OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY, By Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholic Practice. TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour, Secular Employment, Manner of Election, Delegation of their Power, and other appendent questions, asserted against the Aërians, and Acephali, new and old. By IER: TAYLOR, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY Published by His MAJESTY'S Command. ROME 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 Ivy-lane. 1647. TO THE TRULY WORTHY, AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED St CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH. SIR, I AM engaged in the defence of a Great Truth, and I would willingly find a shroud to cover myself from danger, and calumny; and although the cause both is & aught to be defended by Kings, yet my person must not go thither to Sanctuary, unless it be to pay my devotion, and I have now no other left for my defence, I am robbed of that which once did bless me, and indeed still does, (but in another manner) and I hope will do more; but those distillations of celestial dews are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense, and now adays we seldom look with other, be the object never so beauteous or alluring. You may then think, Sir, I am forced upon You; may that beg my pardon and excuse, but I should do an injury to Your Nobleness, if I should only 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 loyalty to His sacred Majesty. These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your fair encouragement, and assistance in my plead for Episcopacy, in which cause Religion, and Majesty, the King, and the Church are 〈…〉 ago, and registered in the Law to make it authentic, 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 observed enough in King Edgar's time, In Chartâ Edgar. Regi● A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman. Quamvis decreta Pontificum, & verba Sacerdotum in convul●is ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt, tamen plerumque tempestatibus, & turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur, acrumpitur. Idcirco Decrevimus Nos etc. There was a sad example of it in K. John'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 sacredness of their persons, nor the Laws of God, nor the terrors of Conscience, nor fears of Hell, nor Church-censures, nor the Laws of Hospitality could protect from Scorn 〈◊〉 near a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger, it will tie the Bishop's hearts, and hands to the King faster than all the ties of Lay-Allegiance, (all the Political ties 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 security; by the obligation of secular advantages. For they who have their livelihood from the King, and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty, than others, whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependency on His Majesty. Aeneas Silvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Council, viz. because the Pope gave spiritual promotions, but the Counsels 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 Government. 3. But the Bishop's duty to the King derives itself from a higher fountain. For it is one of the main excellencies in Christianity, that it advances the State, and well being of Monarchies, and Bodies Politic. Now than the Fathers of Religion the Reverend Bishops, whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity, are by the nature and essential requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings, whom Christianity would have so much honoured, as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince, upon better principles than ever, no less than their precise duty to God, and the hopes of a blissful immortality. Here then is utile, honestum, and necessarium, to tie Bishops in duty to Kings; and a threefold Cord is not easily broken. In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy pays three returns of tribute to Monarchy. 1. The first is the Duty of their people. For they being by God himself set over souls, judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences, and the venerable Priests under them, have more power to keep men in their duteous subordination to the Prince, then there is in any secular power, by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are, than all the external violence in the world. And this power they have fairly put into act, for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion, unless he turned recreant to his Order, and it is the honour of the Church of England, that all her Children, and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebels, be they of any interest, or party whatsoever. For here (& for it we thank God and good Princes) Episcopacy hath been preserved in fair privileges and honour, and God hath blest and honoured Episcopacy with the conjunction of a loyal people. As if because in the law of Nature the Kingdom and Priesthood were joined in one person, it were natural, and consonant to the first justice, that Kings should defend the rights of the Church, and the Church advance the honour of Kings. And when I consider that the first Bishop that was exauctorated was a Prince too, Prince, and Bishop of Geneva, me thinks it was an ill Omen, that the cause of the Prince, and the Bishop should be in Conjunction ever after. 2. A second return that Episcopacy makes to Royalty is that which is the Duty of all Christians, the paying tributes, and impositions. And though all the King's Liege people do it, yet the issues of their duty, and liberality are mightily disproportionate if we consider their unequal Number, and Revenues. And if Clergy-subsidies be estimated according to the smallness of their revenue, and paucity of persons, it will not be half so short of the number, and weight of Crowns from Lay Dispensation, as it does far exceed in the proportion of the Donative. 3. But the assistance that the Kings of England had in their Counsels, and affairs of greatest difficulty, from the great ability of Bishops, and other the Ministers of the Church, I desire to represent in the words of K. Allured to Walfsigeus the Bishop, in an Epistle where he deplores the misery of his own age by comparing it with the former times, when the Bishops were learned, and exercised in public Counsels. Faelicia tum tempora fuerunt inter omnes Angliae populos; Reges Deo, & scriptae ejus voluntati obsecundârunt in suâ pace, & bellicis expeditionibus, atque regimine domestico domi se semper tutati fuerint, atque etiam foris nobilitatem suam dilataverint. The reason was, as he insinuates before, Sapi●ntes extiterunt in Anglicâ gente de spirituali gradu etc. The Bishops were able by their great learning, and wisdom to give assistance to the King's affairs. And they have prospered in it, for the most glorious issues of Divine Benison upon this Kingdom were conveyed to us by Bishop's hands, I mean the Union of the houses of York & Lancaster, by the Counsels of a john Speeds Hist. l. 9 c. 19 n. 23. p. 716. Bishop Morton, and of England & Scotland by the treaty of b Ibid. c. 20. n. 64. p. 747. Bishop Fox, to which if we add two other in Materia religionis, I mean the conversion of the Kingdom from Paganism, by St Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury; and the reformation, begun and promoted by Bishops, I think we cannot call to mind four blessings equal to these in any age or Kingdom, in all which God was pleased by the mediation of Bishops, as he useth to do, to bless the people. And this may not only be expected in reason, but in good Divinity, for amongst the gifts of the spirit, which God hath given to his Church, are reckoned Doctors, Teachers, and * 1 Cor. ca▪ 12. v. 28. helps in government. To which may be added this advantage, that the services of Churchmen are rewardable upon the Church's stock; no need to disimprove the Royal Banks to pay thanks to Bishops. But, Sir, I grow troublesome. Let this discourse have what ends it can; the use I make of it, is but to pretend reason for my Boldness, and to entitle You to my Book: for I am confident you will own any thing that is but a friend's friend to a cause of Loyalty. I have nothing else to plead for your acceptance, but the confidence of your Goodness, and that I am a person capable of your pardon, and of a fair interpretation of my address to you, by being SIR Your most affectionate Servant J. TAYLOR. Syllabus Paragraphorum. §, 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church. p. 7 2 This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ, p. 12 3. With a power of joining others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate, p. 13 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops, p. 15. For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name and person, 5. And office, p. 20. 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters, p. 22 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not, p. 23 As of Ordination, 8. And Confirmation, p. 28 9 And superiority of jurisdiction. p. 35 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general tenant of antiquity, p. 49 11. And particularly of S. Peter, p. 54 12 And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority. p. 62 13 In pursuance of the Divine institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches, p. 68 As St james at jerusalem, S. Simeon to be his successor, 14 S. Timothy at Ephesus, p. 75 15 S. Titus at Crect, p. 85 16 S. Mark at Alexandria, p. 93 17 S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome, p. 96 18 S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others. p. 97 19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance, of the same authority with many other points generally believed, p. 100 20 And was an office of power and great authority, p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Council of Presbyters, p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendom, p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common, p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supreme Church-Officer, p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him only 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 Bishopric, p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands. p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct, and superior to that of Presbyters, p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation, p. 198 34 Power of jurisdiction, p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power. 35 Universal obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity. p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed judges of the Clergy, and spiritual causes of the Laity. p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopal licence. p. 251 38 church-good reserved to Episcopal dispensation. 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Diocese, or to travel without leave of the Bishop. p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased. p. 267 41 Bishops only did vote in Counsels, and neither Presbyters, nor People. p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks. p. 292 43 The Bishop's jurisdiction was over many Congregations, or Parishes. p. 295 44 Their jurisdiction was aided by Presbyters, but not impaired. p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary. p. 323 46 They are Schismatics that separate from their Bishop, p. 327 47 And Heretics. p. 329 48 Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour, p. 335 49 And trusted with affairs of Secular interest, p. 351 50 And therefore were enforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution, p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergymen, 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 etc. & l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk. Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers. OF THE Sacred Order, and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION, APOSTOLICAL TRADITION, & Catholic practise etc. 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 mischiefs, hath endeavoured, to be curiously compendious, and with Tarquin's device, putare summa papaverum. And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs, it was a ruled 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 peddling 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 Martyrdom, unless * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur. Saith Platina, but that is wholly uncertain. 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 Devil's head, and though the devil's active part of the Duel was far less, 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 do by Martyrdom, but that instead of breaking, crowned them. His next onset was by julian, and occidere Presbyterium, that was his Province. To shut up public Schools, 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 Devil more service in this fineness of undermining, than all the open battery of the ten great Rams 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 extr●. But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rend the Church's 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 Christendom, and by God's goodness, and the Bishop's industry Catholic religion was conserved in Unity, and integrity. Well! however it is, Antichrist must come at last, and the great Apostasy foretold must be, and this, not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity. When ye hear of wars, and rumours of wars, be not afraid (said our B. Saviour,) the end is not yet. It is not war that will do this great work of destruction, for than it might have been done long 'ere now. What then will do it? We shall know when we see it. In the mean time when we shall find a new device, of which indeed the platform was laid, in Aërius, and the Acephali, brought to a good possibility of completing, a thing that whosoever shall hear, his ●ars shall tingle, an abomination 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 Apostasy. For if Antichrist shall exalt himself 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 suspicious, that he that devests b●th of their power (and they are, if the King be Christian, in very near conjunction,) does the work of Antichrist for him; especially if the men, whom it most concerns, will but call to mind, that the discipline, or Government, which Christ hath instituted, is that Kingdom, by which he governs all Christendom (so themselves have taught us) so that, in case it be proved, that Episcopacy is that government, than they (to use their own expressions) throw Christ out of his Kingdom; and then, either they leave the Church without a head, or else put Antichrist in substitution. We all wish, that our fears in this, and all things else, may be vain, that what we fear, may not come upon us; but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the forerunner, and praparatory to the great Apostasy, I have these reasons to show, at least the probability. First, Because here is a concourse of times; for now after that these times have been called the last times, for 1600 years together, our expectation of the Great revelation is very near accomplishing; & what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government, contrary to the faith, & practice of Christendom, may portend now in these times, when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous man's inquiry. Secondly, Episcopacy, if we consider the final cause, was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresy. So * in 1. ad Titum S. Hierome. In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris, VT SCHISMATVM SHMINA TOLLE●ENTUR. And therefore if Unity and division be destructive of each other, than Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism: and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ; for Schism is a division for things either personal, or accidental, which are matters, most properly the subject of government, and there to be tried, there to receive their first, and last breath, except where they are starved to death by a desuetude; and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing, and ordering persons, and things, accidental, and substantial; and therefore a direct confronting of Schism, not only in the intention of the author of it, but in the nature of the institution. Now then, although Schisms always will be, and this by divine prediction (which clearly shows the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy, and the intention of its perpetuity, either by Christ himself ordaining it, who made the prophecy, or by the Apostles and Apostolic 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 Apostasy; for then, were not the hours turned into minutes, an universal ruin should seize all Christendom [No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened.] is it not next to an evidence of fact, that this multiplication of Schisms must be removendo prohibens? and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy, ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism, either tying their hands behind them, by taking away their coërtion, or by putting out their eyes, by denying them cognisance of causes spiritual, or by cutting off their heads, and so destroying their order. How far these will lead us, I leave to be considered. This only; Percute pastors, atque oves despergentur; and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one, I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shepherd. I am not new in this conception, I learned it of S. Cyprian; Epist. 55. Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus inimicus ad hoc, ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITUM suâ infestatione persequitur, ut, Gubernatore sublato, atrociùs, atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragia grassetur. The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop, that having taken him away, he may without check pride himself in the ruins of the Church; and a little after speaking of them, that are enemies to Bishops, he says, 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 vain, or not, the thing, of itself is of deep consideration, and the Catholic practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy, that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture, or a clear revelation proved by Miracles, or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves, or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages. But before I begin, me 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 lose the benefit of their prescribed possession. If it can; I fear they will scarce gain so much, as the obedience of the adverse party by it, which yet already is their due. It is very unequal; but so it is ever, when Authority is the matter of the Question. Authority never gains by it; for although the cause go on its side, yet it loses costs, and damages; for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries ', lose something of itself, or, if it asserts itself to the utmost, it is but where it was; but that seldom or never happens, for the very questioning of any authority, hoc ipso, makes a great entrenchment even to the very skirts of its clothing. But hûc deventumest. Now we are in, we must go over. FIrst then, that we may build upon a Rock. §. 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church. Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority, according to his laws, 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 punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground, will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity, as is the form of the Government of Christ's Church. And, if for our private actions; and duties Economical, they will pretend a text, I suppose, it will not be thought possible, Scripture should make default in assignation of the public Government, insomuch as all laws intent the public, and the general directly; the private, and the particular, by consequence only, and comprehension within the general. 2. If Christ himself did not take order for a government, than we must derive it from humane prudence, and emergency of conveniences, and concourse 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 extremely 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 souls, 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 cockboat, that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do. But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiastical (which was the other consequent) in the public frame I mean, and constitution of it; either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise, or the dangerous issues of public 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. Simler: de rep: Helvet: fol▪ 148. & 172. For so (if I be not misinformed) it is abroad in some towns that have discharged Episcopacy. At St Galls in Switzerland there the Ministers, and Laymen rule in Common, but a Layman is precedent. But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Laymen, and Ministers are joined as assistants only, and Counsellors, but at Schaffhausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much, but in the Huguenot Churches of France, the Ministers do all. 3. In such cases, where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory (and confessedly of all sides there can be none in causes & Courts Ecclesiastical) if there be no opinion of Religion, no derivation from a divine authority, there will be sure to be no obedience, and indeed nothing but a certain, public, calamitous irregularity. For why should they obey? Not for Conscience, for there is no derivation from divine authority. Not for fear, for they have not the power of the sword. 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keys, by Christ concredited to his Church, for the binding and losing delinquents, and penitents respectively on earth, than there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church, for here is the delegation of judges, Tu Petrus, v●s Apostoli, whatsoever ye shall bind. Here is a compulsory, ligaveritis; Here are the causes of which they take cognisance, Quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali. For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Universal, john. 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam, in causes, which are emergent from Christianity, ut sic, that secular jurisdictions may not be entrenched upon. But of this hereafter. That Christ did in this place erect a jurisdiction, and establish a government (besides the evidence of fact) is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers, affirming, that to S. Peter the Keys were given, that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and losing might be communicated. Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae, ut quae solveret in terrâ, s●luta essent in coelo; scil. ut ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet, seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem side atque correctione sanaretur. So * De doctr. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. tract. 118. in johan. vide etiam tract. 124. & tract. 50. in joh, de Agon. Christ. cap. 30 de bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 3. c. 17. S. Austin. And again, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus insepar●bilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae proce●●osissima gubernacu●um ad ligand● & solvenda peccat● claves regni coelorum primu● Apostolorum Petrus accepit; Quoniam nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat, solvitque peccata. S. Peter first received the government in the power of binding and losing. But not he alone but all the Church, to wit, all succession, and ages of the Church. Vniversa Ecclesia, viz. in Pastoribus solis, as * De Sacerd. lib. 3. S. Chrysostom, In Episcopis & Presbyteris as † In 16. Matt. S. Jerome. The whole Church, as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters. The same is affirmed by a Lib. de pudicit. Tertullian, b Epist. 27. S. Cyprian, c Lib. qd Christus est Deus. S. chrysostom, d Lib. 6. de Trinit. S. Hilary, e Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke, 12. 42. Primasius, and generally by the Fathers of the elder, and Divines of the middle ages. 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the son of Man, & commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch, the Disciples asked him, speakest thou this parable to us, or even to all? And the Lord said, who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his household to give them their portion of meat in due season? As if he had said, I speak to You, for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Master's absence? You are by office and designation my stewards, to feed my servants, to govern my house. 6. In Scripture, and other writers, to Feed, and to Govern, is all one when the office is either Political or Economical, Psal: 78. or Ecclesiastical. So he FED them with a faithful and true heart, and RULED them prudently with all his power. And S. Peter joins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Acts. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So does S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rulers or overseers in a flock. Pastors. It is ordinary. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euripides calls the Governors and guides of Chariots, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great shepherd of our souls; and that we may know the intentum of that compellation, it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is therefore our shepherd, for he is our Bishop, our Ruler, and Overseer. Since than Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church, it is also as certain he hath left Rulers, they being both one in name, in person, in office. But this is of a known truth to all that understand either laws or languages: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith * in lib: de eo quod deterior p●tiori infidiatur. Philo, they that feed have the power of Princes and rulers; the thing is an undoubted truth to most men, but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it. THis government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself, § 2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ in traditione clavium, in spiratione Spiritûs, in missione in Pentecoste. When Christ promised them the Keys, he promised them power to bind and lose, when he breathed on them the holy Ghost, he gave them that actually, to which by the former promise they were entitled; and in the octaves of the Passion, he gave them the same authority, which he had received from his Father, and they were the faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made RULERS over his Household. * vide Hilarium in hunc locum & pp. communitèr. But I shall not labour much upon this. Their founding all the Churches from Eastro West, and so, by being Fathers, derived their authority from the nature of the thing, their appointing rulers in every Church, their Synodall decrees de Suffocato & Sanguine, and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, their excommunications of Hymeneus, Alexander, and the incestuous Corinthian, their commanding, and requiring obedience of their people in all things, as S. Paul did of his subjects of Corinth, and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical, their threatening the Pastoral rod, their call Synods and public assemblies, their ordering rites and ceremonies, composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity, their public reprehension of delinquents, and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency, and superiority of jurisdiction. THis power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons; § 3. With a power of joining others and appointing successors in the Apostolate For when the Great shepherd had reduced his wand'ring sheep into a fold, he would not leave them without guides to govern them, so long as the wolf might possibly pray 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 died long ago, but vobiscum & v●stri similibus, with Apostles to the end of the world. And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual, 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 perpetual regiment of the Church, for then the Church should fail when these privileges extraordinary did cease. It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and privileges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance; not in speaking of tongues, not in doing miracles, whether in Materiâ censurae, as delivering to Satan; or, in materiâ misericordiae, as healing sick people; or in re Naturali, as in resisting the venom of Vipers, and quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance, for than it had been done, and still these signs should have followed them that believe. But we see they do not. It follows 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 remain a power of giving faculty, and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that, in which Christ promised perpetual assistance. For since this perpetual 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 privileges 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 help for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of ●ence, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptising, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that were never Christened, nourished up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without calling of God and Ordination, have their sins pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sons of a Church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Governor. These the Apostles had without all Question, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these than 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 these offices, § 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops and therefore (though in a very limited sense) they may be called successores Apostolorum, to wit, in the power of Baptising, 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 College of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Combination of Apostles) yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetual, are in Scripture clearly 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 David in the prediction of the Apostasy of judas, For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name & person and Surrogation of S. Mathias; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His Bishopric, that is, his Apostolate 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 righteousness. Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos, saith * In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17. S. Hierome, herein admiring God's Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes. And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthians. But this is no ways unusual in Scripture. For, 2. S. james 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 jerusalem. 1. That S. james was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of S. Paul, 1. Galat. 19 [But other Apostles saw I●none, save james the Lord's Brother.] 2. That he was none of the twelve, appears also because among the twelve Apostles, there were but two James'. The son of Alpheus, and james the son of Zebedee, the Brother of john. But neither of these was the james whom S. Paul calls the Lord's brother. 1. Corin. 15. And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection. First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500 Brethren, then to james, then to all the Apostles. So that here S. james is reckoned distinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole College of the Apostles, for there were (it seems) more of that dignity than the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of * Vide Carol. Bovium in constit. Apost. Scholar Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo. & in 1. Galat. Epiphan. haeres. 78, 79. Hegesippus, * S. Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome. 3. That S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, 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, Cratiâunus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus; Tract. 124. in johan. (as S. Austin) yet in his own diocese S. james had priority of order before him. v. 9 And when ¹ james, ² Cephas, and ³ john, etc. First james before Cephas i.e. S. Peter. S. james also was precedent of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at jerusalem about the Question of circumcision; as is to be seen * Vide pag. Act. 15. to him S. Paul made his address, Act. 21. to him the brethren carried him, where he was found sitting in his College of Presbyters, there he was always resident, and his seat fixed, and that he lived Bishop of jerusalem for many years together, is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians. But of this hereafter. 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of th● Philippians. Philip. 2. 25. I have sent unto you Epaphrodit●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My compeer and your Apostle. In bunc locum ●terque & Theod. in 1. Tim 3. Gradum Apostolatus recepit Epaphroditus, saith Primasius, and what that is we are told by Theodoret, dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo, quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus? Because he also had received the office of being an Apostle among them, saith S. Jerome upon the same place; and it is very observable, that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles of jesus Christ, but those other men which were Bishops of Churches, and called Apostles by Scripture, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles of Churches, or sometime Apostles, alone, but never are entitled of jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but james the Lord's Brother, Gal. 1. There S. james the Bishop of jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely. But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of jesus Christ, not of man, neither by man, but by jesus Christ. So, Peter an Apostle of jesus Christ, but S. james in his Epistle to the jews of the dispersion, writes not himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. james the servant of God and of the Lord jesus Christ. Further yet: S. Paul, although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large, calls himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the holy Ghost, Acts. 13. v. 2, 3. but by Humane constitution, and imposition of hands; in relation to that part of his office, and his cure of the uncircumcision, he limits his Apostolate to his Diocese and calls himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 11, 13. The Apostle of the Gentiles; as S. Peter for the same reason, and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Galat. 2, 8. that is, the Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision. And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians, who clearly was their Bishop (as I shall show in the sequel) that is, he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocese of Philippi. Pa●latim verò tempore procedente, & ali● ab his quos Dominus eleger at ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, In 1. cap. Galat. dicens, necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum, etc. So S. Jerome. In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen, were ordained Apostles; and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance, adding also that by the Apostles themselves judas and Silas were called Apostles. 4. Thus Titus, and some other with him, 2. Corinth. 8, 23. who came to jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostles of the Churches. Apostles, I say, in the Episcopal sense. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate divine mission, but of Apostolic ordination, they were actually Bishops as I shall show hereafter. Titus was Bishop of Crete, and Epaphroditus of Philippi, and these were the Apostles, for Titus came with the Corinthian, Epaphroditus with the Colossian liberality. Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called, Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions. 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to wit, whose alms they carried, but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Churches, viz. of their own of which they were Bishops. For if the title of [Apostle] had related to their mission from these Churches, it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed. 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches, Vers. 22. yet S. Paul, not those Churches sent them, And we have sent with them our Brother, etc. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth with the money, but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatched in legation to jerusalem. V. 23. [If any inquire of Titus .... or the Brethren, they are the Apostles of the Church, and the glory of Christ] So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth, not for their being employed in the transportation of their charity. So that it is plain, that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried, and they having Churches of their own, as Titus had Crete, Epaphroditus had Philippi, their Apostolate was a fixed residence, and superintendency of their several Churches. But in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy, § 5. And office, is clearer yet. For when the holy Spirit had sent seven letters to the seven Asian Bishops, Apocal. 2. the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them, which say they are Apostles and are not, and hathfound themlyars. This Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as Antiquity hath taught us, was at that time Timothy, or * Doroth. Synops. Gajus, the first a Disciple, the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles, and either of them knew them well enough; it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons & counterfeit himself S. Paul, or S. Peter. And if they had, yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case, and whether it was Timothy or Gajus he could deserve but small commendations for the mere believing of his own eyes and memory. Besides the Apostles all were then dead, and he known to live in Patmos, known by the public attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam. These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles, must dissemble an ordinary function, not an extraordinary person. And indeed by the concourse of of story, place, and time, Diotrephes was the Man S. john chiefly pointed at. For he seeing that of Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair placed, and Timothy a long while possessed of it, and * Vide Constit. Apost. per Clement. ubi quidam johannes in Epheso Episc. post Timoth. collocatur. perhaps Gajus after him, if we may trust Dorotheus, and the like in some other Churches, and that S. john had not constituted Bishops in all the other Churches of the lesser Asia, but kept the jurisdiction to be ministered by himself, would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination, obtruding himself upon the Church of Ephesus, so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a busy man in another's Diocese. This, and such impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try, and discover, and convict, and in it he was assisted by S. john himself, as is intimated in S. john's third Epistle written to this Gajus [v. 9] I wrote unto the Church (to wit of Asia) but Diotrephes who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them receiveth us not.] Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop. It was a matter of ambition, a quarrel for superintendency and pre-eminence that troubled him; and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction, and excommunication where he had nothing to do, [v. 10.] He forbids them that would receive the Brethren, and casteth them out of the Church. So that here it is clear, this false Apostolate, was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal pre-eminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was his design, He loved to be the first in the Church, esse Apostolum, esse Episcopum, to be an Apostle, or a Bishop. But this office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy, § 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters derives its fountain from a Rock; Christ's 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, Luke 10. saith S. Luke. He called his Disciples, and out 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 hear but of one commission granted them, which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils, we hear no more of them in the Gospel, but that their Names were written in heaven. We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion, if they can but hold their own. And so we do. For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together, and joined them in clerical commission by virtue of Christ's first ordination of them, for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded, before we find them doing clerical offices. Ananias we read baptising of Saul, Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria, and baptising his Converts; Others also we find, Presbyters at jerusalem, especially at the first Council, for there was judas surnamed justus, and Silas, and S. Mark, and john (a Presbyter, Lib. 3. cap. 3. not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of jerusalem, these and divers others, are reckoned to be of the number of the 72, by Eusebius and Dorotheus. Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries. Apostles and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them. § 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not. These were distinct, and not temporary, but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them. Here let us fix a while. 1. THen; It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministry 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 do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy. Eccles. hierarch. c. 5. The law of God hath reserved the Greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order. First, As of Ordination, the Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations, which the 72 did not, the case is known, Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples, willing them to choose seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and oversight of the poor, They did so, and set them before the twelve Apostles, so they are specified and numbered vers. 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. They, not the Disciples, not the 72 who were there actually present, and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministry, for they were not now ordained to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the * In Trullo. can. 16. Council of Constantinople calls them, and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples, Epiphanius bears witness. Haeres. 20. He sent other 72. to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the widows. And the same is intimated by S. chrysostom, Homil. 14. in Act. 6. if I understand him right, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What dignity had these seven here ordained? of Deacons? No; for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons; In hanc locum. and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of S. chrysostom, pro more suo, adds this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The name and dignity of these seven was no less, 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 faithful people. Presbyters they were say S. chrysostom and Theophylact; of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius. But however, it is clear 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 Martyrdom of S. Stephen, [but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples] to them about this affair. vers. 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them. 2. An instance parallel to this, is in the imposition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas, Acts. 13. in the first ordination that was held at Antioch. [Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manäen, and Saul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, while these men were Ministering, 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 Prophet's alone, and that by the command of the Holy Ghost, and said to be his act. Well! but what were these Prophets? They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch, Prophetas duplici genere intelligamus, & futura dicentes & Scripturas revelantes. S. Ambros: in 1. Corinth. 12. not such as Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, Prophets of prediction extraordinary, but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prophets and Teachers and Ministers. More than ordinary Ministers, for they were Doctors or Teachers, and that's not all, for they were Prophets too. This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery. We shall see this clear enough in S. Paul * Ephes. 4. where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors, before Evangelists, next to Apostles, that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Paul there expresses it, next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission. And these are therefore Apostles too, Apostles secundi or dinis, none of the twelve, but such as S. james, and Epaphroditus, and Barnabas and S. Paul himself. To be sure they were such Prophets as S. Paul and Barnabas, for they are reckoned in the number by S. Luke, for here it was that S. Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ, yet he had particular ordination to this Apostolate or Ministry of the Gentiles. It is evident than what Prophets these were, they they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters, and therefore they imposed hands, and they only. And yet to make the business up complete, S. Mark was amongst them, but he imposed no hands, he was there as the Deacon and Minister [vers. 5.] but he meddled not, S. Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets, such as S, Paul himself was, and so did the Holy Ghost too, but neither did S. Mark who was an Evangelist, and one of the 72 Disciples (as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus) nor any of the College of the Antiochian Presbyters, that were less than Prophets, that is, who were not more than mere Presbyters. The sum is this: Imposition of hands is a duty & office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, ne Gens sit Vnius aetatis, lest it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixed upon the Apostles and Apostolic men, and not communicated to the 72 Disciples or Presbyters; for the Apostles, and Apostolic men, did so the facto, and were commanded to do so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and Ministry of the Apostolate is distinct, and superior to that of Presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy, as the Church itself. 2. THe Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptised people, § 8. And Confirmation, and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to, and yet not communicated, nor executed by the 72, or any other mere Presbyter. That the Apostles did confirm Baptised people, and others of the inferior Clergy could not, is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians. Acts. 8. For when S. Philip had converted, and Baptised the Men of Samaria, the Apostles sent Peter and john to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. S. Philip he was an Evangelist, he was one of the 72 Disciples, * S. Cyprian: ad jubajan. a Presbyter, and appointed to the same ministration that S. Stephen was about the poor Widows, yet he could not do this, the Apostles must and did. This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands, was not for a miraculous gift, but an ordinary Grace. For S. Philip could, and did do miracles enough, but this Grace he could not give, the Grace of consigning or confirmation. The like case is in Acts. 19 where some people having been Baptised at Ephesus, S. Paul confirmed them, giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. The Apostles did it; not the twelve only, but Apostolic men, the other Apostles. S. Paul did it. S. Philip could not, nor any of the 72, or any other mere Presbyters ever did it, that we find in Holy Scripture. Yea; but this imposition of hands, was for a Miraculous issue, for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost, and spoke with tongues and prophesied, which effect because it is ceased, certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired. 1. Not for this reason to be sure. For extraordinary effects may be temporary, when the function which they attest may be eternal, and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministry. The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles, and extraordinary conversions of people [ut in exordio, Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus & Spiritûs Sancti gratia, ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci, & praedicantium verbis nonesse tardiorem audientium fidem,] as * lib: 3 hist: cap. 37. Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists; yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done, or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle. The Apostles when they cursed and anathematised a delinquent, he died suddenly, as in the case of Ananias and Saphira, whom S. Peter slew with the word of his Ministry, and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease, it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church. When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner, he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted, that is, to be afflicted with corporal punishments, and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate, yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church, and the power of the Keys is not also gone: So also in the power of confirmation, * vide Augast. tract. 6. in 1. Epist. johan. which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing, yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith, these miracles at first did confirm the function, and the faith for ever. Now than that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptised people, was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles, appears from these considerations. 1. Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum, the Holy Ghost in his stead; and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father; This was pertinent to all Christendom. Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, so it was in the Prophecy. For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 2. 39 and to all them that are a far off, even to as many as the Lord shall call. So it was in the first accomplishing. To all. And this for ever, for [I will send the Holy Ghost unto you, and he shall abide with you for ever] for it was in subsidium, to supply the comforts of his desired presence, and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again. Now than this promise being to be communicated to all, and that for ever, must either come to us by ¹ extraordinary and miraculous mission, or by ² an ordinary Ministry. Not the first; for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles. If the second (as it is most certain so) than the main Question is evicted, viz: that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles, which was not in the power of the inferior Ministers, nor of any, but themselves and their Colleagues, to wit, Ministerium S. Spiritûs, or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands. For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost, to the rest of the faithful after Baptism, Quod n●nunc in confirmandis Neophyt is manûs impositio tribuit singulis, hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio, in credentium populo donavit Vniversis, Serm. de Penticoste. saith Eusebius Emissenus, Now we find no other way of performing it, nor any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people, but this; and we find that the H. Ghost actually was given this way. Therefore the effect, to wit, the H. Ghost being to continue forever, and the promise of Universal concernment, this way also of its communication, to wit, by Apostolical imposition of hands, is also perpetuum ministerium, to be succeeded to and to abide for ever. 2 This Ministry of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptised people is so far from being a temporary Grace, and to determine with the persons of the Apostles, that it is a fundamental point of Christianity, an essential ingredient to its composition. Hebr. 6. 2. S. Paul is my Author. [Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands. etc. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in S. Paul's Catechism. Now, imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations. ¹ For ordination, & ² for this whatsoever it is. Imposition of hands for ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost, but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father. For the Holy Ghost for ordination was given before the ascension. john. 20. But the promise of the H. Ghost the comforter [the Paraclete, I say, not the maintainer or fountain of Priestly order, that] was not given till the day of Pentecost; and besides, it was promised to all Christian people, and the other was given only to the Clergy. * Add to this, that S. Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progress from this to perfection (as he calls it) that is to higher mysteries, and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelicall, which is Originally in Christ, ministerially in the Clergy; so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress, or imagine him to make the Ministry of the Clergy, the foundation of Christ's Priesthood, and not rather contrary, it is clear that by imposition of hands, S. Paul means not ordination, and therefore confirmation, there being no other ordinary Ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in Holy Scripture. For, as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony, and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it; the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity; and the Second is confessedly extraordinary, therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles. 3. Lastly, the Primitive Church did the facto, and believed themselves to be tied de jure to use this rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism. S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. john had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the faith of Christendom, lib: 3. hist: cap. 17. Qui (saith S. Clement) eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ & tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit. The Bishop first baptised him, than consigned him. Quaest 137. ad Orthod: justin Martyr says (speaking pro more Ecclesiae, according to the Custom of the Church) that when the mysteries of baptism were done, than the faithful are consigned, or confirmed. S. Cyprian relates to this story of S. Philip and the Apostles, Epist: 73. ad lubajan: and gives this account of the whole affair, Et idcircò quia legitimum & Ecclesiasticum baptismum consecuti fuerant, baptizarieos ultrà non oportebat; Sed tantummodò id quod deerat, id à Petro & johanne factum erat, ut oratione pro cis habitâ & manu impositâ invocaretur, & infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptiz antur, Praepositis Ecclesiae offer antur, ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur, & signaculo Dominico confirmentur. S. Peter and S. john by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism: and this is to this day done in the Church, for new baptised people are brought to the Bishops, and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost. But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom, may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius; in the * Lib. 6. hist. cap: 33. Epistle written to julius and julianus Bishops, under the name of S. Clement, in the * in 1. tom. Concil: Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr, a lib. de baptismo. c. 8 in Tertullian, in b lib: 2. contra lit: Petil: cap. 104. & lib. 15. de Trinitic 26. vide etiam S Hieron: contra Luciferianos. S. Ambros: lib. 2. c. 2 de sacramentis Epist: 3. Eusebij P. & M. ad Episc. Tusciae & Campon: ay sidor: Hispal de eccles: offic. lib. 2. c. 26. S. Austen, and in S. Cyrill of jerusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation. This only. The Catholics, whose Christian prudence it was, in all true respects to disadvantage Heretics, lest their poison should infect like a Pest, laid it in Novatus dish as a crime, He was baptised in his bed, and was not confirmed, Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri, therefore he could never receive the gift of the holy Ghost. So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the belief of Christendom, that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministry given to faithful people after Baptism, but only by Apostolical, or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands. What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation, and that Bishops only could do it, I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse. Here the Scene lies in Scripture, where it is clear 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 ministerial giving of the holy Ghost, but the Apostles must go to do it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle, and yet this is an ordinary Ministry which the jure aught, & de facto always was continued in the Church. Therefore there must always be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it, that is, an office above Presbyters, for in Scripture they could never do it, and this is it which we call Episcopacy. 3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole Church, § 9 And Superiority of jurisdiction, & each Apostle respectively of his several Diocese, when he would fix his chair; & had superintendency over the Presbyters, and the people, and this by Christ's donation, the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this. john. 20. 21. Sicut misit me Pater, sic ego mitto vos. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, Lib. 7. de baptism. Contra Donatist. c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian, de Vnit. Eccles. & S. Cyrill. in joh. 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 Council 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, etc. 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 show 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 aught appears in Scripture. If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they ordained Deacons at jerusalem, 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 Catholic 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 enemies of it, for the same tradition, if that be admitted for good probation, is for Episcopal pre-eminence over Presbyters, as will appear 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 be proved from Scripture, that Christ made the Apostles Priests first, and then Bishops or Apostles, but only that Christ gave them several commissions, and parts of the office Apostolical, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of war, 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 than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy. Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clericall offices, Ephes. 4. there is no enumeration of Presbyters, 1. Corinth. 12. but of Apostles there is; and the other members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity, or par●● of the Apostolate, and either must infer many more orders, than 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 gift 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 always did believe, or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct order. If the second be admitted, than the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution, but of Apostolical only, as is the Order of Deacons, and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolical alone, and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did Deacons with a less. But if the first be said, than 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 Apostolical ordinance, and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis, yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis, for than they must have made them Apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical 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 follows, that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the Apostles are to rule them by virtue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical; or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à fonte Apostolorum, and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possibility of showing the contrary in Scripture, by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters, than what I have specified,) I will hereafter show it to have been the faith and practise of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship) but that Presbyters have no jurisdiction essential to their order, but derivative only from Apostolical pre-eminence. 2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest, saith the Law. Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter, and a Bishop Would be, that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholic communion without cause, and without authority, S. john the Apostle threatened him in his Epistle to Gajus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Wherefore when I come I will remember him, and all that would have been to very little purpose, if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punished his delinquency. 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination, as Mathias succeeded judas, who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as a Lib. 1. hist. c 12. & l. 2. c 9 Eusebius, b Haeres. 20. Epiphanius, and c De script. Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l 4. c. 63. Tertul de prescript. S. Jerome affirm, and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with jesus; S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome, S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. james at jerusalem, S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea, & divers others of the 72, reckoned by Dorotheus, Eusebius, & others of the Fathers, did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not. Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles, than he had under them, can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge, or Churches. It follows then, since (as will more fully appear anon) Presbyters did succeed the Apostles, that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had. But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to, therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed. When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles, I mean, not as Presbyters, but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops, so they succeeded, and so they prove an evidence of fact, for a superiority of jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy. *** Now that this superiority of jurisdiction was not temporary, but to be succeeded in, appears from Reason, and from ocular demonstration, or of the thing done. 1. If superiority of jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the regiment of the Church, there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession, since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages, government and superiority of jurisdiction, unity of supremacy, and coërtion was more necessary then at first, when extraordinary gifts might supply, what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary authority. 2. Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual (not so as to have * Vt puta, viduarum collegium, & Diaconorum, & coenobium fidelium. &c: all that which was personal, and temporary, but so as to have no other) for that, and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, We can show no Divine Authority for our government, which we must contend to do, and do it too, or be called usurpers. For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them, or not. If not, than they failed in the founding of the Church, and the Church is not built upon a Rock. If they did (as most certainly they did) then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained, or else we must be governned with an Unlawful and unwarranted equality, because not by that which only is of immediate divine institution; and than it must needs be a fine government, where there is no authority, and where no man is superior. 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation. I mean the seven Angel-Presidents of the seven Asian Churches. If these seven Angels were seven Bishops, that is, Prelates or Governors of these seven Churches, in which it is evident and confessed of all sides, there were many Presbyters, than it is certain that a Superiority of jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself, and given by him, insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church; For Christ writes to these seven Churches, and directs his Epistles to the seven Governors of these Churches calling them Angels, which it will hardly be supposed he would have done, if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness, they had not else been Angels of light, nor stars held in Christ's own right hand. This is certain, that the function of these Angels (whatsoever it be) is a Divine institution. Let us then see what is meant by these stars and Angels. Revel. 