inferre from the premises the same thing which the Councell of Hispales expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone Cap. 6. lone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffer'd to take it away * This Councell was held in the yeare 657 and I set it downe here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Councell Can 2 3. of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West but for almost 300 yeares after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Councell no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Councell sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 yeares together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtain'd that although Presbyters joyne not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they doe but this is onely by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provinciall of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practise * I know not what can be said against it I onely find a peice of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocesse that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy * Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi Epist. 33. à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he meanes Bishops or Presbyters If Bishops then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order which because it was as I observ'd before against the practise of Christendome will not easily be admitted to be the sense of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters join'd with him in the ordination of Aurelius I answer that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one or the other for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordain'd was ordain'd but to be a Reader and that was no Order of Divine institution no gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore might be dispensed by one or more by Bishops or Presbyters and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost and of divine ordinance and therefore this although I have seen it once pretended yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practise of Primitive antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meere Presbyters without a Bishop What think we of the reformed Churches 1. For my part I know not what to think The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publike interest to approve all that they doe that wee have disabled our selves to justify our owne For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Romane Church we found these men zealous in it we thank'd God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justify their ordinations not thinking what would follow upon our selves But now it is come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary because wee did not condemne the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church then what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councells and Fathers doe well in condemning the ordinations made by meere
Churches Catholike and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this will not an extraordinary calling justifie it Yea most certainely could we but see an ordinary proofe for an extraordinary calling viz an evident prophecy demonstration of Miracles certainety of reason clarity of sense or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission But shall we then condemne those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations alwaies have beene without Bishops No indeed That must not be They stand or fall to their owne Master And though I cannot justifie their ordinations yet what degree their Necessity is of what their desire of Episcopall ordinations may doe for their personall excuse and how farre a good life and a Catholike beleife may leade a man in the way to heaven although the formes of externall communion be not observ'd I cannot determine * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus I know thy works and where thou dwellest even where Sathans seate is and thou heldest fast my FAITH and hast not denied my Name Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca some few things I have against thee and yet of them the want of Canonicall ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied but if it cannot be done their sinne indeed is the lesse but their misery the Greater * I am sure I have said sooth but whether or no it will be thought so I cannot tell and yet why it may not I cannot guesse unlesse they only be impeccable which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them who themselves thinke that all the Church possibly may faile But this I would not have declar'd so freely had not the necessity of our owne Churches requir'd it and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations beene boyed up to the height of an absolute necessity for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conforme to us and to the practise of the Catholike Church and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeale to exact our conformity to them But I hope it will so happen to us that it will be verifyed here what was once said of the Catholikes under the fury of Iustina sed tanta fuit persever antia fidelium populorum vt animas priùs amittere quà m Episcopum mallent If it were put to our choice rather to dye to wit the death of Martyrs not rebells then loose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy without which no Priest no ordination no consecration of the Sacrament no absolution no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity The summe is this If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolicall if the decrees of eight famous Councells in Christendome of Ancyra of Antioch of Sardis of Alexandria two of Constantinople the Arausican Councell and that of Hispalis if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations if the testimony of the whole Pontificall book if the dogmaticall resolution of so many Fathers S. Denis S. Cornelius S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Austin and diverse others all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand if the constant voice of Christendome declaring ordinations made by Presbyters to be null and voide in the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approoved by any Councell decretall or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendome if that ordinations of Bishops were alwaies made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aërius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater then the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voyce and united vote of Christendome * BUT this was but the first part of the power § 33. And Confirmation which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manûs impositionem donum Epist. de Chorepisc Spiritus sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Councell of Eliberis giving permission to faithfull people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in cases of necessity and exigence of journey it a tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improv'd by imposition of the BISHOPS hands This was Law It was also custome saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc Epist. ad Iubaian quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custome was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversall concernement OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretall Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine Apud Sev. Binium in 1. tom Concil morâ renasci demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sanctigratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement ALL FAITHFULL baptized people must goe to the Bishop to be consign'd and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtaine the seven fold guifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spaine affirmes confirmation in this to have a speciall excellency besides baptisme quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give confirmation And the same is said proov'd by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be perform'd by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostome speaking of S. Philip converting Homil. 18. in Act. the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For HE HAD NOT POWER For this guift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was PECULIAR to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to passe that the principall and