1. vers. 20. [The seven stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches.] 1. Then it is evident, that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocese, with an [Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs] yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church, for the whole Church is called the Candlestick, and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks, but to the seven stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches, viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks. By the Angel therefore is not, cannot be meant the whole Church. 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governor of the Church, 1. Because of the title of eminency, The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Messenger, the Legate, the Apostle of the Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For these words, Angel, or Apostle, although they signify Mission or Legation, yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent. As in the examples before specified. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Their Angels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostles of the Churches. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and divers others. Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them, and of Eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent, shows that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively. 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him; as, not to suffer false Apostles; So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërtion in causis Clericorum: to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain; as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The first is the office of Rulers, for they Watch for your Souls; Hebr. 13. And the second, of Apostles, and Apostolic men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren, for these men, although they were but of the 72 at first, yet by this time were made Apostles and [chief men among the Brethren] S. Paul also was joined in this work, Act. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He went up and down confirming the Churches. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. To confirm the Churches, and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government, these were offices of power and jurisdiction, no less than Episcopal or Apostolical; and besides, the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocese [Thou hast a few names even in Sardis] they were the Bishop's 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 divers others, and therefore they are deposited in his custody, He is to be their Ruler and Pastor, and this is called his Ministry. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have known thy Ministry. His office therefore was clerical, it was an Angel-Minister, and this his office must make him the guide and superior to the Rest, even all the whole Church, since he was charged with all. 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person, for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency, or suppose personal excellencyes. Add to this that the compellation is singular, and of determinate number, so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons, for the seven Churches had but seven stars, and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches. And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars (for so they may if they begin to multiply) then by one star they must mean many stars, and so they may multiply Churches too, for there were as many Churches as stars, and no more Angels than Churches, and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000, as every star into a Constellation, or every Angel into a Legion. But besides the Exigency of the thing itself, these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governors or Bishops of the seven Churches, & their very names are commemorated. Unto these seven Churches S. john, saith Arethas, in 1. Apocal. reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an equal 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. Ambrose, and again, Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi johannis. 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. john. Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin. Epist. 162. & in Apocal. By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel. Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Precedents and actually Bishops of these Churches. S. Policarpe was one to be sure, apud Smyrnam & Episcopus & Martyr, lib. 5. c. 24. saith Eusebius, He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna; And he had good authority for it, for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after, was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus, lib. 4 c. 10. and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it, lib. 4. cap. 15. & out of the encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna itself, and besides these authorities it is attested by S. † Epist. ad Policarp. Ignatius, and * de praescrip. Tertullian. S. Timothy was another Angel, to wit, of the Church of Ephesus; to be sure had been, and most likely was still surviving. Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation, and he had been the Angel of Pergamus, vide Aretha. in 1. Apoc. but before this book written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint. Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, & Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur, lib. 4. cap. 26. saith Eusebius. These men were actually living when S. john writ his Revelation, for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and writ after the Revelation, for he writ a treatise of it, as saith Eusebius. However, at least some of these were then, and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches, and the Angels S. john speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocese, 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 fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house. The Sum 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 virtue 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 govern the Church: and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetual, 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 personal 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 fairly pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem sollicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical, did give them power of administering Sacraments, of absolving sinners, of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christ's 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 Apostolical 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 confirm by the practice of the Catholic Church, and so vindicate the practices of the present Church, from the common prejudices that disturb 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, In Lucae cap. 10. I sum up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples. Palmae sunt isti qui nut riuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis. Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit, erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores, & posteà illorum Discipuli & sectatores. The Apostles are the twelve fountains, and the 72 are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains. For though Christ also ordained 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 main question, viz. to prove that he, although a Bishop, yet had no Apostolical authority, Epist. ad Philadelph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I do not command this as an Apostle, (for what am I, and what is my Father's house, that I should compare myself with them) but as your fellow soldier and a Monitor. But this answers itself, if we consider to whom he speaks it. Not to his own Church of Antioch, for there he might command as an Apostle, but to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉 might not, they were no part of his Diocese, he was not their Apostle, and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary, in their personal privileges, and in their universal jurisdiction, therefore he might not command the Philadelphians, being another Bishop's charge, but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop, to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear 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 clearly on this side, is the next business. For, hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy, by arguments derived from Scripture; I shall only add two more from Antiquity, § 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general tenant of Antiquity. and so pass on to tradition Apostolical. 1. THE belief 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 fair evidence of a Catholic tradition. S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular, Lib. 3. cap. 3. Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, Er SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent eaquibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant ... quos & SUCCESSORES relinquebant SUUM IPSORUM LOCUM MAGISTERII tradentes. We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches, appointing them their successors, and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves 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 Apostolical, Lib. de prescript. c. 36. apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis president. Apostolical they are from their foundation, and by their succession, for Apostles did found them, and Apostles, or men of Apostolic authority still do govern them. S. Cyprian; Hoc enim vel maximè Frater, Epist. 42. ad Cornelium. & laboramus & laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino, & per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus. We must preserve the Unity 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 judicem Dei constituas & Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, qui vos audit, me audit, etc. Christ said to his Apostles, and in them to the Governors or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence, he that heareth you heareth me. Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop, spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin, Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis. cont. Donatist. Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri jesu 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 spoke it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops, and himself was a Bishop. The Council 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 undervalning their Bishops, Epist. 54. shows the difference of the Catholics honouring, and the Heretics disadvantaging that sacred order. Apud nos (saith he) Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est. Bishops with us [Catholics] 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 divers others of the Fathers make this gloss, Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant; The Apostles are Fathers, instead of whom Bishops do succeed, whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands. So S. Hierome, S. Austin, and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. alias 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles, De verbis Dom. serm. 24 which would do 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 counsel 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 me. I said it was good counsel, especially if besides all these, we will take also S. Chrysostom's testimony, Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit. A power of anathematising delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors, even to Bishops. S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Episcopi sunt, In Ephes. 4. He hath given Apostles, In 1. Corinth. 12. 28. that is, he hath given some Bishops. That's down right, and this came not by chance from him; he doubles his assertion. Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolos posuit, qui legati Christi sunt, sicut dicit idem Apostolus [pro quo legatione fungimur.] Ipsi sunt Episcopi, firmante istud Petro Apostolo, & dicente inter caetera de judâ, & Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. And a third time. In vers. 29. ibid. Numquid omnes Apostoli? verum est; Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus. Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose, when he spoke of their ordinary offices; which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius, Biblioth. Phot. n. 254. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul, and there enthroned. To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishoprics usually in antiquity. S. Basil calls a Bishopric, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Theodoret. Lib. 4. c. 18. An Apostolical presidency. The sum is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church, as S. Clement his Scholar, or some other primitive man in his name reports of him. Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat, Epist. 1. & 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 Catholic consent, for Bishop's succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office, he may see it in a Epist. 1▪ ad Simpron. Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona, in b Homil. 26. in Evang. S. Gregory, c Orat. 2. de imagine. S. john Damascen, in S. Sixtus the first his second decretal Epistle, and most plentifully in d Epist. 7. S. Celestine writing to the Ephesine Council, 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, tamet si 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 Superiors. TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishop's ex aequo successors of S. Peter. § 11. And particularly 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, etc. Ind per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, Epist. 27. ad Lapsos. ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, etc. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal 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. etc. The same also S Jerome intimates, Epist. 1. Non est facilè stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing, to stand in the place of Paul, to obtain the degree of Peter, so he, while he dissuades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal 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 Bythinia. Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta, saith Theodoret, Lib. 12. thes. cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil: S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which 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 ejasque 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 Son for the same delinquency, for he had the place, liberty, and authority of S. Peter. Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter, tract. primâ die suae ordinat. and Gildas surnamed the wise, saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter. But this thing is of Catholic belief, and of this use. Biblioth. SS. PP. tom. 5 in Eccles. ord. crepat. If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal & to be succeeded in, and this office Superior to Presbyters, and not only of Divine institution, but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority (as I have proved of the function Apostolical) then those which do 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 Apostolical ordinations, they did not proceed as the Church since hath done. Themselves had the whole Priesthood, the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices. Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers, did not in every ordination give a distinct order, as the Church hath done since the Apostles. For they ordained some to distinct offices, some to particular places, some to one part, some to another part of clerical employment, as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision, so was Barnabas: S. john, and james, and Cephas to the Circumcision, and there was scarce any public design or Grand employment but the Apostolic men had a new ordination to it, a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles. So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferior Clergy were only a giving of partilar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to employ them in. Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before, as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas. Acts, 13. Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices, and it is very pertinent to this Question. For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance; and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorised; for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now, and sometimes more, as to judas and Silas, and divers others, who therefore were more than mere Presbyters as the word is now used. * The result is this. The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle, so is a Deacon, a lesser part, so is an Evangelist, so is a Prophet, so is a Doctor, so is a helper, or a Surrogate in Government, but these will not be called orders, every one of them will not I am sure, at least not made distinct orders by Christ, for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man, or to distinguish them into so many men, as there are offices, or to unite more or fewer of them. All these I say, clearly 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 ordain such men, and scattered their power at first, for there was so much employment in any one of them, as to require one man for one office; but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons, and called them two distinct orders. But yet if we speak properly & according to the Exigence of Divine institution, there is Vnum Sacerdotiam, one Priesthood appointed by Christ, and that was, the commission given by Christ to his Apostles, and to their Successors precisely, and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood, and although the power of it, is all of Divine institution, as the power to baptise, to preach, to consecrate, to absolve, to Minister, yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men, so much less to another, that is only of Apostolical ordinance. For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to absolve, to some only to consecrate, to some only to baptise. We see that to Deacons they did so. They had only a power to baptise and preach, whether all Evangelists had so much or no, Scripture does not tell us. * But is to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys, or made them officers spiritual 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 than baptising 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 Priest 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 ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter, then let any man show me where it is ordained 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 Apostolical 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 perpetual. So that, we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship, marry 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 do succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from Scripture, and because [no Scirpture is of private interpretation] I have attested it with the Catholic 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 clear. 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 dogmatic resolution or interpretation of Scripture, as the Bishops are in the examples above alleged; but by allusion, and participation at the most. For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of baptising, consecrating, and absolving in privato foro, but this is but part of the Apostolical power, and no part of their office as Apostles were superior to Presbyters. 2. It is observable 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 Apostolic Sees. 3. The places which I have specified, and they are all I could ever meet with, are of peculiar answer. For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, * Idem ferè habet in Epist. ad Magnes: & Smyrnens. he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests, the College, or combination of Apostles. But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles, so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum caetus. So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops, or Apostles, who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station. This then, will do no hurt. As for S. Irenaeus, he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, but what Presbyters he means, he tells us, even such Presbyters as were also Bishops, such as S. Peter and S. john was, who call themselves Presbyters, Lib. 4. c. 43. his words are these. Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris abandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm placitum Patris acceperunt. Cap. 44▪ And a little after, Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, & dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in justitiâ. So that he gives testimony for us, not against us. As for S. Hierome, the third man, he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joins Presbyters with Bishops, and that's right enough, for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae, as I have proved he does, than also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum. Epist. 13. Episcopi & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes, habere nitantur & meritum, those are his words, and enforce not so much as may be safely granted, for reddendo singula singulis, Bishops succeed Apostles, and Presbyters Apostolic men, and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical, and that's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome. I know nothing else to stay me, or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alleged, and the full voice of traditive interpretation. THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine institution. § 12. And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine, by primitive authority, Epist. 27. In this S. Cyprian is most plentiful. Dominus noster ** Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suo rationem disponens in Evangelio, dicit Petro &c: Ind per tamporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesi● rati● decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos canstituatur & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Cum hos itaque Divinâ l●ge fundatum sit &c: Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop. Hence comes the ordination of Bishops, and the Church is built upon them, and every action of the Church is to be governed by them, and this is founded upon a Divine law. Epist. 65. Rogatian. Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos. i.e. Episcopos, & praepositos Dominus elegit. Our Lord hath chosen Apostles, that is, Bishops and Church-governors'. And a little after. Quod si nos aliquid auder● contrà Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit, possunt & contra nos audere Diaconi, à quibus fiunt. We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops. The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop. Epist. 76. Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est, nec Episcopus computari potest, qui Evangelicâ & Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est. If there was both an Evangelicall, and an Apostolic tradition, for the successive ordination of Bishops, by other Bishops, (as S. Cyprian affirms there is, by saying Novatianus contemned it,) then certainly the same Evangelicall power did institute that calling, for the modus of whose election, it took such particular order. S. Ignatius long before him, speaking concerning his absent friend S●tion the Deacon, Epist, ad Magnes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He wishes for the good man's company, because by the grace of God, and according to the law of jesus Christ, he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergy. And a little after. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is home enough. Ye ought to obey your Bishop, and to contradict him in nothing. It is a fearful thing to contradict him: For whosoever does so, does not mock a visible man, but the invisible, undeceiveable God. For this contumely relates not to man but to God. So S. Ignatius, which could not be true, were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance. But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ, who did constitute and ordain them. This is plain and dogmatic, I would be loath to have two men so famous, so Ancient, and so resolute, speak half so much against us. But it is a general resolve, Quaest Vet. & N. Testam. qu. 97. and no private opinion. For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches, for before his ascension into Heaven, he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops. But long before him, Hegesippus going to Rome, Euseb. lib. 4. c. 22. and by the way calling in at Corinth, and divers other Churches, discoursed with their several Bishops, and found them Catholic and Holy, and then stayed at Rome three successions of Bishops, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius. Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus, vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur, sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit, & Prophetae indicaverunt, ET DOMINUS STATUIT. All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed. All things, therefore both of doctrine and discipline, and therefore the ordinations themselves too. Further yet, and it is worth observing, there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester, that ever writ decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us, but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated, that the order of Bishops did come from God. S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishop's successors to the Apostles, Lib. 4. c. 43. saith that with their order of Bishopric, they have received charisma veritatis certum, a true, and certain or indelible character; secundùm placitum Patris, according to the will of God the Father. And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose, In 1. Corinth. 12. Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis, & quià ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit. God from whom all good things do come, did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop. De dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2. And again, Honour igitur, Fratres, & sublimitas Episcopalis, nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari; Si Regum fulgori compares &c: and a little after, Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine, cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit, sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio, praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis. The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable pre-eminence and is by God set over the people, and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Father's right. And in the close of his discourse, Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur, Petre amas me? .... repetitum est à Domino tertiò, Pasceoves meas. Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed, and in him we (who have Pastoral or Episcopal authority) have received the same authority and commission. Thus also divers of the Father's speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop, and of S. Paul's intimation, that it was by Prophecy, affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. chrysostom, Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat. in 1. Tim. 1. cap. he was ordained by Prophecy, that is by the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution. In 1. Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Oecumenius. By Divine revelation, saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost, so Theophylact; and indeed so S. Paul, to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus, Acts 20. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops: & to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them, and he was a Bishop, and so were divers others there present; therefore the order itself is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty, since a single person was made Bishop by revelation. I might multiply authorities in this particular, which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy, in † Hom. 32. in johan. Origen, in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian, in the collection of the * Can. 6. Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis: in the Counsels of a C. 25. Aquisgrane, and b Octawm Can. 7. Toledo, and many more. The sum is that which was taught by c Epist. 2. S. Sixtus, Apostolorum dispositione, ordinante Domino Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti. The Lord did at first ordain, and the Apostles did so order it, and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution. These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles, & by consequence to have the same institution, drive all to the same issue, and are sufficient to make faith, that it was the do-doctrine Primitive, and Catholic that Episcopacy is a divine institution, which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom, which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost, and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a never failing succession, unless where God removes the Candlestick, or which is all one, takes away the star, the Angel of light from it, that it may be invelop'd in darkness, usque ad consummationem sae●uli & aperturam tenebrarum. The conclusion of all, I subjoin in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted, Lib. 3. in Lucam. c. 15. sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, and Superior to them by the law of God. THE second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition. We have seen what Christ did, now we shall see what was done by his Apostles. And since they knew their Master's mind so well, we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practise Apostolical. Lib. 3. cap. 5. Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes, extra omne mendacium sunt, non enim communicat mendacium veritati, sicut non communicant tenebrae luci, § 13. In pursuance of the Divine institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches, sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum. saith S. Irenaeus. FIrst, then, the Apostles did presently after the ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of jerusalem. For they knew that jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed, they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue, (Petrus & Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam, saith Lactantius l. 4. inst.) famines and wars, and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christ's own prediction, which themselves recorded in Scripture. And to say they understood not what they writ, is to make them Enthusiasts, and neither good Doctors nor wise seers. But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of public affairs, as was so Great desolation, and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church, and to fix it upon its perpetual base. 2 lie The Church of jerusalem was to be the precedent and platform for other Churches. [The word of God went forth into all the world, beginning first at jerusalem], and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there placed betimes, that other Churches might see their government from whence they received their doctrine, that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream. 3 lie The Apostles were actually dispersed by persecution, and this to be sure they looked for, and therefore (so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways) they ordained S. james the first Bishop of jerusalem; As S. james at Jerusalem. there he fixed his chair, there he lived Bishop for 30 years, and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom. If this be proved we are in a fair way for practise Apostolical. First, let us see all that is said of S. james in Scripture, that may concern this affair. Acts. 15. We find S. james in the Synod at jerusalem, not disputing, but giving final determination to that Great Qu: about Circumcision. [And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said &c:] He first drove the question to an issue, and told them what he believed concerning it, with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision, as with our Forefathers who used it. But S. james when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter, gave sentence and final determination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. wherefore I judge or give sentence. So he. The Acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative, they disputed, v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative, but S. james his was decisive; which proves him clearly (if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate) that S. james was the Precedent of this Synod, which considering that he was none of the twelve (as I proved formerly) is unimaginable, were it not for the advantage of the place, it being held in jerusalem, where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus (as S. Clement calls him) especially in the presence of S. Peter, who was primus Apostolus, and decked with many personal privileges and prerogatives. * Add to this, that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle, and to send judas and Silas, yet because they were of the Presbytery, and College of jerusalem, S. james his Clergy, they are said, as by way of appropriation to come from S. james. Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus, cum vidisset quosdam venisse à jacobo, i. e. à judaeâ, nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae jacobus praefuit. To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. james, Epist. ad Trall, and in his Epistle to Hero, saying that he did Minister to S. james and the Presbyters of jerusalem, which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius time (who was Suppar Apostolorum, only not a contemporary Bishop) here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair, and jerusalem the seat of S. james, and the Clergy his own, of a College of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius, he was their Ordinary. * The second evidence of Scripture is [Acts. 21. And when we were come to jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto james, and all the Elders were present.] Why unto james? Why not rather into the Presbytery, or College of Elders, if james did not eminere, were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Praepositus or Bishop of them all? Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent, see it testified by Antiquity, to which in matter of fact, and Church-story, he that will not give faith upon concurrent testimonies, and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad man, and may as well disbeleive every thing that he hath not seen himself, and can no way prove that himself was Christened, and to be sure, after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before, and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory, it being impossible to prove it. Eusebius reports out of S. Clement. lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Peter and S. john although they were honoured of our Lord, yet they would not themselves be, but made james surnamed the Just, Bishop of jerusalem; And the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae, for when S. james was crowned with Martyrdom, and immediately the City destroyed, lib. 3. c. 11. Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in common consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum SUCCESSIONE JACOBI judicari. It was concluded for Simeon, because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. james also his Predecessor. The same concerning S. james is also repeated by Eusebius. judaei ergo cum Paulus provocasset ad Caesarem ..... In jacobum fratrem Domini CUI AB APOSTOLIS SEDES HIEROSOLYMITANA DELATA FUIT, lib. 2. c. 22. omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt. In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus. lib. 7. c. 46. & lib. 8. cap. ult: De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ, significamus vobis quòd hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Iacobus Frater Domini. S. james the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by us [Apostles.] The same is witnessed by Anacletus. Porrò & Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. jacobus qui justus dicebatur, Epist. 2. & secundùm carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater, à Petro, jacobo, & johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus, Epist. decret. Vnic: with a Scimus enim Beatissimum jacobum &c: Just as Anacletus before. S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, and Peter, james, and john were his maintainers. But let us see the testimony of one of S. james his Successors in the same Chair, who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records. S. cyril of jerusalem is the man. Nam de his non mihi solùm, Catech. 4. sed etiam Apostolis, & JACOBO HUIUS ECCLESIae OLIM EPISCOPO curae fuit, speaking of the question of circumcision, and things sacrificed to Idols, Catech. 16. and again, he calls S. james, primum hujus parochiae Episcopum, the first Bishop of this Diocese. S. Austin also attests this story. lib: 2. cont. lit: Peti●▪ c. 51. & lib: 2. cont: Crescon: c. 37. Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in quâ Petrus sedit, & in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet? Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae IN QUARLOUS JACOBUS SEDIT, & in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet? I must not omit the testimony of S. Jerome, lib: de Script. Eccles. in jacobo. for it will be of great use in the sequel, jacobus (saith he) post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus, and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus. * There are many more testimonies to this purpose, as of S. a homil: 38. in 1. Cor. 15. & 33. hom: in 15. Act. chrysostom, b haeres. 66. Epiphanius, S. c in 1. Galat. Ambrose, the Council of d cap. 33. Constantinople in Trullo. But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher, jacobus Frater Domini vocitatus, ab ipso Domino nostro jesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus. S. james the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord jesus Christ himself. If by [Ordinatus] he means [designatus] he agrees with S. chrysostom: homil. 3. in Act. But either of them both will serve the turn for the present. But either in one sense or the other it is true, and attested also by Epiphanius, haeres. 78. & primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs, cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terrâ primò. S. james had first the Episcopal chair, for our Lord first entrusted his earthly throne to him. And thus we are encircled with a cloud of witnesses, to all which if we add what I before observed, that S. james is in Scripture called an Apostle, and yet he was none of the twelve, and that in the sense of Scripture and the Catholic Church, a Bishop and an Apostle is all one, it follows from the premises, (and of them already there is faith enough made) that S. james was by Christ's own designation, and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of jerusalem, that is, had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not, and this Apostolate was limited and fixed, as his Successors since have been. But that this also was not a temporary business, S. Simeon to be his successor, and to expire with the persons of S. james and the first Apostles, but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church, it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor. lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. It is witnessed by Eusebius, Post martyrium jacobi .... traditur Apostolos etc. habuisse in common Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione jacobi judicari; omnesque uno consilio, atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet. The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus, lib 4. cap. 22. Posteaquam jacobus Martyr effectus est .... electione divinâ Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur, electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini. S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a Divine election; haeres. 66. And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of jerusalem, reckons first james, and next Simeon, qui sub Trajano crucifixus est. THe next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus. §14. S. Timothy at Ephesus, That he was ordained by an Apostle appears in Scripture. For S. Paul imposed hands on him, that's certain, Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum, 2. Tim. 1. 6. by the laying on of MY HANDS. That he was there a Bishop is also apparent, from the power and offices concredited to him. 1. He was to be * 1. Tim. 1. 3. resident at Ephesus. And although for the public necessities of the Church, and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge, yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes, there was his ordinary residence, and his avocations were but temporary and occasional, and when it was, his Cure was supplied by Tychicus, whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar, as I shall show hereafter. 2. S. Paul in his epistles to him, gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain. A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, 1. Tim. 3. etc. 3. S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy. Over the people; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothy's commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Commanding as teaching. Over Presbyters; but yet so as to make difference between them and the neoterics in Christianity, the one as Fathers, the other as Brethren. 1. Tim. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas, a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation. Nay it is more; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo, plagam infero, saith Budaeus: so that, that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use, either toward Priest or Deacon, Clergy or Laity, Old or Young. [for a Bishop must be no striker.] but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's given him in commission both to old and young, Presbyters and Catechumen, that is, Require them; postula, provoca. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synesius. To be provoked to a Duel, to be challenged. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. chrysostom. Ad precandum vos provoco. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eurip. Thou makest me, or compeliest me to shed tears. Suavitèr omnia. That's the way S. Paul takes. Meekly; but yet so as to do his office, to keep all in their several duties, and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, command these things, for so he sums up the Bishop's duty towards Presbyters, Neophytes, and Widows. Give all these things in charge. 1. Tim. 5. 7. Command all to do their duty. Command, but not objurgate. Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem. So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage. haeres. 75. For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy, how he should exercise his jurisdiction over Presbyters and people, if he had had no jurisdiction and coercitive authority at all. Nay, and howsoever S. Paul forbids to Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it, intimating, upon great occasion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Tim. 4. 2. To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be but an urging, or an exhortation, is not all, for S. Paul gives him coercitive jurisdiction, as well as directive. Over Widows. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Reject the younger Widows, viz. à collegio viduarum, ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae. Over Presbyters. for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters, of which if he was not to take cognisance, it was to no purpose to number witnesses. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Receive not a public accusation [in foro externo] against a Priest, Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum, etc. to wit, in causes criminal, That is sufficient intimation of the Bishop's power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminal; then for his punishing in such causes, it follows in the next words, 1. Tim. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Reprehend them publicly, that is, disgrace them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ind●corus ..... 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer Iliad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul, is to call them to public account; that's one part of the jurisdiction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to examine. Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to give an account of one's life▪ idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. ●. Iliad. But the words in S. Paul will clear this business. Let them that sin be publicly shamed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the rest may fear; A punishment most certainly, something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Malum in genere poenae. What else should they fear? to sin? Most true. But why upon this reprehension, if not for fear of being punished? Add to all this, that here is in this chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction, an erection of a judicatory, and is all the way, direction for his proceeding in causes criminal, appears most evidently, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord jesus Christ and the elect Angels, that thou observe these things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under public test of witnesses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doing nothing for favour or partiality. Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory then these mandates of S. Paul. Lastly, to make up his Episcopal function complete S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders. Vers. 22. [Lay hands suddenly on no man.] sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri .... Ne facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem .... peccat enim si non probat & si● ordinet. Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est. Haec Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religioni, cujus rei in futuro praemium consequetur. So S. Ambrose upon the place, who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishop's consistory, that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the judicature, and coercitive jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy. Add to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholic and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul, Lib. 3. c. 4. sed & Lucas (saith he) in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei & Titi, quorum alter in Ephesi Episcopus ... ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. Praefat. in 1. Tim. S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopal office. Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistol●m quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare. And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person, and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united, concurrent testimony of S. a Contr. haeres. Vincentius, b contr Martion ●. 5. Tertullian, S. c hom. 〈◊〉 in 1. Timoth. chrysostom, S. d in 6. cap. in 1. Tim. Ambrose, e in 1. Tim. 4. c. & 5. c. Oecumenius, f haeres. 75. Epiphanius, g ad Timoth. cap. 4. Primasius, and S. h in Pastor. part. 2. c. 11. Acts. 11. Gregory. As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aërius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one; docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus & quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus, Presbyterum ne objurges, etc. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spoke it in full Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus. Who desires a multitude of testimonies (though enough already have deposed in the cause, beside the evidence of Scripture) may to these add that saying of S. chrysostom, In Titum. & 1. Philip. In 1. Tim. 3. that to Timothy was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of Theodoret, calling him Episcopum Asianorum; the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy, (which if it were not writ by S. Paul, yet at least, will prove a primitive record, and very Ancient,) the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy Biblioth▪ Photic. n. 254. in Photius, i Descript. Eccles. S. Jerome, k In praefat. in 1. Timoth. Theophylact, l De vitâ ● morr● SS 87, & 88 Isidore▪ and m Lib. 2. c. 34. 2. Tim. 4. 5. Nicephorus. And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist, for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause, and though neither pertinent nor true, yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholic antiquity. But [do the work of an Evangelist] (saith S. Paul) therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop. No, was not? That's hard. But let us try however. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those are the next words, fulfil thy Deaconship. And therefore he was no Bishop? As well this as the other, for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy, why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist, as well as his being an Evangelist, exclude his being a Bishop? Whether is higher, a Bishopric, or the office of an Evangelist? If a Bishop's office be higher, and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist, than a Bishop cannot be a Priest, and a Priest cannot be a Deacon, and an Evangelist can be neither, for that also is thought to be higher than them both. But if the office of an Evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much less destructive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a movable employment, and a Bishopric of fixed residence, that will be considered by and by. 2. All the former discourse is upon supposition, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implies the office of a Deacon, and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist. For if we mark it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do the work, not the office of an Evangelist. And what's that? We may see it in the verses immediately going before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if this he the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform, viz. to preach, to be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort, there is no harm done, a Bishop may, nay he must do all this. 3. Consider we what an Evangelist is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist, so the Greek Scholiast calls him. And in this sense indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist, but yet if he had, he might have been a Bishop, because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the Catholic testimony of the Primitive Church, as we shall see hereafter, so far as concerns our Question. But then again; an Apostle might be an Evangelist, S. Matthew was, and S. john was, and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist, as Episcopal pre-eminence, for I have proved these two names Apostle, and Bishop to signify all one thing. In 4. Ephes. 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of [Evangelists.] Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus. S. Philip was one of the leaven, commonly called Deacons, and he was also a Presbyter, and yet an Evangelist, and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop, or else why are Presbyters cried out against so bitterly in all cases, for nonresidence, 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 than a Bishopric? 3. Another acceptation of [Evangelist] is also in Eusebius. Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37. Sed & alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant .... Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae ... animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant .... ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent, primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes .... Evangelistarum fungebantur officio. They that planted the Gospel first in any Country, they were Evangelists. S. Timothy might be such a one, and yet be a Bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of Evangelists. For so Eusebius, Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes, atque ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes, ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant. So that they first converted the Nation, and then governed the Church, first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops; and so was Austin the Monk 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 sense be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time, insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries, Lib. 10. tripart. hist. cap. 5. Theodoret. as S. chrysostom in Scythia, S. Trophimus, S. Denis, S. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word [Evangelist] this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more Evangelists for that, but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel, 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 always. * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, [to the coming of our Lord jesus Christ,] 1. Tim. 6. 14 if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules, was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sense, neither in person, nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgement. But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of Episcopacy, than it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, 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 stir, there are some of the Fathers, that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist. So S. chrysostom, so Theophylact, In Ephes. 4. so the Greek Scholiast, now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needless, we were safe enough without it; if it be false, than itself we see is needless, 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. §15. S. Titus at Crete. S. Paul also was his ordainer. 1. Reliqui te Cretae. There S. Paul fixed his seat for him, at Crete. 2. His work was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to set in order things that are wanting, viz. to constitute rites and forms of public Liturgy, to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer by public destination for divine Service, and in a word, by his authority to establish such Discipline and rituals, as himself 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 judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify. 2. The next work is Episcopal too, and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City. Not Presbyters collectively in every City, but distributively, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, City by City, that is Elders in several Cities, one in one City, 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 plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops. 1. In terms and express words. [To ordain Elders in every City; If any be the husband of one wife, etc. For a Bishop must be blameless.] That is, the elders that you are to ordain in several Cities must be blameless, for else they must not be Bishops. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition, for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and S. john, Presbyter electae Dominae, and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical, and that's as much as Episcopal to be sure. 3. S. Paul adds farther [a Bishop must be blameless AS THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?] S. Paul's Bishop is God's steward, Titus. 1. and God's steward is the ruler of his household, says our blessed Saviour himself, and therefore not a mere Presbyter, amongst whom indeed there is a parity, but no superintendency of Gods making. 4. S. Paul does in the sequel 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 drink and be DRUNK, and BEAT his fellow servants, than the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers.] The steward of the household, this Ruler, must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no more must a Bishop, he must not be given to wine, no striker; Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus, sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat, Advers: jovinian. saith S. Hierome: still then, these are the Rulers of the Church, which S. Titus was to ordain, and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house, for how else shall he 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 ordain these Bishops in Cities is in order to coercitive jurisdiction, because [many unruly and vain talkers were crept in, verse. 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 Apostolical institution no man will grant, and to a College of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it, for himself had given it singly to S. Titus. For I consider, Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders, be they Bishops, be they Presbyters. The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power, or coercitive jurisdiction, for why then was Titus sent? As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained, before his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at all, they were not Presbyters. If they had a coercitive jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, than Titus had it before in his own person, (for they that were there before his coming, had not, as I showed) and therefore he must also have it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others, or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordained? For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest, quam ipse habet. Howsoever it by then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person and then it follows 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 Schism and tumutuary factions without possibility of relief) or if it was necessary, then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authority to do it, with the same power he had himself, and therefore since he alone had this coërtion in his own 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 College of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not, for why then was Titus sent with a new commission, nor those which he was to ordain if they were but mere Presbyters could not have it, no more than the Presbytes that were there before his coming, it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain 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 himself calls Bishops in the proper sense, and acceptation of the word. 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus coming, had not power to ordain 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 ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church, that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world, and mere Presbyters could not do it, and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him, it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had, that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters, that is Bishops, and he means them in the proper sense. 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In populous Cities, not in village Towns, For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns, as is to be seen in the Council of a cap. 6. Sardis, of b can. 17. Chalcedon, and S. c Epist. 87. ad Episc. Afric. Leo, the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not mere Presbyters. The issue of this discourse is, that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops, himself was a Bishop to be sure, at least. If he had ordained only Presbyters, it would have proved that. But this infers him to be a Metropolitan, forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his own constitution, and yet of proper dioceses. 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 infers his being a Bishop, if not a great deal more. Yea; but did not S. Titus ordain no mere Presbyters? yes most certainly. 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 ordains a Bishop, first makes him a Deacon, (and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree) and then a Presbyter, and then a Bishop. So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorising the Supreme, and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops, he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher. 2. Add to this, that he that ordains Bishops in Cities sets there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinem generativum Patrum, as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy, and therefore most certainly with intention, not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua, but, to produce others, and therefore Presbyters and Deacons. 3. S. Paul made no express provision for villages, and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute, and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages, and that is, of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased. For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters, as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there, where, most certainly, many Presbyters before were actually resident, if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute, or if they stayed in Cities the Villages would have perished, and at last, when these men had died both one and the other, had been made a prey to the wolf, for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation. But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders, and institution. Tit. 3. 10. [A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.] Cognisance of heretical pravity, and animadversion against the heretic himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus. For first he is to admonish him, then to reject him upon his pertinacy, from the Catholic communion. Cogere autem illos videtur, qui saepe corripit, saith S. Ambrose, upon the establishing a coactive, or coërcitive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocese. But I need not specify any more particulars, for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Titus. 15. all authority and power. The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on this Epistle. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, & ideò commonet eum ut sit sollicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione▪ id est, ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dìgnos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, simulque & haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos. And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of Antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete. Sed & Lucas (saith Eusebius) in actibus Apostolorum .... Timothei meminit & Titi quorum alter in Epheso lib. 3. c. 4. Episcopus: alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ubi suprà. ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly, Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop; and Theodoret, calling Titus, Cretensium in 1. Tim. 3. Episcopum. The Bishop of the Cretians. And for this reason saith S. Chrysost. S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus, or Silas, or Clemens, but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because to these he had already committed the government of Churches. But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. a de Script: Eccl in ●ito. Hierome, in b in Sin●psi. Dorotheus, in c de vità & morte. S Sanct. Isidore, in d lib. 38. c. 10. Vincentius, in e apud Oecumen. in praefat. in Tit. & in 1. Timoth. 3. Theodoret, in f in pastor. part. 2. c. 11. S. Gregory, in g Praefat: in 1. Tim. & in 2. Tim. 1. Primatius, h in 1. Tim. 1. & in 2. Tim. 1. 6. Sedulius, i in 1. Tit. Theophilact and k lib. 2. c. 34. Nicephorus. To which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. l In Synopsi Sacr. Script. Athanasius, S m ad Paulam & Eustoch. Jerome, the Syriack translation, n Comment. ad Titum. Oecumenius and o ibid.▪ Theophylact, no confident denial can ever break through, or scape conviction. And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here; for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist, he is not called so in Scripture, and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop, and the nature of his offices, the eminence of his dignity, the superiority of jurisdiction, the cognisance of causes criminal, and the whole exigence of the Epistle proclaim him Bishop. But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist, I would fain know who succeeded him? Or did all his office expire with his person? If so, than who shall reject Heretics when Titus is dead? Who shall silence factious Preachers? If not, then still who succeeded him? The Presbyters? How can that be? For if they had more power after his death then before, and governed the Churches which before they did not, then to be sure their government in common, is not an Apostolical Ordinance, much less is it a Divine right, for it is postnate to them both. But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him, how then could they succeed him? There was indeed a dereliction of the authority, but no succession. The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete, and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons, not by a College, for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete, Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop, and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna. Sed & Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit, saith Eusebius. But of this, lib. 4. c. 21. enough. MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist §. 16. S. Mark at Alexandria, indeed, one that writ the Gospel, and he was a Bishop of Alexandria. In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist, and a Deacon, for he was Deacon to S. Paul & Barnabas, when they went to the Gentiles, by ordination and special designment made at Antioch; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Acts. 12. & Acts. 13. They had john to be their Minister; viz: john whose surname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their acts written by S. Luke, which end at S. Paul's first going to Rome; but many other things, their founding of divers Churches, their ordination of Bishops, their journeys, their persecutions, their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded, & rely upon the faith of the primitive Church. And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Luke's story, for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eight year of Nero's reign, five or six years before the death of S. Paul. Igitur Neronis PRIMO Imperij anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit. So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it, in stead of octavo. Sacerdotium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the Bishopric, for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Priests in Alexandria besides him, and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters, is not so soon to be contrived. But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs. Quòd post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus, Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark. * And Philo the jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria, called by the inhabitants, Cultores, and Cultrices, The worshippers, Addit autem adhuc his (saith Eusebius) quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua, lib. 2. hist. cap. 17. vel quae sit suprà omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers, there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia, a height above all employments, established at Alexandria; and how soon that was, is soon computed, for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time, and was Ambassador to the Emperor Cajus, and survived S. Mark a little. But S. Jerome will strike up this business, A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque, Epist. ad Evagr. & Dionysiam Episcopos, Presbyteri Egypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. And again, Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri, de Script: Eccles. & in proëm in Matth. & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus. The same is witnessed by a lib. 6. Epist. 371. S. Gregory, b lib 14. cap 39 Nicephorus, and divers others. Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts, as innumerable multitudes of things more, and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter, nothing of S. james the son of Thaddaeus, nor of Alpheus, but the Martyrdom of one of them, nothing of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, or Simon zelotes, of S. jude the Apostle, scarce any of their names recorded, yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records, which all Christendom hitherto, so far as we know, hath acknowledged as authentic, and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical, being done in the Apostles times, to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited, they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death, as here at Alexandria, first Saint Mark, than Anianus, made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul. But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria (for Bishop he was most certainly) is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council, Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit, In decret. de lib. authent. & apocryph. & gloriosè consummavit Martyrium. S. Peter sent him into Egypt to found a Church, and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great employment, and that could be no less, than the ordinary power Apostolical. BUt in the Church of Rome, § 17. S. Linus, and S. Clement at Rome. the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and their successions during the times of the Apostles, is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers. Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post cum tertiò loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui & vidit ipsos Apostolos, & contulit cum eyes, cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum, lib 3 cap. 3. & traditionem ante oculos haberet. So S. Irenaeus. * Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus. Linus vero & Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse. Many more testimonies there are of these means being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles, as of a de prescript. Tertullian, b lib, 2. contr. Parmen. Optatus, c Epist. 165. S. Austin, and d de Script. Eccles. S. Hierome. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish, and be tedious in a thing so evident and known. S. john ordained S. Polycarpe Bishop at Smyrna .... sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert; § 18. S. Polycarpe at Smyrna, & divers others. sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. So Tertullian. De prescript. The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarpe was placed there by S. john, as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter, and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops. De Script. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35. Polycarpus autem non solùm ab Apostolis edoctus .... sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ, in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesiâ constitutus Episcopus .... & testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo etc. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome, and * Eusebius: Quoniam autem valdè longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare, to use S. Irenaeus his expression; It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands, as a Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. & lib. 3. c. 4. S. Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, b Origen. lib. 10. in 16. Rom. Cajus at Thessalonica, c S. Ambros. in 4 Coloss. Archippus at Colosse, d Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35. Onesimus at Ephesus, e Arethas in 1. Apocal. Antipas at Pergamus, f Epist. ad Philip. & Theodoret. ib. & in 1. Tim. 3. Epaphroditus at Philippi, g Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Gallias. So Ruffinus reads it. In Galatia, so is intimated in Scripture, and so the Roman Martyrol. Crescens among the Gauls, h Ignatius Epist. ad Antioch. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22. Evodias at Antioch, * In Martyrologio Roman▪ Sosipater at Iconium, Erastus in Macedonia, Trophimus at Arles, jason at Tarsus, Silas at Corinth, Onesiphorus at Colophon, Quartus at Berytus, Paul the Proconsul at Narbona, besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture, as these forecited are, so many as * lib. 3. cap. 37. Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate; it shall therefore suffice to sum up this digest of their acts and ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers, saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches, that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholic, and their adversaries who could not do so, to be Heretical; This also is very evident, and of great consideration in the first ages while their tradition was clear, and evident, and not so bepudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Heretics, striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes. Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem, hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt, Lib. 3. cap. 3. etc. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles, nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius. Hâc ordinatione (saith he) & successione, & ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio & veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos; & est plenissima haec ostensio unam & candem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, & tradita in veritate. So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination, must of itself be a very certain thing, when the Church made it a main 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 chair, till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them, this (I say) being their proof, although it could not be more certain than 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 himself was baptised, both relying upon the report of others. * Epist. 42, Radix Christianae societatis 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 madness to say there was no such thing, no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical, no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and so (as S. Paul's phrase is) overthrew the faith of some, even of the Primitive Christians, that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of heretics and factious people? It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus, Vbi supra. Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos. We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches; and of this we are sure enough, if there be any faith in Christians. THE sum is this. § 19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance: Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock, yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical 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, of the same authority with many other points generally believed. 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 jewish Synagogues, but yet (however that at Geneva, they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall less than an Apostolical ordinance, and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed. * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture enforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptising infants upon them, if we speak of immediate Divine institution, or of practise Apostolical recorded in Scripture, and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Apostolical traditive ordination, and therefore the institution of Bishops, must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in Scripture, than the baptising of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned for Heretics. * Of the same consideration are divers 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, Do this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then do all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels, 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 practice Apostolical 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 Christendom suspected. * To these I add the communion of Women, the distinction of books Apocryphal, from Canonical, that such books were written by such Evangelists, and Apostles, the whole tradition of Scripture itself, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution, must needs prevail 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 fear of being misunderstood) rely but upon equal 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 itself. What their power and eminence was, § 20. And was an office of power and great authority, and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles, appears also by the testimonies before alleged, the expressions whereof run in these high terms. Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino. Linus his Bishopric 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 affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete. In celsiori gradu collocatus, placed 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 Bishopric, The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity. These are its honours. Its offices these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting, or amiss; to silence vain prating Preachers, that will not submit to their superiors, to ordain elders, to rebuke delinquents, to reject Heretics, viz. from the communion of the faithful (for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan heretics, but that it was in his power to eject them? And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people) but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters, (so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleged) 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 several Churches respectively which they had new founded. Vbi supra. apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23. So Eusebius. For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, set over all, Clergy and Laity, saith S. Clement. This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves, and this was not given to Presbyters, as I have already proved, and for the present, it will sufficiently appear in this, that Bishops had power over Presbyters, which cannot be supposed they had over themselves, unless they could be their own superiors. BUt a Council, §. 21. Not lessened by the assistance and Council of Presbyters, or College of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one, and such Colleges 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 ruled without him. * This indeed will call us to a new account, and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set down here, Comment. in ep. ad Titum. that we may leave the sun without a cloud. S. Ierom's words are these. Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus, & antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur. Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying, and sums them up thus. Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, & ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, etc. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove, is the identity of Bishop, Presbyter, and their government of the Church in common. * For their identity, It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia, one power; for else he contradicts himself most apertly, for in his Epistle ad Evagrium, Quid facit (saith he) Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat? A Presbyter may not ordain, a Bishop does, which is a clear 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 do, 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 govern in common, but because he conceived it was fit he should be joined in the common regiment and care of the Diocese, 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 actual indulgence, or encroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original 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 only 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 own principles, for [Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat?] had been quickly answered, if the Question had only been de facto; For the Bishop governed the Church alone, and so in jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact at least, S. Hierome says it, and the Bishop took so much power to himself, that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episco, palibus, without leave of the Bishop, and this S. Hierome complained of; Ad Nepotian. & de 7. ordin. Eccles. so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference: That then (if S. Hierome says true) being the only difference between 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 the 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 own confession cannot be meant in respect of order, but the Episcopacy is by Divine right a superior order to the Presbyterate. * Add 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 needs a proof, and this he Undertook. Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects. An identity, at least of Names, for else it had been wholly impertinent. A disparity, or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem, which were a business next to telling pins. Now than this disparity must be either in order, or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate; If jurisdiction too, I am content, but the former is most certain, if he stand to his own principles. This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter, must be either in Name or in jurisdiction. I know not certainly which he means, for his arguments conclude only 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 means the first, viz: that of Names, it is well enough, there is no harm done, it is in confesso apud omnes, but concludes nothing (as I shall show hereafter) but because he intends (so far as may be guessed by his words) a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction, this must be considered distinctly. 1. Then; in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters, and inferior Ministers with a power of baptising, 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 own 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 himself by constituting Bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And again [If any man obey not our word, 2. Thess. 3. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify him to me by an Epistle] so he charges the Thessalonians, and therefore of this Church, S. Paul as yet, clearly kept the power in his own hands. So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it, governed by Episcopal, or Apostolical authority. 3. For aught appears in Scripture, the Apostles never gave any external, or coercitive jurisdiction in public, and criminal causes, nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies, or to inflict censures, to a College of mere 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 College of Presbyters without a Bishop, or express delegation of Apostolical authority (tanquam vi●ario suo, as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle) to inflict any censures, or take cognisance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis, but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by virtue 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 jerusalem, but they had a Bishop always, and the College of the Apostles sometimes, therefore whatsoever act they did, it was in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishop & Apostles. Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superior to all the Presbyters in jerusalem, and also had power alone to govern the Church. I say they had power to govern alone, for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordained the first Presbyters, that is before there were any of capacity to join with them, they must do it themselves, and then also they must retain the same power, for they could not lose it by giving Orders. Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction, than the Presbyters being in some public acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order, they only assisting in subordination, and by dependency. This only by the way; In jerusalem the Presbyters were some thing more than ordinary, and were not mere Presbyters in the present, and limited sense of the word. For Barnabas, and judas, and Silas [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them] were of that Presbytery. Act. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They were Rulers, and Prophets, Chief men amongst the Brethren, & yet called Elders, or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oe●umenius. in Act. Apost. For truth is, that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vulimited jurisdiction, not fixed upon any See, that they also might together with the twelve, exire in totum mundum. * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than mere Presbyters, as Barnabas, and judas, and Silas, men of Apostolical power, and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve, and with the Bishop, they were of equal power, not by virtue of their Presbyterate, but by their Apostolate; or if they were but mere Presbyters, yet because it is certain, and proved, and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone, this their taking mere 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 own expression) for this is more evident than that Bishops, do eminere caeteris, by custom rather than 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 retained where the same reasons do remain, and circumstances concur, 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, Act. 13. or single jurisdiction, but of ordination indeed we do, 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 do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place, to be sure they were not mere Presbyters as we now Understand the word, as I proved formerly. 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a College of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops, Act. 20. and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God. This must do 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, gain the truth. * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters, or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. 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, Act. 20. 4. and Timothy, and Tychicus, and Trophimus; And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis, and there many Elders were either accidentally, or by ordinary residence, yet those were not all Elders of that Church, but of all Asia, in the Scripture sense, the lessar Asia. For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates [ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons] His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus, vers. 18. and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all, and therefore were of dispersed habitation, and so it is more clearly inferred from vers. 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdom of God &c: It was a travail to preach to all that were present, and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant. Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations. 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture, particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter, as it is contended for, on one side, and granted on all sides, then where both the words are used, what shall determine the signification? For whether (to instance in this place) shall Presbyter limit Episcopus, or Episcopus extend Presbyter? Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop, as Episcopus signify a mere Presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, where ever Presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sense, and not to do so with Episcopus, and when they are joined together, rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter, then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms. These men sent for from Ephesus, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders or Presbyters of the Church, but at Miletus, Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, there they are called Bishops or overseers. So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops, as another may say, here were mere Presbyters. * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative, that they could not be Bishops, because they were of Ephesus, there never being but one Bishop in one Church. I answer, that in the Apostles times this was not true. For at jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal, and Apostolical authority, and so at Antioch; as at jerusalem, where james, and judas, and Silas, and the Apostles, and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and at Rome, at the same time Peter and Paul, and Linus, and Clemens, but yet but one of them was fixed, and properly the Bishop of that place. But 2 lie All these were not of Ephesus, but the Elders of all Asia, but some from other countries as appears vers. 4. So that although they were all Bishops, we might easily find distinct Dioceses for them, without encumbering the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency. Thus far then we are upon even terms, the community of compellations used here, can no more force us to believe them all to be mere Presbyters, than Bishops in the proper sense. 2. It is very certain that they were not all mere Presbyters at his farewell Sermon, for S. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony, and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey, and employed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches, and particularly, Sosipater was there, and he was Bishop of Iconium, and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia, Vbi suprà. as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness; and Trophimus of Arles in France, for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters, for besides the premises we have a witness beyond exception, Lib. 3. cap. 14. the ancient S. Irenaeus, In Mileto enim conv●catis Episcopis, & Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso, & à reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere, etc. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at jerusalem, at Miletus, did call together the Bishops and Presbyters, from Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities. * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke, and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed, and taught with Pastoral supravision, but in the mean while here is no commission of power, or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly, nor supposition of any such preaexistent power. 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration, was spoken in the presence of them all, but not to them all. For that of v. 18. [ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons,] that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage, viz. in a collective sense, not in a distributive, for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travails; but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean, or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus, and Trophimus, who were Asians it might be addressed. And for that of v. 25. [ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more,] this was directed only to the Asians, for he was never more to come thither; but Timothy to be sure, saw him afterwards, for S. Paul sent for him, a little before his death, to Rome, and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him. So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops, and Presbyters at this meeting, as most certainly there was, and of Evangelists, and Apostolical men besides, how shall it be known, or indeed with any probability suspected that, that clause of vers. 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei, does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters, and not particularly to Timothy, who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus, and to Gajus, and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority, that is, power of founding, and ordering Churches without a fixed and limited jurisdiction? 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo, or concredited de novo, or if there be, it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops, and Feeders; and than it belongs either to the Bishops alone, or to the Presbyters in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishops, for to the mere Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain, by any intination of that place. 5. How and if these Presbyters, which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus? Then also this way all difficulty will be removed. And that so it was is more than probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entering, and fixing upon his See; and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles, and the exigence of the thing itself, when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it; for why else was a Bishop fixed in jerusalem, so long before in other Churches, but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence, and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought. And the case was equal here, for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more, and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds, and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus, and it is unimaginable, that he would not make equal provision for other Churches, there being the same necessity from the same danger, in them all, and either S. Paul did it now, or never; and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels, or Bishops set in their candlesticks, is plain, for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus, Antipas was dead, and S. Timothy had sat in Ephesus, and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. john writ his Revelation. 6. Lastly, that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters, except a delegate, and subordinate, appears beyond all exception, by S. Paul's 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 aught appears either there, or elsewhere. * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear. For what power had they of jurisdiction? 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 criminal equal to Titus after his coming, or they had not. If they had, than what did Titus do 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 inferiors, and he their ordinary judge and Governor. 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 divers years after the founding of the Church, and yet S. Paul reproves 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 himself the sole judge. 1. Cor. 5. 3. [For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already] and then secondly, V. ●. S. Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause [In the name of our Lord jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and MY SPIRIT, that is, My power, My authority, for so he explains himself, MY SPIRIT, WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD JESUS 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 concerns the Presbyters, than the people, and so some have contended; but so it is, but will serve neither of their turns, neither for an independent Presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for S. Paul's reproving 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 himself. 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 jerusalem, 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 joined in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary assuming them, in partem sollicitudinis, and by delegation of power Apostolical, or Episcopal, and by way of assistance in acts deliberative, and consiliary, though I find this no where specified but in the Church of jerusalem, where I proved that the Elders were men of more power then mere Presbyters, men of Apostolical authority. But here lies the issue, and strain of the Question. Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal, and pertaining to the public regiment of the Church, by virtue of their order, or without particular substitution, and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to mere Presbyters, no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery; no constitution Apostolical, that mere Presbyters should either alone, or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church; no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters, either upon Clergy or Laity; no specification of any power that they had so to do; but to Churches where Colleges of Presbyters were resident, Bishops were sent by Apostolical 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 Angel 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 fixed, as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified, which delegation was needless, if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter, or a whole College of them. Now then, return we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying: The Church was governed (saith he) communi Presbyterorum consilio, by the common Counsel of the Presbyters. But, 1. Quo jure was this? That the Bishops were Superior to those which were then called Presbyters, by custom rather than Divine disposition S. Hierome affirms; but that Presbyters were joined with the Apostles and Bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition? S. Hierome does not say but it was. For he speaks only of matter of fact, not of right, It might have been otherwise, though de facto it was so in some places. * 2. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is true in the Church of jerusalem, where the Elders were Apostolical men, and had Episcopal authority and something superadded, as Barnabas, and judas and Silas, for they had the authority and power of Bishops, and an unlimited Diocese besides, though afterwards Silas was fixed upon the See of Corinth. But yet even at jerusalem they actually had a Bishop, who was in that place superior to them in jurisdiction, and therefore does clearly evince, that the common-counsel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them. * 3. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is also true, because the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, as S. Peter, and S. john, in their Epistles. Now at the first, many Prophets, many Elders (for the words are sometimes used in common) were for a while resident in particular Churches, and did govern in common; As at Antioch were Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaën, and Paul. Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all these were Presbyters, in the sense that S. Peter and S. john were, and the Elders of the Church of jerusalem. * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sense that any body please to imagine, yet this not being by any divine ordinance, that Presbyters should by their Counsel assist in external 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, in Ephes. 4. Postquàm omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata, alitèr composita res est quam 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 own, nor Crete, and there was no need, for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them, and S. john, and other of the Apostles, but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither; for when themselves were to go away, the power must be concredited to another; And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had entrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters, yet it was but in dependence 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 business of being persecuted, he writ to his Presbyters, Do you feed the flock amongst you, till God shall show 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 than Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition; I answer, that this is true in this sense, Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters, such as were the Elders in the Council at jerusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as S. Peter and S. john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all, and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense, that is of a fixed and particular Diocese, and jurisdiction. * 2 lie S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense, [Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters,] viz. quoad exercitium actûs, that is, they are not tied to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons, but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in common consilium, they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters; and that they did not so, but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hieromes time, this is it, which he saith is rather by custom, 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 Episcopal. * As for the last words in the objection, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere,] it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes own; for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names, and common regiment de facto, not the jure, and from a fact to conclude with a Debere, is a Non sequitur, unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments, that is, THEY OUGHT, not by God's law, but in imitation of the practice Apostolical; 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 do him right he so explains himself, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret.] The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop, for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses, who might have ruled alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himself only to rule in chief. Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do, but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them, and therefore though his Council perhaps might be good then, yet it is necessary at no time, and was not followed then, and to be sure is needless 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 yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome, and prove nothing less than the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate. The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homil. 11. S. chrysostom, It is needless to repeat either the objection, or answer. * But however this saying of S. Hierome, and the parallel of S. chrysostom is but like an argument against an Evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party, or to run upon their own 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 Catholic antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches. I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of S. Hierome in the same place. Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptiz abat suos put abat esse, non Christi, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cepha, in toto orbe decretum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeter is, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. That is, a public 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 govern the flock committed to his charge. This I say was in the Apostles times, even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism, for than they said I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and then it was, that he that baptised any Catechumen, took them for his own not as Christ's disciples. So that it was, tempore Apostolorum, that this decree was made, for in the time of the Apostles S. james, and S. Mark, and S. Timothy, and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes express attestation; It was also [toto orbe decretum] so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution, yet it could not have gone much less, it being, as I have proved, and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC. * Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ, § 22. And all this hath been the saith & practise of Christendom. is an Apostolical precept. We have seen 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. CATHOLIC PRACTICE 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 Episcopal to a primitive consistence, and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church, who have a venerable estimate of the public and authorised facts of Catholic Christendom. * For Consider we, Is it imaginable, that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves, and not, caquae sunt jesu Christi; to erect a government of their own devising, not ordained by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a Divine foundation, and the Apostolical 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 Gentilism 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 Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will, and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity, for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordained, destroys all those relations of mutual dependence which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroys 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 Apostolical, that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force, they would rather die 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 Martyrdoms, of what excellency or avail, if after all, they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions, by untimely, by disgraceful, by dolorous deaths, to be set before a tribunal to give account of their universal neglect, and contemning of Christ's last testament, in so great an affair, as the whole government of his Church? * If all Christendom should be guilty of so open, so united a defiance against their Master, by what argument, or confidence can any misbeliever be persuaded to Christianity, which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution, as in its most public affair, and for matter of order of the most general concernment, is so contrary to the first birth? * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance, of the impregnable permanence of the 〈◊〉 ●●ch against the gates of Hell, of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth, if she be guilty of so grand an error, as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level, or appointed others to sit in it, than whom he suffers. * Either Christ hath left no government, or most certainly the Church hath retained that Government whatsoever it is, for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident, or the Catholic Church extremely negligent (to say no worse) and incurious of her depositum. * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom (if there were no more in it) I * suppose we may fairly venture. Sit anima mea * cum Christianis. THE first thing done in Christendom, § 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common. upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy, is the distinguishing of Names, which before were common. For in holy Scripture all the names of clerical offices were given to the superior order, and particularly all offices, and parts, and persons designed in any employment of the sacred priesthood, were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium. And therefore lest the confusion of Names might persuade an identity and indistinction of office, the wisdom 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 jesus Christ that contentions would arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about the name of Episcopacy,] saith S. Clement, and so it did in the Church of Corinth, Epist. ad Corinth. as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath. But so it was. 1. The Apostles, which I have proved to be the supreme ordinary office in the Church, and to be succeeded in, we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders or Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Pet. 5. 1. saith S. Peter the Apostle, the Elders, or Presbyters that are among you, I also who am an Elder, or Presbyter do entreat. Such elders S. Peter spoke to, as he was himself, to wit, those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed, the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia, that is to Timothy, to Titus, to Tycbicus, to Sosipater, to the Angels of the Asian Churches, and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Feed the flock of God as Bishops, or being Bishops and overseers over it; And that to rulers he then spoke is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny, that had no rule at all. * The mere Presbyters, I deny not, but are included in this admonition; for as their office is involved in the Bishop's office, the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too, so is his duty also in the Bishops; so that, pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishop's admonition. But again. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. john the Apostle; and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Presbyter to Gajus; the Presbyter to the elect Lady. 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters, no harm though Bishops be called so too, for Apostles, and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly. Thus are those Apostolical men in the College at jerusalem called Presbyters, whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, principal 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 Cities, 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 speak of Elders of the same Church. * 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters, yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished, that mere Presbyters are never called Bishops, unless it be in conjunction with Bishops, and then in the General address, which, in all fair deportments, is made to the more eminent, sometimes Presbyters are, or may be comprehended. This observation if it prove true, will clearly 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 itself are so distinguished, that a mere 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 show that they neither enterfere upon the main Question, nor this observation. * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ jesus 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 clear 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 mean * mere Presbyters * so it is pretended. 1. Then; By [Bishops] are, or may be meant the whole superior order of the clergy, Bishops and Priests, and that he speaks plurally, he, may besides the Bishops in the Church, comprehend under their name the Presbyters too; for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office, and order, the inferior under the superior, the lesser within the greater; for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishop's 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 mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church, It can neither be proved from Scripture, not antiquity, if it were denied: For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch, might do 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 certainly it is most unlikely, that what is not expressed, to wit, Presbyters should be only 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 Diocese than one, of a fixed residence; for in that sense is S. chrysostom and the fathers to be understood in their commentaries on this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in 1. Phil. affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop; but then take this along, that it was not then unusual in such great Churches, to have many men who were temporary residentiaries, but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority, as in the Churches of jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, there was as I have proved in the premises. Nay in Philippi itself, If I mistake not, as instance may be given, full, and home to this purpose. Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus, Bitus, Demas, Polybius, & omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo, unde & haec vobis Scripsi, saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon. So that many Bishops (we see) might be at Philippi, and many were actually there long after S. Paul's dictate of the Epistle. * 4. Why may not [Bishops] be meant in the proper sense? Because there could not be more Bishops than one, in a Diocese. 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, than 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 do its worst, we are safe enough. * 5. [With the Bishops] may be taken distributively, for Philippi was a Metropolis, and had divers Bishoprics under it, and S. Paul writing to the Church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit, and therefore might well salute many Bishops, though writing to one Metropolis, and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius, for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coepiscopi●, & Diaconis, Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi, and to our fellow Bishops. * 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of [Cum Episcopis, & Diaconis,] to S. Paul and S. Timothy, In 1. Philip. intimating that the benediction, and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from S. Paul and S. Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, so that the reading must be thus; Paul, and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, to all the Saints at Philippi etc. 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. * Pag. 54. 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which may give another light to this; speaking of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons. Bishop's here indeed may be taken distributively, and so will not infer 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 Ecclesiastical provision, which no man imagines, of what interest soever he be; it follows then that [Bishops and Deacons] are no more but Majores, and Minores Sacerdotes in both places; for as Presbyter, and Episcop●s were confounded, so also Presbyter and Diaconus; And I think it will easily be shown in Scripture, that the word [Diaconus,] is given oftener to Apostles, and Bishops, and Presbyters, then to those ministers which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons. But of this anon. Now again to the main observation. * 1. Timoth, 3. Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus, for S. Paul writing to their Bishop, and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church orders and officers, gives directions first for Bishops, then for Deacons. Where are the Presbyters in the interim? Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons. They may as well be in one as the other; for [Diaconus] is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferior Clergy, then Episcopus to the Superior, nor so much neither. For Episcopus was never used 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 principal, and the Presbyter is also comprehended, for his conjunction, and involution in the Superior, which was the principal observation here intended. Name in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium. in Ephis. 4. saith S. Ambrose. * Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles. hierarch. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop, he intends to qualify Presbyters also, than 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 vain dream that because Presbyter is not named, 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 inferior, within the superior, (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 than the word, [Bishop] 1. Because [Bishop] is spoken of in the singular number, [Deacons] in the Plural, 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 ye believed; and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too, for in the Epistle to Titu●, S. Paul describes the office of a Bishop, and says 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 aery and impertinent nothing. After all this yet, it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single, and mere 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 only 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 mere Deacon or a mere Presbyter, should be called either Bishop, or Apostle, it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne, or erect mere 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. Mathias when he succeeded judas in the Apostolate. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. 2 Cor. 6. 4. S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Deacon of the New Testament, 1, Cor. 3. 5. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church; Deacons by whom ye believed. Paul and Apollo's were the men. It is the observation of S. chrysostom, in 1. Philip; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And a Bishop was called a Deacon, wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop, Fulfil thy Deaconship. * Add to this, that there is no word, or designation of any clerical office, but is given to Bishops, and Apostles. The Apostles are called [Prophet's] Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch, were Lucius and Manaën, and Paul and Barnabas; and then they are called [Pastor's] 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 [Pastor's] to signify Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And ever since that S. Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls, it hath obtained 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, than they are Doctors also, for these are conjunct, when other offices which may in person be united, yet in themselves are made disparate; Ephes. 4. For [God hath given some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some PASTORS AND TEACHERS.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If Pastors, than also Doctors, and Teachers. And this is observed by S. Austin. Epist. 59 ad Paulinum. Pastors, & Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish, I think are one and the same. For Paul doth not say; some Pastors, some Doctors, but to Pastors he joineth 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 settled & Bishops fixed upon their several Sees, than the Names also were made distinct, only those names which did design temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. chrysostom, Thus far 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 own Name is left, of a Bishop to a Bishop, of a Presbyter to a Presbyter. * This could not be supposed at first, for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour, or offices, and to transplant them to an artificial, and imposed sense; USE, which is the Master of language, must rule us in this affair, and USE is not contracted but in some process, and descent of time. * For at first, Christendom itself wanted a Name, and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christened first in Antioch, for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name. It had been no wonder then, if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church. But immediately after the Apostles, § 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer, and still more in descending 〈◊〉 Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the ●●rch, the Bishop in the present, & vulgar concept●●●ome few examples I shall give instead of Myriad 〈◊〉 Canons of the Apostles the word ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●shop is used 36 times in appropriation to him that 〈◊〉 Ordinary Ruler & precedent of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity, being 24 times expressly distinguished from Presbyter, and in the other 14 having particular care for government, jurisdiction, censures and Ordinations committed to him as I shall show hereafter, and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentic, by the Council of a Can. 15. & 16. Nice; of b c. 9 & alibi. Antioch, 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles: the Council of Gangra calling them Canon's Ecclesiasticos, and Apostolicas traditiones; by the Epistle of the first Council of Constantinople to Damasus, which Theodoret hath inserted into his story; by the c post advent. Episc. Cypri. Council of Ephesus; by d advers. Praxeam. Tertullian; by e lib. 3. c. 59 de vitâ Const. Constantine the Great; and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS, sometimes, THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS, sometimes, the ancient and received Canons, of our Fathers, sometimes the Apostolical Canons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ca 4. cap. 18. de Orthod: fide said the Fathers of the Council in Trullo: and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture: so in effect does Isidore in his preface to the work of the Counsels, for he sets these Canons in front, because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones. The H. Father's have established these Canons by the authority of Counsels, and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions. And great reason, for in Pope Stephen's time, they were translated into Latin by one Dionysius at the entreaty of Laurentius, Anno Dom: 257. because then the old Latin copies were rude and barbarous. Now than this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time, who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian, the old copy, elder than this, and yet after the Original to be sure, shows them to be of prime antiquity, and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius, where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons. * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg. I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian, and some others, viz. in the sense of the Church, just as the wisdom of Solomon, or Ecclesiasticus, but yet by most, believed to be written by S. Clement, from the dictate of the Apostles, and without all Question, are so far Canonical, as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority, and of the first Antiquity. Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority, Epist. ad. Trall. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all. And a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. What is the Bishop, but he that hath all authority and rule? What is the Presbytery, but a sacred College, Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop? what are Deacons &c: So that here is the real, and exact distinction of dignity, the appropriation of Name, and intimation of office. The Bishop is above all, the Presbyters his helpers, the Deacons his Ministers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imitators of the Angels who are Ministering Spirits. But this is of so known, so evident a truth, that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it. Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration, viz. to the Trallians, to the Philadelphians, to the Philippians. * And now I shall insert these considerations. 1. Although it was so that Episcopus, and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death, yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously, which is an evidence, that confusion of names is no intimation, much less an argument for the parity of offices, since themselves, who sometimes though indeed very seldom, confound the names, yet distinguish the offices frequently, and dogmatically. Epist, ad Heron. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch, so indeed some say, and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning, because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria, yet the other may be fairly admitted, for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church, and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen, so that they were Episcopi Vicarii, and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishop's power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father, but without a Guardian too; & yet what a Bishop was, and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius. * Another example of this is in Eusebius, speaking of the youth whom S. john had converted and commended to a Bishop. Clemens, whose story this was, proceeding in the relation says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. But the Presbyter; unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order, but age of the Man, as it is like enough he did, for a little after, he calls him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] The old man, Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam suscipit adolescentem. Red depositum, O EPISCOPE, saith S. john to him. Tunc graviter suspirans SENIOR etc. So S. Clement. * But this, as it is very unusual, so it is just as in Scripture, viz. in descent and comprehension, for this Bishop also was a Presbyter, as well as Bishop, or else in the delegation of Episcopal power, for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius. 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supreme order of the Clergy, was done with fair reason and design. For this is no fastuous, or pompous title, the word is of no dignity, and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its offices. But Presbyter is a name of dignity and vene●ation, Rise up to the grey head, and it transplants the honour and Reverence of age to the office of the Presbyterate. And yet this the Bishops left, and took that which signifies a mere supra-vision, and overlooking of his charge, so that if we take estimate from the names, Presbyter is a name of dignity, and Episcopus, of office and burden. * [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Saith S. chrysostom. Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat, bonum desiderat gradum, sedbonum ●pus desiderat, quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum. So S. Hierome. It is not an honourable title, but a good office, and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent virtues. But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore. Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum, Lib. 7. etymolog. c. 12. quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat, curam scil. gerens subditorum. But, Presbyter Grecè, latinè senior interpretatur, non pro atate, vel decrepitâ senectute, sed propter honorem & dignitatem quam acceperunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith; julius Pollux. 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture, and Antiquity, and that, both in ascension and descension, yet as Priests may be called Angels, and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church, [THE ANGEL,] for his excellency, [OF THE CHURCH,] for his appropriate pre-eminence, and singularity, so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture (of which there is not one example but in the senses above explicated, to wit, in conjunction and comprehension;) yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence, THE BISHOP: and in descent of time, it came to pass, that the compellation, which was always his, by way of eminence was made his by appropriation. And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The great shepherd, and Bishop of our souls. The name [Bishop] was made sacred by being the appellative of his person, and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them, who had from Christ more immediate mission, and more ample power, and therefore [Episcopus] and [Pastor] by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power, office and dignity, as participating of the fullness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our souls. * And besides this so fair a Copy; besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Mathias, and in the prophet Isaiah, and often in Scripture, as I have shown before; any one whereof is abundantly enough, for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer; this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops, as in the instances above, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiors, for S. Paul writing to the Romans, who then had no Bishop fixed in the chair of Rome, Rom. 16. 17. does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this for the Bishop, that for the subordinate Clergy. So then, the word [Episcopus] is fixed at first, and that by derivation, and example of Scripture, and fair congruity of reason. But the Church used other appellatives for Bishops, § 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church, which it is very requisite to specify, that we may understand divers authorities of the Father's useing those words in appropriation to Bishops, which of late have been given to Presbyters, ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops. And first, Bishops were called [Pastor's] in antiquity, in imitation of their being called so in Scripture. Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius, lib. 3. hist. c. 36. Denique cum Smyrnam venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios, eorumque Pastorem, that is, Epist. ad Ephes. Onesimus, for so follows, in quâ meminit Onesimi. Now that Onesimus was their Bishop, himself witnesss in the Epistle here mentioned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Onesimus was their Bishop, and therefore their Pastor, and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most Blessed and worthy PASTOR. * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresy against the divinity of our blessed Saviour, presently a Council was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present, Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum pastors diversis è locis & urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam. In quibus insignes & caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareâ Cappadociae, Gregorius, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. & Athenodorus Fratres .... & Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus .... Sed & Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerehat. These Bishops, Firmilianus, and Helenus, and Maximus were the PASTORS; and not only so, but Presbyters were not called PASTORS, for he proceeds, sed & Prebyteri quamplurimi, & Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem .... convenerunt. So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors. Can. 6. * And the Council of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church, when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop, if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certified by the Primate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them. * The same expression is also in the Epistle of julius' Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters, Deacons, hist. tripart. lib. 4. c. 29. and People of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius, Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VESTRUM AC PRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And a little after, & gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PASTOREM VESTRUM esuritis & sititis &c: The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen, where Bishops are called pastors MAGNI, Great shepherd's, or PASTORS; * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished, Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui, saith Theodoret, they wept for the loss of their lib. 4. cap. 14. PASTOR. And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Perfect in behalf of Christianity, & PASTOREM (inquit) habemus, & nutus illius sequimur, we have a PASTOR (a Bishop certainly, for himself was a Priest) and his commands we follow. But, Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 18. I need not specify any more particular instances; I touched upon it before. * He that shall consider, that to Bishops the regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first, and the Presbyters were but his assistants in Cities and Villages, and were admitted in partem sollicitudinis, first casually and cursorily, & then by station and fixed residency when Parishes were divided, and endowed, will easily see, that this word [Pastor] must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter, and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was entrusted, first solely, then in communication with others, but always principally. * But now of late, especially in those places where Bishops are exauctorated, and no where else, that I know, but amongst those men that have complying designs, the word [Pastor] is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom; and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited, subordinate sense, and by way of participation (just as they may be called Angels, when the Bishop is the Angel, and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor, and so they are called pastors ovium in S. Cyprian) but never are they called pastors simply, Epist. 11. or pastors Ecclesiae for above 600 years in the Church, and I think 800 more. And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave, to avoid vocum Novitates, because there is never any affectation of New words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom, but there is some design in the thing too, to make an innovation: and of this we have had long warning, in the New use of the word [Pastor]. IF Bishops were the Pastors, § 26. And Doctor. than Doctors also; it was the observation which S. Austin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now, [For God hath given some Apostles, some Prophet's .... some Pastors and Doctors]. So the Church hath learned to speak. In the Greeks Council of Carthage it was decreed, that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a DOCTOR of their own, that is a Bishop, but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocese to whom formerly they gave obedience; and the title of the chapter is, that the parts of the Diocese without the Bishop's consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must not have another Bishop. He who in the title is called Bishop, in the chapter is called the DOCTOR. And thus also, haeres. 75. Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fathers and DOCTORS, Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus DOCTORIS est, saith S. Ambrose, speaking of the eminence of the Bishop, over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy. The same also is to be seen in S. * Epist 59 Austin, Sedulius, and divers others. I deny not but it is in this appellative, as in divers of the rest, that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called DOCTORS, for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Tim. 3. apt to teach (but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop) and no where expressly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture, but yet because in all Churches, it was by licence of the Bishop, that Presbyters did Preach, if at all, and in some Churches the Bishop only did it, particularly of Alexandria (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lib. 7. c. 19 saith Sozomen) therefore it was that the Presbyter, in the language of the Church was not, but the Bishop, was often called, DOCTOR of the Church. THe next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops, § 27. And Pontifex. is PONTIFEX, and PONTIFICATUS for Episcopacy. Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum, Episcopis PONTIFICATUS munera assignavimus, said the Apostles, as 1 lib. 8. c. ult. Apost. constitut. S. Clement reports. PONTIFICALE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. john the Apostle wore in his forehead, as an Ensign of his Apostleship, a gold plate or medal, when he was IN PONTIFICALIBUS, in his pontifical or Apostolical habit, saith Eusebius. 2 lib. 3. hist. cap. 31. * De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit & definitio SS. Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... & si PONTIFICES voluerint, ut cum cis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes. Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. 3 lib. 9 c. 14. hist. tripart. * Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum & Petrum, PONTIFICATUM tenebat, saith 4 lib. 3. c. 21. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus. * Apud Antiochiam verò Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae PONTIFICATUM tenebat, saith the same Eusebius. 5 lib. 4. c. 20. * And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia, that when Narcissus' Bishop of jerusalem, was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extreme age, he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven, Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est; Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you, but it was when Narcissus jam senio fessus PONTIFICATUS Ministerio sufficere non posset, saith the story. 6 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 9 * Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Perfect, that wished him to comply with the Emperor, asked him; Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam PONTIFICATUM est consecutus? He hath an Empire, but hath he also a Bishopric? PONTIFICATUS is the word. * But 7 Eccles. hierarch. S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices, and particularly gives this account of the present. Est igitur PONTIFICATUS ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt etc. And a little after, Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus PONTIFICUM ordini etc. To which agrees 8 Lib. 7. 12. S. Isidore in his etymologies, Ideo autem & Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum dant sicut & Episcopi, qui licet Sacerdotes sint, tamen PONTIFICATUS apicem non habent, quia nec Chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum spiritum daunt, quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat; and in the same chapter, PONTIFEX Princeps Sacerdotumest. One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops, And Sacerdos. and that's SACERDOS. Sacerdotum autem ●ipartitu● est ordo, say S. Clement and Anacletus, for they are Majores and Minores. The Majores, Bishops, the Min●res, Presbyters, for so it is in the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to a Lib. 8. c. 46. S. Clement, Episcopis quidem assignavimus, & attribuimus quae 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 always, Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS, qui est Episcopus, saith d Lib. de baptism. Tertullian: and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldom used in any respect but for the Bishop, unless when there is some distinctive term, 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, SAC●RDOTEM Dei agnoscentes, & contestantes. * f Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21. Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch, In quihus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus, & Nicomas ab Iconio, & Hierosolymorum PRAECIPUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus, & vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus; and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACERDOTES. Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis SACERDOTIO, ministrato diem obiit, for so long he was Bishop, cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACERDOTIUM. Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SACERDOTIUM gerens, for he was Bishops of Hierapolis saith g Lib. 3. c. 35. Eusebius, and the h Epist. Comprovinc. ad S. L●onem. Bishops of the Province of Arles, speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus, ordained Bishop by S. Peter, say, quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACERDOTEM. *** The Bishop also was ever designed when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word. Lib. 4 c. 26. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES, saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greek, and used for the Bishop by justin 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, Lib 7. Etymol c. 12. saith S. Isidore. *** But in those things which are of no Question, I need not insist. One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose. The Bishop is sometimes called PRIMUS PRESBYTER. Comment. in 4. Ephes. Name & Timotheum Episcopum à secreatum Presbyterum vocat: quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Elections were made of Bishops out of the College 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, Quast. Vet. et N. Testam. Qu. 101. that's S. Ambrose his sense. But S. Austin gives another, PRIMI PRESBYTERI, that is chief above the Presbyters. Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER, h.e. summus Sacerdos (saith he) And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words, then is intimated in that clause before, Episcopi, In 1. Tim. 3. & Presbyteri una ordinatio est? Vterque enim Sacer does est, sed Episcopus PRIMUS est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est. The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER, that is, PRIMUS SAC●RDOS, h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDOTUM, In 4. Ephes. so he expounds it, not Princeps, or Primus INTER PRESBYTEROS, himself remaining a mere Presbyter, but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM; for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in another sense, he is the chief, not the signior of the Presbyters. Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower than Episcopus, for Theodoret speaking of S. john chrysostom, saith, that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch, yet refused to be made Bishop, for a long time. johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae, ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit. *** The Church also in her first language when she spoke of Praepositus Ecclesiae, meant the Bishop of the Diocese. 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 Martyrs; 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 sums up many of them together, and insinuates the several relations, expressed in the several compellations of Bishops. Epist. 69. For writing against Florentius Pupianus, ac nisi (saith he) apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec plebs praepositum, nec grex Pastorem, nec Ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec Deus Sacerdotes; and all this he means of himself, who had then been six years' Bishop of Carthage, a Prelate of the people, a governor to the Church, a Pastor to the flock, a Priest of the most high God, a Minister of Christ. The sum 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; (unless there be a specification, and limiting of it to a parochial, 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, § 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the Philosopher) and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling, and office, supereminent to the rest. For first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy. Si quis Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam, etc. 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 Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first, Can. 1. & 2. than Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution, gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains 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 seldom 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 bewails it, but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order. Lib. 1. ad Parmen. Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti? Quid Ministros plurimos, quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos? Ipsi apices, & Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt. The Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presbyters, nay the Bishops themselves, the Princes and chief of all proved traditors. The diversity of order is here fairly intimated, but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2d book adv. Parmen. Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ, Episcoporum, Presbyterorum, Diaconorum, & fidelium. There are four sorts of heads in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the faithful 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 accrueing to him in his ordination to such an office, thought he had wept because he was not Bishop, they pretending comfort told him, De vitâ August. c. 4. quia locus Presbyterii licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui. The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserved a greater, yet was the next step in order to a Bishopric. So Possidonius tells the story. It was the next step, the next in descent, in subordination, the next under it. So the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is sacrilege to bring down a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so the Council permits in case of great delinquency, to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopal order, but still the character remains, and the degree of itself is higher. * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus (Fratres chariss.) quia novimus quam Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium, quod & clero, & plebi debet esse exemplo, said the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, Lib. 7. c. 26. in Eusebius, The office of a Bishop is sacred, and exemplary both to the Clergy, and the People. Interdixit per omnia, Can. 3. Nicen. Concil. Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Presbytero, non Diacono licere, etc. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop. Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus. Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit, Alexander was ordained a Bishop, and Arius still left in the order of mere Presbyters. * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church. julius' autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erantque pro●o praesentes Vitus, & Vincentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae. They were his Vicars, and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Council, faith Sozomen. Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart. But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man. Many of them were put to death. Lib. 3. tripart. c. 2. Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcòpi, alii Presbyteri, alii diversorum ordinum Clerici. * And this difference of Order is clear in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyri●um to the Bishops of the Levant, De Episcopis autem constituendis, vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani, bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus, etc. 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 desired a Bishopric. Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, Hist. tripart. l. 11. c. 5. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, & Episcopis, saith 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 Counsels 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 decretal Epistles, in the first tome of the Counsels. * ay only sum this up with the attestation of the Church of England, Per Binium Parts. in the preface to the book of ordination. It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same thing exactly that was said in the second Council of Carthage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can▪ 2. But we shall see it better, and by more real 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 Council of Sardis decreed, that no man should be ordained Bishop, but he that was first a Reader, and a Deacon, and a Presbyter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may pass to the sublimity of Episcopacy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and trial of no small time. Here there is clearly a distinction of orders, and ordinations, and assumptions to them respectively, all of the same distance and consideration; And Theodoret out of the Synodical Epistle of the same Council, Lib. 5. c. 8. says that they complained that some from arianism were reconciled, and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters, from Presbyters to be Bishops, call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a greater degree, or Order: And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius, speaking of his Canonical Ordination, and election to a Bishopric, says that he was chosen being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most worthy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coming through all the infertor Orders. The same commendation S. Cyprian gives of Cornelius. Epist. 52. Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Dominum sepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunct is religionis gradibus ascendit .... & fact us est Episcopus à plurimis Collegiis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant, qui ad nos literas .... de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Here is evident, not only a promotion, but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome; so that now the chair is full (saith S. Cyprian) & quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est, nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem etc. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishopric. 2. THe ordination of a Bishop to his chair was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter, § 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishopric. Can. Apost. 1, & 2. and not only so, but in another manner than he had when he was made Priest. This is evident in the first Ecclesiastical Canon that was made after Scripture. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Priest and Deacon must be ordained of one Bishop, but a Bishop must be ordained by two or three at least. And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolical, S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports, Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. jacobus à Petro, jacobo, & johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. james to be a Bishop, and the self same thing is in words affirmed by Anicetus; ut in ore duorum, veltrium stet omnis veritas; Epist. Vnic●. And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome, there happened to be many of his fellow Bishops there, & factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant. These Collegae could not be mere Priests, for then the ordination of Novatus had been more Canonical, then that of Cornelius, and all Christendom had been deceived, for not Novatus who was ordained by three Bishops, but Cornelius had been the Schismatic, as being ordained by Priests, against the Canon. But here I observe it for the word [plurimis,] there were many of them ordination. * Can 4. In pursuance of this Apostolical ordinance, Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be ordained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all the Bishops in the Province, unless it be in case of necessity, and then it must be done by three being gathered together, and the rest consenting; so the ordination to be performed. * Can. 19 The same is ratified in the Council of Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Bishop is not to be ordained without a Synod of Bishops, and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province. But if this cannot be done conviniently, yet however it is required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ordinations must be performed by many. The same was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, can: 12. in the 13. Canon of the African Code, in the 22th Canon of the first Council of Arles, Can. 12. and the fifth Canon of the second Council of Arles, and was ever the practice of the Church; and so we may see it descend through the bowels of the fourth Council of Carthage to the inferior ages. Can. 4. Episcopus qunm ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant, & ten●ant Evangeliorum codicem super caput, & cervicem ejus, & uno super eum fundente benediction●m, reliqui 〈◊〉 Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant. The thing was Catholic, and Canonical. It was prima, & immutabilis constitutio, so the first Canon of the Council of * A. D. 509. Epaunum calls it; And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch, a schism was made about his successor, Theodoret. l. 9 cap 44. & Evagrius his ordination condemned; because, praeter Ecclesiastica● regulam fuerit ordinatus, it was against the rule of Holy Church. Why so? Solus enim Paulinus eum instituerat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas. Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit, sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes, & praeter tres Pontifices ordinationem pènitùs fieri, interdicunt. Which because it was not observed in the ordination of Evagrius who was not ordained by three Bishops, the ordination was cassated in the Council of Rhegium. And we read that when Novatus would fain be made a Bishop in the schism against Cornelius, Cap. 1. 2. he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis (saith Eusebius,) he obtained three Bishops, lib. 6. hist. cap. 33. for performance of the action. Now besides these Apostolical, and Catholic Canons, and precedents, this thing according to the constant, and United interpretation of the Greek Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishopric of Ephesus. [Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.] The Latin Fathers expound it abstractly, viz. to signify the office of Priesthood, that is, neglect not the grace of Priesthood that is in thee by the imposition of hands, and this Erasmus helps by making [Presbyterij] to pertain to [Gratiam] by a new inter-punction of the words; but however, Presbyterij with the Latin Fathers signifies Presbyteratûs, not Presbyterorum, and this Presbyteratus is in their sense used for Episcopatus too. But the Greek Fathers understand it collectively, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not simply such, but Bishops too, all agree in that, that Episcopacy is either meant in office, or in person. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Oecumenius; and S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Theophilact, So Theodoret. The probation of this lies upon right reason, and Catholic tradition; For, 3. THE Bishop's § 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands, ordination was peculiar in this respect above the Presbyters, for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop. On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Council of Carthage; but never on a Bishop. And that was the reason of the former exposition. By the Presbytery S. Paul means Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop, and therefore Presbyterium is not a College of mere Presbyters, for such could never ordain S. Timothy to be a Bishop. The same reason is given by the Latin Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signify Episcopacy. For (saith S. Ambrose) S. Paul had ordained Timothy to be a Bishop, Vnde & quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat, aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret Majorem. So he; and subjoins this reason, Nemo n. tribuit quodnon accepit. The same is affirmed by S. chrysostom, and generally by the authors of the former expositions, that is, the Fathers both of the East, and West. For it was so General and Catholic a truth, that Priests could not, might not lay hands on a Bishop, that there was never any example of it in Christendom till almost 600 years after Christ, and that but once, A.D. 555. and that irregular, and that without imitation in his Successors, or example in his Antecessors. It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first, & dum non essent Episcopi, qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Episcopi, johannes de Perusio, & Bonus de Ferentino, & Andraeas' Presbyter de Ostiâ, & ordinaverunt eum Pontificem. Tunc enim non ●rant in Clero qui eum possent promovere. Saith Damasus. in libr. Pontificali. vit. Pelag. 1. It was in case of necessity, because there were not three Bishops, therefore he procured two, and a Priest of Ostia to supply the place of the third, that three, according to the direction Apostolical, and Canons of Nice, Antioch, and Carthage, make Episcopal ordination. * The Church of Rome is concerned in the business to make fair this ordination, and to reconcile it to the Council of Rhegium, and the others before mentined, who if asked would declare it to be invalid. * But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop, so also they commanded that those three, should be three Bishops, and Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three Bishops; and better, because, so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles, approves the ordination if done by two, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the Nicene Canon is as much exact, in requirng the capacity of the person, as the Number of the Ordainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas, was no more in that case than if a lay man had done it; it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and though the ordination was absolutely Un canonical, yet it being in the exigence of Necessity, and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon, it was valid in naturâ rei, though not in formâ Canonis, and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon, and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination. Can. 6. Concil. Sardic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Council of Sardis. Bishop's must ordain Bishops; It was never heard that Priests did, or de jure might. These premises do most certainly infer a real difference, between Episcopacy, and the Presbyterate. But whether or no they infer a difference of order, or only 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 used promiscuously. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] was the Greek word, and for it the Latins used [Ordo] as is evident in the instances above mentioned, to which, Epist. 3. add, that Anacletus says, that Christ did instituere duos Ordines, Episcop●rum, & Sacerdotum. Epist. 84. c. 4. And S. Leo affirms; Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem, secundum Presbyteralem, tertium Leviticum; And these among the greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, three degrees. So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a good degree; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c: is a censure used 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 affirmed of them all; and the word gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently. Lib. 1 c. 12. de acts cum Felice Manich. lib 4. Epist. 2. So Felix writing to S. Austin, Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam uìrtutem, quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS; and S. Cyprian of Cornelius, ad Sacerdotij sublime sastigium cunctis religionis GRADIBUS ascendit. Degree, and Order, are used 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 wronged by a mutual substitution. 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale, was at first called ordinatio Episcopi. Stir up the Grace that is in the, juxta ORDINATIONEM tuam in Episcopatum, saith Sedulius; And S. Hierome; Prophetiae grat●am habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs. in 1. Tim. 3. * Neque enim fas erat aut licebat at inferior ORDINARET majorem, saith S. Ambrose, proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop. * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro ORDINATUM edit, saith Tertullian; and S. Hierome affirms that S. de prescript. cap. 32. james was ORDAINED Bishop of jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our lord [Ordinatus] was the word at first, and afterwards [CONSECRATUS] came in conjunction with it, When Moses the Monk was to be ordained, to wit, a Bishop, for that's the title of the story in Theodoret, and spied that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him, lib. 4. cap. 23. absit (says he) ut manus tua me CONSECRET. 3. In all orders, there is the impress of a distinct Character; that is, the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices, which before his ordination he had no power to do. A Deacon hath an order or power — Quo pocula vitae Misceat, & latices, cum Sanguine porrigat agni, as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it. A Presbyter hath an higher order, or degree in the office or ministry of the Church, whereby he is enabled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Council of Ancyra does intimate. But a Bishop hath a higher yet; cap. 1. for besides all the offices communicated to Priests, and Deacons; he can give orders, which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order. For, Ordo, is defined by the Schools to be, traditio potestatis spiritualis, & collatio gratiae, ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica; a giving a spiritual power, and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations. Since than Episcopacy hath a new ordination, and a distinct power (as I shall show 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 de●●nitions of the School. 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 special 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 ordaining 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 than 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 denied it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would fain 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 the integr●. And if I mistake not; that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist, is more a new power in order to consecration, than all those inferior officers put together have in all, and yet they call them Orders, and therefore why not Episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unless because they will not. *** But however in the mean 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 only by the way. The Enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause, and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rom● by advantage of the former discourse. For since (say they) that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work, S. Hieromad Rusticum Narbonens: apud Gratian. dist: 95. can: ec●e ego. casus, i●id● of the most secret mystery, 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 Superior 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 infer an identity of order, though a disparity of degree, but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too. The first are already answered in the premises. The second must now be served. 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 certainly 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 do that, which in God's estimate, may tant' amount to a direct undervaluing; but however it is unprofitable, of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith, or manners, and besides, cannot fix itself upon any basis, there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other. 2. The Sacraments, and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves, are greater, and lesser in several respects. For since they are all in order to several ends, that is, productive of several effects, and they all are excellent, every rite, and sacrament in respect of its own effect, is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect. For example. Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve chastity, and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church, and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism, which does neither. But * The Nicen● Creed. baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony; the same may be said for ordination, and consecration, the one being in order to Christ's natural body (as the Schools speak) the other in order to his mystical body, and so have their several excellencies respectively; but for an absolute pre-eminence of one above the other, I said there was no basis to fix that upon, and I believe all men will find it so that please to try. But in a relative, or respective excellency, they go both before, and after one another. Thus Wool, and a jewel, are better than each other; for wool is better for warmth, and a jewel for ornament. A frog hath more sense in it, than the Sun; and yet the Sun shines brighter. 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than 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 than ordination, the Priest would not only equal, but excel 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 clerical power in the world, and that the Bishop, and the Priest, were equal in the greatest power, yet a lesser power than it, superadded to the Bishop's, may make a distinct order, and superiority. Thus it was said of the son of Man. Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis, he was made a little lower than 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 Angels, 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 less is paulò minor Angelis, a little lower than the Bishop, the Angel of the Church, yet this little lower, makes a distinct order, and enough for a subordination. * An Angel, and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence, they both discourse, they have both election, and freedom 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 real and eternal worth, than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant, and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition, and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no less than specifical. 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, do not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turn. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the real presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the anti-episcopal men do so, in all senses; and than what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more than 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 main Question. If Episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest, as (abstracting from the laws of the Church) a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon, for if it be the impress of a distinct character, it may be, imprinted per saltum, and independantly, as it is in the order of a Presbyter. To this I answer, It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent; 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 ordain a Presbyter with a power, that himself hath not? can he give, what himself hath not received? * Haeres 75. I end this point with the saying of Epiphani. us, Vox est Aërii haretici unus est ordo Bpisoeperum, & Presbyterorum, una dignitas. To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters, was a heresy first broached by Aërius, and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) countenanced by many of the Church of Rome. FOR to clear the distinction of order, § 32. For Bishops had a power distinct, and Superior to that of Presbyters. it is evident in Antiquity, that Bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of Orders, which Presbyters have not. * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated: but now the inquiry is, what the Church did in pursuance of the practice, As of Ordination. and tradition Astolicall. The first, and second Canons of the Apostles command that two, or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordain a Priest, and a Deacon, A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain, Eccles. hier. c. 5. a Bishop is. * S. Dionysius affirms, Sacerdotem 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 fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or entreat some Bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius. * Lib. 6. cap 33. To this we may add as so many witnesses, all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus, Platina, and others. Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, Presbyteros decem, Diaconos duos, etc. create (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 Bishop's hand alone, by Law and Constitution; for particular examples are infinite. In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in another's diocese without letters of licence from the Bishop. Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it. * First not Rural Bishops, that is, Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis, Vicars to the Bishop of the diocese, they must not ordain Priests and Deacons. For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is another's diocese, and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture. But then they may with licence? Yes; for they had Episcopal Ordination at first, but not Episcopal jurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part. The words are these as they are rendered by Dionysius Exiguus. Qui in villis, & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt, [& ut Episcopisunt consecrati] tamen aportet eos modum proprtum retinere, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the next clause [& ut Episcopi consecrati sunt] although it be in very ancient Latin copies, years not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek, but is most certainly employed in it; for else, what description could this be of Chorepiscopi, above Presbyter● rurales, to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so had country Priests, they had received imposition of the Bishop's hands. Either then the Ch●repiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively, not distibutively, 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 than 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 ordain any, but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordain (to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without licence, it being in alienâ Parochiâ, yet they had capacity by their order to do it) if these should do it, the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same employment, by a temporary mission, that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary, and fixed residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did, or that they might go beyond it, as well as the Ch●r●pisc●pi, and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. * Add to this; The Presbyters of the City were of great honour, and peculiar privilege, as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo. Caesare●, and therefore might easily exceed, if the Canon had not been their bridle. The sum of the Canon is this. With the Bishop's licence the Chorepiscopi might ordain, for themselves had Episcopal ordination, but without licence they might not, for they had but delegate, and subordinate jurisdiction, And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Ne●-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 perticulari, not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction: but the City Presbyters might not ordain, neither with, nor without licence; for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis, and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to Chorepiscopi, not to Presbyteri Civitat is, unless we should strain this Canon into a sense contrary to the practice of the Catholic Church. Res evim 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 Apostolical is, that they never could give orders; therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception, but is clear 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 Episcopal order, and jurisdiction for ordinations, for, re●d●ndo singula singulis, and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church, and exigence of Catholic Custom, the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction, and the Priests of the City for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus, the second cannot, but by a new ordination, that is, by making the Priest a Bishop. For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by showing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination, and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop, the City Priests might not do it, unless 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 Episcopal Ordination, yet it was quickly taken from them for their encroaching upon the Bishop's Diocese, and as they were but 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 Episcoporum in villis, so their ordination was but to a mere Presbyterate. And this we find, as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination. For those who in the beginning of the 10th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops, in the end of the same Cahon, we find it decreed de novo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Chorepiscopus or Country Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City, 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 inferior Ministeries, with the Bishop's Licence too, but they never ordained 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 inferior Ministeries, as of a Reader, an Ostiary etc. were humane constitutions, and required not the capacity of Episcopal 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 bestowed, 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 Council of Hispalis: save only, that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had been Bishops of Citied but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices, and by being traditors, but in case they repent and were reconciled, they had not indeed restintution 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 Council, as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria. * But however all this while, tripart. hist. lib 2. c, 12. ex Theodoret. the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishop's hand, that it was communicated to none though of the greatest privilege. * ay find the like care taken in the Council of Sardis, Can: 19 for when Musaeus, and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks, themselves not being Bishops, Gaudentius (one of the moderate men, 'tis likely) for quietness sake, and to comply with the times, would fain have had those Clerks received into clerical communion; but the Council would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as B●l●amon expresses upon that Canon,) but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily, and indecd. But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and E●tychianus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we will communicate as with Laymen: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they were no Bishops that imposed hands ●n them; and therefore the Clerks were not ordained truly, but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dissemblers of ordination. Quae autem de Musaeo & Entychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fveront, etc. Saith Balsamon, intimating, that it is a ruled case and of public interest. * The same was the issue of those two famous cases, the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that dreamed only he was a Bishop. Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest, nor any else of his ordaining, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Ischyr as himself was reduced into laycommunion, being deposed by the Synod of Alexandria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate, Apud Athanas: Apolog. 2. epist. Presb. & Diacon: Mareotic: ad Curiosum & Philagrium. say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis; And of the rest that were ordained with Ischir as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius, and this so known a business, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No man made scruple of the Nullity. ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters ordained by Maximus, who was another Bishop in the air too; all his ordinations were pronounced null, by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople. Cap. 4. A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination, the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevill. Cap. 5. These cases are so known, I need not insist on them. This only, In divers cases of Transgression of the Canons, Clergy men were reduced 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 conferred by them were valid, though they indeed were prohibited to Minister; but in the cases of the present instance, the ordinations were pronounced as null, to have bestowed nothing, and to be merely imaginary. * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title, or in the diocese of another Bishop, as in the Council of † Can. 6. Chalcedon, and of * Can. 13. Anti. ●ch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Countermand of an equal power; A Council at most may do it, and therefore without a Council, a probable necessity will let us lose. But to this the answer is evident. 1. The expressions in the several cases are several, & of divers issue, for in case of those nullities which are merely Canonical, they are expressed as then first made, but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop, they are only declared void ipso facto. And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitul●r ordinations, the Canon saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs impositionem, to be esteemed as null, that is, not to have Canonical approbation, but is not declared thursdays, in Naturâ rei, as it is in the foregoing instances. 2. In the cases of Antioch, and Chalcodon, 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 pronouned such ordinations invalid, yet none decreed so for the future, which is a clear evidence, that this nullity, viz: in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter, is not made by Canon, but by Canon * declared 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, than 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 only in the Bishop, even they, who to advance the Presbyters, were willing enough to speak less 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. Jerome, ad Evagrium. Quid facit Episcopus (except â ordinatione) quod Presbyter non faciat. All things (saith he) [to wit all things of precise order] are common to Bishops with Priests, except ordination, for that is proper to the Bishop. homil. 2. in. 1. Tim. 2. And S. chrysostom, Solâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt [Episcopi] atque hoctantùm 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 called an heretic 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 condemned, and branded for heresy, and by the Catholic Church saith Epiphanius. This power therefore came from a higher spring, then positive and Canonical Sanction. But now proceed. The Council held in Trullo, Can. 37. complaining that the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Church's inheritance, saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence, & made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the guise of the Church, give Orders and do 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 Canonical ordinations of Clergymen. Giving of Orders is proper, it belongs to a Bishop. So the Council. 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 Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose, Can. 20. 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 do them regularly, did fall into any infirmity whatsoever, yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Presbyteros agere permittat, sed evocet Episcopum. Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed 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 named before, viz: Orders, and Confirmation, for almost the whole Council 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, used by S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The man that is to ordain Clerks. haeres. 7 5. And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholic Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the 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 sons in baptism, but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination. * Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter, the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the whole Clergy was against it, yet the Bishop did ordain him, and then certainly searce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a ruled case, and attested by the Uniform practice of the Church, which was set down in the third Council of Carthage, Can. 45. Episcopus unus esse potest per quem 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 unum habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus 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 keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him? That indeed would have been 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 himself ordain 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. Cap. 19 So it is in the Nicene Council, the Council of a Cap. 9 Antioch, the Council of b Cap. 2. & 6. Chalcedon, and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of john of jerusalem; If thou speak (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 ordained him. * So that the issue of this argument is this. The Canons of the Apostles, and the rules of the Ancient Counsels appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops, of Presbyters to one Bishop, (for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together, but only Origen by the Bishops of jerusalem, and Caesarea) Presbyters are never mentioned 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 add this, that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonicall, which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did join in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unless 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 sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the Imperial constitutions. Novel: constir. 6. & 1. 23. cap. 16. Since therefore we neither find Presbyters joined with Bishops in commission, or practise, or penalty all this while. I may infer from the premises the same thing which the Council of Hispal expresses in direct, and full sentence, Episcopus Sacerdotibus, Cap: 6. ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest. The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour, he alone is not suffered to take it away. * This Council was held in the year 657, Can: 2, & 3. and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage which was the first that licenced Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West; but for almost 300 years after, ordinations were made by Bishops alone. But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together; but for aught I know, ever since then, it hath obtained, that although Presbyters join not in the consecration of a Bishop, yet of a Presbyter they do; but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice. * ay know not what can be said against it. I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian, who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocese, that if any man, he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy. * Epist. 33. Hunc igitur (Fratres Dilectissimi) à me, & à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis. Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops, or Presbyters. If Bishops, than many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferior order, which because it was (as I observed before) against the practice of Christendom, 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 joined 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 ordained, was ordained 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 impugn the constant practice of Primitive antiquity. But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by mere 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 public interest to approve all that they do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church, we found these men zealous in it, we thanked God for it (as we had cause) and we were willing to make them recompense, by endeavouring to justify their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon ourselves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery. 2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, than what we think of the reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Counsels, and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by mere Presbyters? If they did well, what was a virtue in them, is no sin in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall we 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 imposed hands on Timothy, is by all antiquity expounded either of the office, or of a College of Presbyters; and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as appears 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, than 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 always to Apostles, and Bishops (as I have proved) and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence. From when 〈◊〉 then? From Antiquity? That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone, that Presbyters in the primitive Church did never join with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter, and Deacon, till the 4th Council of Carthage; much less do 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 fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries. But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, then err with a glorious correspondence. But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops? shall we either sin against our consciences by suscribing to heretical, and false resolutions in materiâ fidei, or else loose the being of a Church, for want of Episcopal 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 believe that they would not have done any thing either of error, or suspicion, but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis, de Eccles. cap. 11. a man of honour, and Great learning does attest, that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy that joined in the reformation, whom they might, but did not employ in their ordinations; And what necessity then can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn 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 practice at least in France, that if any returns to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery, Danaeus part. 2. Isagog; lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron. repl. fol: 92. impress. 1605. though he had before Episcopal Ordination, as both their friends and their enemies bear witness. 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin, for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceases to be a sin; but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place, he will do it by means proportionable to that end; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing, and acquiring those things which himself 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 Church's opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations, and then, necessity of the contrary, is but pretence and mockery, or if he hath not given such possibility, than there is no Church there to be either built, or continued, but the Candlestick is presently removed. There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose. Ecclesihist: lib. 10. cap. 9 per Ruffinum. When Aedesius and Frumentius were surprised by the Barbarous Indians, they preached Christianity, and baptised many, but themselves being but Laymen could make no Ordinations, and so not fix 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 ordained Frumentius their Bishop, & tradito ei Sacerdotio, redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet .... ex quo (saith Ruffinus) in Indiae partibus, & populi Christianorum & Ecclesiae factaae sunt, & Sacer dotium caepit. The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman; Ibidem c. 10. & apud Theodoret. l. 1. posteà verò quam 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 work of Christianity could not be completed, nor a Church founded without the Ministry 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 means to found a Church there he will supply them with those means, and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us, prove heretical, still God's Church is Catholic, and though with trouble, yet Orthodox Bishops may be acquired. For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation, and offered peace to the Catholics upon that condition; Lucius an Arrian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses; The Hermit discovered his vileness, Eccles: hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum. & ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere. Moses refused to be ordained by him that was an Arrian. So did the reformed 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 Church's Catholic, and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling justify it? Yea, most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling, viz: an evident prophecy, demonstration of Miracles, certainty of reason, clarity of sense, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission. But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations always have been without Bishops? No indeed. That must not be. They stand, or fall to their own Master. And though I cannot justify their ordinations, yet what degree their Necessity is of, what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how far a good life, and a Catholic belief may lead a man in the way to heaven, (although the forms of external communion be not observed) 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 Satan's seat 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 Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the Greater. * ay 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 guess, unless they only be impeccable, which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think, that all the Church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own Churches required it, and that the first pretence of the legality, and validity of their ordinations been boyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us, and to the practice of the Catholic Church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them; But I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the Catholics under the fury of justina, sed tanta fuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, ut animas prius amittere, quam Episcopum mallent; If it were put to our choice, rather to die (to wit the death of Martyrs, not rebels) 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 sum is this. If the Canons, and Sanctions Apostolical, if the decrees of eight famous Counsels in Christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations, if the testimony of the whole Pontifical book, if the dogmatic resolution of so many Fathers, S. Denis, S. Cornelius, S. Athanasius, S. Hierome, S. chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and divers others, all appropriating ordinations to the Bishop's hand: if the constant voice of Christendom, declaring ordinations made by Presbyters, to be null, and void in the nature of the thing: and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop, approved by any Council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom: if that ordinations of Bishops were always made, and they ever done by Bishops, and no pretence of Priests joining 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; than it is evident that the power, and order of Bishops is greater than the power, and order of Presbyters, to wit, in this Great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voice, and united vote of Christendom. * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholic antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy. § 33. And Confirmation, The next is of Confirmation of baptised people. And here the rule was this, which was thus expressed by Damascen: Epist. de Chorepisc. Apostolorum, & Successorum eorum est per manûs impositionem donum 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 Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptise Catechumen in cases of necessity, and exigence of journey; ita tamen ut si supervixerit [baptizatus] ad Episcopum cum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit. Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the BISHOP'S hands. This was Law. It was also custom saith S. Cyprian, Epist. add jubaian. Quod nunc 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 custom was Catholic too, and the Law was of Universal concernment. OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani accipere debent. So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle; Apud Seu. Binium in 1. tom. Concil. And, Omnibus festinandum est sine morâ renasci, & demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere; so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement. ALL FAITHFUL baptised people must go to the Bishop to be consigned, and so by imposition of the Bishop's hands to obtain the seven fold gifts of the Holy Ghost. Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms confirmation in this, to have a special excellency besides baptism, quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur, because Bishops only can give confirmation; And the same is said, & proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoining great veneration to this holy mystery, quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus. It cannot, it may not be performed by any, but by the Bishops. Thus S. chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans, Homil. 18. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptising the men of Samaria, gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptised. For HE HAD NOT POWER. For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles. And a little after: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was PECULIAR to the Apostles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence it comes to pass, that the principal and chief of the Church do it, and none else. And George Pachymeres, the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius; In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptised. For this was the Ancient practice. I shall not need to instance in too many particulars, for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholic custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Counsels, & Fathers; particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in * Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17. Eusebius, a De Baptismo. Tertullian, S. b Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent. Innocentius the first, c Epist. 4. Damasus, d Epist. 88 S. Leo, in e Epist. ad. Epis●. German. john the third, in S. f Lib. 3. ep. 9 Gregory, Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius, and Eubulus, the g Apud Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 5. can. ut jejuni. Council of Orleans, and of h Ibid. Can. ut Episcopi. Melda, and lastly of i Concil. Hispal. can. 7. Sevill which affirms, Non licere Presbyteris .... per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptiz andis paracletum spiritum tradere. It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of Episcopal power .... Chrismate spiritus S. superinfunditur. Vtraque verò ista manu, & ore Antistitis impetramus. These are enough for authority, and dogmatic resolution from antiquity. For truth is, the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius, the first author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin, and Greek Churches, vide Anasta. biblioth. praefat. in Can. 8. Synodi. and it was upon this occasion too. For when the Bulgarians were first converted, the greeks sent Presbyters to baptise, and to confirm them. But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed, both because (as they pretended) the greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation. The matters of fact, and acts Episcopal of confirmation are innumerable, but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema, vide Optatum. lib. 2. S. Bernard. in vitâ S Malachiae. Surium. tom. 1. in Febr. and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard, because they were ratified by miracle, saith the Ancient story. I end this with the saying of S. Hierome, Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In Actibus Apostolorum. Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset, dial. adv. Lucifer. totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. If you ask where it is written? (viz. that Bishops alone should confirm) It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (meaning, by precedent, though not express precept) but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command. *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair, for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words, for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of Episcopal privilege and peculiar ministration, particularly, of Confirmation, he says, it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quam ad legis necessitatem. For the honour of the Priesthood, rather than for the necessity of a law. To this the answer is evident from his own words: That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles; and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy, than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter. For the question here that is only of concernment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop, but by whom it was reserved? Now S. Hierome says it was done apud Acta, in the Scripture, therefore by God's Holy Spirit, and the end he also specifies, viz. for the honour of that sacred order, non propter legis necessitatem, not that there is any necessity of law, that confirmation should be administered by the Bishop. Not that a Priest may do it, but that, as S. Hierome himself there argues, the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism, if it happens that Bishops may not be had (for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage, and places remote, and destitute of Bishops) then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law, that Confirmation should be had at all. A man does not perish if he have it not; for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration, was indeed an honour to the function, but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it. So that this [non necessarium] is not to be referred to the Bishop's ministration, as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done, not that a Priest may do it if a 〈◊〉 may not be had, but this non necessity is to be referred to confirmation itself; so that if a Bishop cannot be had, confirmation, though with much loss, yet with no danger, may be omitted. This is the sum of S. Hieroms discourse, this reconciles him to himself, this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions, and consequently to his arguments, and to be sure, no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of confirmation to Bishops, is not done by the spirit of God, and then let the sense of the words be what they will, they can do no hurt to the cause; and as easily may we escape from those words of his, to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona. Sed quia scriptum est, Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur .... praedicare eos decet, utile est benedicere, congruum confirmare, etc. It is quoted by Gratian dist. 95. can. ecce ego. But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus, i. e. in fide, the Presbyters may preach, they may confirm their Auditors, not by consignation of Chrism, but by confirmation of faith; and for this, quotes a parallel place for the use of the word [Confirmare] by authority of S. Gregory, Caus. 11. q. 3. can Quod pradecessor. who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome, ut Orthodoxes Episcopos, Presbyteros, vel quos●unque reperire potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos, ampliùs confirmaret. Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops & Priests in any other sense but this of S. Hieroms in the present, to wit, in faith and doctrine, not in rite, and mystery, and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sense of S. Gregory, for else he becomes an Antistrephon, and his own opposite. in Ephes. 4. * Yea, but there is a worse matter than this. S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests, that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm. Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus. But, 1. The passage is suspicious, for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishopric, and is no way pertinent to the discourse, but is encircled with a story of a far different consequence, which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author. 2. But suppose the clause is not surreptitious, but natural to the discourse, and borne with it, yet it is matter of fact, not of right, for S. Ambrose neither approves, nor disproves it, and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholic practice and Laws of Christendom. 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious, yet the word [Consignant] is, for S. Austin who hath the same discourse, the same thing, viz: of the dignity of Presbyters, tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria, and all Egypt, almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose, but he tells it thus, Nam & in Alexandriâ & per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus, Quaest 101. Vet. & N. Testam. Basileae. Consecrat Presbyter. So that it should not be consignat, but consecrat; for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters, but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence, or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction; that was indeed permitted in Egypt, and some other places, but Confirmation never, that we can find else where, and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practise Apostolical, and four Counsels, and 16 ancient Catholic Fathers, testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm, and not Priests, so that if there be no other scruple, this Question is quickly at an end. ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection; for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia, ut baptizatos Vguant, lib. 3. eist p. 26. to aneale baptised people. Now anointing the forehead of the baptised person, was one of the solemnities of confirmation, so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming; for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council, and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for confirmation. But this will not much trouble the business. Because it is evident that he means it not of confirmation, but of the Chrism in those times by the rites of the Church used in baptism. For in his 9th Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptised people, now here is precept against precept, therefore it must be understood of several anointings, and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this 9th Epistle, Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in front Chrismate non praesumant. Presbyters may not anoint baptised people twice, once they might; now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism, not an act of confirmation, we shall see by comparing it with other Canons. * In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis, Can. 52. It is decreed thus, [Presbyter praesente Episcopo non SIGNET infants, nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum. A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present. Must not sign them] that is with Chrism in their foreheads, and that in baptism; for the circumstant Canons do expressly explicate, and determine it; for they are concerning the rites of baptism, and this in the midst of them. And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his [Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo] in case it be so to be read; for here we see a consignation permitted to the presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism, in the absence of the Bishop, and this an act of indulgence and favour, and therefore extraordinary, and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters, but yet of no objection in case of confimation. * And indeed [Consignari] is used in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross, and anealing. Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Unction, Can. 2 which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters: Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos, Si Catholici esse desiderent, si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate, & benedictione CONSIGNARI placet. Consigned is the word, and it was clearly in extreme Unction, for that rite was not then ceased, and it was in anealing a dying body, and a part of reconciliation, and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation. But I return. Can. 20. *** The first Council of Toledo prohibits any from making Chrism, but Bishops only, and takes order, ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum anto diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere; that the Chrism be fetch't by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches. But for what use? why, it was destinatum ad diem Pascbae says the Canon, against the Holy time of Easter, and then, at Easter was the solemnity of public baptisms, so that it was to be used in baptism. And this sense being premised, the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrism, the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia. Statutum verò est, Diaconum non Chrismare, sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo, praesente verò, si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum. Now although this be evident enough, yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Counsel, Can. 1. Nullus ministrorum qui BAPTIZANDI recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari. The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism, and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Grogory permitted to the Presbyters, not the other, for he expressly forbade the other and the exigence of the Canons, and practise of the Church expound it so, and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms, Presbyteris Chrismate baptizetos ungere licet, Epist. 1. ad Decent. Cap. 3. sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum; there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrism in baptism, but he subjoins a prohibition to Priests for doing it in confirmation; non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Episcopis cum tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum. By the way; some, that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregory's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrism, read it, [Vt baptiz andos ungant] not [baptizatos] so Gratian, so S. Thomas, but it is needless to be troubled with that, for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word [Baptizatos] and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrism in Confirmation. I know no other objection, and these we 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 Counsels, and Fathers appropriated to Bishops, and denied to Presbyters, and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion, but witnesses of a Catholic practice, and do actually attest it as done by a Catholic consent; and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did, no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation; we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original, Episcopal in the Succession, and that in this power, the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter, and so declared by this instance of Catholic Practice. THus far I hope we are right. § 34. And jurisdiction, But I call to 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 ears; some will have them all one in office with Presbyters, as at first they were in Name; and they had need bathe up to the Chin; but some stand shallower, and grant a little distinction, a precedency perhaps for order sake, but no pre-eminence in reiglement, no superiority of jurisdiction; Others by all means would be thought to be quite thorough in behalf of Bishop's 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 means they think to impair their power, they may well endure to be up to the ankles, their error indeed is less, 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, than now Men will endure to be granted, or then themselves are very forward to challenge. 1. Then; Which they expressed in attributes of authority, and great power, The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop, did it in terms of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith S. Ignatius; The Bishop carries 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 Ecclesiastical. And again, Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quam is qui omni Principatu, Epist. ad Trallian. & potestate superior est? Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power; A Bishop is greater and higher than all other power, viz: in materiâ, or gradu religionis. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians; Horror ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LOCO DEI. Do all things in Unity, the Bishop being PRECEDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. Precedent in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACER DOTUM imaginem Dei referentem, Dei quidem propter Principatum, Christi verò propter Sacerdotium. It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order, and jurisdiction. 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 himself for his Priesthood, (that's his Order.) S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly, and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh, and lived a man of exemplary sanctity, and died a Martyr, and hath been honoured as holy Catholic by all posterity, certainly these testimonies must needs be of Great pressure, being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis, not casually slipped from him, and by incogitancy, but resolutely and frequently. But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages. Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS tui, lib. 3. epist. ●. saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus. Execute the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the refractory Deacon; And VIGOUR 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 subjoins, calling the Bishop's 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; lib. 4. cap. 63. A place of Mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors. * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius, who succeeded Heraclas, he received (faith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. The Bishopric of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 10. saith the Council of Sardis; to the TOP or HEIGHT os Episcopacy. APICES & PRINCIPES OMNIUM, so Optatus calls Bishops; the CHIEF, and HEAD of all; and S. Denys of Alexandria, lib. 2. adv. Parmen. Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum, & ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ, saith Eusebius. lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in jerem. And Origen calls the Bishop, eum qui TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet, He that hath obtained the TOWER OR HEIGHT of the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by encroachments of Barbarous people upon the Church's pale, so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocese, yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDENCY according to their proper state; their appropriate presidency. And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the PRELATE or PERFECT of the Church; I know not how to expound it better. But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage Commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop, Can. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that GOVERNS the Church in that place. * Can. 25. And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bishop hath POWER OVERDO the affairs of the Church. * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat. S. Sylvester [the Bishop] held the reins or the stern of the Roman Church, saith Theodoret. hist: tripart: lib. 1. cap. 12. But the instances of this kind are infinite, two may be as good as twenty, de dignit. sacerdot. c. 2. and these they are. The first is of S. Ambrose; HONOUR, & SUBLIMITAS Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great. And their commission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas; Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur, meritò RECTORIBUS suis subdi dicuntur &c: The sheep are delivered to Bishops, as to RULERS and are made their Subjects; And in the next chapter, Haec verò cuncta, Cap. 3. Fratres, ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis, ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri: ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus, & dignè noscamus quid sumus .... actione potius, quam Nomine demonstremus. These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher, nothing more excellent than the DIGNITY, AND EMINENCE OF A BISHOP, etc. The other is of S. Hierome, CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD EPISCOPUM PERTINET, The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop. But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos; Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet, Cap. 4. cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes, The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP, to whom unless an EMINENT and UNPARALLELED POWER be given by all, there will be as many Schisms as Priests. Here is dignity, and authority, and power enough expressed; and if words be expressive of things (and there is no other use of them) than the Bishop is SUPERIOR IN A PEERLESS, AND INCOMPARABLE AUTHORITY, and all the whole Diocese are his subjects, viz: in regimine Spirituali. BUT from words let us pass to things. § 35. Requiring Universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity. For the Faith and practice of Christendom requires obedience, Universal obedience, to be given to Bishops. I will begin again with Ignatius, that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence, may see what they gain by it, for the more primitive the testimonies are, the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops; for it happened in this, as in all other things; at first, Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties, more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith; and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebb, it is nothing, but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour, and obey them, it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion, and particularly of Charity, come to so low a declension, as it can scarce stand alone; and faith, which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man. But to our business. S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse itaque est (saith he) quicquid facitis, ut sine EPISCOPO NIHIL TENTETIS. So the Latin of Vedelius, which I the rather choose, because I am willing to give all the advantage I can. It is necessary (saith the good Martyr) that whatsoever ye do, you should attempt nothing without your BISHOP. And to the Magnesians, Decet itaque vos obedire EPISCOPO, ET IN NULLO ILLI REFRAGARI. It is fitting that ye should obey your BISHOP, and in NOTHING to be refractory to him. Here is both a Decet, and a Necesse est, already. It is very fitting, it is necessary. But if it be possible, we have a fuller expression yet, in the same Epistle; Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, nec enim possum facere à me ipso quicquam: sic & vos SINE EPISCOPO, nec Presbyter, nec Diaconus, nec Laicus. Nec QUICQUAM videatur VOBIS CONSENTANEUM quod sit PRAETER ILLIUS JUDICIUM, quod enim tale est, iniquum est, & Deo inimicum. Here is obedience Universal, both in respect of things, and persons; and all this no less than absolutely necessary. For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things, saying, of myself I can do nothing: so nor you without your BISHOP; whoever you be, whether Priest, or Deacon, or Layman. Let nothing please you, which the Bishop mislikes, for all such things are wicked, and in enemity with God. * But it seems S. Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to. We have already reckoned the Trallians, and the Magnesians. But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop. The same to the Philadelphians. Sine EPISCOPO nihil facite, Do nothing without your BISHOP. But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna. Sine EPISCOPO NEMO QUIC QUAM FACIAT eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant. No man may do ANY THING WITHOUT THE BISHOP, viz. of those things which belong to the Church. So that this saying expounds all the rest, for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sense of the Church, viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance, all Church affairs. And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarpe their Bishop; that he also look to it, that nothing be done without his leave. Nihil sine TUO ARBITRIO agatur, nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem. As thou must do nothing against God's will, so let nothing (in the Church) be done without thine. By the way, observe, he says not, that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop nothing without them; But, so the Bishop nothing without God. But so it is. Nothing must BE DONE without the Bishop; And therefore although he incourages them that can, to remain in Virginity, yet this, if it be either done with pride, or without the Bishop, it is spoiled. For, si gloriatus fuerit, periit, & si id ipsum statuatur SINE EPISCOPO, corruptum est. His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarpe, is with an [Episcopo attendite, sicut & Deus vobis] The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bishop. Hinc & vos decet accedere SENTENTIAE EPISCOPI, Epist. as Ephes●. qui secundùm Deum vos pascit, quemadmodum & facitis, edocti à spiritu; you must therefore conform to the sentence of the BISHOP, as indeed ye do already, being taught so to do by God's holy Spirit. There needs no more to be said in this cause, if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden. What the man was, I said before: what these Epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon * Apologia pro Ignatio. Vedelius, a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy, or rather upon the credit of a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. Eusebius, b De Script. Eccles. S. Hierome, and c Apud Euseb. quem Latine reddidit. Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta, for natural and genuine. And now I will make this use of it; Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state, should do well to stand close to their principles, and count that the best Episcopacy which is first; and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair, and see what is gotten in the bargain. For my part, since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it, and then would most certainly have abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height, but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity. But let this be remembered all along, in the specification of the parts of their jurisdiction. But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience. The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination, Can. 56. and dependence to the Bishop, sums them up thus, * Idem videre èst apud Damasum. Epist. de Chorepiscopis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So likewise the Presbyters let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop, so is the translation of Isidore, ad verbum. This Council is ancient enough, for it was before the first Nicene. So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly. Can. 19 * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere, says the thirteenth Canon of the An●yran Council according to the Latin of Isidore. The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo, Can. 20. the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles, viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop. Epist. add Nepotian. * Esto SUBIECTUS PONTIFICI Tuo, & quasi animae parentem suscipe. It is the counsel of S. Hierome. Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soul. I shall not need to derive hither any more 〈…〉 the Ecclesiastical orders; they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spiritual with which they are entrusted. For either there is no Government at all, or the Laity must govern the Church, or else the Clergy must. To say there is no Government, is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny. To say that the Laity should govern the Church, when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy, is to say, Scripture means not what it says; for it is to say, that the Clergy must be Praepositi, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and praelati, and yet the prelation, and presidency, and rule is in them who are not ever by God's spirit called Precedents or Prelates, and that it is not in them who are called so. * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferior to the Clergy, and must in things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them, with whom their Souls are entrusted; then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy, to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient. Now since by the frequent precept of so many Counsels, and Fathers, the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop, much more must the Laity, and since the Bishop must rule in chief, and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction, 〈…〉 S. james translated by Ruffinus, saith it was the doctrine of Peter, according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things; and in his third Epistle; that Presbyters, and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they do nothing without the licence of the Bishop. * And to make this business up complete, all these authorities of great antiquity, were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively, but mere derivations from tradition Apostolical; for not only the thing, but the words so often mentioned are in the 40th Canon of the Apostles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing. without leave of the Bishop, for to him the Lords people is committed, and he must give an account for their souls. * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart, and erecting another altar, he is to be deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the 32. Canon) as a lover of Principality: intimating, that he arrogates Episcopal dignity, and so is ambitious of a Principality. The issue than is this. * The Presbyters, and Clergy, and Laity must obey, therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws. It was particularly instanced in the case of S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret, He adorned, and instructed Pontus with these Laws, Lib. 5. cap. 28. so he, reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction. * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops. * § 36. Appointing them to be judges of the Clergy and spiritual causes of the Laity. THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical judges over the Presbyters, the inferior Clergy and the Laity. What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual, I have already twice explicated; and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them, and because no regiment can be without coërtion, therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes, and coërtion of persons. persons The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to do it. Can. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else, but by him that did so censure him, unless the BISHOP THAT CENSURED HIM be dead. The same is repeated in the Nicene Council; Can. 5. only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of BISHOPS, si fortè aliquâ indignatione, aut contentione, aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui, excommunicati sint, if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion; and when the Synod is met, hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones. But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum, so the Canon; ut ita demum hi qui ●b culpas suas EPISCOPORUM SUORUM OFFENSAS meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur, quousque in c●mmuni, vel IPSL ERISCOPO SUO UISUM FUERIT humaniorum circà eos ferre sententiam. The Synod of Bishops must ratify the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop, and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod, or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence. ** This Canon we see, relates to the Canon of the Apostles, and affixes the judicature of Priests, and Deacons to the Bishops: commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid: only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters, and Deacons particularly; so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocese and jurisdiction. The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop, Can. 59 call aid from a Synod in case a Clergyman prove refractory, and disobedient. Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione, vel potestate ad concordiam trahat, inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet. If the Bishop's reason will not end the controversies of Clergymen, his power must; but if any man list to be contentious, intimating (as I suppose out of the Nicene Council) with frivolous appeals, and impertinent protraction, the Synod [of Bishops] must condemn him, viz. for his disobeying his Bishop's sentence. * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair, intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the causes of a Bishop, and the other of Priests, and Deacons. Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod (viz. of Bishops, according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon) or a PRIEST, OR DEACON BY HIS OWN BISHOP, if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution. But here we see that the ordinary judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops; but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone: And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omnimodò in the next Canon; Si quis Presbyter, vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo .... privatim congregationem effecerit, & altar erexerit, & Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere, nec morem gerere primò & secundò vocanti, hic damnetur omni modo .... Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare, & sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur. What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first, or second Summons, let him be deposed, and if he shall persist to disturb the Church, let him be given over to the secular powers. * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c: If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop &c: as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles. The Result of these Sanctions is this. The Bishop is the judge: the Bishop is to inflict censures; the Presbyters, and Deacons are either to obey, or to be deposed: No greater evidence in the world of a Superior jurisdiction, and this established by all the power they had; and this did extend, not only to the Clergy, but to the Laity; for that's the close of the Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This constitution is concerning the Laity, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and all that are within the rule, viz: that if their Bishop have sequestered them from the holy Communion, they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere. But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS, The Bishop's Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man, let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to SECULAR COURTS, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But first le● the cause be examined before their own BISHOP, or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church. Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminal, but also the civil causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop, under pain of the Canon. * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis, exactly of the same Spirit, the same injunction, and almost the same words with the former Canons. Hosius the Precedent said; Can. 13, & 14. If any Deacon, or Priest, or of the inferior Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, knowing him to be excommunicated by his own BISHOP, that other Bishop, must by no means receive him into his communion. Thus far we have matter of public right, and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary judge of the causes, and perso●s of Clergy men; and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy, and the Laity. And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolicall-Canons, of the General Counsels of Nice, and of Chalcedon, of the Counsels of Antioch, of Sardis, of Carthage; than it is evident, that the Bishop is the Ordinary judge in all matters of Spiritual cognisance, and hath power of censures, and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction. This thing only by the way; in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts. For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches, and in some time's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Ignatius calls them; counsellors and assessors with the Bishop; yet the power, and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop, and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery: but of this hereafter more particularly. * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice, and dogmatic resolution. S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause; because he, if any man, hath given all deuce to the College of Presbyters: and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop, and that absolutely, and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery, we are all well enough, and without suspicion. * Diù patientiam meam tenui (Fratres Charissimi) saith he, Epist. 10. writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church. He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent▪ and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy, and people of his Diocese, yet he also must assert his own privileges, and peculiar. Quod enim non periculam metuere debemus de offensâ Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci 〈◊〉 memores, ●ed neque futurum Domini judicium, neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumeliâ & contemtu Praeposititotum sibi vendicent. The matter was, that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon; and this was done without the Bishop's leave, by the Presbyters [Forgetting their own place and the GOSPEL and their BISHOP set over them] a thing that was never heard of, till that time. Totum sibi vendicabant, They that might do nothing without the Bishop's leave, yet did this whole affair of their own heads. Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself, by his own authority alone, suspends them till his return, and so shows that his authority was independent, theirs was not, and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him, in the presence of the Confessors, and all the people. Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offer, acturi & apud nos, & apud Confessores ipsos, & apud plebem Vniversam causam suam. * Hear it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters, by his own authority, in absence from his Church, and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See. But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate; saying, they ought to have asked the Bishop's leave, Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est, for so was the Catholic custom ever, that nothing should be done without the Bishop's leave; but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment, Epist. 1●. and dishonour the Bishop. Yea, but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi, and they seldom were discountenanced in their requests. What should the Presbyters do in this ca●e● S. Cyprian tells them, writing to the Confessors. Petitiones itaque, & desideria vestra EPISCOPO servant. Let them keep your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of. But they did not, Epist. 12. therefore he suspended them, because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui, & cathedrae; Preserve the honour of the Bishop's chair, and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishop's leave. The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair; Epist. 65. for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop, he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Archbishop, and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him, cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE, & CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ possess de illo statim vindicari; When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy. The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question, and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction, the sum whereof is in this encouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian; Fungaris circa cum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas. Exercise the power of your honour upon him, and either suspend him, or depose him. * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatic from the Church, Epist. 55. vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority, as becomes a Bishop, Socrates telling of the promotion, and qualities of S. john chrysostom, Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. says, that in reforming the lives of the Clergy, he was too fastuous and severe. Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae, erat plurimis ex●sus, & veluti furiosum universi declinabant. He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy, that he was hated by them, which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction, and authority over them; for tyranny is the excess of power, & authority is the subject matter of rigour, and austerity. But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio, nunquam poteris, â Episcope, hos corrigere, nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos. Thou canst not amend the Clergy unless thou strikest them all with thy Pastoral rod. S. john Chrystome did not indeed do so, but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis. He deprived, and suspended most of the Clergy men for divers causes: and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him; for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him. * But here we see that the power of censures was clearly, and only in the Bishop, for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy, [Vniversos;] And he did actually suspend most of them, [plurimos:] and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should join with their Bishop to suspend themselves. Ibid. cap. 4. Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that chrysostom entreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church, quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eas ad tomplum prohibebat accedere, ALL them that transgressed the Canons he forbade them entrance into the Church. *** Thus S. Hierome to Riparius, Advers. Vigilant. Epist. 53. Miror sanctum Episcopum, in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur, acquiescere furori ejus, & non virgâ APOSTOLICA, virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat. I wonder (saith he) that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius, and does not break him with his APOSTOLICAL rod, that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishop's Pastoral staff is of fair power and coërtion. The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians, is full and mighty in asserting the Bishop's power over the Laity, and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy, where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian▪ Palladius would have declined the judgement of the Bishops, for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity. But S. Ambrose said, Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent, non Laici de Sacerdotibus. Bishop's must judge of the Laity, not the Laity of Bishops. That's for the jus; and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council; S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave sentence [Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio, & carendum, & in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur.] * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople deposed, Eusebius giving sentence, Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9 and chose Basilius in his Room. * But their Grandfather was served no better. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse. Tripart. hist. lib. 1. c. 12. So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator, prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus, & consilijs nitebatur. cum verò eum superbire vidisset, & apertè impietatis facinora praedicare, ex ordine Sacerdotali removit. The Bishop first admonished the heretic, but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function. This crime indeed deserved it highly. It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter, viz. for a personal misdemeanour, and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum, Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397. and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi, to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him. statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodu●, qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia & multa congesserat, & frequentibus ●um contumeliis provocaverat .... propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus, ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius, in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio. His restitution was therefore left in his power, because originally his censure was. * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laic in the same Council, qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus, who was punished by Triferius the Bishop▪ hoc ei humanitate Concilii reservato, at ipse Triferius in potestate habeat, quando voluerit ei relaxare. Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laic, and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest, and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council, and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too, which indeed was an act of favour; for they having complained to the Council, by the Council might have been absolved, but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power. These are particular instances, and made public by acts conciliary intervening. But it was the General Canon and Law of H. Church. Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho. Cap. 2▪ Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur. Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops, according at the order of their dignity allows. I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop, under a Canonical penalty; and so go on ad alia. In the second Council of Carthage, Ca 8. Alypius Episcopus dixit, nee illud praetermittendum est, ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus, aut excommunicatus, rumore vel superbiâ inflatus, putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda, vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit, non exeat impunitus. And the same is repeated in the Greek Code of the African Canons. Can. 10. If any Presbyter being excommunicated, or otherwise punished by his Bishop, shall not desist, but contest with his Bishop, let him by no means go unpunished. Act. 4. can. 83. * The like is in the Council of Chalcedon, the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch, and of the Apostles. Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione. But Carosus the Archimandrite spoke home in that action. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptised I know, Other faith I know not. They are Bishops; They have power to excommunicate and condemn, and they have power to do what they please: other faith then this I know none. * This is to purpose, and it was in one of the four great Counsels or Christendom which all ages since have received, with all veneration and devout estimate. Another of them was that of Ephesus convened against Nestorius, Concil. Ephes. c. 5. and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 remain vigorous and confirmed. Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation, which indeed of itself is clear enough in the Canon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence you have learned 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, lest their infection scatter, C●p. 15. de co●rept. & gratoâ. so S. Austin. * And therefore the fourth Council 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 Catholic doctrine, to be punished in secular tribunals;) For Excommunication is called by the Father's Mucro Episcopalis, the Bishop's sword to cut offenders off from the Catholic communion. I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Au●tin, which doth freely attest both the preceptive, 〈…〉 power of the Bishop over his whole 〈◊〉 Ergo praecipiant tantummodò nobis quid facere debeiamus qui nobis praesunt, & faciamus orent pro nobis, non autem nos corripiant, & arguant, si non fecerimus. Imó omnia fiant, quoniam Doct●res Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant, & praecipiebant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fierent etc. And again; Cap. 15. ibid. Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus, pro culparum 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 Diocese, and to punish the disobedient, and of excommunication by way of proper Ministry, [damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium] a condemnation of the Bishop's infliction. Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom, by the Canons of three General Counsels, and divers other Provincial, which are made Catholic by adoption, and inserting them into the Code of the Catholic Church, that the Bishop was judge of his Clergy, and of the Lay-people of his Diocese; that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency; that his censures were firm and valid; and as yet we find no Presbyters joining either in commission, or fact▪ in power, or exercise: but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatched by them, either in full Council, if it was a Bishop's cause, or in his own Consistory, if it was the cause of a Priest, or the inferior Clergy, or a Laic, unless in cases of appeal, and then it was in plen● Concilio Episcoporum, in a Synod of Bishops; And all this was confirmed by secular authority, as appears in the Imperial 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 Bishop's cognisance. And secondly of Persons. The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishop's power in Cognition causarum speak in most large, and comprehensive terms. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They have power to do what they list. Their power is as large as their will. So the Council of Chalcedon before cited. It was no larger though, then S. Paul's expression, [for to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, 2. Corinth. 2. 9 whether ye be obedient IN ALL THINGS.] A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so the stile of the Church run in descension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Ignatius, ye must do NOTHING without your BISHOP, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vbi suprà. to contradict him in NOTHING. The expression is frequent in him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to comprehend all things in his judgement, or cognisance, so the Council of Antioch. Ca 9 * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam, so S. Ignatius expresses himself. Ye must without your Bishop do nothing; nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Council of Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The things of the Church, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is entrusted. They are Ecclesiastical persons, it is an Ecclesiastical power they are endowed with, it is for a spiritual end, viz the regiment of the Church, and the good of souls, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognisance. And what things are those? 1. Then, it is certain that since Christ hath pro●essed, his Kingdom is not of this world, that government which he hath constituted the novo does no way in the world make any entrenchment upon the Royalty. Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times? Non cripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia. So the Church used to sing. Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognisance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are; all actions civil, all public violations of justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Princes and commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae; but then when it is once indulged, that act which does annul such pious vows, is just contrary to that religion which first gave them, and then unless there was sin 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 its new distinctive Principles. I say, by its new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the laws of nature, there the secular tribunal 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 republic) hath introduced 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 inferior Clergy to their Superior, censures, irregularities, Orders hierarchical, rites and ceremonies, liturgyes, and public forms 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 derived to all Churches of Christendom) and all such things as are in immediate dependence 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 credita, multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere. He that is entrusted with our precious souls, may much more be entrusted with the offertoryes of faithful people. 3. There are some things of a mixed nature; and something of the secular interest, and something of the Ecclesiastical concur to their constitution, and these are of double cognisance: the secular power, and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them. Such are the delinquencyes of Clergymen, who are both Clergy, and subjects too; Clerus Domini, and Regis subditi; and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal 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 special duty to his Bishop, therefore the Bishop also may punish him; And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty, the Bishop also may impose a censure, for every sin of a Clergyman 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 several 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 several ages, upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience, and attendance upon such solemnities. 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth, and is a capacity superadded to it, therefore those things which are of mixed cognisance are chiefly in the King; The Supremacy here is his, and so it is in all things of this nature, which are called [Ecclesiastical] because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae, ad finem religionis, but they are of a different nature, and use from things [Spiritual] because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduced the integro, and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity, for such things only, are properly spiritual. 5. The Bishop's jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only, viz. infliction of censures by excommunications, or other minores plagae which are in order to it. But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God, and their favour to the Church, is assisted by the secular arm, either superadding a temporal 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, Episcopal jurisdiction hath a double part; an external, and an internal; this is derived from Christ, that from the King, which because it is concurrent in all acts of jurisdiction, therefore it is, that the King is supreme of the jurisdiction, viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory. * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor, or his Perfect, or any man of consular dignity sit judge when the Question is of Faith, not that the Perfect was to judge of that, or that the Bishops were not; But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretic who would not submit to the power of the Church, but flew to the secular power for assistance, hoping by taking sanctuary there, to engage 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 Perfect, Tripart. hist. lib. 5. c. 35. Constantius being Emperor. For, all that the Perfect did, or the Emperor in this case, was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties, and to encourage the Catholics; but the precise act of judicature even in this case was in the Bishops, for they deposed Aëtius for his heresy, for all his confident appeal, and Macedonius, Eleusius, Basilius, Ortasius, and Dracontius for personal delinquencyes. * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution, and assertion of S. Ambrose, who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges, though Delegates of the Emperor. S. Ambros. Epist. lib. 2. Epist. 13. Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse? When was it ever known that Laymen in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop? To be sure, it was not in the case of Honoratus the Perfect; for if they had appealed to him, or to his Master Constantius for judgement of the Article, and not for encouragement and secular assistance, S. Ambrose his confident Question of [Quando audisti?] had quickly been answered, even with saying; presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius, and Honoratus. * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia, because he refused to answer, except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity. And it is observable that the Arians were the first (and indeed they offered at it often) that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith, for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial, hoped to engage the Emperor on their party, by making him Umpire. But the Catholic Bishops made humble, and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers, and jurisdictions; and as they might not entrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior jurisdiction and power. It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripoli in Lydia, In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a man so famous and exemplary, that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did preside amongst the Bishops, and undertook to determine causes of mere spiritual cognisance, instead of a Placet, he gave this answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature, meddlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops. The MILITIA, and the POLITI● are thine, but matters of FAITH, and SPIRIT, are of EPISCOPAL cognisance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such was the freedom of the ingenuaus L●●ntius. Answerable to which, was that Christian and fair acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bythinia & the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him, ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interest, that he would be pleased to mend the Article. Respondens Valentinianus, ait, Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari. Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur ubi voluerint. Cumque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi. hist. tripart. lib. 7. c. 12. So Sozomen reports the story. The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith, but referred the deliberation, and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertain; Upon which intimation given, the Bishops convened in Lampsacum. And thus a double power met in the Bishops. A divine right to decide the article. Mihi fas non est, (saith the Emperor) it is not lawful for me to meddle; And then a right from the Emperor to assemble, for he gave them leave to call a Council. These are two distinct powers, One from Christ, the other from the Prince. *** And now upon this occasion, I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration, The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their dioceses; all, (I mean) in the sense above explicated; they have power to inflict censures, excommunication is the highest, the rest are parts of it, and in order to it. Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of, or may not the secular power find our some external compulsory in stead of it, and forbid the Church to use excommunication, in certain 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 she is not, the Church cannot receive power to put men to death, or to inflict lesser pains in order to it, or any thing above a salutary penance, I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunall, than they give the Church what she 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 Clergymen. A Court of life and death, cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal; and than if any man, or company of Men should persuade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents, in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them, and pretend to give her another compulsory; they take away the Church-consistory, and erect a very secular Court, dependant on themselves, and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves, and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for. * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power, is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat, he betrays the individual, and inseparable right of holy Church. For her censures she may inflict upon her delinquent children without ask leave. Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that, he is her warrant and security. The other is begged, or borrowed, none of her own, nor of a fit edge to be us'd in her abscissions, and coërtions. * Can. 39 I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church, and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God, to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocese. The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is judge? And because our Scene lies here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair, and leave it under that representation. Presbyters, and Deacons, and inferior Clerks, and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons; No man there, was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge. And all Christ's sheep hear his voice, and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers. * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of milan, the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop, Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Set such an one in the archiepiscopal throne, that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him, viz: in matters of spiritual import. * And since all power is derived from Christ, who is a King, and a Priest, and a Prophet, Christian Kings are Christi Domini, and Vicars in his Regal power, but Bishops in his Sacerdotal, and Prophetical. * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church, ever since his Kingdom became Christian, and it consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment, and cure of souls, and in these also, all the external compulsory and jurisdiction in his own. For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects, himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler, and in both capacities he is to rule, viz: both as Subjects, and as Christian Subjects, except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority. And therefore the Kingdom, and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities. For superiority is usually expressed in three words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Excellency, Empery, and Power. The King is supreme to the Bishop in Empery; The Bishop hath an Excellency, viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King; but in Power, both King, and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacity; the King in potentiâ gladii, the Bishop in potestate clavium. The Sword, and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power. Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus, Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetà gloriosius, Pontifice clarius, Rege sublimius? King, and Priest, and Prophet, are in their several excellencies, the Highest powers under heaven. *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity, which might seem to make entrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives; were not both the piety, and sense of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience. * Epist. ad Philadelph. And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr, and disciple of the Apostles: Diaconi, & reliquus Clerus, unà cum populo Vniverso, Militibus, Principibus, & Caesare, ipsi Episcopo pareant. Let the Deacons and all the Clergy, and all the people, the Soldiers, the Princes, and Caesar himself obey the Bishop. * Lib. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2. This is it, which S. Ambrose said; Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati, erit inferius etc. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine, that most blessed Prince, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit, de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari, [viz. saecularibus, Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. c. ●. and in causis simplicis religionis.] So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers. It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocese to the Arians. His answer was, that Palaces belonged to the Emperor, but Churches to the Bishop; and so they did, by all the laws of Christendom. The like was in the case of S. Athanasius, and Constantius the Emperor, exactly the same per omnia, as it is related by Ruffinus. Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. cap. 19 * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor, to desire him to go forth of the Cancelli, in his Church at Milan, shows that then the powers were so distinct, that they made no entrenchment upon each other. * It was no greater power, but a more considerable act, and higher exercise, the forbidding the communion to Theodosius, Theodor. lib. 5. c. 18. till he had by repentance, washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica. It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor, and resolution and authority in the Bishop. But he was not the first that did it; For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod, and the severity of the Bishop. Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. De hoc traditum est nobis, quod Christianus fuerit, & in die Paschae, i.e. in ipsis vigiliis cum interest voluërit, & communicare mysteriis, ab Episcopo loci non prius esse permissum, nisi confiteretur peccata, & inter poenitentes staret, nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi prius per poenitentiam, culpas que de eo ferebantur plurimae, deluisset. The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had washed away his sins by repentance. And the Emperor did so. Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat, suscepisse. He did it willingly, undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop. I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments entirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministry. Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. It was S. Chrysostom's command to his Presbyters, to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion. If he be a Captain, a Consul, or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily, forbid him and keep him off, thy power is greater than his. If thou darest not remove him, tell it me, I will not suffer it, etc. And had there never been more error 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 scandal or danger to herself, 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 deliver over to Satan, so now, shall be deliver over to a foreign enemy, or the people's rage; as then, to be buffeted, so now to be deposed, or disinterest in the allegiance of subjects; in these cases, excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorised, and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution, but to an end of private designs, and rebellious interest, Bishops have no power of such censures, not is it lawful to inflict them, 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. Si habet sed ibi [Princeps] non inseritur, sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ. but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss 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 Catholic 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 souls, such a power, quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, yet it hath its limits, and a proper cognisance, viz. things spiritual, and the emergencies, and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced the novo, and superadded, as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth; And this I the rather noted, to show how those men would mend themselves that cry down 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 sins directly, or by reduction. Vide the book of Order of Excomm. in Scotland. & the Hist. of Scotland. Admonit. 