ejus Catholicus ordinetur * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople depos'd Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Tripart hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. Roome * But their Grand-father was serv'd no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria serv'd him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander Tripart hist. lib. 1. c. 12. autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator priùs quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consilijs nâ—tebatur Cùm verò eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonish'd the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserv'd it highly It was for a lesse matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personall misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Councell of Taurinum and his restitution was Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397. left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censur'd him Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat .... propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Councell qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus who was punished by Triferius the Bishop hoc ei humanitate Concilii reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit eirelaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Councell and the absolution reserv'd to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complain'd to the Councell by the Councell might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his owne power These are particular instances and made publike by acts conciliary intervening But it was the Generall Canon and Law of H Church Thus we have it expressed in the Councell of Agatho Cap. 2. Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractary Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allowes I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonicall penalty and so goe on ad alia In the second Councell of Carthage Alypius Episcopus Ca. 8. dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deosacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greeke Code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or Can. 10. otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means goe unpunished * The like is in the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 4. can 83. the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Councell of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Councell of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemne and they have power to doe what they please other faith then this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the foure great Councells of Christendome which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd Concil Ephes. c. 5. against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their OWN BISHOPS although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them yet their condemnation should still remaine vigorous and confirm'd Vpon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it selfe is cleare enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learn'd that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergy and suspend them and sometimes depose them Nay they are bound to it Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet ne per plures serpant dira contagia separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam It is necessary that the BISHOP should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound least their infection scatter so S. Austin * Can. 55. And therefore Cap. 15. de corrept gratiâ the fourth Councell of * Can. 55. Carthage commands ut Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunalls For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholike communion I adde no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive ubi suprà cap. 3. and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocesse Ergo praecipiant tantummodò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And againe Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum Cap. 15 ibid. diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocesse and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendome by the Canons of three Generall Counsells and divers other Provinciall which are made Catholick by adoption and inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that
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
and the Bishops of the Province and the Clergy of the Church and the people of the Citty were assembled at the choosing of another the Emperour makes a speech to the Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5. Bishops only that they should be carefull in their choyce So that although the people were present quibus pro fide religione etiam honor deferendus est as S. Cyprians phrase is to whom respect is to be had and faire complyings to be used so long as they are pious catholick and obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one halfe of this 6. There are in Antiquity diverse precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will choose a Bishop over his head and proclaime that they were weary of him In those daies they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appeare it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to choose Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperour he complyed with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21. whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian * Thus did Valerius choose his successor S. Austin for though the people nam'd him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usuall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to doe so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome saies they alwaies did so in Alexandria from S. Markes time to Heraclas and Dionysius * S. Ambrose saies that at the first In Ephes. 