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England. * [All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death.] There they bring in Murders, Treasons, Witchcrafts, Felonies. Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of [Scandalous and offensive] Nay [Quodvis peccatum,] saith Snecanus, to which if we add this consideration, that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of adamnable sin, there is nothing in the world, good or bad, vicious or suspicious; scandalous, or criminal; true, or imaginary; real actions, or personal, in all which, and in all contestations, and complaints one party is delinquent, either by false accusation, or real injury; but they comprehend in their vast gripe, and then they have power to nullify all Courts, and judicatories, besides their own: and being, for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution, there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory, no appeal from them, but they shall hear, and determine with final resolution, and it will be sin, and therefore punishable, to complain of injustice and illegality. * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy, and the Modesty of their several demands, and the reasonableness, and divinity of each vindication examined, I suppose, were there nothing but prudential motives to be put into balance to weigh down this Question, the cause would soon be determined, and the little finger of Presbytery, not only in its exemplary, and tried practices, but in its dogmatic pretensions, is heavier than the loins, nay then the whole body of Episcopacy; but it seldom happens otherwise, but that they who usurp a power, prove tyrants in the execution, whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate. BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal jurisdiction. § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal licence, 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 licence from the Bishop. They had power and capacity by their order to Preach, to Minister, to Offer, to Reconcile, and to Baptise. They were indeed acts of order, but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts, without licence from the Bishop, that is an act or issue of jurisdiction, and shows the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters, by the practice of Christendom. 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 lawful without the Bishop (viz. without his leave) either to baptise, 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 general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishop's 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 do not here dispute the matter of right, and whether or no the Presbyters might the jure do any offices without Episcopal licence, but whether or no the 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 public disadvantages of state and fortune, when they anchored only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience, that then they should have thoughts ambitious, encroaching, of usurpation and advantages, of purpose to divest their Brethren of an authority entrusted them by Christ, and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution, and was not, as since it hath been, attested with secular assistance, and fair arguments of honour, but was only in a mere spiritual estimate, and ten thousand real disadvantages. This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men. But however. Valeat quantum val●●e potest. The question is now of matter of fact, and if the Church of Martyrs, and the Church of Saints, and Doctors, and Confessors now regnant in heaven, be fair precedents for practices of Christianity, we build upon a rock, though we had digged no deeper than this foundation of Catholic practice. Upon the hopes of these advantages, Can. Apost. 32 I proceed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart, or erect an altar (viz. without the Bishop's licence) let him be deposed; clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem, the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies, for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop; and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is a lover of Rule, he is a Tyrant, that is, an usurper of that power & government which belongs to the Bishop. The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch, Ca 5. Act. 4. and in the Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All the most Reverend Bishops cried out, this is a righteous law, this is the Canon of the holy Fathers. [This] viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited. De baptism. * Tertullian is something more particular, and instances in Baptism. Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est; alioquin etiam Laicis jus est. The place is of great consideration, and carries in it its own objection and its answer. The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism. Then after him, Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the authority of the Bishop. (So far the testimony is clear) and this is for the honour of the Church. * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution, and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance? No indeed. It does not. For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesia; and no harm done. For it is honourable for the Church, that her Ministrations should be most ordinate, and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate. But the next words do of themselves make answer, [Otherwise lay-men have right to baptise] That is, without the consent of the Bishop Laymen can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons. For indeed baptism conferred by Laymen is valid and not to be repeated, but yet they ought not to administer it, so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishop's licence: so says Tertullian, let him answer it. Only the difference is this, Laymen cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptise any; Presbyters and Deacons may, for their order is a capacity or possibility. ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism, De coronâ milit▪ c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom. 11. in 1. Tim. & S. Hieron. dial. adv. Lucifer. Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quam Praesidentium sumimus. The former place will expound this, if there be any scruple in [Praesidentium] for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops. I suppose he means [without Episcopal licence.] whatsoever his meaning is, these are his words. The Council of Gangra, Can. 6. forbidding conventicles, expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority. If any man shall make assemblies privately, & out of the Church, so despising the Chutch, or shall do any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the presence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP, let him be anathema. The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishop's licence. If they will celebrate Synaxes privately, it must be by a Priest, and he must be there by leave of the Bishop, & then the assembly is lawful. * And this thing was so known, that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to do their offices without a licence from the Bishop. Ca 9 Numidiu● Episcopus Massilytanus dixit, In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr, aut dissimulantes audactèr, praesente, & inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domicilijs agunt agenda, quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra. In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices (houseling of people is the office meant, communicating them at home) without the consent or leave of the Bishop, being either simply ignorant, or boldly dissembling; Implying, that they could not else but know their duties to be, to procure Episcopal licence for their ministrations. Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est. Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco v●luërit celebrare, ipse honroi suo contrarius existit. All the Bishops said, if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries, be the place what it will be, he is an Enemy to the Bishop's dignity. After this in time, but before in authority is the great Council of Chalcedon. Can. 8. part. 2. Act. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers, remain under the power of the Bishops of the City. So that they are for their offices in dependence of the authority of the Bishop. The Canon instances particularly to Priest's officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals, but extends itself to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They must not descent or differ from their Bishop. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c: All they that transgress this Constitution in ANY WAY, not submitting to their Bishop, let them be punished canonically. So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Understood according to the exigence of the matter, to wit, the Ministeries of the Clergy in their several offices, the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishop's authority. But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church, we have good witness for it; S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author. Epist. 86. Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire, nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere, aut signare, nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare, nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corpor is & Sanguinis Christi conficere, nec eo coràm posito populum docere, vel benedicere etc. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery, nor to baptise any Catechumen, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood in the presencè of the Bishop without his command. From this place of S. Leo, if it be set in conjunction with the precedent, we have fair evidence of this whole particular. It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishop's leave; So S. Ignatius, so the Canons of the Apostles, so Tertullian, so the Counsels of Antioch and Chalcedon. It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishop's presence without leave, so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joins 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 do by Gratian, dist. 95. cap. Ecce ego. Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo, dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God, let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ, viz: whose command it is, that Presbyters should preach. Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave? might not Presbyters do their duty without a licence? 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 diocese, he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge, he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock, so the Canon of the 1 Can. 40. Apostles, so 2 Epist. ad Ephes. Ignatius, so the Council of 3 Cap. 24. Antioch, so every where; The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis, but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocese 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 administering Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixed. And therefore it is, that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishop's leave, because they are actions of relation, and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administered, 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 baptise unless he have a Chrism Child, or a Catechumen; So that all of the Diocese being the Bishop's charge, the Bishop must either authorise the Priest, or the Priest must not meddle, lest he be (what S. Peter blamed) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishop in another's Diocese: Not that the Bishop did licence the acts precisely of baptising, of consecrating etc. For these he had by his oxdination, but that in giving licence 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 diocese to his administration cum curâ animarum. But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocese is in the Bishop, he cannot exonerate himself of it, for it is a burden of Christ's imposing, or it is not imposed at all, therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest 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 Diocese, so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocese, 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 do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocese, therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate, himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision; yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocese, there he being present might do any office, because it was in his own charge, which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himself of it; And therefore praesente Episcopo (saith the Council of Carthage, and S. Leo) if the Bishop be present, the Presbyter without leave might not officiate; For he had no subjects of his own, but by trust and delegation, and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishop's absence, who could not simul omnibus interest, but then, where he was present, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorbed in the greater, and so without leave might not be exercised; like the stars which in the noon day have their own natural light, as much as in the night, but appear not, shine not in the presence of the Sun. This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presbyters, who (as the Council of Carthag's expression is) are contr●rii honort Episcopali; but yet if we keep ourselves in our own form, where God hath placed us, and where we were in the Primitive Church, we 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 lawful to baptise, to consecrate] etc. So Ignatius. The prohibition is without limit. But in descent of the Church it runs, [praesente Episcopo] the Bishop being present they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same original, to wit, the Universality of the Bishop's jurisdiction, but the reason of the difference of expression is this. At first Presbyters were in Cities with the Bishop, and no parishes at all concredited to them. The Bishops lived in Cities, the Presbyters preached and offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them. Here they had no ordinary charge, and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely, they must not do any clerical offices sine Episcopo, unless the Bishop sends them. But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct, and the Presbyters fixed upon ordinary charges, than it was only, praesente Episcopo, if the Bishop was present, they might not officiate without leave. For in his absence they might do it, I do not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence; as it is to this day, when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge, he also gives power hoc ipso, of officiating in that place. So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions, than they were to have leave, but this licence was also temporary; but when they were fixed upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum, and that was done in subsidium Muneres Episcopalis, because it was that part of the Bishop's charge, which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices, and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter, but if he was present, a new leave was necessary, because as the power always was in the Bishop, so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person, himself if he listed, might officiate. All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin, of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter, Valerius the Bishop being a Greek borne, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for public orations, eidem Presbytero (viz. to Austin) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi, ac frequentissimè tractandi contra. USUM quidem, & CONSUETUDINEM Africanarum Ecclesiarum. He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter, to preach in the Church, even while himself was present, indeed against the USE and CUSTOM of the African Churches. And for this act of his he suffered sound in his report. * For the case was thus. In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy, the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter, that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all, at least in the Mother Church, and in the Bishop's presence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Socrates.) Lib. 5. c. 22. Thence came this Custom in the African Churches. But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able, and himself for want of Latin so unfit, he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the Custom of the African Churches. But he adds this reason for his excuse too; it was not indeed the custom of Africa, but it was of the Oriental Churches. For so Possidonius proceeds, sed & ille vir venerabilis, ac providus, in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens, in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach, dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat, which determines us fully in the business. For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices, which shows the Presbyters in their several charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixed residence, to be but Delegates, and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocese. Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome, Ad Rustic. Narbon. dist. 95. can. Ecce ego. and it is recorded by Gratian, Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis, atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Behold, I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop. So Gratian quotes it indeed, but S. Hierome says the express contrary, unless we all have false copies. For in S. Hierome it is not [Ecce ego dico] but [Nec ego dico.] He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop. Indeed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach, nor to bless etc. This, perhaps it was not well done, but this makes not against the former discourse; for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave, the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplication of Christians, and Parishes, yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishop's leave, for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus, to show he did amiss, because he would not give his Presbyters licence. * And this he also reprehends in his epistle ad Nepotianum, Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui. That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop, that was an ill custom, to wit, as things than stood, and it was mended presently after, for Presbyters did preach in the Bishop's presence, but it was by licence from their Ordinary. For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned, Posteà currente & volante hujusmodi famâ, bono praecedente exemplo, ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis, populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei. By occasion of this precedent it came to pass, that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishop's presence, having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do. And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Council of Vase. ●an. 12. Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome, let him then first be reconciled to himself, and then we are sure to be helped. For in his dialogue against the Luciferians, his words are these, Cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes. Ind venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. Because the Bishop hath an eminent power, and this power is necessary, thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptise without the Bishop's leave. ** This whole discourse shows clearly not only the Bishops to be superior in jurisdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicarage. § 38. Reserving Church goods to Episcopal dispensation, ** DIvers other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishop's jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons, as, that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishop's sole disposing, and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards, at the Bishops. So it is in the 41. Canon of the Apostles, so it is in the Council of Gangra, and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation, without express delegation from the Bishop, as appears in the seventh and eight Canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council. * And therefore when in success of time, some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop; of this the third Council of Toledo complains, An. Do●. 589. and makes remedy, commanding, ut omnia SECUNDUM CONSTITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM, ad Episcopi ordinationem & potestatem pertineant. The same is reniewed in the fourth Council of Toledo. Cap. 32. Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt, nullam se potestatem habere, SED JUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA, sicut Ecclesiam, ita & dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere. These Counsels I produce not as judges, but as witnesses in the business, for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church itself, so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishop's disposition by the Ancient Canons. For so the third Council of Toledo calls it, antiquam Constitutionem, and itself 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. Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem. For so it was determined in the great Council 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. justini Martyris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop. Add to this, that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocese. § 39 Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocese, or to travel without leave of the Bishop. So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, under pain of suspension or deposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure; and that especially, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he would not return when his Bishop calls him. The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch, cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, cap. 17. the censure there is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fix● himself in the Diocese of another Bishop. But with licence of his Bishop, he may. Sacerdotes, vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare. Vide Concil. Epaun. c. 5. & venet. c. 10. But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodall decrees, these may suffice for this instance. * But this not leaving the Diocese is not only meant of promotion in another Church, but Clergy men might not travail from City to City, without the Bishop's licence; which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico, but extends it almost to a despotic; But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty, and clerical subordination to their Bishop. Can. 41. The Council of La●dicea commands a Priest, or Clergy man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to travail without Canonical, 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 Clerk must not travail without the command of his Bishop; and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law, de consecrat. didst 5. can. non oportet, which puts in the clause of [Neque etiam Laicum,] but this was beyond the Council, The same is in the Council of a Can. 38. Agatho. The Council of b Can. 5. Venice adds a censure, that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went, without letters of licence from their Bishop. The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum, Can. 6. Presbytero, vel Diacono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat. The first Council of Tourayne in France, and the third Council of Orleans attest the self same power in the Bishop, and duty in all his Clergy. BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete jurisdiction, § 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased, unless it be also remunerative, & [the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors] for it is but half a tye to endear obedience, when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit, that which cannot profit. And therefore the primitive Church, to make the Episcopal jurisdiction up entire, gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocese to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself, 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. Can. 31. So it is decreed in the African Code, They that will not by their by Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour in the Church, must not enjoy what they have already. But it is a question of great consideration, and worth a strict inquiry, in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church: for the right and the power did not always go together, and also several Orders had several 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 several 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 certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that [Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church] and [they passed through Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appointing them Elders. * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and he says of himself 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 ordained them no man questions, but he also APPOINTED THEM, 1. Titus. V: 5. and that was, saith S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I commanded thee. It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance, that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS. Let there be half so much shown for the people, and I will also endeavour to promote their interest. **** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture; It is of the seven that were set over the widows. * But first, this was no part of the hierarchy: This was no cure of souls: This was no divine institution: It was in the dispensation of monies: it was by command of the Apostles the election was made, and they might recede from their own right: it was to satisfy the multitude: it was to avoid scandal, which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise: it was in a temporary office: it was with such limitations, and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them: it was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made, if we may believe S. Epiphanus, so that they were Presbyters before this choice: and lastly, it was only a Nomination of seven Men, the determination of the business, and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles, and indeed the whole power [Whom WE MAY APPOINT over this business] & after all this, there can be no hurt done by the objection, especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops, and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Ignatius of Evodias; Evodias was first APPOINTED to be your Governor, or Bishop, Epist. ad Antioch. by the APOSTLES) and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops, as in the instances before reckoned. Thus the case stood in Scripture. 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law, and practise Apostolical. The People did not, might not choose the Ministers of holy Church. Gan. 13. So the Council of Laodicea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The people must not choose those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood. The prohibition extends to their Nonelection of all the Superior Clergy, Bishops and Presbyters. But who then must elect them? The Council of Nice determines that, for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made, but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained, which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining, or promoting all his Clergy. * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone, (as I have already proved.) Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom, that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge, which was always custom, and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon, and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chooser; for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge; and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance, but part of the Bishop's cure, for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the care of the Churches in all the Diocese; as I have already shown. And therefore when S. Jerome, according to the custom of Christendom, Epist. 61. & 62. had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops, as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus, and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus, Hieron. ad Nepotian. Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo, cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes, let the Bishop rejoice in his own act, having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop. lib. 1. offic. cap. 44. Haec spectet Sacerdos, & quod cuique congruat, id officij deputet. Let the Bishop observe these rules, and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity. And Theodoret reports of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch, Tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 32. how being an Arian, adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens, licèt turpem habentes vitam, ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem, & Diaconatûs evexit. Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur, & Apostolica dogmata defendebant, absque honore deseruit. He advanced his own faction, but would not promote any man that was Catholic and pious. So he did. The power therefore of clerical promotion was in his own hands. This thing is evident and notorious; And there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters, or people choosing any Priest, but only in the case of S. Austin whom the People's haste snatched, and carried him to their Bishop Valerius entreating him to ordain him Priest. This indeed is true, that the testimony of the people, for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required; In ordinandis Clericis (Fratres Charissimi) solemus vos ante consulere, lib. 1. Epist. 5. & mores, ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare. It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the public fame of Clerks to be ordained; It was usual (I say) with him, but not perpetual, for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus, and divers others, as I showed elsewhere. 4. In election of Bishops (though not of Priests) the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest, and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages, or public acclamations. But first; This was not necessary. It was otherwise among the Apostles, and in the case of Timothy, of Titus, of S. james, of S. Mark, and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several chairs. 2 lie. This was not by law, or right, but in fact only. It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council, and the 31th Canon of the Apostles, which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power. Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended. Epist. 68 Quando ipsa [plebs] maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere etc. Thus he is usually cited. The people have power to choose, or to refuse their Bishops, and this comes to them from Divine authority. No such matter. The following words expound him better, [Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut Sacerdos PLEBE PRAESENTE sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus, atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur: that the Bishop is chosen publicly, in the presence of the people, and he only be thought fit who is approved by public judgement, and testimony; or as S. Paul's phrase is [he must have a good report of all men] that is indeed a divine institution, and that to this purpose, and for the public attestation of the act of election and ordination the people's presence was required, appears clearly by S. Cyprian's discourse in this Epistle. For what is the divine authority that he mentions? It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and clothe him with his Father's robes coram omni Synagogâ, before all the congregation. The people chose not, God chose Eleazar, and Moses consecrated him, and the people stood, and looked on; that's all that this argument can supply. * Just thus Bishops are, and ever were ordained, non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ, in the sight of the people standing by; but to what end? Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. All this while the election is not in the people, nothing but the public testimony, and examination, for so it follows, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omnium suffragio, & judicio fuerit examinata. ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sense, or the truth of his assertion. The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons (but this we have already examined,) the other of S. Peter choosing S. Mathias into the Apostolate; it was indeed done in the presence of the people. * But here it is considerable that at this surrogation of S. Mathias the Number of the persons present was but 120, of which eleven were Apostles, and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters, they make up 83, and then there remains but 37 of the Laity, of which many were women, which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle, and whether they do or do not, the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices; so that let the worst come that is imaginable, the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy, whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided, and of a distinct, or disagreeing interest. * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will, yet all this whole business was miraculous, and extraordinary; For though the Apostles named two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation. And yet for all this, it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots. An non licebatipsi [Petro] eligere? licebat, & quidem maximè; verùm id non facit ●e cui videretur gratificari. Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs. For all, he had not as yet received the holy Ghost, yet he had power himself to have completed the election. homil. 3. in Act. So S. chrysostom. So that now, if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of public testimony, & extends it to a suffrage of formal choice, his proofs of the divine authority are invalid, there is no such thing can be deduced from thence, and then this is his complying so much with the people (which hath been the fault of many a good man) may be reckoned together with his rebaptisation. But truth is, he means no more than suffrage of testimony, viz: That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame, and approved of before God and all the people, and this is all the share they have in their election. * And so indeed himself sums up the whole business and tells us of another jus Divinum too. [Propter quod diligentèr de traditione Divinâ, & Apostolicâ observatione, observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque, & ferè apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur pl●be praesente que singuloram vitam plenissimè novit. It is most diligently to be observed, for there is a Divine tradition, and an Apostolical ordinance for it, and it is used by us and almost by all Churches, that all the Bishops of the Province assemble to the making of right ordinations, and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation.] So that the Bishops were to make the formal election, the people to give their judgement of approbation in this particular, and so much as concerned the exemplary piety, and good life of him that was to be their Bishop. Here we see in S. Cyprian is a jus Divinum for the Bishops choosing a Colleague, or a Brother- Bishop, as much as for the presence of the people, and yet the presence was all. And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony, yet the election was clearly in the Bishops, and that by Divine tradition, and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian; And thus it was in all Churches almost. In Africa this was, Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd. and so it continued till after S. Augustine's time, particularly in the choice of Eradius his successor. It was so in the Greek Church as S. chrysostom tells us. It was so in Spain, as S. † lib. 2. de offic. Isidore tells us; and in many other places, that the people should be present, and give acclamation, and tumultuary approbation; but to the formal election of the Clergy, made by enumeration of votes and subscription, the people never were admitted. 5. Although that in times of persecution, at first, and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetened, to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution, and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop, if they did, though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination, ne plebs invita Episcopum non optatum, aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quam convenit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit, (for so S. Leo expresses the cause) yet the formality, Epist. 84. c. 5. and right of proper election was in the Clergy, and often so practised without any consent at all, or intervening act of the people. The right, I say, was in the Bishops, so it was decreed in the Ni●ene Council, Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the BISHOPS of the province, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must be confirmed, and established by the METROPOLITAN. No Presbyters here all this while, no people. * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Counsels, where the Fathers degraded some Bishops, and themselves appointed others in their Rooms. * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus. In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt. They sent Basilius' Bishop in his room, Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9 saith Sozomen. * Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum, & consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus, (said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedom. Act. 11. ) Let Bassianus show that he was made BISHOP OF EPHESUS BY A SYNOD OF BISHOPS, and according to the accustomed Law. The Law I showed before, even the Nicene Canon. The fathers of which Council sent a Synodall Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, to tell them they had deposed Militius from the office of a Bishop, only left him the name, but took from him all power, Tripart. hist. lib. 2. cap. 12. nullam verò omnimodò habere potestatem, neque ELIGENDI, NEQUE ORDINANDI: etc. Neither suffering him to choose nor to ordain Clerks. It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary, placit●s sibi eligere, as the Epistle expresses it in the sequel, to choose whom they listed. But the Council deposed Melitius, and sent Alexander their Bishop, and Patriarch to rule the Church again. ** And particularly to come home to the ●ase of the present question, when Auxentius Bishop of Milan was dead, and the Bishops of the Province; and the Clergy of the Church, and the people of the City, were assembled at the choosing of another, Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5. the Emperor makes a speech to the Bishops only, that they should be careful in their choice. So that although the people were present, quibus profide, & religione etiam honor deferendus est (as S. Cyprians phrase is) to whom respect is to be had, and fair complyings to be used so long as they are pious, catholic, and obedient, yet both the right of electing, and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops, the people's interest did not arrive to one half of this. 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops, who chose their own successors; it will not be imagined the people will choose a Bishop over his head, and proclaim that they were weary of him. In those days they had more piety. * Agelius did so, he chose Sisinnius, and that it may appear it was without the people, they came about him, and entreated him to choose Marcian, to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor; he complied with them, and appointed Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen, to succeed Marcian. * Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21. Thus did Valerius choose his successor, S. Austin; for though the people named him for their Priest, and carried him to Valerius to take Orders, yet Valerius chose him Bishop. And this was usual; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as▪ Epiphanius expresses this case,) it was ordinary to do 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 says they always did so in Alexandria, from S. Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius. In Ephes. 4. * S. Ambrose says that at the first, the Bishop was not, by a formal new election promoted, but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat. As one died so the next signior did succeed him. In both these cases no mixture of the people's votes. 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day, and therefore to take it from the Clergy, in whom it always 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 people's suffrage (by way of testimony, I mean, and approbation) did concur with the Synod of Bishops▪ in the choice of a Bishop, the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot, angry, and tumultuous, and then were engaged by divisions in religion to Name a Bishop of their own sect; and to disgrace one another by public scandal, and contestation, and often grew up to Sedition, and Murder; and therefore although they were never admitted, (unless 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 learned to take denial, but began to obtrude whom they listed, to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked; 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 Council. Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur (understand him in the senses above explicated) Sed cum multae inde seditiones existerent, hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque 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 occasioned many seditions and tumults, the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province. And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain, and that six 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 choice of Simeon Cleophae, the Successor of S. james to the Bishopric of jerusalem, as Eusebius witnesses; lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. it was propter singularem honorem, an honorary, and extraordinary privilege indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us; and for that very reason Simeon himself 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 Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election, for they had no authority by Scripture to choose; by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper, even to a testimonial; and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon, quem cives elegerunt, Tripart. hist. lib. 10. c. 14. saith the story out of Sozomen, they chose him alone, (though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice) and then they behaved themselves oftentimes with so much insolency, partiality, faction, sedition, cruelty, and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it, above 1200 years agone. 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, vide dist. 63. per tot. Gratian. but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces. But I think I need not have troubled myself half so far, for they that strive to introduce a popular election, would as fain have Episcopacy out, as popularity of election let in. So that all this of popular election of Bishops, may seem superfluous. For I consider, that if the people's power of choosing Bishops be founded upon God's law, as some men pretend from S. Cyprian (not proving the thing from God's law, but God's law from S. Cyprian) than Bishops themselves must be by God's law: For surely God never gave them power to choose any man into that office which himself 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 right of Episcopacy. But for all their plundering, and confounding, their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary. IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops, § 41. Bishops only did Vote in Counsels and neither Presbyters, nor People. nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality. Now as I have shown that the Bishop of every Diocese did give laws to his own Church for particulars, so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholic Church, were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening, or concurrence of Presbyters, or any else for sentence and decision. The instances of this are just so many as there are Counsels. S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith, Epist. ad Solitar. si judicium Episcoporum est (saith he) quid cum eo commune habet Imperator? It is a judgement to be passed BY BISHOPS, (meaning the determination of the article,) and not proper for the Emperor. And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting Precedent in a Council, Quis enim videns eum IN DECERNENDO PRINCIPEM SE FACERE EPISCOPORUM, non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis? He that sits Precedent, makes himself chief of the Bishops, etc. intimating Bishops only to preside in Counsels, and to make decision. And therefore conventus Episcoporum, and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General, and Provincial Counsels. Bis in ann● Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur, said the 38th Canon of the Apostles; and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 7. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter, ob quam causam (saith Eusebius) conventus Episcoporum, lib. 5. cap. 23. & Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur. Where by the way, it is to be observable, that at first, even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops, and Presbyters had no interest in the decision; however we have of late sat so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies, that we have sat upon the Bishop's skirts. But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this. To them I leave it; And because the four general Counsels are the Precedents and chief of all the rest, I shall only instance in them for this particular. 1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice. These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons, for if there had been more, the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mystical number; proëm▪ in lib. de ●ide. Nam & Abraham trecentos decem & octo duxit ad bellum .... De Concilijs id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem & octo Sacerdotes .... velut trophaeum extulerunt, ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum, quod eodem numero in Concilijs, fidei habemus oraculum, quo in historiâ, pietatis exemplum. Well! 318 was the Number of the judges, the Nicene Fathers, and they were all Bishops, for so is the title of the subscriptions, Subscripserunt trecenti decem & octo EPISCOPI qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt; 13. whereof were Chorepiscopi, but not one Presbyter, save only that Vitus, and Vincentius subscribed as legates of the Bishop of Rome, but not by their own authority. 2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That's the title of the Canons. The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in C. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops. And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking, Imperator (saith he) nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium EPISCOPORUM convocat. lib: 5. cap. 8. Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter, and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader, and about some four or five more. * This only, amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus, Auxanon, Helladius, and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters. But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies; They were Bishops, saith the title of the Council, and the Oration, and the Canons, and Socrates; And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae, because before, johannes Apameensis subscribed, which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop, and the other but a Presbyter indeed, without a subterfuge of modesty, the titles distinguishes them. For john was Bishop in the Province of Caele Syria, and Auxanon of Apamea in ●isidia. 3. The third was the Council of Ephesus, Episcoporum plurium quam ducentorum, as is often said in the acts of the Council [of above 200 Bishops.] But no Presbyters, for, cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt, horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus. We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops, saith the Council; Epist. Synod. ad Clerum C. Ptanum. part. 2. act. 3. part. 1▪ c. 32. Vide §. 36. de simil. ferè quaestione in fine. and Theodosius junior, in his Epistle to the Synod, Illicitum est (saith he) eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus. It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops, to be interest in Ecclesiastical assemblies. 4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was, sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum, of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bythinia. But in all these assemblies, no mere Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop, and delegation of authority. And therefore when in this Council some Laics, and some Monks, and some Clergymen, not Bishops, would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force; si praeter nostram evocationem, aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur, who come without command of the Empress, or the Bishop's permission. Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist, to dispute, and to be present in all the action; And thus they often did suffer Abbots, or Archimandrites to be there, and to subscribe too, but that was praeter regulam, and by indulgence only, and condescension; Action. 1. Coxcil. Chalced. For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered, Non suum esse, sed Episcoporum tantùm subscribere, it belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Counsels. For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council, Mitte foras superfluos, Concilium Episcoporum est. But I need not more particular arguments, for till the Council of Basil, the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Counsels, and that Council we know savourd too much of the Schismatic, but before this Council, no example, no precedent of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Ecumenical, or Provincial Synods. Indeed to a Diocesan Synod, viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy, I find 32 Presbyters subscribing. This Synod was neither Ecumenical nor Provincial, but merely the Convocation of a Diocese. For here was but one Bishop, and some few Abbots, and 32 Presbyters. It was indeed no more than a visitation, or the calling of a Chapter, for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly, Concil. Ant●siodor. can. 7. ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent, that was their summons, & in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium: so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention, the greatest of them but Diocesan, and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis, or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council. For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise, and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresy, Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores; Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7. Quî namque fieri potest, ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus? Bishop's never receive determination of any article from Priests, but Priests do from Bishops, Epist. 3. pe● Ruffinum. Nam vestrum est eos instruere (saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishop's office and power over Priests and all the Clergy, and all the Diocese) eorum est vobis obedire, ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini. And a little after; Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet, & ab ipso suscicere doctrinam fidei, monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere. Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life, but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith. Against this if it be objected, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet, That which is of general concernment, must also be of general Scrutiny. I answer, it is true, unless where God himself hath entrusted the care of others in a body, as he hath in the Bishops, and will require the souls of his Diocese at his hand, and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths, Hebr. 13. 7. & 17. and to follow their faith, 1. Pet. 5. 2. whom he hath set over us. And therefore the determination of Counsels pertains to all, Act. 20. and is handled by all, not in diffusion but in representation. For, Ecclesia est in Episcopo, & Episcopus in Ecclesiâ, (saith S. Cyprian) the Church is in the Bishop (viz. Epist. 69. by representment) and the Bishop is in the Church (viz. as a Pilot in a ship, or a Master in a family, or rather as a steward, and Guardian to rule in his Master's absence) and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called (in Eusebius) conventus orbis terrarum, Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis. cap. 18. and by S. Austin, consensus totius Ecclesiae, not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons, but was there represented by the Catholic Bishops, and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all, I see no reason but the Ladies too, may vote in Counsels, for I doubt not, but they have souls too. But however, if this argument were concluding in itself, yet it loses its force in England, where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament, and yet in the capacity of Clergymen are allowed to choose neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy, nor Knights of the shire to represent us as Commons. * In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-judges, whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council (it was an old heretical trick.) Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam, Epist. 32. audiant cum populo, non ut QUIS QUAM JUDEX resideat, sed unu● quisque de suo affectu habeat examen, & eligat quem sequatur. So may Presbyters be present, so they may judge, not for others, but for themselves. And so may the people be present, and anciently were so; and therefore Counsels were always kept in open Churches, [ubi populus judicat] not for others, but for themselves, not by external sentence, but internal conviction, so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation. There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of jerusalem; where the Apostles, and ELDERS did meet together to DETERMINE of the question of circumcision. For although in the story of celebration of it, we find no man giving sentence but Peter, and james; yet in 16. Acts, they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decrees JUDGED by the Apostles, and Elders. But first, in this the difficulty is the less, because [Presbyter] was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors. And then secondly, it is none at all, because Paul, and Barnabas are signally, and by name reckoned as present in the Synod, and one of them Prolocutor, or else both. So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies. 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story, yet the Catholic practice of God's Church, is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty, or where any is pretended. And of this, I have already given account. * ay remember also that this place is pretended for the people's power of voicing in Counsels. It is a pretty pageant; only that it is against the Catholic practice of the Church, against the exigence of Scripture, which bids us require the law at the Mouth of our spiritual Rulers, against the gravity of such assemblies, for it would force them to be tumultuous, and at the best, are the worst of Sanctions, as being issues of popularity, and to sum up all, it is no way authorised by this first copy of Christian Counsels. The pretence is, in the Synodall * Acts 15. 23. letter written in the name of [the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren] that is, (says Geta,) The Apostles, and Presbyters, and People. But why not BRETHREN, that is, all the Deacons, and Evangelists, and Helpers in Government, and Ministers of the Churches? There is nothing either in words, or circumstances to contradict this. If it be asked who then are meant by Elders, if by [Brethren] S. Luke understands these Church officers? I answer, that here is such variety, that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders, and Brethren, yet here are enough to furnish both with variety, and yet neither to admit mere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word, nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question, nor authorising the decretal. For besides the twelve Apostles, there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters, and something more, as Paul and Barnabas, and Silas; and Evangelists, and Pastors besides, which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently. But however without any further trouble it is evident, that this word [Brethren] does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy. [Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto PETER, and to the rest of the APOSTLES, Men and BRETHREN what shall we do. judas and Silas who were Apostolical men, are called in Scripture, chief men among the BRETHREN. But this is too known, to need a contestation. I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the 8th Synod. De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus, quam qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo, quam quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere, neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae, & universali Synodo adversari. Laymen (says the Emperor) must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiastical, nor oppose themselves to the Catholic Church, or Counsels Ecumenical. They must not meddle, for these things appertain to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision. * And now after all this, what authority is equal to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lib. 4. polit. ●. 15. (saith Aristotle▪) They are all evidences of power and authority, to deliberate, to determine, or judge, to make laws. But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable. The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters, but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops. LAstly, § 42. And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks. as if all the acts of jurisdiction, and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop, over the Presbyters & subordinate Clergy, the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri, the Bishop's Presbyters; as having a propriety in them, and therefore a superiority over them, and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae, so he was of the persons too, a Ruler in propriety. * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine, Ecclesiae adhuc (saith he) per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens, I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by MY Presbyters. And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop, to be promoted in another Church, .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? Can. 45. Concil. Carthag. 3. (saith Posthumianus.) If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him? Id sequor (saith Aurelius) ut conveniam Episcopum ejus, atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur. And it was resolved, ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo. No man shall retain another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is. * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the heretics his adversaries, and entered to purge himself, Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Suo. He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter; and, Arsenius, cujus brachium dicebatur excisum, lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii. Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader. Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii, etc. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests. So Theodoret. Peter, Lib. 2. cap. 8. and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters, as himself witnesses. Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us (saith S. Hierome to Pammachius) but not as your Clerk, Athanas. Epist. ad vitam ●olitar: agentes. sed ejus à quo ordinatur. His Clerk who did ordain him. But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances. The sum is this. The question was, whether or no, and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church. Their doctrine, and practice have furnished us with these particulars. The power of Church goods, and the sole dispensation of them, and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop. For the Clergy, and Church possessions were in his power, in his administration: the Clergy might not travail without the Bishop's leave: they might not be preferred in another Diocese without licence of their own Bishop: in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them, and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it: without him they might not baptise, not consecrate the Eucharist, not communicate, not reconcile penitents, not preach; not only, not without his ordination, but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order: The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions, and canonical impositions, even by the decree of the Apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Ignatius, and the constitution of S. Clement, of the Fathers in the Council of Arles, Ancyra, and Toledo, and many others: The Bishops were declared to be judges in ordinary of the Clergy, and people of their Diocese by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia, Taurinum, Agatho, and by the Emperor, and by the Apostles; and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmatic resolution of the old Catholics declaring in their attributes, and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they hay supreme, and universal spiritual power, (viz. in the sense above explicated) over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocese, as, [that they are higher than all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christ's Vicar, Precedent of the Church, Prince of Priests, of authority incomparable, unparalleled power,] and many more, if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction, we have their depositions, we may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state, for that is truly a reformation [id Dominicum quod primum, id haereticum quod posterius] and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations. BUT against the cause, § 43. Their jurisdiction was over many congregations, or Parishes, it is objected super totam Materiam, that Bishops were not Diocesan, but Parochial, and therefore of so confined a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village, or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit, as high as the Bishop's throne. * Well! put case they were not Diocesan, but parish Bishops, what then? yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters, and Deacons in subordination to them, in all the particular advantages of the former instances. 