4. the Bishop was not by a formall new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one dyed so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choyce of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it alwaies was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to INNOVATE in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I meane and approbation did concurre with the Synod of Bishops in the choyce of a Bishop the people at last according to their usuall guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to Name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publike scandall and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unlesse where themselves usurped farther then I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learn'd to take deniall but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were check'd and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Councell Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the senses above explicated Sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vnius cujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasion'd many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he addes that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slaine and that sixe hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our Blessed Saviour were admitted to the choyce of Simeon Cleophae the Successor of S. Iames to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountaine of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himselfe was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to choose their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Councell the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to choose by the necessity oftimes and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choyce as is now folded up in a peice of paper even to a testimoniall and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone Tripart hist. lib. 10. c. 14. though God took away his life before himselfe would accept of their choyce and then they behav'd themselves oftentimes with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan basenesse that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 yeares agone * So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in peices vide dist 63. per tot Gratian. But I thinke I need not have troubled my selfe halfe so farre for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as faine have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seeme superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of choosing Bishops be founded upon Gods law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to choose any man into that office which himselfe hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her divine
Can. 17. Chalcedon and of Constantinople in †Can. 38. Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Common wealth viz. in her regiment and prefefecture * But in the moderne sense of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocesse as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himselfe or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of indeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocesse actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocesse was so much Iust as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocesse yet at first they had but a smal congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocesse I answere that a Diocesse was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts And S. Marke was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted * But ordinarily the Apostles when they had converted a City or Nation then fix't Bishops upon their charge and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocesse But then this City or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocesse before it was a particular congregation yet it was part of the Apostles Diocesse and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively S. Paul was ordain'd by the Prophets at Antioch Apostle of the Uncircumcision All the Gentiles was his Diocesse and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted So that absolutely a diocesse was before a particular congregation But if a diocesse be taken collectively as now it is for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop then one must needes be before 20 and a particular congregation before a diocesse but then that particular congregation was not a parish in the present sense for it was not a part of a Diocesse taking a Diocesse for a collection of Parishes but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocesse and like a Graine of Mustard-seed that in time might and did grow up to a considerable height even to a necessity of distinguishing titles and parts of the Diocesse assigning severall parts to severall Priests 2. We see that the Primitive Bishops before the division of parishes had the City and Country and after the division of parishes had them all under his jurisdiction and ever even from the Apostles times had severall provinces some of them I meane within their limits and charges * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are under his Diocesse the Neighbour-villages and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Councell of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ancient Canon of our forefathers and yet it selfe is elder then three of the generall Councells and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers that the City and Villages should be subject to the Bishop surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan But a little before this was the Nicene Councell Can. 6. and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the old Customes be kept What are those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over ALL Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It was a good large Parish And yet this parish if we have a mind to call it so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the old custome of their forefathers and yet that was so early that S. Anthony was then alive who was borne in S. Irenaeus his time who was himselfe but second from the Apostles It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of even all Syria Caelesyria Mesopotamia and both the Ciliciae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop of Syria he calls himselfe in his epistle to the Romans and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Theodoret and besides lib. 5. ca. 23. all these his Successors in the Councell of Chalcedon had the two Phaeniciae and Arabia yeilded Action 7. to them by composition These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes and would have taken up time enough to perambulate had that been then the guise of Christendome * But examples of this kind are infinite Theodorus Bishop Epist. ad Leon 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres 68. of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt Thebais Mareotis Libya Ammoniaca and Pentapolis saith S. Epiphanius And his predecessor Iulianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop * Concil Chalced act 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about Alexandria Either it was a Diocesse or at least a plurality * †Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28. S. Chrysostome had Pontus Asia and all Thrace in his parish even as much as came to sixteen prefectures a faire bounds surely and so it was with all the Bishops a greater or a lesser Diocesse they had but all were Diocesan for they had severall parishes singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias saith Epiphanius in his epistle to Iohn of Ierusalem and in his Apud S. Hieron haeres 69. book contra haereses Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates it aut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae * All Italy was the parish of Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom Cyprian Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud Euseb lib. ◠c. 22. Liberius saith Socrates Africa was S. Cyprians parish saith S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia But I rather believe if we examine their severall stories they will rather prove Metropolitans then meere parochians 3 ly The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordain'd in a Village Castle or Towne It was so decreed in the Councell of Laodicea before the first Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 56. In the Villages or Countries Bishops must not be constituted And this was renewed in the Councell of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. It is not lawfull to ordaine Bishops in Villages or little Townes to which one Presbyter is sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Bishops must ordaine Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been * So that this Canon does not make a new Constitution but perpetuates the old sanction Bishops ab antiquo were only ordain'd in great Cities and Presbyters to little Villages Who then was the Parish Curate the Bishop or the Priest The case is too apparent Onely here it is objected that some
Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawfull But without such command or license it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore S. Cyprian did himselfe severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he Epist. 66. had no leave of his Bishop so to doe and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his office did in S. Cyprians Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or steward of a Church and dispense her revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches ayde * From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him all causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousnesse but any thing in obedience any thing Vide Synod Roman sub Sylvestr c. 4. Concil Chalced c. 26. Zonar ibid. I meane of the fore-named instances Nay the affaires of Church revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiasticall Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolicall and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occurre in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to S. Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widdowes be neglected after God doe thou take care of them * Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio Justin. Martyr Apolog. 2. quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causâ egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithfull people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the reliefe of the widdowes and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Iustin Martyrs time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the Goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Ierusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a Scandall then they chose seven men men full of the holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the 70 Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so S. Stephen and S. Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the word in some sense or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harme neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harme done by this temporary office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a farre greater burden and requires more then a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks doe prohibite it onely in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the offices are supplyed by any of the Order it is never prohibited but that the personall abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Common-wealth And therefore it is observeable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute not that such a particular Clerke should there officiate Thus the Councell of Arles decreed ut Presbyteri SICUT HACTENUS FACTUM EST INDISCRETE per diver Apud Burchard lib. 2. decret cap. 99. sa non mittantur loca .... ne fortè propter eorum absentiam animarum pericula Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt negligantur officia So that here we see 1. That it had been usuall to send Priests on Embassyes sicut hactenus factum est 2. The Canon forbids the indiscreet or promiscuous doing of it not that men of great ability choyce be not imployed but that there be discretion or discerning in the choyce of the men viz. that such men be chosen whose particular worth did by advancing the legation make compensation for absence from their Churches and then I am sure there was no indiscretion in the Embassy quoad hoc at least for the ordinary offices of the Church might be dispensed by men of even abilities but the extraordinary affaires of both states require men of an heightned apprehension 3. The Canon only took care that the cùre of the soules of a Parish be not relinquished for so is the title of the Canon Ne Presbyteri causâ legationis per diversa mittantur loca curâ animarum relictâ But then if the cure be supplied by delegation the feares of the Canon are prevented * In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbad Clergy-men to receive honour or secular preferment and so it is expressed where the prohibition is made It is in the Councell of Chalcedon Qui semel in clero deputati sunt aut Monachorum Part. 2. Act. 15. Can. 7. vitam expetiverunt statuimus neque ad militiam neque ad dignitatem aliquam venire mundanam That 's the inhibition But the Canon subjoynes a temper aut hoc tentantes non agentes poenitentiam quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter Deum primitùs elegerunt anathematizari they must not turne Souldiers or enter upon any worldy dignity to make them leave their function which for the honour of God they have first chosen for then it seemes he that tooke on him military honours or secular prefectures or consular dignity could not officiate in holy Orders but must renounce them to assume the other It was in obstruction of this abuse that the Canon directed its prohibition
Princes Courts I st is me diantibus mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor admittitur clamor pauperum Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur relevatur pauperum indigentia firmatur in clero libertas pax in populis in Monasteriis quies justitia liberè exercetur superbia opprimitur augetur Laicorum devotio religio fovetur diriguntur judicia c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councells then the rigor of Lawes is abated equity introduced the cry of the poore is heard their necessities are made known the liberties of the Church are conserved the peace of Kingdomes labour'd for pride is depressed religion increaseth the devotion of the Laity multiplies and tribunalls are made just and incorrupt and mercifull Thus farre Petrus Blesensis * These are the effects which though perhaps they doe not alwaies fall out yet these things may in expectation of reason be look'd for from the Clergy their principles and calling promises all this quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est ubi Dominus legis timetur meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt saith S. Ambrose In 1. Corinth 6. and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed But if personall defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of S. Paul No man that 2. Timoth. 2. 4. warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life For although this be spoken of all Christian people and concernes the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy yet nor one nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinderance to their owne precise duty of Christianity And such things must be par'd away from the fringes of the Laity as well as the long robe of the Clergy But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function so farre would it be from being hindered by the collaterall intervening of a Lay-judicature I need not instance in any particulars for if the judging matters and questions of religion be not left alone to them they may well be put into atemporall imployment to preserve them from suspition of doing nothing I have now done with this only intreating this to be considered Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis In all the senses of Common-law and externall compulsory he is But if so then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Iudges as Lay-Delegates For to be sure if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of medling with secular affaires there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affaires For if the Clergy be above the affaires of the World then the Laity are under the affaires of the Church or else if the Clergy beincapable of Lay-businesse because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affaires For the Church differs no more from the common-wealth then the common-wealth differs from the Church And now after all this suppose a King should command a Bishop to goe on Embassy to a forraine Prince to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification if the Bishop refuse did he doe the duty of a Subject If yea I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop owes to his Prince when hee shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying and doing of his office to which he is obliged whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no then the Bishop was tyed to goe and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment for no man can be bound to doe a sinne BUt then did not this imployment when the occasions §. 50. And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution were great and extraordinary force the Bishops to a temporary absence And what remedy was there for that For the Church is not to be left destitute that 's agreed on by all the Canons They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of that attended the Court and never visited their Churches or took care either of the cure of soules or of the Church possessions What then must be done The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power and offices to others though now adaies they are complain'd of for their care I say for their care For if they may intervene in secular affaires they may sometimes be absent and then they must delegate their power or leave the Church without a Curate *** But for this matter the account need not be long For since I have proved that the whole Diocesse is in curâ Episcopali and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty and yet that instant necessity and the publike act of Christendome hath ratified it that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are parishes in his Diocesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopall charge is no lesse then the act of all Christendome For it is evident at first Presbyters had no distinct cure at all but were in common assistant to the Bishop and were his emissaries for the gaining soules in Citty or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in law and conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith S. Denis Eccles. hierar c. 5. he does not doe the offices of his order by himselfe onely but by others also for all the inferior orders doe so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendome in consent we have faire precedent in S. Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to doe it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sense of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffeted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Doethy diligence 2. Timoth. 4. v. 9. 12. to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an expresse delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for
the time was Curate to S. Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on S. Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either S. Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished Philip. 2. v. 25. 26. for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdome Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter Epist. ad Antioch vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters doe you feed the flock till God shall designe you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour * To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Can. 56. Councell Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seemes what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose S. Cyprian sent a playne commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vestrâ .... his literis hortor Epist. 9. Mando vt vos .... VICE MEA FUN GAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you doe my office in the administration of the affayres of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Epist. 38. 39. Faelicissimus and fower more Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and haeres 68. Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praeminere c vt qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personall declamatory clause in any Councell or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or lesse of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplexe and buisy dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopall function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Councell of Chalcedon might delegate to a steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Councell of Sevill forbid any lay-men to be stewards for the Church Elegimus vt vnusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta Concil Hispal cap. 6. ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum VICARIUM esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare VICARS OF BISHOPS the Canon allowes onely forbids lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c In one and the same office the law of God forbids to joyne men of disparate vapacities This then would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of antiquity for it's Sanction * FOR although antiquity approves of Episcopall §. 51. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay Elders in any Church office heard of in the Church Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37. delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Bishop and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria So were Herculanus and Caldonius to S. Cyprian But they never delegated to any lay-man any part of their Episcopall power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money * Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut LAICALI PROCURATIONE administrandam elegerit Concil Hispal ubi suprà .... non solùm a Christo derebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etià m Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affayres to LAY ADMINISTRATION he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Councell But the thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement Epist. ad Iacob Fratr Dom. which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judiciall contestation let it be ended before the PRIESTS For so S. Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy * To this or some paralell constitution S. Hierome relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of de 7. Ordin Eccles. causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Iudges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories Presybter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwaies Clergy with him and all men else * But for the mayne Question S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with Epist. 13. ad Valent. confidence and humility In causâ fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare that Clergy-men must onely judge of Clergy-causes and this S. Ambrose there call's judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores feceruntmei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiasticall Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus farre S. Ambrose * S. Athanasius
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