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes, what cure had the Priests? so that this will debate the Priests as much as the Bishops, and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish, it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest. If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocese, it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish. For set a Bishop where you will, either in a Diocese, or a Parish, a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination, the same distance still. So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse, will no way mend the matter for any side, but make it far worse, it will not advance the Presbytery, but it will depress the whole hierarchy, and all the orders of H. Church. * But because, this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy, I will consider it in little, and besides that it does no body any good advantage, I will represent it in its fucus and show the falsehood of it. 1. Then. It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes. For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived almost 100 years after Christ, and divided Rome into seven parishes, assigning to every one a Presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the Pontifical book. Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris, & septem Diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis. He divided the Parishes, or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters. The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life, hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit, & caemiteria, parochiasque & dioeceses constituit. Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit caemiterium viâ Salariâ, & 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis, & propter sepulturas Martyrum. He made a Sepulture, or caemitery for the burial of Martyrs, and appointed 25. Titles or Parishes: but he adds [quasi Dioeceses] as it had been dioceses, that is, distinct and limited to Presbyters, as dioceses were to Bishops; and the use of parishes which he subjoins, clears the business; for he appointed them only propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum & sepulturas, for baptism, and penance, and burial; for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes, but in the Mother-Church. Thus it was in the West. * But in Egypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these, for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Marks time had several Churches in Alexandria. Lib. 2. hist. cap. 17. Etiàm DE ECCLESIIS quae apudeos sunt, it a dicit. Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus &c: But even before this, there were Bishops. For in Rome there were four Bishops before any division of Parishes, though S. Peter be reckoned for none. And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria, S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop, and before that time S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, and in divers other places where Bishops were, there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus time, for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to several Parishes, he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba, & desires him to do so too in his Diocese, as appears in his Epistle to him. * For indeed necessity required it, apud Binium. tom. 1. Concil. when the Christians multiplied and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as * Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37. Cornelius called the Roman Christians, a great and innumerable people; and did implere omnia, as Tertullia's phrase is, filled all places, and public and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their public offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage, than they were forced to divide congregations, and assign several Presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the Bishop, and so we see, the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were. At first in Rome there were none, lib. 2. contr. Parmeniam. Evaristus made seven, Dionysius made some more, and Marcellus added 25, and in Optatus time there were 40. Well then! The case is thus. Parishes were not divided at first, therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution. Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixed upon a Parish, therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's ordinance an independent body, for by Christ's ordinance there was no such thing at all, neither absolute, nor in dependence neither; and then for the main issue, since Bishops were before Parishes (in the present sense) the Bishops in that sense could not be Parochial. * But which was first of a private congregation, or a Diocese? If a private congregation, than a Bishop was at first fixed in a private congregation, and so was a Parochial Bishop. If a Diocese was first, than the Question will be, how a Diocese could be without Parishes, for what is a Diocese but a jurisdiction over many Parishes? * I answer, it is true that DIOCESE and PARISH are words used now in contradistinction; And now, a Diocese is nothing but the multiplication of of many Parishes: Sed non fuit sic ab initio. For at first, a Diocese was the City and the Regio suburbicaria, the neighbouring towns, in which there was no distinction of Parishes: That which was a Diocese in the secular sense, that is, a particular Province, or division of secular prefecture, that was the assignation of a Bishop's charge. * Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads of the Diocese, (saith Pliny,) meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction; lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. Vide Baron. A. D. 39 n. 10. & B. Rhenan, in notit. provinc. Imperial. in descript. Illyrici. and so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth, it was of less suspicion to the secular power, while the Church regiment was just fixed together with the political, as if of purpose to show their mutual consistence, and it's own subordination. ** And besides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another Province, or Diocese could not either safely, or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not engage them; but being all of one prefecture, and Diocese, the necessity of public meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all, by the sanction of the Council of * Can. 17. Chalcedon, and of Constantinople in † Can. 38. Trullo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the order of the Church, follow the order and guise of the Commonwealth, viz. in her regiment, and prefefecture. * But in the modern sense of this division a Bishop's charge was neither a Parish, nor a Diocese, as they are taken in relation; but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself, or his Presbyters had converted, and he also had the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country. So that although he had not all the Diocese actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his Diocese was so much. Just as it was with the Apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocese, yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them. And now to the Question. Which was first, a particular congregation or a Diocese? I answer, that a Diocese was first, that is, the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts; And S. Mark was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted. * But ordinarily the Apostles, when they had converted a City or Nation, than fixed Bishops upon their charge, and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocese; But then, this City, or Nation although it was not the Bishop's Diocese before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the Apostles Diocese, and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively. S. Paul was ordained by the Prophets at Antioch, Apostle of the Uncircumcision; All the Gentiles was his Diocese, and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocese was before a particular congregation. But if a diocese be taken collectively, as now it is, for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop, than one must needs be before 20, and a particular congregation before a diocese; but then that particular congregation was not a parish, in the present sense, for it was not a part of a Diocese taking a Diocese for a collection of Parishes; but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocese, and like a Grain of Mustardseed that in time might, and did grow up to a considerable height, even to a necessity of distinguishing titles, and parts of the Diocese, assigning several parts, to several 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 several provinces (some of them I mean) 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 Diocese & the Neighbour villages, and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Council of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ancient Canon of our fore fathers; and yet itself is elder than three of the general Counsels, 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 Council, Can. 6. and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the old Customs 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 custom 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 himself 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 himself in his epistle to the Romans, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lib. 5. ca 23. so Theodoret: and besides all these, his Successors, in the Council of Chalcedon, Action. 7. had the two Phaeniciae, and Arabia yielded to them by composition. These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes, and would have taken up time enough to preambulate, had that been then the guise of Christendom. * But examples of this kind are infinite. Epist, ad Leon. 1. Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes, Episc. Rom. Haeres. 68 Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Marcotis, Libya, Ammoniaca, and Penned apolis, saith S. Epiphanius; And his predecessor julianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop * Council Chalced act. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Churches about Alexandria. Either it was a Diocese, or at least a plurality. * † Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28. S. chrysostom had Pontus, Asia, and all Thrace in his parish, even as much as came to sixteen prefectures; a fair bounds surely; and so it was with all the Bishops, a greater, or a lesser Diocese they had; but all were Diocesan; for they had several parishes, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias, saith Epiphanius in his epistle to john of jerusalem, Apud. S. Hieron. haeres. 69. and in his 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. Lib. 4. c. 12, Encom. Cyprian. * All Italy was the parish of Liberius (saith Socrates.) Africa was S. Cyprians parish, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen, S●Zom. lib. 5. c. 18. and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia. But I rather believe if we examine their several stories they will rather prove Metropolitans, Vide apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 22. then mere parochians. 3 lie The ancient Canons forbade a Bishop to be ordained in a Village, Castle, or Town. It was so decreed in the Council of Laodicea before the first Nicene. Can. 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Villages, or Countries, Bishops must not be constituted. And this was renewed in the Council of Sardis, Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is not lawful to ordain Bishops in Villages or little Towns to which one Presbyter is sufficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but Bishops must ordain 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 ordained in great Cities, and Presbyters to little Villages. Who then was the Parish Curate? the Bishop or the Priest? The case is too apparent. Only, here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Towns, and therefore these Canons were not observed, and Bishops might be, and were parochial, as S. Gregory of Nazianzum, Zoticus of Comana, Maris in Dolicha. The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by * Lib. 5. c. 16. Eusebius; and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by † Lib. 5. cap. 4. Theodoret, a little Town. This is all is pretended for this great Scarecrow of parochial Bishops. * But, first, suppose these had been parishes, and these three parochial Bishops, it follows not that all were; not those to be sure, which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces, and Kingdoms. 2 lie It is a clear case, that Nazianzum though a small City, yet was the seat of a Bishop's throne, so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperor, Ius Graecc-Rom. p. 89. where it is accounted inter thronos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum, & is in the same account with Caesarea, with Ephesus, with Crete, with Philippi, and almost fourscore more. * As for Zoticus, Vide Baron. An. Dom. 205 n. 27. he indeed came from Comana, a Village town, for there he was born, but he was Episcopus Otrenus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, saith † Lib. 4. c. 25. Nicephorus. * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha, it was indeed such a small City as Nazianzus was, but that proves not but his Diocese and territory was large enough. Gennad. apud Hieron. Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis, johan. de Trittenheim de script. Eccles. but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus. His seat might usually be in a little City, if it was one of those towns in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordained, and yet the appurtenances of his Diocese large, and extended, and too great for 100 Parish Priests. 4 lie. The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan, not Parochial: for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge, and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Visiters, (as the Council of Laodicea calls them.) But what need such Suffragans, such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish. Indeed they might possibly have been needful for the managing of a Citty-parish, especially if a whole City was a Parish, as these objectors must pretend, or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial. But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop, and did their offices in the country, while the Bishop was resident in the City, either the Bishop's parish extended itself from City to Country; and than it is all one with a Diocese, or else we can find no employment for a Chorepiscopus, or Visitor. * The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch, describes their use and power. Qui in villis & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant, ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias. They were to govern the Church's delegated to their charge. It seems they had many Churches under their provision, and yet they were but the Bishop's Vicars, for so it follows in the Canon; he must not ordain any Presbyters, and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitu●, & Regio; Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself, and all the Country is subordinate. 5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Ignatius. Epist. ad Philadelph. There is one Altar in every Church, and ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery, and the Deacons. Either then a whole City, such as Rome, or jerusalem (which as josephus reports had 400 Synagogues,) must be but one Parish, and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocese, as a Parish in that latitude; or if there were many Parishes in a City, and the Bishop could have but one of them, why, what hindered but that there might in a City be as many Bishops, as Presbyters? For if a Bishop can have but one Parish, why may not every Parish have a Bishop? But by the ancient Canons, a City though never so great, could have but one for itself and all the Country, therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop, nor the Bishop a mere parish-Priest. Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi, Lib. 10, Eccles. hist. was the Constitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus; and long before this, it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop, that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance, Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat, nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere, ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta & sex. Novatus (the Father of the old Puritans) was a goodly gospeler that did not know that in a Catholic Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters; intimating clearly that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholic, but Schismatic at least, (if both be pretended to be of a fixed residence) what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters? He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he fights against God, if S. Ambrose say true. In 1. Cor. 12. Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit. God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church; and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was, may easily be guessed by himself who was the Ruler, and Bishop of the great City, and province of Milan. * And therefore when Valerius * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphan. haeres. 66. n. 6. Possidon. in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo, whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time, S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most uncanonical, and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius, but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius. It was the same case in Agelius, Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21. a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius to succeed him, the acts were indeed irregular, but yet there was no harm in it to this cause, they were ordained to succeed, not in conjunction. * Lib. 4. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith Sozomen) It is a note of Schism, and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair. Secundus Episcopus nullus est (saith S. † Lib. 4. Epist. 2. Cyprian) And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian, it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism by erecting another Bishop; Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius, and Faelix. For when the Emperor was willing that Liberius should return to his See, on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too, they derided the suggestion, crying out, One God, Lib. 2. c. 11. one Christ, one Bishop. So Theodoret reports. But who lists to see more of this, may be satisfied (if plenty will do it) in a In 1. Philip. S. chrysostom, b in 1. Philip. Theodoret, S. c in 1. Philip. Hierom, d in 1. Philip. Oecumenius, e lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Optatus, S. f in 1. Tim. 3. & in 1. Phil. Ambrose, and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian, de Vnitate Ecclesiae, sive de singularitate Prelatorum. 6 lie. Suppose the ordinary Dioceses had been parishes, yet what were the Metropolitans, and the Primates, were they also parish-Bishops? Surely if Bishops were parochial, than these were at least diocesan by their own argument, for to be sure they had many Bishops under them. But there were none such in the Primitive Church? yes most certainly. The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so, most plainly, and at the worst, they were a very primitive record. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR, quem velut caput existiment, & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant, quam ea sola quae parochiae propriae, & villis quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE, and esteem him as their HEAD, and do NOTHING without his consent, but those things that appertain to their own Diocese. And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction, Concil. Antioch. ca 9 per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere etc. The Bishops of every province must know that their METROPOLITAN. Bishop does take cure of all the province. For this was an Apostolical Constitution (saith S. Clement) that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archflamines, Epist. 1. ad jacobum Fratrem Domini. Archbishops, Primates, or Patriarches should be placed, qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia, & majora (quoties necesse foret) negotiain fide agitarent, & secundùm Dei voluntatem, sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli, definirent. * Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council, as appears in the sixth Canon before cited; vide Concil. Chalced. act. 1. in epist. Theod. & Valentin. Imp. Nay, Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the METROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Council of Ephesus, by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperors, so that it was a PATRIARCHAT. These are enough to show that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops. Now than either Bishops were Parochial, or no: If no, than they were Diocesan; if yea, then at least many of them were Diocesan, for they had (according to this rate) many Parochial Bishops under them. * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle, but as now a days it is made, the consideration of it is material to the main Question. Only this I add; That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own, and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive, because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge, and no more, and each of these towns had in them 170 families, and were bound to have no more, how should this man be confuted? It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question, by pretending that the Bishops were only parochial, not diocesan, and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest. Most certainly, themselves could not believe the allegation, only they knew it would raise a dust. But by God's providence, there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it. ANother consideration must here be interposed concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the several Churches. §. 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired. For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution, or Apostolical ordinance, yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church, for those men that call the Bishop a Pope, are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too, & to make every Diocese a Roman Consistory. 1. Then, the first thing we hear of Presbyters (after Scripture I mean, for of it I have already given account) is from the testimony of S. Hierome, in Epist. ad Titum. cap. 1. Antequam studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli &c: communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Before factions arose in the Church, the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches, or after Bishops were appointed. If, before Bishops were appointed, no hurt done, the Presbyters might well rule in common, before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the diocese beside. Epist. ad Antioch. For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock until God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler. Epist. 21. And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defaillance in time of persecution, and so were put to penance, praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse, donec Episcopus constituatur. The Presbyters, whom seed vacant he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos, they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop. * But, if S. Hierome means this saying of his, after Bishops were fixed, than his expression answers the allegation, for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum, the JUDICIUM might be solely in the Bishop, he was the JUDGE, though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS. For so himself adds, that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth, it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD, ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret, all the care of the diocese was in the Bishop, and therefore all the power, for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop, and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters. * And so S. Ignatius styles them, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Assessors, and Counsellors to the Bishop. But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius, The Bishop is THE RULER, without him though all concurred, yet nothing could be done, nothing attempted; The Bishop was Superior in ALL POWER and AUTHORITY, He was to be obeyed in ALL THINGS, and contradicted in NOTHING; The Bishop's judgement was to sway, Ad Trallian. Ad Magnes. and nothing must seem pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishop's sentence: this, and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of, is in Ignatius; And now let their assistance and Counsel extend as far as it will, the Bishop's authority is invulnerable. But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierome's. §. thither I refer the Reader. 2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us, if any man, for of all the Bishops, he did acts of the greatest condescension, and seeming declination of Episcopal authority. But let us see the worst. Epist. 6. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri .... solus rescribere nihil potui, quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere. And again, Epist. 19 quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi, ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. And a third time, Epist. 18. Quae res cûm omnium nostrum consilium & sententiam spectet, praejudicare ego & soli mihirem communem vindicare non audeo. These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in materiâ juridicâ, The sum whereof is this, that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence, and resolved to do nothing without their advice. But then, consider also, it was, statui apud me, I have resolved with myself to do nothing without your Counsel. It was no necessity ab extrà, no duty, no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty, it was his own voluntary act. 2. It was as well Diaconorum, as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction, as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles, Cyprianus Presbyteris, ac DIACONIS fratribus salutem: So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common, than the Deacons, by any Divine law, or Catholic practice. 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too, and that will as well disturb the Ius Divinum of an independent Presbytery, as of an independent Episcopacy. But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled, for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian, like Moses, qui cum in potestate suâ habuit ut sol●● possit praesse populo, seniores elegit (to use S. Hierome's expression) who when it was in his power alone to rule the people, in 1. ad. Titum. yet chose seaventy Elders for assistants. For as for S. Cyprian, this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired. For he shows what himself alone could do. Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ, & religione, quam satis n●vi, his literis & horror & mando &c. I entreat and COMMAND you .... vice meâ fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit, Re my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs. He entreats them pro dilectione, because they loved him, he COMMANDS THEM PRO RELIGIONE, by their religion, for it was a piece of their religion to obey him, and in him was the government of his Church, else how could he have put the Presbyters, and Deacons in substitution? * Add to this; It was the custom of the Church that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks, yet the Clergy did approve, & examine the persons to be ordained, and it being a thing of public interest, it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation, and ministration too (and for this S. chrysostom was accused in Concilionesario [as the title of the edition of it, expresses it] that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it, Ius Graeco Rom. pag. 556. he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church, for so he ordained Celerinus, so he ordained Optatus, and Satarus, when himself was from his Church, and in great want of Clergymen to assist in the ministration of the daily offices. *** He did as much in jurisdiction too, and censures; for HIMSELF did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus, and Rep●stus, and Irene, and Paula, as appears in his 38, and 39 epistles; and tells * Epist. 65. Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by virtue of his Episcopal authority. And the same power singly, and solely, he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution; Epist. 55. Vnus atque alius OBNITENTE PLE●E ET CONTRADICENTE, M●A tamen FACILITATE susceptisunt. Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed, but yet the absolution said to be his own act, against the people and without the Clergy. For he alone was the JUDOE, insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresy that the Bishop was not obeyed, ibidem. nec UNUS in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus JUDEX VICE CHRISTI COGITATUR, and that ONE high Priest in a Church, and JUDGE INSTEAD OF CHRIST is not admitted. So that the Bishop must be ONE, and that ONE must be JUDGE, and to acknowledge more, in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresy. Farther yet, this judicatory of the Bishop is independent, and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit, Epist. 52. & dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus, Epist. 72. and again, habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus: rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. The Bishop is Lord of his own actions, and may do what seems good in his own eyes, and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This general account is sufficient to satisfy the allegations out of the 6th, and 18th epistles, and indeed, the whole Question. But for the 18th epistle, there is something of peculiar answer. For first, It was a case of public concernment, and therefore he would so comply with the public interest as to do it by public counsel, 2 lie, It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar. NECESSITAS TEMPORUM facit ut non temerè pacem demus, they are the first words of the next epistle, which is of the same matter; for if the lapsi had been easily, and without a public and solemn trial reconciled, it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent, and Martyrdom but seldom, 3 lie, The common counsel which S. Cyprian here said he would expect, was the Council of the Confessors, to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the public assoiling of such penitents who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome. So that this is evidently an act of positive, and temporary discipline, and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop, so to be sure, no advantage to the Presbyter. * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered, and that runs something higher, .... tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisine videar aliquid temerè praesumere. It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ. But from this we are fairly delivered by the title. Cypriano, & Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus; Caldonius, salutem. It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters, but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan, and now, what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so public consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan. He was bound to consult him by the Canon's Apostolical, and so he did, and no harm done to the present Question, of the Bishop's sole and independent power, and unmixed with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery, who had nothing to do beyond ministry, counsel, and assistance. 3. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was, there were not always a College of Presbyters, but only in the greatest Churches; for sometimes in the lesser Cities there were but two, Esse oportet, & aliquantos Presbyteros, at bini sint per Ecclesias, & unus incivitate Episcopus. In 1. Timoth. 3. So S. Ambrose, sometimes there was but one in a Church. Posthumianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case. Deigned qui unum [Presbyterum] habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? The Church of Hippo had but one. Valerius was the Bishop, and Austin was the Priest; and after him Austin was the Bishop, & Eradius the Priest. Sometimes not one, as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited, of a Church that had never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died; & once at Hippo they had none, even then when the people snatched S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordained. In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was judge alone, I am sure he had but little company, sometimes none at all. 4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty, and possibility of Scandal, for so S. Ambrose intimates, 1. Tim. 1. Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ (understand, in these Churches where Presbyteries were fixed) yet this might be necessary, and was so indeed in some degree at first, which in succession as it proved troublesome to the Presbyters; so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops. At first I say it might be necessary. For they were times of persecution, and temptation, and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time, and agonies of spirit, it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism; for a discontented spirit will hide itself, and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus, rather than not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge. 2. As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of public difficulty, and what they could not receive from public decision, it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assistance, and deliberation. For although, by the Canons of the Apostles, Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods, yet persecution intervening, they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a dispersion then a Synod. 3. Although Synods had been as frequently convened as was intended by the Apostles, yet it must be length of time, and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars, and therefore till the Church grew of ●ome considerable age, a fixed standing College of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been, when the frequency of General Counsels, and Provincial Synods, and the peace of the Church, and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers, and decretals of Bishops, and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary. 4. When necessity required not their presence and Counsel, their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures. For let it be considered; they that would now have a College of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows. For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title, which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years, or else they must be forced to Nonresidence. For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary, and daily occurrences of the Church, unless either they have no cure of their own, or else neglect it? And as for the extraordinary, either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan, or he may be assisted by a Synod, if the Canons already constitute do not aid him, but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent. 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity, and after by Custom it grew a Law; so now retrò, first the necessity failed, and then the desuetude abrogated the Law, which before, custom had established. Vbi suprà. [quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio] saith S. Ambrose, he knew not how it came to be obsolete, but so it was, it had expired before his time. Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches (I mean in Great ones) In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum, In Isaiae. 3. actum Presbyterorum, we have still (saith S. Hierome) in the Church our Senate, a College, or Chapter of Presbyters, (he was then at Rome, or jerusalem) but they were not consulted in Church affairs, & matter of jurisdiction, that was it, that S. Ambrose wondered how it came to pass. And thus it is to this day. In our Mother Churches we have a Chapter too, but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction, just so it was in S. Ambrose his time, and therefore our Bishops have altered no custom in this particular, the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general. Counsels, and therefore is no violation of a divine right, for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions, wherein so much sanctity, and authority, and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct; and then besides, it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity, but however it was never otherwise then voluntary in the Bishops, and positive discipline in the Church, and conveniency in the thing for that present, and Council in the Presbyters, and a trouble to the Presbyters persons, and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixed upon a particular charge. * One thing more before I leave. I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected. Can. 6. Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest, solus autem auferre non potest. A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest, a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest. Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures. * To this I answer, first it is evident, that he that can give an honour, can also take it away, if any body can; for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down, then in raising up. It was wont always to be accounted easier; therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church, founded indeed upon good institution, but built upon no deeper foundation, neither of nature or higher institution, than its own present authority. But that's enough, for we are not now in question of divine right, but of Catholic and Primitive practice. To it therefore I answer, that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter, was not the Chapter, or College of Presbyters, but a company of Bishops, a Synodall sentence, and determination, for so the Canon runs, qui profecto nec a● un● damna●i, nec un● judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegii● exuised praesantati SYNODALL 〈◊〉 quoth canon de illis praeceperit definiri. And the same thing was determined in the greeks Council of Carthage. Can. 20. If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused, their own Bishop shall judge them, not alone, but with the assistance of six Bishops more, in the case of a Presbyter; three, of a Deacon; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must ALONE hear and determine them, So that by this Canon, in some things the Bishop might not be alone, but then his assistants were Bishops, not Presbyters, in other things he alone was judge without either, and yet his sentences must not be clavicular, but in open Court, in the full Chapter; for his Presbyters must be present; and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage, Vt Episcopu● nullius causam audiat absque praescutiâ 〈…〉 alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nini praesentiâ Clericonum confirmetur. Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept, lest the sentence should be clandestine, and so illegal, but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum, for it is sententia Episcopi, the Bishop's sentence, and the Clerks presence only; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop ALONE might give sentence in the causes of the inferior Clergy, even by this Canon itself, which is used for objection against the Bishop's sole jurisdiction. *** I know nothing now to hinder our process; for the Bishop's jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand, and the Presbyters had no share in it, but by delegation and voluntary assumption. Now I proceed in the main question. WE have seen what Episcopacy is in itself, § 45. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary. now from the same principles let us see what it is to us. Epist. ad Tral. And first; Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary, even to the being and constitution of a Church. That runs high, but we must follow our leaders. * S. Ignatius is express in this question. Qui intra altare est, mundus est, quare & obtemperat Episcope, & Sacerdotibus. Qui vetò foris est hic is est, qui sine Episcopo, Sacerdote, & Diacono quicquam agit, & ejusmodi inquinatum habet conscientiam, & infideli deterior est. He that is within the Altar, that is, within the Communion of the Church, he is pure, for he obeys the Bishop, and the Priests. But he that is without, that is, does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy, he hath filthy conscience science and is worse than an infidel. NECESSE itaque est, quicquid facitis, ut SINE EPISCOPO NIHIL faciatis. It is NECESSARY that what ever ye do, ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop. Quid enim aliud est Episcopus, etc. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power? So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian, and Catholic communion, he that does not, is worse than an infidel. The same also he affirms again. Epist. ad Philadelph. Quot quot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi, qui verò ab illo declinant, & cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur, high cam illis excidentur. All them that are on Christ's side, are on the Bishop's side, but they that communicate with accursed Schismatics, shall be cut off with them. * If then we will be Christ's servants, we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop. It is the condition of Christianity. We are not Christians else. So is the intimation of S. Ignatius. * As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Laps●s, Epist. 27. & alibi. where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to Peter and the other Apostles, Ind (saith he) per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, & ECCLESIAE RATIO decurrit, VT ECCLESIA SUPER EPISCOPOS CONSTITUATUR, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernetur▪ Hence is it, that by several succession of Bishops the Church is continued, so that the CHURCH HATH IT'S BEING, OR CONSTITUTION BY BISHOPS, and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them. cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror etc. Since therefore this is so ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF GOD, I wonder any man should question it, etc. And therefore as in all buildings, the foundation being gone, the fabric falls, so IF YE TAKE AWAY BISHOPS, the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God, for it can no longer be called a Church. This account we have from S. Cyprian, and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his * Epist. 69. Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum, where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the DEFINITION of a Church. [Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata, & Pastori suo Grex adhaerens, The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor, and a people united to their Bishop] for that so he means by Sacerdos, appears in the words subjoined, Vnde & scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui Cum EPISCOPO NON SIT IN ECCLESIA NON ESSE, & frustrà sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latentèr apud quosdam communicare se credunt etc. As a Bishop is in the Church, so the Church is in the Bishop, and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church; and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good, if they communicate in conventicles, and forsake their Bishop. And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident, and zealous for a Bishop, that they would ●ather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution, then to the greater misery, the want of Bishops. vide Concil. Byzacenum. An. Dom. 504. & Surium die 1. januar. & Baron. in A. D. 504. Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose. When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made anedict that no more Bishops should be consecrate; to this purpose that the Catholic faith might expire (so he was sure it would, if this device were perfected) ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur, the good Bishops of the Province met together in a Council, and having considered of the command of the tyrant, Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanser antony's communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum, cogitantes aut Regis iracundiam, si qua forsan existeret, mitigandam, quò faciliùs ordinati in suis plebibus viverent, aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur, coronandos etiam fidei confession, quos dignos invenichant promotione. It was full of bravery, and Christian spirit. The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God, rather than man, and to consecrate Bishops in all places, hoping the King would be appeased, or if not, yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdom. They did so. Fit repentè communis assumptio, and they all strived who should be first, and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost. They were sure they might go to heaven (though persecuted) under the conduct of a Bishop, they knew, without him the ordinary passage was obstructed. Pius the first, Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, speaking of them that calumniate, Epist. 2. and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous, they add (saith he) evil to evil, and grow worse, non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit, & cres●it in templum Dei; Not considering that THE CHURCH OF GOD DOTH CONSIST, or is established in BISHOPS, and grows up to a holy Temple? advers. Lucifer. cap. 4. To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome, because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishop's dignity. THE Reason which S. Hierome gives, § 46. For they are schismatics that separate from their Bishop. presses this business to a further particular. For if an eminent dignity, and an Unmatchable power be not given to him, tot efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved; and we know that unity, and being, are of equal extent, and if the Unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop, then where there is no Bishop, no pretence to a Church; and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatic; For Unity which the Fathers press so often, they make to be dependant on the Bishop. Nihil sit in vobit quod possit vos dirimere, sed Vnimini Episcop●, subjecti Deo per illum in Christo (saith S. Ignatius.) Let nothing divide you, Epist. ad Magnes. but be united to your Bishop, being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop. And it is his congè to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus, opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro jesu Christo, in quo manete per Vnitatem Dei & EPISCOPI, Farewell in Christ jesus, in whom remain by the Unity of God and of the BISHOP. * Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo [Episcopo] ut Ecclesia à Domino jesu, & Dominus à Patre suo, Ad Ephes. ut omnià per Vnitatem consentiant. Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop, as the Church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may consent in Unity. * Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt, S. Cyprian. ep. 55. aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur. Hen●e come SCHISMS, hence spring heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high Priest, Epist. 69. alone to be the judge. The same, S. Cyprian repeats again, and by it, we may see his meaning clearer. Qui vos audit, me audit &c: Ind enim haereses & schismata obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatione Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur. The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresy and Schism. And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons, that any Man should have any meetings, or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop, that if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished with the highest censures, as appears in the 32 Canon of the Apostles, in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra, the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch, Act. 4. and the great Council of Chalcedon, all which I have before cited. The sum is this, The Bishop is the band, and ligature of the Church's Unity; and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theodoret's expession is; a Symbol of faction, and he that separates is a Schismatic. But how if the Bishop himself be a heretic, or schismatic? May we not then separate? Yes, if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops, but then he is sure to be deposed too, and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop. For till he be declared so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocese, lest they by so doing become their judge's judge, and when he is declared so, no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop, for the heretic, or schismatic must be no longer Bishop. * But let the case be what it will be, no separation from a Bishop, ut sic, can be lawful; and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy; That is the quintessence, and spirit of schism, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institution. * BUt is it not also heresy? §. 47. And Heretics▪ Aërius was condemned for heresy by the Catholic Church. The heresy from whence the Aërians were denominated was, sermo furiosus magis quam humanae conditionis, & dicebat, Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum, nihil differt hic ab illo. A mad, and an unmanly heresy, to say that a Bishop, haeres. 75. and a Priest are all one. So Epiphanius. Assumpsit autem Ecclesia, & IN TOTO MUNDO ASSENSUS FACTUS EST, antequam esset Aërius, & qui ab ipso appellantur Aëriani. And the good Catholic Father is so angry at the heretic Aërius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is called Aërius, ab aërijs spiritibus pravitatis, for he was possessed with an unclean spirit, he could never else been the inventor of such heretical pravity. S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of heretics, and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue, that he is NO CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines, amongst which, this is one of the principal. Philastrius does as much for him. But against this it will be objected. first, That heresies in the Primitive Catalogues are of a large extent, and every dissent from a public opinion, was esteemed heresy, 2 lie, Aërius was called heretic, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop, and a Presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius, and S. Austin. 3 lie, He was never condemned by any Council, and how then can he be called heretic? I answer; that dissent from a public, or a received opinion was never called heresy, unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholic doctrine. For the Fathers many of them did so, as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion; yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of heretics; but such things only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to Catholic belief, though in minoribus ●rticulis, or to a holy life. 2 lie, It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions, and heretical. But I cannot help it if they did, let him and them agree it, they are able to answer for themselves. But yet they accused him also of Arianism; and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresy, because the Fathers called him heretic in one particular upon a wrong principal? We may as well say this, as deny the other. 3 lie, He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his heresy was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men; as Epiphanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. * But yet this is certain, that Epiphanius, & Philastrius, & S. Austin called this opinion of Aërius a heresy and against the Catholic belief. And themselves affirm that the Church did so; and than it would be considered, that it is but a sad employment to revive old heresies, and make them a piece of the New religion. And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aërius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Council, yet certainly the one half of his error is condemned for heresy in one of the four General Counsels, viz. the first Council of Constantinople. Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We call all them heretics whom the Ancient Church hath condemned, and whom we shall anathematise. Will not Aërius come under one of these titles for a condemned heretic? Then see forward. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here is enough for Aërius and all his hyperaspists, new and old; for the holy Council condemns them for heretics who do indeed confess the true faith, but separate from their Bishops, and make conventicles apart from his Communion. Now this I the rather urge because an Act of Parliament made 1o of Elizabeth does make this Council, and the other three of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresies. I end this particular with the saying of the Council of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a Crabstock and something like Aërius,) cited by Burchard; lib. 2. decret. cap. 226. Nullâ ratione Clerici aut Sacerdotes habendi sunt, qui sub nullius Episcopi disciplinâ & providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acephalos, id est, sine capite Priscae Ecclesiae consuetudo nuncupavit. They are by no means to be accounted Clergymen, or Priests, that will not be governed by a Bishop. For such men the Primitive Church called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, headless, wittlesse people. This only. Acephali was the title of a Sect, a formal heresy, and condemned by the Ancient Church, say the Fathers of the Council of Paris, Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may perhaps be another conviction for the necessity of Episcopal regiment. lib. 18. ca 45 Eccles. hist. Nicephorus can best inform us. Eodem tempore, & Acephali, quorum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit &c: Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy. But why were they called Acephali? id est, sine capite, quem sequuntur haeretici; Nullus enim eorum reperitur author à quo ex●rti sunt (saith Isidore). lib. 8. cap. 5. Etymol. But this cannot be, for their head is known, Severus was the heresiarch. But then why are they called Acephali? Nicephorus gives this reason, and withal a very particular account of their heresy, Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quòd sub Episcopis non fuerint. They refused to live under Bishops. Thence they had their Name. what was their heresy? They denied the distinction of Natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies, but they had more; for they were trium capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores, saith Isidore, they opposed three Canons of the Council of Chalcedon. ubi suprà. One we have heard, what their other heresies were, we do not so well know, but by the Canon of the Council of Paris, and the intimation of their name we are guided to the knowledge of a second; They refused to live under the government of a Bishop. And this also was impugnatio unius articuli in Chalcedone, for the eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon commands that the Clergy should be under Episcopal government. But these Acephali would not, they were antiepiscopal men, and therefore they were condemned heretics; condemned, In the Council of Paris, of Sevill, and of Chalcedon. But the more particular account that Nicephorus gives of them I will now insert, because it is of great use. Proinde Episcopis, & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque baptismus juxtà solennem, atque receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratur, neque oblatio, aut res aliqua divina facta, ministeriumuè Ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communionem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes serijs pascalibus in minutissimas incisam partes convenientibus ad se hominibus dederunt. Quo tempore quam quisque voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem. Et proptereà quod quilibet, quod si visum esset, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, atque haereticorum turba exorta est. It is a story worthy observation. When any Bishop died they would have no other consecrated in succession, and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them died. But how then did they to baptise their Children? Why, they were fain to make shift, and do it without any Church-solemnity. But, how did they for the Holy Sacrament, for that could not be consecrated without a Priest, and he not ordained without a Bishop? True, but therefore they, while they had a Bishop, got a great deal of bread consecrated, and kept a long time, and when Easter came, cut it into small bits, or crumbs rather, to make it go the farther, and gave it to their people. And must we do so too? God forbid. But how did they when all that was gone? For crumbs would not last always. The story specifies it not, but yet I suppose they then got a Bishop for their necessity to help them to some more Priests, and some more crumbs; for I find the Council of Sevill the Father's saying, Can. 12. Ingressus est ad nos quidem ex haeresi Acephalorum Episcopus; They had then it seems got a Bishop, but this they would seldom have, and never but when their necessity drove them to it. But was this all the inconvenience of the want of Bishops? No. For every man (saith Nicephorus) might do what he list, & if he had a mind to it, might put his fancy into the Creed, and thence came innumerable troops of Schismatics and Heretics. So that this device was one simple heresy in the root, but it was forty heresies in the fruit, and branches; clearly proving that want of Bishops is the cause of all Schism, & recreant opinions that are imaginable. I sum this up with the saying of S. Clement the Disciple of S. Peter, Epist. 3. Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri, etc. tribus, & linguae non obtemperaverint, non solùm infames, sed & extorres à regno Dei, & consortio fidelium, ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ecclesiae alieni erunt. All Priests, and Clergymen, and People, and Nations, and Languages that do not obey their Bishop shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here, and of Heaven hereafter. It runs high, but I cannot help it, I do but translate Ruffinus, §. 48. And Bishops were always in the Church, men of great Honour. as he before translated S. Clement. IT seems then we must have Bishops. But must we have Lord Bishops too? That is the question now, but such an one as the Primitive piety could never have imagined. For, could they, to whom Bishops were placed in a right and a true light, they who believed, and saw them to be the Fathers of their souls, the Guardian of their life and manners (as King Edgar called S. Dunstan) the guide of their consciences, the instruments and conveyances of all the Blessings heaven uses to pour upon us, by the ministration of the holy Gospel; would they, that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free, and open communion with a Catholic Bishop; would they have contested upon an aery title, and the imaginary privilege of an honour, which is far less than their spiritual dignity, but infinitely less than the burden, and charge of the souls of all their Diocese? Charity thinks nothing too much, and that love is but little, that grudges at the good words a Bishopric carries with it. However; let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops, or what the guise of Christendom hath been in her spiritual heraldry. 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command. Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum, imaginèm Dei referentem. Honour the Bishop as the image of God, as the PRINCE OF PRIEST'S. Now since honour, and excellency are terms of mutual relation, and all excellency that is in men, and things, is but a ray of divine excellency; so far as they participate of God, so far they are honourable. Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead, and bears God's image, certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable. And since honour est in honorante, it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself, but it tells us our duty, we must honour him, we must do him honour: and of all the honours in the world, that of words is the cheapest, and the least. S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let them be accounted worthy of double honour. And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one, an honour of Maintenance, the other must certainly be an honour of estimate, and that's cheapest. * Can, 10. Graec. The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy, uses this expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood, let him be advanced to the HIGHEST HONOUR. * Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam, excusans me, & declinans HONOREM CATHEDRAE, Epist. ● ad lacobum. & potestatem, (saith S. Clement, when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishop's chair.) But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the Highpriest, and then by analogy, of the Bishop, who although he be a Minister in the order of Melchisedek, yet he hath also the honour of Aaron, Omnis enim Pontifex sacro crismate perunctus, & incivitate constitutus, & in Scriptures sacris conditus, charus & preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet. Every High Priest ordained in the City (viz. a Bishop) ought forthwith to be Dear, and Precious in the eyes of men. Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent, eique servire, & obedientes ad salutem suam fidelitèr existere, scientes quòd sive honour, sive injuria quae ei defertur, in Christum redundat, & a Christo in Deum. The Bishop is Christ's vicegerent, and therefore he is to be obeyed, knowing that whether it be honour, or injury that is done to the Bishop, it is done to Christ, and so to God. * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself? He that despiseth you, despiseth me. If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest, then although all discountenance, and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ, yet what it done to the Bishop is far more, and then there is the same reason of the honour. And if so, than the Question will prove but an odd one; even this, whether Christ be to be honoured or no, or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people? for if the Bishops be, than he is. This is the condition of the Question. 2. Consider we, that all Religions, and particularly all Christianity did give titles of honour to their High-Priests, and Bishops respectively. * ay shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the jews, and how highly Honourable Aaron was in proportion. Prophets were called [Lords] in holy Scripture. [Art not thou MY LORD Elijah?] said Obed Edom to the Prophet. [Knowest thou not that God will take THY LORD from thy head this day?] said the children in the Prophet's Schools. So it was then. And in the New Testament we find a Prophet HONOURED every where, but in his own Country. And to the Apostles and Precedents of Churches greater titles of honour given, then was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation. ANGELS, Apocal. 1. and GOVERNORS, 1. Corinth. 4. and FATHERS OF OUR FAITH, and STARS, LIGHT OF THE WORLD, the CROWN OF THE CHURCH, john 10. APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST, nay, GOD'S, viz. to whom the word of God came; and of the compellation of Apostles, particularly, S. Hierom saith, that when S. Paul called himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, In Titum. it was as Magnifically spoken, as if he had said, Praefectus praetorio Augusti Caesaris, Magister exercit●s Tiberii Imperatoris; And yet Bishops are Apostles, and so called in Scripture. I have proved that already. Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee, forbade them to expect by virtue of their Apostolate any Princely titles, in order to a Kingdom, and an earthly Principality. For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons, viz. fair honour, and dignity in an earthly Kingdom; for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias. To this their expectation, our Saviour's answer is a direct antithesis; And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners, as if they had meant to supplant the rest, and yet the best preferment from them, to wit, in a temporal Kingdom. No; (saith our blessed Saviour) ye are all deceived. [The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority, Matth. 20. and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benefactors] so the word signifies, Mark 10. [Gracious Lords] so we read it, Luke 22. [But it shall not be so with you.] what shall not be so with them? shall not they exercise authority? [Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord made ruler over his Household?] Surely the Apostles, or no body. Had Christ authority? Most certainly. Then so had the Apostles, for Christ gave them his, with a sicut misit me Pater, etc. Well! the Apostles might, and we know they did exercise authority. What then shall not be so with them? shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Indeed if S. Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria, the Ptolemy's, whose Honourary appellative that was, would have questioned him Highly for it. But if we go to the sense of the word, the Apostles might be Benefactors, and therefore might be called so. But what then? Might they not be called Gracious Lords? The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an ensign of a secular Principality. For as for the word [Lord] I know no more prohibition for that, then for being called RABBI, or MASTER, or DOCTOR, or FATHER. Matth. 23. 8, 9 10. What shall we think now? Ephes. 4. May we not be called DOCTORS? [God hath constituted in his Church Pastors, and Doctors, saith S. Paul.] Therefore we may be called so. But what of the other, the prohibition runs alike for all, as is evident in the several places of the Gospels, and may no man be called MASTER, or FATHER? let an answer be thought upon for these, and the same will serve for the other also without any sensible error. It is not the word, it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity, and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles. * And if we mark it, our B. Saviour points it out himself. [The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exercise authority over them, and are called Benefactors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It shall not be so with you. Not so: how? Not as the Princes of the Gentiles, for theirs is a temporal regiment, your Apostolate must be Spiritual. They rule as Kings, you as fellow servants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that will be first amongst you, let him be your Minister, or servant; It seems then among Christ's Disciples there may be a Superiority, when there is a Minister or servant; But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist, it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in. But more particularly, it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must not be [as the Princes of the Gentiles] but it must be [as the son of man] so Christ says expressly. Luke 22. And how was that? why, he came to Minister and to serve, John 13. and yet in the lowest act of his humility (the washing his Disciples feet) he told them, [ye call me Lord, and Master, and ye say well, for so I am.] It may be so with you. Nay it must be as the son of Man; But then, the being called Rabbi, or Lord, nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio & regimine, in a spiritual superintendency, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may stand with the humility of the Gospel, and office of Ministration. So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word * In locis ubi suprà. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to rule with more than a political regiment, even with an absolute, and despotic, and is so used in holy Scripture, viz. in sequiorem partem. God gave authority to Man over the creatures, Gen. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the septuagint, and we know the power that man hath over beasts, is to kill, and to keep alive. And thus to our blessed Saviour, Psal. 110. the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this we know how it must be exercised, Psal. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He shall break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. That's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it shall not be so with you. But let this be as true as it will. The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism. It is clear, that the form of Regiment only is distinguished, not all Regiment, and authority taken away. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not as the Kings of the Gentiles, but as the son of man; so must your regiment be, for sicut misik me Pater, etc. As my father hath sent me, even so send I you. It must be a government, not for your Imprey, but for the service of the Church. So that it is not for your advancement, but the public ministry that you are put to rule over the Household. * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops. * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur, sed ad servitutem totius siae (saith Origen.) And S. Hierom; Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint, homil. 6. in Isai. non Dominos; And yet S. Hierom himself writing to S. Austin, calls him, Domine verè sancte, & suscipiende Papa. * Forma Apostolica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur, S. Bernard. lib. 10. de confiderat. indicitur Ministratio. It is no Principality that the Apostles have, but it is a Ministry; a Ministry in chief, the officers of which Ministration must govern, and we must obey. They must govern not in a temporal regiment by virtue of their Episcopacy, but in a spiritual, not for honour to the Rulers, so much as for benefit and service to the subject. So S. Austin. Nomen est operis, non honour is, lib. 19 de civet. Dei. cap. 19 ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book, Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare. Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant, sed officio confulendi, nec principandi superbiâ, sed providendi misericordiâ. And all this is intimated in the Prophetical visions, where the regiment of Christ is designed by the face of a man; and the Empire of the world, by Beasts. The first is the regiment of a Father, the second of a King. The first spiritual, the other secular. And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet says, Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands. This (say the Fathers) is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops, who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Princes or Rulers of Churches, not Princes of Kingdoms by virtue or challenge of their Apostolate. But if this Ecclesiastical rule, or cheifty be interdicted, I wonder how the Precedents of the Presbyters, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves? How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place, though it be but temporary? For is it a sin, if it continues, and no sin if it lasts but for a week? or is it lawful to sin, and domineer, and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together? * But suppose it were, what will they say, that are perpetual Dictator's? Calvin was perpetual precedent; and Beza, till Danaeus came to Geneva, even for many years together? * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixed lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and consistorial, and that over all Princes, and Ministers, and people, and that for ever? For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so, and not in the Presbytery? If it be lawful here, than Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles, for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer, and (as they call it now a days) to Lord it over their Brethren, when a College of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern? but if the Apostles may govern, than we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviour's saying to the sons of Zebedee, and then also, their successors, the Bishops may do the same. If I had any further need of answer or escape, it were easy to pretend, that this being a particular directory to the Apostles, was to expire with their persons. De Vnitat▪ Eccles. So S. Cyprian intimates. Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti, & honoris, & dignitatis; and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors, but will be no ways pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority. For inter se they might be equal, and yet Superior to the Presbyters, and the people. Lastly, [It shall not be so with you] so Christ said, non designando officium, but Sortem; not their duty, but their lot; intimating that their future condition should not be honorary, but full of trouble, not advanced, but persecuted. But I had rather insist on the first answer; in which I desire it be remembered, that I said, seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles, as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle. For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principalities as other men. Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes, must not seek for it; But some secular Princes may be Bishops, as in Germany, and in other places to this day they are. For it is as unlawful for a B●shop to have any Land, as to have a Country, and a single acre is no more due to the Order, than a Province; but both these may be conjunct in the s●me person, though still by virtue of Christ's precept, the functions and capacities must be distinguished; according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood, is to join things incompossible and inconsistent, Inconsistent (I say) not in person, but absolutely discrepant in function. 3. Consider we, that S. Peter, when he speaks of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham, he propunds her as an example to all married women, in these words [she obeyed Abraham, and called him Lord] why was this spoken to Christian women, but that they should do so too? And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her husband, a Mechanic, a hardhanded artisan, he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church, those lights of Christendom whom he really endued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholic Church. Credat Apella. 4. PASTOR, and FATHER, are as honourable titles as any. They are honourable in Scripture. Honour thy Father &c: Thy Father, in all senses. They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings, and Bishops, and that not only in secular addresses, but even in holy Scripture, as is known. * Add to this; Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church, and I am certain, that, Duke, and Captain, Rulers, and Commanders are but just the same in English, that the other are in Greek, and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual regiment, and used words of secular honour to express it, as in the instances above, although Christ did interdict a secular principality, yet he forbade not a secular title; He used many himself. 5. The voice of the Spouse, the holy Church hath always expressed their honourable estimate in reverential compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops, and have taught us so to do. * Bishop's were called Principes Ecclesiarum, Princes of the Churches. I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction. Indeed the third Council of Carthage forbade the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum, or summus Sacerdos, or aliquid hujusmodi, but only primae sedis Episcopus. I know not what their meaning was, unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate, that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person, as in the See, for he might be called Bishop of the prime See. But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage, I am sure it was a guise of Christendom, not to speak of Bishop's sine praefatione honoris, but with honourable mention. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To our most blessed LORD. So the letters were superscribed to julius' Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren; lib. 3. cap. 23. in Sozomen. Let no man speak Untruths of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen. Nor of MY LORDS THE BISHOPS, said S. Gregory Nazianzen. The Synodical book of the Council of Constantinople is inscribed DOMINI● REVERENDISSIMIS, Theodo et. lib. 5. ●. 9 ac pijssimis Fratribus ac Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio &c: To our most Reverend LORDS, and holy Brethren &c: And the Council of Illyricum sending their Synodall letters to the Bishops of Asia, by Bishop Elpidius, Haecpluribus (say they) persequi non est visum, quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus, Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 9 DOMINUM, & Collegam nostrum Elpidium, qui cognosceret, esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à DOMINO, & Collegâ nostro Eustathio. Our Lord, and Brother Elpidius. Our Lord and Brother Eustathius. * The oration in the Council of Epaunum begins thus. Quod praecipientibus tantis DOMINIS MEIS ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo &c: The Prolocutor took that office on him, at the command of so many GREAT LORDS THE BISHOPS. * When the Church of Spain became Catholic, and adjured the Arian heresy, King Recaredus in the third Council of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops, Non incognitum reor esse vobis, REVERENDISSIMI Sacerdotes &c: Non credimus vestram latere SANCTITATEM &c: vestra Cognovit BEATITUDO &c: VENERANDI PATRES &c: And these often. Your Holiness, your Blessedness, Most Reverend, Venerable Fathers; Those were the addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod. Thus it was when Spain grew Catholic; But not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian records. They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bishops. But the instances of this kind are innumerable. Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity then to speak of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thedor. lib. 1. c. 4. etc. 5. Domine verè Sancte, & suscipiende Papa, Athanas. Apolog. 2. So S. Hierome a Presbyter, to S. Austin a Bishop. Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est, Epist. 17. 18. 19 apud. S. Augustin. saith S. Austin. Episcopacy is Greater than the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the TITLES OF HONOUR which the custom of the Church hath introduced. * But I shall sum up these particulars in a total, which is thus expressed by S. chrysostom. in Psal. 13. apud Baron. A●. Dom. 5●. n. 2. Haeretici à Diabolo HONORUM VOCABULA Episcopis non dare didicerunt. Heretics have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so. * For my own particular, I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous, or pompous title, that were not the duty of their people in it, they would as easily reject them, as it is our duties piously to use them. But if they still desire appellatives of honour, we must give them, they are their due, if they desire them not, they deserve them much more. So that either for their humility, or however for their works sake we must [highly honour them that have the rule over us] It is the precept of S. Paul, 1. Thessaly. 5. 13. and S. Cyprian observing how Curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the jews, even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell; he did it to teach us a duty. Epist. 65. Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros LEGITIME ET PLENE HONORARI dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit. It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop. * To these I add; If fitting in a THRONE even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity, than we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishop's chair, A THRONE, and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church AN INTHRONIZATION. Quando INTHRONIZANTUR propter communem utilitatem Episcopi &c: saith P. Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo. INTHRONING is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop. Sedes in Episcoporum Eccles●is excelsae constitutae & praeparatae, UT THRONUS speculationem & potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent, Epist. decret. (saith Vrban). And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epist. ad Hero●. I trust that the Father of our Lord jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my THRONE. ** The sum of all is this. Bishops if they must be at all, most certainly must be beloved, it is our duties, and their work deserves it. S. Paul was as dear to the Galathians, as their eyes, and it is true eternally, Form●sipedes Evangelizantium, the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous, and then much more of the chief. Vrban. ibid. Ideo ista praetulimus (charissimi) ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum, in eisque Deum veneremini, & eos UT ANIMAS VESTRAS diligatis, ut quibus illi non communicant, non communicetis &c: Now, love to our Superiors is ever honourable, for it is more than amicitia, that's amongst Peers, but love to our Betters, is Reverence, Obedience, and high Estimate. And if we have the one, the dispute about the other would be a mere impertinence. I end this with the saying of S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Mag●es. & v●s decet non contemnere aetatem Episcopi, sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium OMNEM ILLI IMPERTIRI REVERENTIAM. It is the WILL OF GOD the Father, that we should give all REVERENCE, HONOUR, or veneration to our Bishops. WELL! However things are now, §. 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest. It was otherwise in the Old Religion; for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power, and authority. But then also they went further. For they thought whom God had entrusted with their souls, they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions, and employments of greatest trust. For it was Great Consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors, and great Dictator's of Faith and conscience, should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination, a Divine wisdom, and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients. But, it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other, in pursuance of their several interests. The Commonwealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes, and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hoped for fair issue, upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishop's abilities, authority, and religion; But on the other side, the Church did as much decline them as she could, and made sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people, and engaging the secular arm to their own assistance. But this we shall see by consideration of particulars. 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular employment. S. Paul's tentmaking was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular tribunal is against the office of a Bishop. And it is hard, if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republic which must be indulged to a private, personal necessity. But we have not S. Paul's example only, but his rule too, 1. Cor. 6. according to Primitive exposition. [Dare any of you having a matter before another go to law before the unjust, and not before the Saints? If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church] who are they? The Clergy I am sure, now adays. In hunc jocum. But S. Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously. Let the Ministers of the Church be the judges. For by [least esteemed] he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity, they would most certainly have done very strange justice, especially in such causes which they Understand not. No, but set them to judge who by their office are Servants, and Ministers of all, and those are the Clergy who (as S. Paul's expression is) Preach not themselves, but jesus to be the Lord, and themselves your servants for jesus sake. Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Yea but S. Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governors of the Church from intermeddling. [Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren?] Why Brethren, if Bishops and Priests were to be the judges, they are Fathers? The objection is not worth the noting, but only for S. Ambrose his answer to it. Ideò autem Fratrem judicem eligendum dicit, quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus. S. Paul used the word [Brethren] for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church, Vide etiam August. de opere Monach. ca 29. intimating that the Bishop was to be the man, though till then, in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be employed. 2. The Church did always forbid to Clergymen A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of engagements in REBUS SAECULI. Can. 7. Latin. So the sixth Canon of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Bishop, Vide Zonar●n Can. Apostol. and a Priest, and a Deacon, must not assume, or take on himself worldly cares. If he does, let him be deposed. Here the Prohibition is general. No worldly cares. Not domestic. But how if they come on him by Divine imposition, or accident? That's nothing, if he does not assume them; that is, by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble. So that if his secular employment be an act of obedience, indeed it is trouble to him, but no sin. But if he seeks it, for itself, it is ambition. In this sense also must the following Canon be understood. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Clerk must not be a Tutor, or Guardian, viz: of secular trust, that is must not seek a diversion from his employment by voluntary Tutorship. 3. The Church also forbade all secular negotiation for base ends, not precisely the employment itself, but the illness of the intention, and this indeed she expressly forbids in her Canons. * Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 3. Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum possessionum fiant, & saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant, Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes, Saecularium verò discurrentes domos & PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes. Clergy men farmers of lands, and did take upon them secular employment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNS, and with neglect of the Church. These are the things the Council complained of, and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood. Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium, nullum deinceps, non Episcopum, non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere, aut negotijs saecularibus se immiscere. No Bishop, No Clergy man, N● Monk must farm grounds, nor engage himself in secular business. What in none? No, none, praeter pupillorum, si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam, an't civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat, aut Orphanorum, & viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt, ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio, & propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. This Canon will do right to the Question. All secular affairs, and bargains either for covetousness, or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided. For a Clergy man must not be covetous, much less for covetise must he neglect his cure. To this purpose is that of the second Council of Arles, Can. 14. Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat. But nor here, nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute, nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity; for, for all this, the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curâ. He may undertake the supravision of Widows, and Orphans. And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupils, yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon, for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles, but here it is permitted only with, si fortè leges imponant, if the Law, or Authority commands him, than he may undertake it. That is, if either the Emperor commands him, or if the Bishop permits him, than it is lawful. But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles. And therefore S. Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus, one of the Priests of Carthage, for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor: Epist. 66. he had no leave of his Bishop so to do, 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 Church's aid. * Vide Synod. Roman. sub Sylvestr. c. 4. Concil. Chalced. c. 26. & Zonar. ibid. From hence it is evident that all secular employment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergyman from his necessary office and duty; for some secular employments are permitted him, all causes of piety, of charity, all occurrences concerning the revenues of the Church, and nothing for covetousness, but any thing in obedience, any thing I mean of the forenamed instances. Nay the affairs of Church revenues, and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canon's Apostolical, and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet, and afterwards in the Bishop's hands, we may quickly perceive that a case may occur 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 Widows be neglected: after God, do thou take care of them. * Justin. Martyr. Apolog. 2. Qui locupletes sunt, & volunt, pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit; & quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur, atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis, & viduis, iisque quivel morbo, vel aliâ de causâ egent: tum iis qui vincti sunt, & peregrè advenientibus hospitibus: & ut uno verbo dicam, omnium indigentium Curator est. All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop, and thence he dispenses for the relief of the widows, and Orphans, thence he provides for travellers, and in one word, he takes care of all indigent, and necessitous people. So it was in justin Martyrs time and all this, a man would think, required 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 jerusalem. This they themselves administered till a complaint arose, which might have proved a Scandal; 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 Baptised, so S. Stephen, and S. Philip, therefore to be sure they were Clergymen, and yet they left their preaching for a time, at least abated of the height of the employment, 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 Ministry of the word, in some sense or degree, and yet they chose Presbyters, and no harm neither, and for a while themselves had the employment. I say there was no harm done, by this temporary office, to their Priestly function and employment. For to me it is considerable. If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man, than what inconvenience though his employment be mixed with secular allay. But if it does take up the whole man, than it is not ●afe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop, which is a dignity of a far greater burden, and requires more than a Man's all, if all was required to the function of a Presbyter. But I proceed. 4. The Church prohibiting secular employment to Bishops and Clerks, do prohibit it, only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis; and therefore when the offices are supplied by any of the Order, it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be employed for the fairest advantages either of Church, or Commonwealth. And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute, not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate. Thus the Council of Arles decreed, Apud Burchard lib. 2. decret. cap. 99 ut Presbyteri SICUT HACTENUS FACTUM EST, INDISCRETE per diversa 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 usual 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 & choice be not employed, but that there be discretion, or discerning in the choice 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 affairs of both states require men of an heightened apprehension. 3. The Canon only took care that the cure of the souls 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 fears of the Canon are prevented. * In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbade Clergymen to receive honour, Part. 2. Act. 15. Can. 7. or secular preferment; and so it is expressed where the prohibition is made. It is in the Council of Chalcedon. Qui semel in clero deputati sunt, aut Monachorum vitam expetiverunt, statuimus neque ad militiam, neque ad dignitatem aliquam venire mundanam. That's the inhibition; But the Canon subjoins a temper; aut hoc tentantes, & non agentes poenitentiam, quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter Deum primitùs elegerunt, anathematizari, they must not turn Soldiers, 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 seems, he that took 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, viz. in this sense clearly, that a Clerk must not so take on him secular offices, as to make him redire in saeculum, having put his hand to the plough, to look back, to change his profession, or to relinquish the Church, and make her become a Widow. The case of S. Matthew and S. Peter, distinguish, and clear this business. Ecce reliquimus omnia, was the profession of their clerical office. S. Matthew could not return to his trade of Publican at all, for that would have taken him from his Apostolate. But S. Peter might and did return to his nets, for all his reliqui omnia. Plainly telling us that a SECULAR CALLING, a CONTINUED FIXED ATTENDANCE on a business of the world is an impediment to the clerical office, and ministration, but not a temporary employment or secession. 5. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid the cares of household, as the cares of public employment to Bishops. So the fourth Council of Carthage decrees. Can. 20. Vt Episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam adse revocet, sed lectioni, & orationi, & verbi Dei praedicationi tantummodò vacet. Now if this Canon be confronted with that saying of S. Paul [He that provides not for them of his own household is worse than an infidel] it will easily inform us of the Church's intention. For they must provide, saith S. Paul, But yet so provide as not to hinder their employment, or else they transgress the Canon of the Council; but this caveat may be as well entered, and observed in things Political, as Economical. Thus far we have seen what the Church hath done in pursuance of her own interest, and that was that she might with sanctity, and without distraction, tend her Grand employment; but yet many cases did occur in which she did canonically permit an alienation of employment, and revocation of some persons from an assiduity of Ecclesiastical attendance, as in the case of the seven set over the widows, and of S. Peter, and S. Paul, and all the Apostles and the Canon of Chalcedon. Now let us see how the Commonwealth also pursued her interest, and because she found Bishops men of Religion and great trust, and confident abilities, there was no reason that the Commonwealth should be disserved in the promotion of able men to a Bishop's throne. * Who would have made recompense to the Emperor for depriving him of Ambrose his perfect, if Episcopal promotion had made him incapable of serving his Prince in any great Negotiation? It was a remarkable passage in Ignatius, * Epist. a● Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As our Lord is to be observed so also must we observe the BISHOP, because he assists and serves the Lord. And wisemen, and of great Understanding must SERVE KINGS, for he must not be served with men of small parts. Here either Ignatius commends Bishops to the service of Kings, or else propounds them as the fittest men in the world to do them service. For if only men of great abilities are fit to serve Kings, surely as great abilities are required to enable a man for the service of God in so peculiar manner of approximation. He than that is fit to be a Bishop, is most certainly fit for the service of his King. This is the sense of Ignatius his discourse. For consider. Christianity might be suspected for a design; and if the Church should choose the best, and most pregnant Understandings for her employment, and then these men become incapable of aiding the Republic, the promotion of these men, would be an injury to those Princes whose affairs would need support. * The interest of the Subjects also is considerable. For we find by experience, that no authority is so full of regiment, and will so finely force obedience, as that which is seated in the Conscience; And therefore Numa Pompilius made his laws, and imposed them with a face of religious solemnity. For the people are stronger than any one Governor, and were they not awed by Religion, would quickly miscere Sacra prophanis, jumble heaven and earth into a miscellany, and therefore not only in the Sanction of laws, but in the execution of them, the Antistites religionis are the most competent instruments; and this was not only in all religions that ever were, and in ours ever till now, but even now we should quickly find it, were but our Bishops in that Veneration, and esteem that by the law of God they ought, and that actually they were in the Calenture of primitive devotion, and that the Doctors of Religion were ever even amongst the most barbarous and untaught Pagans. Upon the confidence of these advantages, both the Emperors themselves when they first became Christian allowed appeals from secular tribunals to the * Sozoo● lib. 1. cap. 9 Bishop's Consistory, even in causes of secular interest, and the people would choose to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected the issues of justice, and religion. * ay say this was done as soon as ever the Emperors were Christian Before this time, Bishops, and Priests (to be sure) could not be employed in state affairs, they were odious for their Christianity; and then no wonder if the Church forbade secular employment in meaner offices, the attendance on which could by no means make recompense for the least avocation of them from their Church employment. So that it was not only the avocation but the sordidness of the employment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church. But as soon as ever their employment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession, neither Church nor State did then prohibit it; And that was as soon as ever the Princes were Christian, for then immediately the Bishops were employed in honorary negotiations. It was evident in the case of S. Ambrose. For the Church of Milan had him for their Bishop, and the Emperor had him one of his prefects, and the people their judge in causes of secular cognisance. For when he was chosen Bishop the Emperor who was present at the election cried out, Tripart. hist. lib. 7. cap. 8. Gratias tibi ago Domine ... quoniam huic viro ego quidem commisi corpora; tu autem animas, & meam electionem ostendisti tuae justitiae convenire. So that he was Bishop, and Governor of Milan at the same time; And therefore by reason of both these offices S. Austin was forced to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure. S. August. lib. 6. Confess. cap. 4. Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebam sicut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure, atque ore catervis negotiosorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat. And it was his own condition too, when he came to fit in the chair of Hippo; Epist. 110. Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem; post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. And again, & homines quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire cupientes, Epist. 147. quando eis necessarij fuerimus, sic nos Sanctos, & Dei servos appellant, ut negotia terrae suae peragant. Aliquando & agamus negotium salutis nostrae & salut is ipsorum, non de auro, non de argento non de fundis, & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum terminemus. It was almost the business of every day to him, to judge causes concerning Gold, and Silver, Cattell, and glebe, and all appertenances of this life. This S. Austin would not have done, if it had not been lawful, so we are to suppose in charity; but yet this we are sure of, deepore Monach. cap: 29. S. Austin thought it not only lawful, but a part of his duty, [quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus, and that by the authority, not of himself, but of him that spoke within him, even the H. Ghost:] so he. Thus also it was usual for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Ambassadors. Constans the Emperor sent two Bishops chosen out of the Council of Sardis Tripart. hist: lib: 4. cap. 25. together with Salianus the Great Master of his Army to Constantius * S. Chrysostom was sent Ambassador to Gainas. lib: 10. cap: 6. ibid. Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Ambassador from the Emperor to Isdigerdes lib. 11. cap. 8. ibid. the King of Persia. S. Ambrose from Valentinian the younger to the Tyrant Maximus. * lib. 5. Epist. Ambros. 33. Euseb: lib. 8. cap. 1. Dorotheus was a Bishop and a chamberlain to the Emperor. Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopal office, and a secular dignity or employment. Now then Consider. * The Church did not, might not challenge any secular honour, or employment by virtue of her Ecclesiastical dignity precisely. 2. The Church might not be ambitious, or indagative of such employment. 3. The Church's interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such employment, but where there was no greater way of compensation was interrupted and depressed. 4. The Church (though in some cases she was allowed to make secession, yet) might not relinquish her own charge, to intervene in another's aid. 5. The Church did by no means suffer her Clerks, to undertake any low secular employment, much more did she forbid all sordid ends, and Covetous designs. 6. The Bishop, or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety, though of secular burden. Clerks were never forbidden to read Grammar, or Philosophy to youth, to be Masters of Schools, of Hospitals, they might reconcile their Neighbours that were fall'n out, about a personal trespass, or real action, and yet since now adays a Clergy-man's employment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit, or reading desk, or his study of Divinity at most, these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing, and yet no law of Christendom ever prohibited any of these or any of the like Nature to the Clergy, nor any thing that is ingenuous, that is fit for a Scholar, that requires either fineness of parts, or great learning, or overruling authority, or exemplary piety. 7. Clergymen might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiors. 8. The Bishops, and Priests were men of Great ability and surest confidence for determinations of justice, in which, religion was ever the strongest binder. And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forced the Bishops from their own interest to serve the Commonwealth, & in it they served themselves directly, and by consequence too, the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular arm, but an addition of honour, and secular advantages, and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly of men whom all succeeding ages have put into the Calendar of Saints. * So that it would be considered, that all this while, it is the king's interest, and the People's that is pleaded, when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of public trust. It is no addition to the calling of Bishops. It serves the King, it assists the republic, and in such a plethory, and almost a surfeit of Clergymen as this age is supplied with, it can be no disservice to the Church, whole daily offices may be plentifully supplied by Vicars, and for the temporary avocation of some few, abundant recompense is made to the Church (which is not at all injured) by becoming an occasion of endearing the Church, to those whose aid she is. * There is an admirable epistle written by Petrus Blesensis Epist. 84. in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury to P. Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely, Winchester & Norwich that attended the Court upon service of the King. Non est novum (saith he) quòd Regum Consiliis intersint Episcopi. Sicut enim honestate, & sapientiâ caeteros antecedunt, sic expeditiores, & efficaciores in reip. administratione censentur. Quia sicut Scriptum est [minùs salubritèr disponitur regnum, quod non regitur consilio sapientum] In quo notatur eos consiliis Regum debere assistere, qui sciant & velint, & possint patientibus compati, paci terrae, ac populi saluti prospicere, erudire adjustitiam Reges, imminentibus occursare periculis, vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos & quâdam authoritate potestatiuâ praesumptionem malignantium cohibere. It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes (saith he) their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishopric proclaims them fit instruments to promote the public tranquillity of the Commonwealth. They know how to comply with oppressed people, to advance designs of peace, and public security; It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness, by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court, and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom, to mix influences of religion with designs of state, to make them have as much of the dove as of the serpent, and by the advantage of their religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God, or of religion is remaining. * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel, Isaiah, Elisha, jojada, Zecharias, who were Priests and Prophets respectively, and yet employed in Prince's Courts, and Counsels of Kings, and adds this; Vnum noveritis, quia nisi familiares, & Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi, suprà dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores, & immanitèr, ac intolerabilitèr opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis. That's most true. If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary employments, the plowers would plow upon the Church's back, & make long furrows. * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing, But I shall content myself with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to policy and Religion by the employment of Bishops in Princes Courts. Istis me diantibus mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigour, 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, etc. When pious Bishops are employed in Prince's Counsels, than the rigour of Laws is abated, equity introduced, the cry of the poor is heard, their necessities are made known, the liberties of the Church are conserved, the peace of Kingdoms laboured for, pride is depressed, religion increaseth, the devotion of the Laity multiplies, and tribunals are made just, and incorrupt, and merciful. Thus far Petrus Blesensis. * These are the effects which though perhaps they do not always fall out, yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked 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; In 1. Corinth. 6. (saith S. Ambrose,) and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be employed. But if personal defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling, than neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince. And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2. 4. [No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life.] For although this be spoken of all Christian people, and concerns 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 hindrance to their own precise duty of Christianity. And such things must be pared 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 employment of a Bishop, I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function, so far would it be from being hindered by the collateral 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 a temporal employment, to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing. I have now done with this; only entreating this to be considered. Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis? In all the senses of Common-law, and external 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 meddling with secular affairs, there is the same at least in the Laity of meddling with Church affairs. For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the World, than the Laity are under the affairs of the Church; or else, if the Clergy be incapable 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 affairs? For the Church differs no more from the commonwealth, than the commonwealth differs from the Church. And now after all this, suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a foreign Prince, to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification, if the Bishop refuse, did he do the duty of a Subject? If yea, I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop owes to his Prince, when he 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, than the Bishop was tied to go, and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such employment, for no man can be bound to do a sin. BUt then did not this employment, §. 50. And therefore were enforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution, when the occasions 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 souls, 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 adays they are complained of for their care. I say, for their care; For if they may intervene in secular affairs, 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 Diocese is in curâ Episcopali, and for all of it, he is responsive to God Almighty, and yet, that instant necessity and the public act of Christendom hath ratified it, that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishop's charge as there are parishes in his Diocese, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge, is no less than the act of all Christendom. 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 souls in City, or Suburbs; But when the Bishops divided parishes, and fixed 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. hierdr. 6. 5. ) he does not do the offices of his order by himself only, but by others also, for all the inferior orders doc so operate, as by them he does his proper offices. * But besides this grand act of the Bishop's first, and then of all Christendom in consent, we have fair 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 do 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 Apostolic Church, that is, to be buffeted, for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolic. * When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus, 2. Timoth. 4. v. 9 & 12. he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar. [Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly, for Demas hath forsaken me etc. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus] Here was an express 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, Philip. 2. v. 25. 26. or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution, or the Church was relinquished, for he was most certainly nonresident. * Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom. Epist. ad Antioch. Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est, donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est. Ye Presbyters do you feed the flock till God shall design you a Bishop. Till then. Therefore it was but a delegate power, it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superior. * Can. 56. To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council. Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi, & sedere in tribunalibus, nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinis ●um esse constiterit. Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop, unless the Bishop be sick, or absent. So that it seems 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 plain commission to his Presbyters. Fretus ergo dilectione & religione vestrâ .... his literis horror, Epist. 9 & Mando ut vos. ... VICE MEA FUNGAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit. I entreat and command you, that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church; and another time he put Herculanus, and Caldonius, two of his Suffragans, together with Rogatianus, and Numidicus, two Priests, Epist. 38. & 39 in substitution for the excommunicating Faelicissimus and four more. [cum ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim.] So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius. haeres. 68 Videbatur autem & Melitius praeminere &c: ut 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 personal declamatory clause in any Council, or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation. * Hitherto also may be referred, that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and buisy dispensation, were all in the Bishop's hand as part of the Episcopal function, yet that part of the Bishop's office, the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a steward; provided he were a Clergyman; and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbid any lay-men to be stewards for the Church. Concil. Hispal. cap. 6. Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta 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 allows, only 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 join men of disparate capacities. This than would be considered. For the Canon pretends Scripture, Precepts of Fathers, and Tradition of antiquity for its Sanction. * FOR although antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars, §. 51. But they were ever Clergymen, for there never was any lay Elders in any Church office heard of in the Church. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37. 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 layman any part of their Episcopal 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 cured 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 .... non solùm a Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus, Concil. Hispa●. ubi suprà. sed etiàm & Concilio manebit obnoxius. If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to LAY ADMINISTRATION, he shall be responsive to Christ, and in danger of the Council. But the thing was of more ancient constitution. For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement, Epist. ad jacob. 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 judicial 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. * de 7. Ordin. Eccles. To this or some parallel constitution S. Hierome relates, saying that [Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of causes]. He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops, and they were judges ab initio, from the beginning (saith S. Hierom). So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishop's 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 always Clergy, with him and all men else. * Epist. 13. ad Valent. But for the main Question, S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperor with confidence, and humility, In causâ fidei, vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec Munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare, that Clergymen must only judge of Clergy-causes; and this S. Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale. The Bishop's judicature. Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesiâ didici, quod Majores fecerunt mei. Si conferendum de fide, Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio, sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe. So that, both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical 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 far S. Ambrose. * Epist. ad Solitar. S. Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba, precedent in the Nicene Council, said, it was the abomination of desolation that a layman should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs, in Church-causes; And Leontius calls Church-affayres, Suidas in vit● Leontij. Res alienas à Laicis, things of another Court, of a distinct cognisance from the Laity. * To these add the Council of Venice, Can. 9 A. D. 453. for it is very considerable in this Question. Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat. Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum, aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit not a contentio, aliorum Episcoporum audientiam, NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire. Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus. Clergymen without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants, but the Bishop, unless the Bishop be appealed from, than other Bishops must hear the cause, but NO LAY JUDGES by any means. * Novel. constit. 123. These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperor to ratify by an Imperial edict, for so justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical, Secular judges should have no interest, SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT. The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters. I end this with the decretal of S. Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church, Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ, lib. 7. epist. 66. ne saecularibus viris, atque non sub regulâ nost●â degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur. Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any ways concredited to secular persons. But of this I have twice spoken already. §. 36. and §. 41. The thing is so evident, that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Laymen were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church. It was against their faith, it was against their practice; and those few pigmy objections, out of * Tertullian, Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1. Tim. 5. 1. & lib. 1. de offic. c. 20. S. August. lib. 3. contra Crescon. & Epist. 137. S. Ambrose, and S. Austin using the word Seniores, or Elders, sometimes for Priests, as being the latin for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes for a secular Magistrate, or Alderman, (for I think S. Austin did so in his third book against Cresconius) are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, aery imaginations, against the constant, known, open, Catholic practice and doctrine of the Church, and history of all ages, is as if a man should go to fright an Imperial army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering. * But this is; That in this Question of lay-Elders the Modern Aërians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages. For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white, and watery colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now adays they are only used to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy, but then they misalledge antiquity, for the men with whose Heifers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part, and he that was not, would fain have been, it is known so of Tertullian, and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters (which they never dreamed of) yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy, and if not, than the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question. I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either divine, or humane, but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in antiquity, so they are neither named in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the lake of Gebenna, and so to the place of the nearest denomination. * The objection is from S. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word & doctrine. especially they.— therefore all Elders do not so. Here are two sorts of Elders, Preaching Ministers, and Elders not Preachers. Therefore Lay-Elders, and yet all are governor's. 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders? Why may there not be divers Church-officers, and yet but one, or two of them the Preacher? [Christ sent me not to Baptise but to Preach] saith S. Paul, and yet the commission of [baptizate] was as large as [predicate] and why then might not another say, Christ sent me not to Preach, but to Baptise, that is, in S. Paul's sense, not so much to do one, as to do the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism, and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching, then to be sure, some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer, and so, not the Preacher, for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not S. Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same order, yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts, and that of Prophecy, or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destined to the ordinary execution of other offices, and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest, so also was the office, and therefore the sense of the words is this, that all Presbyters must be honoured, but especially they that Prophecy, doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministry. So no Lay-Elders yet. Add to this, that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach. Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latin tongue being a Greek borne, and yet a Godly Bishop, and S. Austin his Presbyter preached for him. The same case might occur in the Apostles times. For than was a concourse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes, especially in all great Imperial Cities, and Metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, jerusalem, Caesarea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all Prophecy, they were particular gifts given severally, to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices. Some Prophesied, some interpreted; and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laic, whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher. 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders, so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office. 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Layman, if a Church officer be intended. If it be said, it is used so here, that's the question, and must not be brought to prove itself. 4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical revenue, for so S. Paul expounds [honour] in the next verse. Presbyters that rule well must be honoured etc. For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn. But now, the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs, and so perish, then fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting. 5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the Pastoral office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To rule, and to labour in the word. Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ. All good Counsellors of State are worthy of double honour, especially them that disregarding their own private, aim at the public good. This implies not two sorts of Counsellors, but two parts of a Counsellors worth, and quality. judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour, especially if they right the cause of Orphans, and Widows, and yet there are no righteous judges that refuse to do both. 6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach, at least not frequently. The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, set over the Widows were Presbyters, but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the word to attend that employment, as I showed * §. 48. lib. 5: cap. 22. formerly; and thus it was in descent too, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (said Socrates) A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria, the Bishop only did it. And then the allegation is easily understood. For labouring in the word does not signify, only making Homilies or exhortations to the people, but whether it be by word, or writing, or travelling from place to place, still, the greater the sedulity of the person is, and difficulty of the labour, the greater increment of honour is to be given him. So that here is no Lay-Elders; for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of, are to be honoured, but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel. For though all preach, (suppose that) yet all do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, take such great pains in it, as is intimated in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour, and travail, usque ad lassitudinem, (so Budaeus renders it.) And so it is likely S. Paul here means. Honour the good Presbyters, but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel. And the word is often so used in Scripture. S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I have traveled in the word more than they all. Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles, for most certainly, they made it their business as well as he. But he traveled further and more than they all for the spreading it. And thus it is said of the good Woman that traveled with the Apostles, for supply of the necessities of their diet and household offices, [they laboured much in the Lord.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too. So it is said of Persis, of Mary, of Tryphaena, of Triphosa. Rom. 16. And since these women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that traveled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists, the men also traveled to, and preached, and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is travellers in the word. 1. Epist. cap. 3. [We aught therefore to receive such] (saith S. john) intimating a particular reception of them, as being towards us of a peculiar merit. So that the sense of S. Paul may be this also, All the Rulers of the Church, that is, all Bishops, Apostles, and Apostolic men, are to be honoured, but especially them who, besides the former ruling, are also travellers in the word, or Evangelists. 7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders, from the common draught of the new discipline. For they have some that Preach only, and some that Rule, and Preach too, and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder, viz. their Pastors, and Doctors. 8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy, that Presbyter, and Episcopus is all one, and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy, why may not Presbyteri in this place signify [Bishops?] And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes. 9 If both these offices of RULING and PREACHING may be conjunct in one person, than there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several employments, since one man may do both. But if these offices cannot be conjunct, than no Bishops must preach, nor no preachers be of the Consistory (take which government you list) for if they be, than the offices being united in one person, the inference of the distinct officer, the Lay-Elder, is impertinent. For the meaning of S. Paul would be nothing but this. All Church-Rulers must be honoured, Especially for their preaching. For if the offices may be united in one person (as it is evident they may) than this may be comprehended within the other, and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency. And indeed so it is, according to the exposition of S. chrysostom, and Primasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They rule well, that spare nothing for the care of the flock. So that this is the general charge, and preaching is the particular. For the work in general they are to receive double honour, but this of preaching, as then preaching was, had a particular excellency, and a plastic power to form men into Christianity, especially it being then attested with miracles. But the new office of a Lay-Elder, I confess I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion, his person, his quality, his office, his authority, his subordination, his commission hath made so many divisions and new emergent Questions: and they, none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity, that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholic Church, and run in pursuit of this meteor, I might quickly be amused, but should find nothing certain but a certainty of being misguided. Therefore if not for conscience sake, yet for prudence, bonum est esse hic, it is good to remain in the fold of Christ, under the guard, and supravision of those shepherd's Christ hath appointed, and which his sheep have always followed. For I consider this one thing to be enough to determine the Question. [My sheep (saith our blessed Saviour) hear● my voice, if a stranger, or a thief come, him they will not hear] Clearly thus. That Christ's sheep hear not the voice of a stranger, nor will they follow him, and therefore those shepherd's whom the Church hath followed in all ages, are no strangers, but Shepherds or Pastors of Christ's appointing, or else Christ hath had no sheep; for if he hath, than Bishops are the shepherd's, for them they have ever followed. I end with that golden rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Cap. 3. adv. haereses. Magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim verè, proprieque Catholicum. For certainly the Catholic belief of the Church against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and (the worst of heretics) the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all, and always, and every where then is the government of the Church by Bishops. Annunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt, Cap. 14. nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit. It never was, is, nor ever shall be lawful to teach Christian people any new thing then what they have received from a primitive fountain, and is descended in the stream of Catholic, uninterrupted succession. * ay only add, that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholic Christians to pray for Bishops, and as the case now stands, for Episcopacy itself, for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said litanies for their KING, and for their BISHOP. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.